While on this subject, we shouldn't limit the debate to domestic sites. I
was surprised to learn the the State Archaeologist of one state in which
I work asked "why dig" a nineteenth century industrial site if it is well
documented historically.  This industrial site is of a type never before
excavatd in the state and is fully intact.
 
It is frustrating when people trained only in prehistoric archaeology and
whose interests only lie in that field make the ultimate decisions on
signifcant historical archaeological sites.
 
Clearly, every site is not significant.  Sampling and predictive
modelling in historical archaeology just doesn't work because of all the
known and unknown variables involved with each site -- i.e., ethnicity,
time period, length of occupation, type of site, economic status, etc.  I
have found that each site needs to be addressed individually and assessed
on internal characteristics (such as those above) and how it compares to
other already archaeologically documented sites.
 
I have found myself in large projects pressured to sacrifice additional
work on historical sites because agencies have drawn a line in the sand
over what they want to spend.  It has gone as far as being told that to
allow prehistoric sites to go to Phase III, I should change
recommendations for historical sites (in this case, an urban farmstead).
 
The bottom line is there are too many administrative archaeologists out
there with no training in or appreciation for historical archaeology
making decisions about resources that are outside of their realm of
understanding and they are too pig-headed  (or just plain stupid) to ask
for a peer review or additional opinions.
 
David S. Rotenstein
[log in to unmask]