Recently Jack Elliot posted a message describing the reasoning behind
Mississippi not assigning site numbers to sites dating after 1900.  I found
the reasoning surprising and I must admit that Mr. Elliot and I have
different views of archaeology.  I appologize in advance for the length of
this posting.
 
"Significance" is based on National Register criteria, which are pretty
straightforward.  Any significant site over 50 years of age can be considered
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, therefore any site
over 50 years of age should be recorded and examined.  Once it is recorded
and examined it may or may not be found to be significant.  If we are honest,
a majority of sites are probably not significant in the sense of being
eligible for the National Register, but that does not mean they should not be
recorded.  "Potentially significant" sites are simply those sites which have
not been examined to determine if they meet National Register criteria.
 
Mr. Elliot seems to imply that assigning a number to a site indicates that it
is significant.  A number is simply a way to track a site.  It implies
nothing beyond the fact that it is a locus of human activity.  That
locational information may well be the only important information provided by
that site, but by not recording it that data is lost.  He also states that
because some members of a class of site can provide useful research data, it
"does not mean that we should consider all members of that class as being
potentially significant".  I strongly beg to differ, all members are
therefore clearly potentially significant.  Each one will have to be examined
to see if it contains that information.  Most may not, but they will have to
be recorded and examined to make this determination.  If I find a landfill
dating to 1915, I will record it as a site as it tells us something about how
this area was used at that time and about the cultural patterns of the
occupants of the region.  It may not be significant (eligible for the NR),
but it is worth recording.
 
A related issue is the statement that with some classes of sites there are so
many of them "that we need not consider all of these sites to be of any real
significance.  If a few are destroyed...there will be numerous other
surviving examples."  I would like to know, however, how this will be the
case if they are never recorded in the first place?  It is easy to say that
there are thousands of these sites, so what does it matter if we trash a few
and don't record any?  But 20 years later, after thousands of acres of timber
are harvested, numerous developments constructed, fields leveled, etc., we
may find it hard to locate any of these sites.  I hear this attitude all the
time from foresters and engineers and am constantly fighting it.  Granted, we
will not want to protect all of them, but we should at least be recording
them.
 
In the Ozarks of Missouri, mining sites have long been treated this way -
'there are thousands of them and what can they tell us beyond the fact that
people mined there and we already know that?'  In the last few years we
started paying attention to mining sites and there are actually a few that
contain useful and important information.  Yes, most do not and are not
significant, but each one has to be examined to make sure that this
information is not lost.  The locational information is important as well and
helps us to understand the development of the modern landscape.  May of these
sites can only be understood on the landscape level and while each individual
one is not important, the sum total of the information recovered by recording
them is important.
 
In Missouri, roads, trams, railroads and such sites have been recorded for
years with little difficulty.  They may not be considered "significant", but
the locational information is often helpful when considering other site
types.  I know of one area which has numerous houseplaces where you would not
expect them, but recognizing the presence of an old railroad makes this
distribution more understandable.  CCC constructed sites are regularly
recorded and placed on the National Register, even though they were built in
the 1930s.  I know of some CCC road embankments which will be included in a
thematic nomination at the very least as contributing properties.
 
In regards to the existance of maps, aerial photos and other documents from
the 20th century, these are all useful aids, but do not tell the whole story.
 A majority of the 20th century sites recorded in the Ozarks in the last few
years do not appear on these old maps or photos.  Archaeology is the only way
to learn about the people who left these sites.
 
Just some thoughts, for what ever they are worth.
 
James Wettstaed
[log in to unmask]
any and all opinions are my own and have nothing to do with my employer :)