It's an obvious question with a complicated answer: where is the rock that gave Little Rock, Arkansas its name? A visitor to the city might reasonably expect to stumble upon it while sightseeing, a revered local landmark, right?
Well...not really:
This capital city was named for a rock. That's clear. But ask a local to point out which rock exactly and you're likely to draw a blank stare. Once, people would have known: The city's namesake jutted into a crook of the Arkansas River from the steep south bank, creating a perfect landing spot for ferries and riverboats. But in 1872, huge chunks of the rock were blasted away to make room for a railroad bridge. The remnants soon disappeared from view, hidden by weeds and mud and, later, graffiti.
"It was never honored as it might have been," says Bill Worthen, director of the Historic Arkansas Museum....
Geologically, it's part of the Ouachita Mountain range, a chain of weirdly folded crags and peaks that stretch across west-central Arkansas. But it's the very last gasp of the Ouachitas -- "the toenail of the foothills," Mr. Worthen, the museum director, says. And its mottled gray-brown hue doesn't do much to distinguish it from the concrete and steel bridge piers all around.
"There it is," called out civic leader Dean Kumpuris, weaving his way around construction equipment to peer down at the jagged hunk. "That unfortunate little structure is the Little Rock," Dr. Kumpuris said. "Or what's left of it."
(Above: the Little Rock, past and present, via)
Kumpuris' crusade to improve the Little Rock riverfront and the adjoining River Market district has arrived at the Little Rock itself. A public-private coalition has provided money for the Little Rock's excavation, currently underway. A plaza will be built around it, featuring plaques that explain the city's history--and its relationship with the rock formation for which it is named. Proponents of the project expect a reincarnation of the Little Rock as city symbol and tourist attraction.
Some local people aren't so sure:
Even some locals who support the concept say the rock is unlikely to prove as big a draw as other nearby attractions such as the playground, where shrieking kids race through tunnels and slide down grassy slopes on cardboard sleds. "How often am I going to come and look at it?" asks Sylvia Duran, a 34-year-old registered nurse. But tourism officials have high hopes....
"I went to San Francisco and got my picture taken next to the Golden Gate Bridge. It'll be the same thing down here. You'll come and get your picture taken standing next to the Little Rock," predicts Charlie Oppedisano, who works in a souvenir shop downtown.
One wonders if the current story surrounding the Little Rock and its excavation--connecting issues of natural history and civic identity with planning and tourism--outshines that of the Little Rock's journey through obscurity; or if the effort to restore the Little Rock is really warranted. But maybe those are the exact reasons why the Little Rock and its plaza will succeed, and why Little Rock will celebrate a symbol of itself, both very old and totally new.
People will want to touch, climb, and be photographed with the Little Rock (and should be allowed to do so), regardless of how it looks. Whether its appearance is "authentic" or not is largely rendered moot by its maligned history; it will never look the way it did when French explorers first saw it in 1772, but neither do the surroundings. Instead, it can exist in a new context, illustrative as much of 2009 as any other time period.
The way it is recontextualized, in turn, could lend it a contemplative, meditative quality, even if it's also a little tongue-in-cheek. That's just fine. Think of how Waterfire transforms the downtown of Providence, RI; or how Paris Plages changes the banks of the Seine in the summer. Think of how people behave when visiting Millennium Park in Chicago, particularly "Cloud Gate" and its distortion of the city skyline (above); or how the London Eye functions as both tourist attraction and instrument for seeing.
Little Rock's Little Rock has the same potential. People will marvel at how something as seemingly dull as a sandstone outcropping could come to possess such cultural significance, especially if the space around it is programmed well, with events that help re-establish it as the city's touchstone, both literally and figuratively.
Fascinating post. It will be interesting to see what comes of this effort.
Posted by: Daniel Nairn | 02/02/2009 at 08:42
Hey! That is an interesting story. I strongly believe that the history of a place should be preserved at any cost. No matter how insignificant it may seem the history of a place is very important. We should all respect history be it natural history or an incident relating to the origin of the name of a place. The remnant of the rock from which Little Rock, the capital city of Arkansas got its name should get its due importance. I heartily support the decision of Little Rock’s excavation and improvement of Little Rock riverfront. If properly maintained it has every potential to become a popular tourist attraction.
Posted by: Dhruv Blanc | 10/15/2009 at 07:54