Biologists go to great lengths to explain the horror of species extinction by reference to the need to preserve genetic diversity. We are obliged to do no less. We need to preserve our dwindling data base, but equally, we need to comprehend why it is important to others that we do so. Biologists do not try to save the snail darter because it is there, or a rainforest because the canopy is pretty and holds secrets we do not understand, or a riparian habitat because it is someone's esoteric research project. Instead they seek reasons all can understand and are equally affected by, such as the need to reduce atmospheric CO2, the need to preserve habitat and thus genetic diversity, and then they publicize those reasons.
Biologists arm their defense with relevant, concrete data, understandable to the public.
We need to put the creative forces, which normally drive our research, to work on the issue of transmitting our messages to others. Yet we do not always recognize or agree on what those messages could or should be. This dismissal of archaeological method obscures its intrinsic value and educational potential. In fact, from the public's perspective, questions of method may well be archaeology's issues of genuine substance. People are fascinated by the means we use to extract information from the unwritten record.