CORRESPONDENCE - 75A SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE

Home Browse Search

and sandstone banks, but are gener- ally not useful in establishing bound- aries. Later land alterations are virtually nonexistent or have had minimal impact on the properties in question. In sum, use of historic documentation (plats), in conjunction with visits to each of the sites to confirm expectations regarding integrity, is considered appropriate to define boundaries for each of the properties included in the multiple property nomination. Case 7. Use of Legal Boundary for a Site Divided by Modern Property Lines: A prehistoric site has been discovered as the result of a cultural resource survey in preparation for a construction project on part of parcel A. It is clear that the site extends beyond the construction project limits onto parcel B. The developers in- volved and their archeological con- tractors have been unable to gain the adjacent private owners consent to survey parcel B in the area of the site for the purpose of boundary defini- tion. Investigations of the site area within parcel A establish that the site, as it exists within parcel A, meets National Register criteria. The SHPO or other nomination sponsor would be expected to make every effort to identify the totality of the property prior to nomination, so that the nomination reflects the entire resource. However, if examination of the part of the site on parcel B has been legally prohibited, and if there is no other basis for a well - justified estimation of the boundaries of the entire site, and, what is most impor- tant, if the portion of the site within parcel A was clearly eligible on its own, then the known portion of the site could be nominated. Discussion: Where direct docu- mentation of boundaries is not possible, and natural and topographic conditions do not help demarcate a site, legal boundaries may be used to define boundaries. In this case, the lot line shared by parcels A and B will form the defined eastern boundary. (See Figure 6.) Case 8. Use of Documents for a Partially Inundated Historic Fortifi- cation: Archeological investigations were conducted at an early nine- teenth- century coastal fortification along the eastern United States. Although the aboveground elements of the fort were determined not to 56 meet National Register criteria due to renovations in the twentieth- century, the subsurface remains of the facility contained unique deposits represent- ing the military occupation The site. Significantly, deep testing confirmed that a portion of the "old tabia[sic.] barracks and magazine" had been buried by up to nine feet of sand. Other tabby foundations (tabby is a cement -like construction material) were observed eroding out of the adjacent beach area. These discover- ies reinforced historical and carto- graphic research that suggested portions of the early nineteenth- , century fort remained buried within periodically inundated areas of the coastline. Discussion: The northern, western, and eastern boundaries of the prop- erty were defined as the current legal bounds of the military property. The area surrounding the fort that may have contained archeological remains has been heavily disturbed through subsequent residential development. The southern boundary along the coastline was interpreted from historical maps as extending approxi- mately 150 feet into the adjacent river. These boundaries contain the docu- mented extent of the fortifications. PARCEL A Case 9. The Use of Documents for the Site of an Eighteenth- Century Settlement: The irregularly shaped site marks the remains of an eigh- teenth- century settlement situated on a high bluff on the west bank of a river. This area is presently in planted pines, mixed forest, and abandoned pecan orchards. The site was located on the basis of documentary and map information as well as by archeologi- cal data obtained in sampling excava- tions carried out there in I974 and 1977 by the State University. Boundary Description: The site is bounded on the west side by a railway line for a distance of about 1500 feet. The north and south boundaries turn eastward from either end of this boundary line. The northern boundary runs eastward 700 feet, turns southward for 450 feet, and continues 2,700 feet eastward to the western edge of the river. The southern boundary runs eastward 1,300 feet, turns northward 450 feet, and continues eastward roughly 2,100 feet to the western edge of the river. A line along the western edge of the river forms the eastern boundary of the site. Boundary Justification: The boundaries of the settlement were 1 N Figure 6. (Case 7). In this example, the eastern boundary of this prehistoric site was estintated, because access was denied to this portion of the property. The figure illustrates the polygons used to calculate the UTM coordinates for the nomination, while the actual boundaries are shown on the west side of the parcel, 1 PROBABLE t EASTERN II 1 i LIMIT OF SITE ARBITRARY BOUNDARY PARCEL B; PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR NO ACCESS FOR SURVEY OR NOMINATION TESTING Figure 6. (Case 7). In this example, the eastern boundary of this prehistoric site was estintated, because access was denied to this portion of the property. The figure illustrates the polygons used to calculate the UTM coordinates for the nomination, while the actual boundaries are shown on the west side of the parcel,