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]