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