==============================================================================
Walter D. Kingsborough
Zone Archeologist
Raven Ranger District
National Forests and Grasslands in Texas
P.O. Box 1000
New Waverly, Tx. 77358
(409) 344-6205 fax:(409) 344-2123
internet:[log in to unmask]
 ==============================================================================
Opinions and viewpoints are purely those of the author and in no way represent
the policies of the USDA Forest Service nor the opinions and viewpoints of any
official representative of the Forest Service.
 ==============================================================================
 
Re:Archaeological Sites
 
The question: How old does a site have to be to be a site?
 
The answer: Well now, that's an interesting question!
 
Seriously, as a cultural resources manager, my definition of a site is, "any
physical evidence of human presence." By this definition, if a deer hunter
leaves a case of empty Bud cans in the woods, that is a site (at least until a
recycler picks up the empties). The question then is not what is an
archaeological site, but rather, when is an archaeological site significant?
This is certainly a subjective decision based on any number of academic,
philosophical, and personal criteria. In terms of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
the US Government defines an Historic Property as a "building, structure,
object or site that is listed, or may be eligible for listing on the NRHP".
This is not to say that physical remains of human presence have to be 50 years
old to be a site - only that a site has to be 50 years old to get on the NRHP.
Also, the 50 year criteria of listing may be waived if a building, structure,
object or site less than 50 years old is considered to be a significant or
unique representative of cultural history on a local, regional or national
level. Some MinuteMan ICBM silos have been placed on the NRHP under this
creiteria even though they were not, at the time, 50 years old. So, the age of
the Titanic and the artifact assemblage present or recovered is irrelevant. the
Titanic is a site because it (and everything in it, and everything around it,
and what it did to the ocean floor when it hit bottom, and how it has affected
the life and environment of the ocean around and inside it) is a physical
remainder of human presence (albeit, presence on the surface, except for those
who didn't get out). By the same token, crash sites in Vietman (or anywhere
else) are sites. Given that archaeologists are trained in the interpretation of
sites, it is only logical (suprisingly so) that the military would use
archaeologists to investigate them. The real question concerning the Titanic is
not whether it is a site, but rather is it a significant site? My personal and
professional opinion is a very emphatic YES! If it cannot be investigated in a
professional manner (due largely to the expense and danger involved) then it
should be left alone. However, I do feel that it is a very significant, and
certainly unique, representative of many aspects of cultures of the time.