CORRESPONDENCE - 75A SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE

Home Browse Search

archeology. However, boundary determinations require clear recogni- tion of how physical features and their mutual relationships form a "site." Usually this requires the archeologist to decide the degree of fall off in cultural material density that is no longer acceptable in order for an enclosed area to be considered part of the significant "site." Boundaries for National Register properties are horizontal boundaries that can be clearly marked in two dimensions. Vertical boundaries of a site probably will have been estab- lished or predicted through testing to evaluate the site for significance. Absolute boundary definition is often unachievable. Boundaries usually represent compromises reconciling both theory and field conditions to facilitate communication with agencies and the public about sensitive geographic locations having important concentrations of archeo- logical information. There are several methods for obtaining boundary evidence for archeological sites. These are summa- rized on page 30 in the main text of this bulletin. Examples of each are provided in this appendix or in the main text of this bulletin. Each of the techniques used must be adequately documented in the text of the nomina- tion. The first two, "subsurface testing" and "surface observation," provide direct documentation of archeological resources. Several examples in the main text use these methods. See the discontiguous district of Crockett Canyon /Coyote Ranch Archeological District (p. 23) as well as most of the examples under "Archeological Sites and Districts" (pp.30 -36). In this appendix see Case I for an example of direct documentation through subsur- face testing and Case 2 for an example of surface observation. The third method, "observation of topographic and other natural fea- tures," often provides logical and defendable boundaries for sites. For examples in the main text, see in particular Rockshelter Petroglyphs (p.31), Prehistoric Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site (p.31), and Harbor Island Historic and Archeological District (p.33). In this appendix see Case 3 for a further example. The fourth technique, "observation of land alterations," includes the documentation of land disturbance that may have destroyed portions of a 52 site, thereby indicating a boundary for the remaining resource. See Case 4 for an example. It may also involve documenting the lack of disturbance to a property as evidence supporting a site's integrity. This latter case is illustrated in Cases 5 and 6. The last technique listed on page 30 is "study of historic or ethnographic documents." This technique often involves the use of maps and legal boundaries. Several examples in the main text illustrate the use of such documents for determining bound- aries. See these contiguous districts in rural settings: The Wood lawn Historic and Archeological District (p.17), Bloomvale Historic District (p.21), Weyerhaueser South Bay Log Dump Rural Historic landscape (p.22). The boundaries for Pecos Archeological District are coterminous with the legal boundaries of Pecos National Histori- cal Park (p.24). Cases 7, 8, and 9 in this appendix provide further ex- amples. In addition to these five techniques is the "property type model;' which was defined in earlier editions of this appendix (as Definition of National Boundaries for Archeological Districts). The property type model is based on known site types. For example, a late archaic camp in a swampy area is discovered during a survey and is nominated for the important informa- tion potential of its well - preserved plant remains. However, testing was not done to determine the boundaries of the site. To describe and justify a boundary coterminous with the rise of land overlooking the swamp, a property type model could be used. Such a model would compare this type of site to other known sites in the region, clearly presenting and sup- porting the expected boundary for this type of site. Case 10 provides an example of the property type model. IV. CASE STUDIES It is an archeological truism that "every site is different." The process of determining the boundaries of an individual archeological site depends, to a certain degree, upon the indi- vidual characteristics of that site and its surroundings. The following case studies add to those presented in the main text. It is important to note that in most cases, more than one tech- nique is used to determine bound- aries. Examples for each of the main techniques discussed above are provided first. Following those is Case 11, a district with boundaries based on more than one area and period of significance; Case 12, a site eligible under criteria A and D as both a traditional cultural place and an archeological site, Case 13, a bound- ary reduction; and Cases 14 and 15, examples of delimiting boundaries amid continuous distribution of artifacts. Case 1. Shovel Test Pits delimiting a prehistoric site located within a forest. A multicomponent prehistoric site was located within Federal property in a state in the upper South. The boundaries of the site were defined through the excavation of 46 shovel test pits and limited surface collection of artifacts along a road. Information potential and National Register eligibility was confirmed through the excavation of 151 x 1 meter test units. Although some disturbance to the site resulted, previous construction of the road does not appear to have significantly compromised the integrity of this property. In situ materials were found as deep as 50 cm below the present ground surface. The distribu- tion of artifacts at this site conforms to a model of site definition in which the highest density of artifacts is judged to be located at the center of the site, with fewer artifacts found in outlying areas. The edge of the site is defined by the boundary between the presence of artifacts and the absence of artifacts, as revealed in test pits. Boundary Description: The site is located along AAA Road with the extreme northeastern boundary being located approximately 3,000 feet north of the confluence of BBB Branch and CCC Branch, at an elevation of 1500 ft. amsl. From this point the site area follows the road to the west (which coincides with the contour of the ridge top) for an additional 1,000 feet. The site is confined to the north and south by its topographic situation; cultural materials were confined to the level or near level portions of the ridge system. (See Figure 1.) Boundary Justification: The site boundaries were determined by the limits of cultural materials as defined by subsurface shovel testing. A surface collection along the road revealed a continuation of materials outside of the defined boundaries;