As I've mentioned before, the archaeologists working on southwest Native American sites mostly no longer publish specific locations. The problems with looting are immense and, given the isolation of the sites, intractable. Much like poaching on African wildlife preserves.

It wouldn't seem unreasonable to me to post pictures and information about a site, with its "general" location (a county, perhaps) without its exact location. I know you guys want to get to these places, and if Loie and I lived in the UK, we might, too. But for us, seeing the pics and reading is sure better than nothing, and is plenty of information for amateurs.

Perhaps some discrimination based on the vulnerability of a site might apply? A nice notice could be given on the page (pages) for easily disturbed sites, something along the lines of "Concern for protection of this particularly vulnerable site leads us to omit irs specific location. Thanks for your understanding. (Geocachers unwelcome.)"

That other places are less than responsible isn't a reason to be so one's self. Is it?