Your point number 3 makes the site MORE valuable, not less.
 
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
[log in to unmask]
 
On Mon, 7 Aug 1995, (Mike Polk) wrote:
 
> One more swipe at this topic.  I think it significant to note that this may
> be one of the few instances that an historic site has little, if any,
> archaeological value.  I know some of you may jump on us for this, but
> consider:
>
> 1. The historical documentation on the disaster itself was exceptional; most
> things about the wreck are known;
>
> 2. The bodies of those aboard when it went down either washed away (most
> people were on deck when it went down anyway;  the bodies of others below
> have long since disintegrated and are no longer available for study;
>
> 3. The artifacts present on the ship are well documented by reference to
> Cunard Lines' records.  They, no doubt, have records on the exact type of
> table service, the types of furniture, radios, everything that was on board.
>  Also the ship itself is well known from historical records.
>
> There are many, many times when archaeology is of value in helping to better
> understand an historical event.  I don't believe this really qualifies, which
> is kind of interesting and should give us pause for reflection on other
> situations where we may try to make our science relevant to the situation
> when it is really rather marginal.  It should also give us cause to pick our
> battles cautiously, lest our professional ethics be questioned at some point
> and we be thought more of as mercenaries than archaeologists.
>
> Mike Polk
> Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants
> Ogden, Utah
> [log in to unmask]
>