I knew I would draw some flak when I threw this out, but I wanted to make a
point.  It often seems that archaeologists feel it necessary to make sites
significant which may or may not deserve such treatment.  This is sometimes
done to justify a decision made on incomplete or poorly known sites and that
is understandable if it is recognized before it continues to dredge up
redundant information that may not have been useful in the first place.
 Worse, however, is the decision to go ahead with such projects because to
not continue could be seen as a fatal weakness in our occupation and our
science by financial supporters or by the public at large.
 
There are such sites.  Sure, I can create a problem oriented research plan
about any site out there, no matter how hammered, no matter how well known
otherwise.  However, it does not mean that it is a useful pursuit, it does
not mean that I can really justify spending x dollars reseaching it, it does
not mean that it will contribute anything of particular significance to the
science.  There are archaeological projects which can be justified beyond the
idea of pure research of course.  If the public has a great interest (which
they do with the Titanic) perhaps they can be justified.  But can they truly
be justified as an important research project within the field itself?
 
Does anyone out there believe there are sites *not* worthy of research?  Do
we need to provide cover for ourselves at all times so the public will not
find out that there are archaeological resources that do not deserve as much
attention as others?  CRM archaeologists deal with these types of sites all
the time and sometimes get forced into excavating and reporting on them.  The
archaeologists themselves are often against the idea, but the laws are
sometimes in great conflict with the ideals of the field.  And, of course,
the economics of the situation is a factor.  If someone wants to give you
money to dig, you are not likely to turn it down if that is your livelihood.
 
Of course, on the other side of the coin, there are many, many sites of
enormous importance being destroyed all the time.  I don't argue that there
may not be reasons to research the Titanic or other sites were much is known,
but I do think it interesting that we sometimes (often?) try so hard to
justify such pursuits as important research for the field, when, in fact, the
significance factor here is rather minimal.
 
Mike Polk
Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants
Ogden, Utah