In a message dated 10/30/2006 12:40:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Anyway,  we likely will never come to a consensus on this, but I think we
need to  consider that although most of us would love to have all the time
and money  in the world to work on projects and analyze artifacts, most of us
don't.  Additionally, we cannot ignore the fact that many curation
facilities are  running out of room. Hence, we may have to consider 


My point in raising this issue of "rusty blobs" is to foment discussion  
within the historical archaeology community, which apparently it has done.  
However, I want to underscore the point that the only reason an environmental or  
archaeology consultant is doing "mitigation" work is to carry out a public  
trust. To allow destruction of a state or local "significant," "eligible,"  or 
National Register archaeology site with the caveat (stipulation or permit  
condition) that a "sample" will be retained for public benefit means long-term  or 
in perpetuity conservation of the sample. At the very least, soil salt should  
be removed from the rusted blob to reduce the destruction of the items within. 
I  think our colleague from the Army presented a good cost analysis on why to 
x-ray  the blob to see the contents and then perform triage. Remember, this 
is not  about costing your consulting company money, this is a matter of public 
 trust.
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.