We have been having a rather odd discussion over on SUB-ARCH about the Titanic. Several people over there are insisting that it is not an archaeological site. When is a historical archaeological site too recent? (Yes, I know about Bill Rathje's garbology studies, I have even participated, and it took my nose a week to recover.) IMHO, both the Titanic and the recent Japanese sub that has been found (the I-52) can be considered archaeological sites. Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1006 PHONE: (602) 965-4579 FAX: (602) 965-9169 [log in to unmask] Owner: HISTARCH, SPANBORD, SUB-ARCH