Good morning HISTARCH !
As a historian (with some background in historical archaeology) who
has worked on CRM projects, Mr. Thiel's note caught my attention for a
number of reasons. I will, however, be brief and limit my coments to
two points.
First, the questions raised by the unnamed "federal agency" archaeologist
, i.e. why is this place important (?) , is a valid one, and I would
refer list members to the musings of scholars like Hardesty, Deagan and
Knoerl who have tried to point out the need to refine our efforts by focusing
on "questions that count" rather than the mindless/meaningless pursuit
of trivia. I wonder , though, if "unnamed" is being intellectualy
honest here. Would "unnamed" be as dismissive and questioining of a
purely prehistoric site ? My experinece has been that archaeologists
trained in the prehistoric oriented tradition of American archaeology can
sometimes have a bias against historic period "junk", but seemingly regard
every lithic site is "significant". Consider this comment an honest
question. Food for thought.
Secondly, as a historian with an interset in technology, I have always
wondered about the fixation of archaeologists with Nat. Reg. Criterion
D. The 19 century industrial nature of this site, as well as the benefits
the city received from it - while not well described by Mr. Theil - might
well be more significant, and eligible, under Criterion C, or maybe
even A or B. Understanding the historic context may be crucial here.
The late 19th century witnessed a second "indistrial revolution" , fueled
by electricity. How does this site fit into that equation ?
Anyway, some interesting questions Mr. Theil raises. I look forward to
seeing other reponses.
Carl Barna
|