Abstract
Historic preservation discourse has evolved substantially over recent decades. Scholars continue to introduce and debate new, and often competing, notions of how places acquire the historic significance that makes them worthy of preservation, as well as how to make preservation more inclusive. However, the criteria-based framework researchers use to evaluate historic significance for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is nearing fifty years old. Over recent decades, scholars have increasingly criticized the model for encouraging the compartmentalization of analyses into sociocultural or architectural spheres. This tension has prompted authors of NRHP nominations to consider novel methodologies to overcome the limitations of a static framework while adapting to ever-evolving philosophies.
This thesis evaluates material-semiotic methodologies for their effectiveness and practicality in NRHP applications, specifically regarding architecturally diverse historic districts. Using the University of Idaho Historic District as a testing ground, I conducted case studies of two material-semiotic approaches that integrated the district’s sociocultural and architectural elements to explore new perspectives of historic significance. In the first case study, public historian Stephanie Aylworth’s multifaceted approach enabled an investigation into the associations among the district’s World War II-era buildings and the individuals responsible for their construction, which illuminated a hidden historical narrative of campus development spanning decades. In the second case study, I employed actor-network theory (ANT)—developed by sociologists Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law—to examine the associational phenomena involved in the cycle of architecture professionalization, education, and building at the university that ushered the district through the most significant architectural transformation of its historic period. Both methodologies excelled at bridging sociocultural and architectural spheres, incorporating elements of each to reveal cohesive narratives of institutional development that bolster arguments for the district’s historic significance. Each exhibited advantages and shortcomings in the process. Ultimately, a multifaceted approach eclipsed ANT’s practicality as a model for historical narrative writing and, by extension, for NRHP applications. Limitations aside, their performances in the case study applications show these material-semiotic approaches to be compelling new tools for evaluating historic districts as the preservation discourse continues evolving.