gps mapping of stone fences · 2020. 4. 24. · during the summer of 2007, the staff of the r.o....

November 2007 Prepared for:

City of Forest Hills

4012 Hillsboro Pike, Ste. 5 Nashville, Tennessee 37215

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee

Prepared by:

Zada Law, M.A. Thomas Nolan, Ph.D., Director

R.O. Fullerton Laboratory for Spatial Technology Department of Geosciences

Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132

615-898-2726

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

i

Management Summary During the summer of 2007, the staff of the R.O. Fullerton Laboratory for Spatial Technology at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) mapped the locations of stone fences in the City of Forest Hills, a small residential city in south-central Davidson County, Tennessee. The mapping project was initiated at the request of Forest Hills Commissioner William Coke with the objective of developing a spatial database of stone fence locations that could be used in municipal land use and development planning as well as conservation of this landscape feature. A differentially-corrected GPS unit was used to map location coordinates with a high degree of accuracy. The precision of the GPS-collected data was verified using high resolution color aerial imagery. The aerial imagery was also used to identify possible locations of other stone fence remnants.

The geospatial survey mapped 21,960.06 linear feet (4.16 miles) of stone fence segments. This total includes the previously-recorded segments inventoried in 2001 (Allen 2001) plus an additional 6,082.25 linear feet (1.15 miles) of stone fence segments recorded subsequent to the 2001 inventory, including a previously-unrecorded fence identified from color orthophoto imagery and verified by field-checking. The GPS-mapped stone fences include over 11,207 linear feet (2.12 miles) of stone fence segments that do not appear on a fence and retaining wall digital data layer provided by Nashville’s Metropolitan Planning Commission.

To evaluate whether historic maps could be used to provide contexts for developing chronological indicators for stone fence types for Middle Tennessee, the GPS-mapped stone fence segments were overlaid on photocopies of the 1903 and 1932 Nashville, Tennessee U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles that had been scanned and georeferenced. While georeferencing is best done with scans of original maps to provide good spatial accuracy, this preliminary analysis suggests that historic topographic maps of the Forest Hills area could be useful in determining the ages of specific sections of stone fences, interpreting function and developing chronological sequences of stone fence construction typologies.

Finally, a potential new stone wall or fence subtype was identified by the survey. The type of stone wall built along an intermittent tributary at 5906 Hillsboro Pike does not appear as a subtype in the stone wall and fence categories proposed by Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992) for the Lexington, Kentucky region. The stone fence along the drainage may represent a new subtype of early twentieth century landscape element that can be added to the Murray-Wooley and Raitz model.


ii

Table of Contents

Management Summary ............................................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ ii

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. .. 1

Background …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ... 1

Stone fence damage and loss ......................................................................................................... 2

Conservation efforts in Forest Hills .............................................................................................. 2

Scope of work ................................................................................................................................ 3

Project Area .................................................................................................................................. 3

Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Method s…………………….................................................................................................................. ............ 5

Assessing GPS coordinate accuracy .............................................................................................. 6

Results…………………….................................................................................................................. ............... 7

Comparison of results with 2001 inventory .................................................................................. 7

Identifying stone fences from aerial photos .................................................................................. 8

Comparison of results with Metro Planning Commission fence inventory ................................ 11

Comparison of results with historic maps ...................................................................................12

Stone fence types ......................................................................................................................... 14

Stone fences along waterways ......................................................................................... 15

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ... 17

Finding stone fences on aerial photos .......................................................................................... 17

Fence conditions and construction patterns ............................................................................... 18

Integration with historic and archaeological resource databases .............................................. 18

Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. . 19

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... 20

References Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 20


iii

Figures

1. City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee ......................................................................... 1

2. Forest Hills project area ................................................................................................................ 4

3. Results of GPS mapping of stone fences in Forest Hills ............................................................... 8

4. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 stone fence inventories ............................................................. 10

5. Example of potential and verified stone fence locations from aerial photos .............................. 11

6. Comparison of GPS-mapped stone fence locations with Metro Planning fence inventory ........12

7. Stone fences in Forest Hills overlaid on 1903 topographic map. ................................................ 13

8. Stone fences in Forest Hills overlaid on 1932 topographic map. ................................................ 13

9. Compton Cemetery, 1645 Tyne Boulevard ................................................................................... 15

10. Stone walls along drainage, 5906 Hillsboro Pike ....................................................................... 16

Tables

1. GPS-mapped fence segments ........................................................................................................ 9

2. Comparison of fence lengths derived from 2001 inventory map with GPS-mapped lengths .... 10


1

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee

During the summer of 2007, the staff of the R.O. Fullerton Laboratory for Spatial Technology at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) mapped the locations of stone fences in the City of Forest Hills, a small residential city in south-central Davidson County, Tennessee (Figure 1). The mapping project was initiated at the request of Forest Hills Commissioner William Coke with the objective of developing a GIS (Geographic Information System) spatial data layer of stone fence locations to incorporate into land use and development planning in the municipality. Accurate mapping of stone fences would also assist in conservation of this landscape feature.

The MTSU team used Global

ord the e

to

n

Background

Positioning System (GPS) technology to accurately reclocations of the stone fences in thfield and converted the GPS data into a digital geospatial database.GIS technology was then usedoverlay the stone fence location digital data layer on high resolution color aerial imagery to verify the accuracy of the GPS datacollection and identify possible locations of other stone fence remnants. The stone fence locations were also overlaid ohistoric maps to interpret relative age and function.

Dry-stacked limestone fences are common cultural landscape features along roadways, in pastures and

unty,

assistance to the stonemasons.

enclosing cemeteries in the Middle Tennessee region. A popular perception is that stone fences in the southeastern United States were built by slaves prior to the Civil War. However, research by Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992) suggests that the eighteenth and nineteenth-century stone fences of the Bluegrass region around Lexington, Kentucky (approximately 200 miles northeast of Davidson CoTennessee) were, in fact, largely built by Irish and Scottish immigrants with slave labor providing

Figure 1. City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee


2

Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992:93-96) postulate that slaves working with Irish stonemasons in thnineteenth century learned stone

e mid- fence building techniques from the Irish and continued to practice the

masonry trade after emancipation. Investigations of stone fences in Middle Tennessee (Allen 2001;

iddle Tennessee’s historic the modern

ments involving

ant nt

also

The City of Belle Meade, a small municipality in Davidson County, Tennessee has repaired

e ions

ed to

eason ills commissioned an inventory of extant

was limited rest Hills.

layer that would accurately show the locations of known stone fences and integrate with other digital land

Haynie 2000) also suggest that slaves in the Nashville region learned masonry techniques from Irish masons and eventually passed these techniques down through their families who carried on the traditionlocally.

Stone fence damage and loss While stone fences are considered valuable assets in local communities, these vestiges of Mlandscape are, nonetheless, disappearing fromterrain. Residential and commercial developland-clearing, road-widening and utility construction are responsible for destroying or damaging many sections of extfences. Other stone fences, especially those situated on vacalots, have fallen into disrepair or have been robbed of stone forother uses. Tree growth along older fences and windthrowdamage dry-laid structures.

The loss of historic examples of stone fences in the Nashville region has inspired several municipal efforts to repair and conserve existing stone walls.

portions of the dry-stacked stone fence once belonging to BellMeade Farm (Belle Meade Plantation) (Tackett 2001). Sectof the Belle Meade fence are also being conserved in Nashville’sWest Meade neighborhood where landowners are encouragestablish conservation easements for their properties containingcovenants against tearing down stone walls (West Meade Conservancy 2007).

Conservation efforts in Forest Hills Concern about local attrition of stone fences was also the rthat the City of Forest Hstone fences in 2001 (Allen 2001). The 2001 studyto stone fences along public streets and roads in FoHowever, the City has subsequently requested that residents report stone fences or remnants on their individual properties in order to expand the municipality’s stone fence inventory to include segments on private land (City of Forest Hills 2007).

In 2007, the City of Forest Hills sought to convert their inventory of stone fences to a GIS spatial data

layers. Incorporating a stone fence data layer into the city’s GIS would allow fence locations to be taken into account in development planning and design. However, in order to create a geospatial data layer of stone fences, the City required precise locations for the stone fences that had been inventoried.

Landscape Assets

In publications and advertisements, the stone walls of Middle Tennessee are considered signature features of the modern landscape that show strong ties to and respect for this region’s past.

“…..even horses grazing beside stacked-stone walls demonstrate Williamson County’s close relationship with the past.”

Renee Elder Williamson County Magazine

2007-2008 online edition


3

Scope of work The scope of work for the present mapping project was to accurately record the locations of previously-

es in Forest Hills and create a geospatial data layer of the fence locations that would RI’s ArcGIS software. Metadata (“data about the data”) would also be created and

orted subsequent to Allen’s survey (Coke 2007). The locations of the fences identified by Allen were described by street addresses and also drawn on a black-and-white

for

proximately 4,700 n and Associates 2001; U. S. Census Bureau 2000). Functioning as a separate hville’s suburban ring, Forest Hill’s corporate boundaries extend south from Harding

west

iterature review

inventoried stone fencbe compatible with ESincluded in the geospatial data layer.

The stone fences to be mapped included 16 fences identified in the 2001 inventory (Allen 2001) and an additional five fences that had been rep

photocopy of the Oak Hill, Tennessee 1968 (PR1983) 7.5’ U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle map. Brief narratives described the locations of the other five fences (Coke 2007), and their locations were later pinpointed by Fletch and William Coke during a driving tour. The City of Forest Hills was responsible contacting landowners and obtaining permission to map fences on private property.

Project area Incorporated in 1957, Forest Hills is approximately 9.5 square miles in size and has apresidents (Thomasomunicipality in NasPlace to Old Hickory Boulevard and east from Chickering Road to Granny White Pike (Figure 2). Hillsboro Pike (U.S. 431), a major traffic artery in southern Davidson County, runs northeast-souththrough the city. The city’s topography is characterized by prominent, steep hills dissected by Otter Creekwhich flows in a southwesterly direction through Forest Hills to the Little Harpeth River.

LAlthough many Middle Tennesseans consider dry-stacked, or dry-laid, stone fences to be historic features,

pe artifact has received little formal study by area historic preservationists or geographers. Stone fences may be mentioned as accessory features of properties in the narratives of

ound features. In Tennessee, the locations of stone fences reported to the Tennessee Division of Archaeology

this category of cultural landsca

National Register of Historic Places nominations or in historic architectural surveys, but stone fences are not treated as an individual historic property type in the Tennessee Historical Commission’s Historic Sites Survey or nominated in Tennessee to the National Register as individual historic properties.

Stone walls and fences are occasionally reported in archaeological resource compliance surveys (e.g. Angst 2006) but are not generally considered to be archaeological properties since they are above-gr

are noted on the State Archaeological Site File topographic maps or recorded in the Site Information File. However, a few stone fences have been given state archaeological site numbers when the reporter completed the archaeological site survey form (Suzanne Hoyal, State Archaeological Site File Curator, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, personal communication 2007).


4

Only two systematic inventories of dry-laid stone walls have been done in Middle Tennessee. In 2000, Mary Allison Haynie surveyed a small area in Williamson County along the Old Natchez Trace Road and Harpeth River and reported her findings in a paper prepared for a history class at MTSU (Haynie 2000).

he following year, Dan Allen conducted a windshield survey of stone fences along major roadways in the TCity of Forest Hills in Davidson County at the request of the City (Allen 2001).

Both Allen and Haynie interpreted the types of stone fences in their study areas using the fence types proposed by Carolyn Murray-Wooley and Karl Raitz in Rock Fences of the Bluegrass (1992). In this

Figure 2. Forest Hills project area. Map source: Oak Hill, Tennessee 1968 (PR1983) 7.5’ U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle. Accessed from Tennessee Spatial Data Server http://www.tngis.org.


5

seminal study of stone fences, Murray-Wooley and Raitz combine the results of detailed historic research, field surveys and informant interviews to document dry-stack construction techniques, explore masonry traditions and analyze the types and functions of stone fences in the Bluegrass region near Lexington,

division fences such as livestock enclosures. The turnpike category includes stone fences built along road and turnpike frontages. The third category of dry-laid decorative landscape features

Kentucky.

The Murray-Wooley and Raitz model of dry-stacked stone fence functional types includes “plantation” and “turnpike” fences built in the nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century decorative landscape features (1992: 73-83, 134-138). The plantation category includes property boundary fences as well as internal farm

includes such elements as entrance gates, dry-laid stone bridges and road frontage fences built for property ornamentation rather than function.

Methods The MTSU team of Dr. Tom Nolan and Zada Law mapped the stone fences in Forest Hills using a Trimble Pathfinder Pro XRS GPS receiver with real-time differential correction. While most hand-held GPS receivers record locations with an accuracy of 10-20 meters, differentially-corrected GPS units can map

ate locations with sub-meter accuracy. Differential correction provides improved mapping accuracy by using correction factors broadcasted from a base station in addition to the spatial coordinates

.

:4).

ta. However, after relocating the fence segments, we realized that

s were

ld

positioned the antenna in a location providprogrammed an offset into the GPS receive ng.

In the 2001 windshield survey of stone fencwere assigned identification numbers rang

that

feature coordin

triangulated from orbiting satellites. To further improve the precision of the locations for the mapped features, 100 location coordinate readings were collected and averaged per stationary mapping point

The GPS survey began by relocating the stone fence segments previously inventoried in Forest Hills using street addresses and the map included in the 2001 survey report (Allen 2001Initially, the plan was to walk along the fence lines with the GPS unit and collect location coordinates as line da

the amount of vegetation cover along most of the fence sections would likely interfere with satellite reception and coordinate accuracy. Consequently, location coordinatecollected at fence end points and break points along straight line fence sections. The point data was later post-processed into line features representing the fence locations.

In several instances, the backpack GPS receiver antenna counot be positioned immediately adjacent to a fence because of vegetation or other physical obstructions. In those cases, we ing a clear view of the sky and good satellite reception and r based on a taped measurement and compass readi

es along the major roads in Forest Hills (Allen 2001), fences ing from FH001-FH016. When collecting the GPS location

coordinates for previously-inventoried fence segments, the MTSU team entered the “FH number”

The MTSU geospatial survey team


6

had been assigned to the fence in the GPS unit’s “fence_id” data field. However, “FH numbers” were nassigned to newly-recorded fence segments unless the new segm

ot ent was physically connected to a

previously-inventoried segment.

ay

om the e fence construction episode.

from the original fences, making it

z (1992) suggests that ages, origins and functions of individual s, deed research and landowner interviews.

ce types for Middle Tennessee have not been formalized, we gn “FH numbers” to museparate feature and auto

number (FID number) in the geospatial database. Using GIS to overlay fence segments with digital

e

o s

IS software, we used the point data to digitize line features representing individual,

o

x inches on the ground, using a high-resolution base image allowed us to

We chose not to continue using the “FH number” designation because surveyor-assigned ID numbers mgive potentially incorrect impressions about the homogeneity of specific fence segments. For example, each of the two sections of stone fences along Hillsboro Pike shown in the photograph below had been assigned the ID number “FH015” in the 2001 inventory, yet each segment has a different setback frroad and may not be part of the sam

The previous Forest Hills stone fence survey (Allen 2001) and Haynie’s (2000) data from Williamson County suggest that many stone fences in this area have been reconstructed or repaired using stone

difficult to determine the age of individfence segments in the field. A photo in Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992:41) shows a turnpike fence abutting a boundary fence, illustrating that adjacefence segments may have different functions, constructions and ages.

The research by Murray-Wooley and fences segments are best assessed using historical recordSince chronological indicators of stone fendetermined that we could not reliabindividual fence segment is recorded

ual

nt

Rait

ly assi as a

ltiple fence segments. Instead, each matically assigned a unique feature

cadastral layers allows individual fence segments and their corresponding FID numbers to be associated with land parcels or street addresses. In the geospatial database, individual fence segments can also brelated as belonging to the same construction episode, property boundary or function as evidence becomes available.

Assessing GPS coordinate accuracy After two days of GPS mapping, we downloaded the initial set of location coordinates from the GPS unit tassess the precision of the data we had collected and evaluate our methods. The GPS location coordinatewere in the form of point data representing the starting points, ending points and vertices of fence segments. Using ArcGcontiguous fence segments.

To verify the accuracy and precision of the fence line locations, ArcGIS was used to overlay the fence line features on high-resolution (six-inch) color aerial orthophotos provided by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Planning Commission (Metro Planning Commission). Orthophotimagery has been rectified for feature displacement and spatial accuracy. Since each pixel in the orthophoto layer represents si

Stone fence segments labelled “FH015”


7

zoom in and visually verify the precision of each fence segment location relative to roadways and other physical features. In many cases, portions of extant stone fences were visible on the imagery, allowing correction of the data if needed.

Overall, we found excellent correlation between the fence locations created from the GPS data and the orthophoto imagery. We proceeded to use the same GPS data collection and post-processing methods tcomplete the geospatial survey. The end product, a digital spatial database of line features representing the individual fence segments, was

o

formatted as an ArcGIS shapefile in ArcGIS using a NAD 1983 Tennessee State Plane FIPS 4100 (Feet) projected coordinate system. Lengths for individual fence

e.

data was

documented the dates and location of the survey, purpose, keywords, data quality, spatial references and

segments were calculated using the “calculate geometry” feature of ArcGIS and included in the shapefil

Finally, metadata for the geospatial survey was created and incorporated into the shapefile. Metadata, or“data about the data,” is documentation that is incorporated into the digital spatial database. Metacan be accessed by the user to determine who created the dataset and where, how, when and why it created even if a written report is not available. The metadata for the Forest Hills GPS survey

contact organization for the dataset.

Results MTSU’s geosF

patial survey mapped a total of 21,960.06 linear feet (4.16 miles) of stone fence segments in orest Hills (Figure 3). This total includes the previously-recorded segments inventoried in 2001,

additional fence segments identified to the MTSU team by Fletch Coke (Coke 2007) and a previously-nce segment identified by field-checking a linear landscape signature visible on the color

ey

tal with a digital land parcel layer provided by the Metro Planning Commission and cross-

referencing the identification numbers of parcels crossed by each fence segment with the Metro Planning

unrecorded feorthophotos.

Table 1 shows the lengths and street addresses of all fence segments mapped by the geospatial survcross-referenced with the “FH numbers” assigned in the 2001 survey and the unique FID (feature ID) numbers assigned to each segment by ArcGIS. The street addresses were derived by overlaying the digifence line data

Commission’s online “Metro Maps” (http://www.nashville.gov/mpc/maps.htm).

Comparison of results with 2001 inventory A total of 6,082.25 linear feet (1.15 miles) of stone fence segments that did not appear on the 2001 inventory were mapped by the GPS survey (Table 1). The map in Figure 4 shows the fence segments that were not included in the 2001 inventory.

A portion of a 7.5’ topographic quadrangle map included with the 2001 inventory report (Allen 2001:4) dways.

the totals may be due to inaccurate estimates of fence lengths from the 2001 map, or the difference may represent attrition of some segments mapped in 2001.

shows a total 17,300 linear feet (3.28 miles) of stone fence segments in Forest Hills along major roaHowever, the GPS mapping of the stone fence segments identified in the 2001 inventory totaled 15,878 feet (3.01 miles) (Table 2). The difference in

http://www.nashville.gov/mpc/maps.htm


8

Identifying stone fences from aerial photos While the scope of work for the geospatial survey was limited to mapping stone fences already in the city’s inventory, when the results of the initial GPS data collection were overlaid on color aerial imagery for

ccuracy verification, three linear landscape signatures were noticed on the orthophotos near known fence segments. To assess whether these signatures represented previously-unidentified stone fences,

y as

pdate presentation. The location of the stone fence

a

their locations were noted and field-checked.

One linear feature shown on the aerial photos was field-verified as a drainage culvert. However, the second linear feature was field-verified as a previously-uninventoried stone fence remnant extending perpendicular from a fence segment along Hillsboro Pike that had been recorded in the 2001 inventor“FH012.” A third feature on private property could not be field-checked but was shown to Forest Hills Commissioner William Coke during a project usegment identified from the aerial photo and an example of how potential linear fence features appear on aerial imagery are shown on Figure 5.

Figure 3. Results of GPS mapping of stone fences in Forest Hills. Map source: Oak Hill, Tennessee 1968 (PR1983) 7.5’ U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle. Accessed from Tennessee Spatial Data Server http://www.tngis.org


9

Table 1: GPS-mapped fence segments. New segments recorded in 2007 are indicated in “2001 ID#” column. FID# is the Feature ID number assigned by ArcGIS. Segment length was calculated using ArcGIS.

FID# Fence Segment Address Length (ft) 2001 ID#

27 1600 Old Hickory Blvd 182.59 FH001

28 1600 Old Hickory Blvd 268.59 FH001

20 1411 Chickering‐ 1358 Page Rd

1138.40 FH002

21 1326‐1358 Page Rd 612.65 FH002

22 1326 Page Rd 1006.39 FH002

23 1500 Chickering 405.00 FH003

24 1418‐1500 Chickering 232.61 FH003

25 1416‐1418 Chickering 691.84 FH003

26 1410‐1414 Chickering 496.86 FH003

18 4390 Chickering 1144.85 FH004

16 6251 Hillsboro Pk 209.47 FH005

17 6251 Hillsboro Pk 32.78 FH005

14 6231 Hillsboro Pk 347.57 FH006

15 6231 Hillsboro Pk 173.32 FH006

51 6231 Hillsboro Pk 1447.90 FH006

40 6011‐6017 Hillsboro Pk 160.48 FH007

41 6005‐6011 Hillsboro Pk 427.04 FH007


43 5915 Hillsboro Pk 371.24 FH008

29 5840‐5904 Hillsboro Pk 520.33 FH009

3 k 397.04 FH009 0 5836‐5840 Hillsboro P

3 5836 Hillsboro Pk 279.75 FH009 1

32 5826 Hillsboro Pk 187.70 FH009

10 5819 Hillsboro Pk 530.62 FH010

11 5819 Hillsboro Pk 561.97 FH010

13 5819 Hillsboro Pk 791.28 FH010






FID# Fence Segment Address Length (ft) 2001 ID#

54 Richland Country Club 440.77 FH013




33 5100 Stanford 232.82 FH015

34 5300 Hillsboro Pk 374.21 FH015

35 5330 Hillsboro Pk 188.50 FH015

36 5350 Hillsboro Pk 181.11 FH015

48 1645 Tyne Blvd 225.34 FH016

19 1411 Chickering 918.57 FH002‐new

12 5826 Hillsboro Pk 147.67 FH010‐new

9 5627 Hillsboro Pk 699.36 FH012‐new

55 Richland Co Club 1206.83 FH013‐new

37 2400‐2408 Hemingway 593.94 New

38 4516 Alcott 68.13 New

39 4516 Alcott 157.31 New

8 5800 Hillsboro Pk 135.43 New





49 1623 Otter Creek Rd 405.27 New

50 1623‐1625 Otter Creek Rd 209.19 New

52 1958 Old Hickory Blvd 124.90 New

53 1958 Old Hickory Blvd 328.66 New

TOTAL MAPPED (Ft) 21960.06

TOTAL NEW SEGMENTS (Ft) 6082.25


10

Figure 4. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 nce inv r undary an etro Gover f Nashv an y Planning sion.

derived fr m 2001 en PS-mapp ths

stone fe ento ies. Forest Hills bo d streetdatasets courtesy of M politan nment o ille d Davidson Count Commis

Table2. Comparison of fence lengths o inv tory map with G ed leng

200

(ft) pped(ft) 1 ID# length

2001 map GPS‐ma length

FH0 600.00 45101 .18

FH002 4200.00 2757.44

FH003 2200.00 1826.31

FH004 400.00 1144.85

FH005 700.00 242.25

FH006 1200.00 1968.79

FH007 1000.00 663.92

FH008 500.00 371.24

2001 GPS len ID#

2001 map length (ft)

‐mappedgth (ft)

FH00 0 84.829 300.0 13

FH01 83.870 1200.00 18

FH011 200.00 343.05

FH012 500.00 415.35

FH013 00 7 1000. 440.7

FH014 9 900.00 781.9

FH015 1600.00 976.64

FH016 800.00 225.34

TOTAL (ft) 17300.00 15877.81


11

F xam tial e om aeri olor base map s etropolitan G nt of Nash David nty Planning Comm

Comparison of results with Metro PlThe data layers prov TSU by o Pla ommission inclu igital datar g walls and f Forest H data des locations a s for the g walls and fences bu t charact featu onstruction materials(e.g. stone, wbrick) or constructi map ove the lo of the GPS-ma e fences ( n the Metro fence data is s Figure 6. Analysis of t suggests that ov

e fences map ed by the G ded in the Me nc e.

igure 5. E ple of poten and verified stone fenc locations fr al photos. C orthophotoource: M overnme ville and son Cou ission.

anning Commission fence inventory ided to M the Metr nning C ded a d set for

etainin ences in ills. The set inclu nd length retainint does no erize the res by c ood or on date. A rlaying cations pped ston walls) o

hown inp

his map er 11,207 linear feet (2.12 miles) of ston PS survey are not inclu tro wall and fe e data fil

Stone fence segment identified from aerial photo

Potential Stone Fence


Figure 6. Comparison of results with Metro Planning fence inventory. Forest Hills fences and street data layers courtesy of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Planning Commission.

Comparison of results with historic maps

verlaid on 1903 and 1932 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles for Nashville. Using GIS, the topographic eoreferenced using physiographic features that are unlikely to change through time.

he

To evaluate whether historic maps could be used to provide contexts for developing chronological indicators of stone fence types for Middle Tennessee, the GPS-mapped stone fence segments were omaps were spatially gSince digital scans of the original maps are not yet available from the Tennessee State Library and Archives, black and white photocopies of the maps were scanned and used for the analysis. While photocopies contain spatial distortions, the analysis was designed to be a preliminary assessment of tutility of the method rather than an accurate evaluation of potential spatial locations. The results are shown in Figures 7 and 8.

12


13

Figure 7. Stone fences (orange) in Forest Hills (red) overlaid on 1903 topographic map. Map source: Nashville, Tennessee 1903 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle.

Figure 8. Stone fences (orange) in Forest Hills (red) overlaid on 1932 topographic map. Map source: Nashville, Tennessee 1932 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle.

Richland CC

Richland CC 1958 OHB

1958 OHB

6231 Hillsboro

6231 Hillsboro

Page Rd

Page Rd


14

In general, the stone fence segments mapped along Hillsboro Pike and Page Road show good correlations with the roadways on both the 1903 and 1932 maps. Interestingly, the stone fence remnants identified in

e 2007 survey at 1958 Old Hickory Boulevard (1958 OHB) follow the route of Vaughan’s Gap Road on 932 map but do not correlate with roadway features on the 1903 map. Likewise, a stone wall

egment at the Richland Country Club (Richland CC) follows a lane/driveway that appears on the 1932 map but not on the 1903 map suggesting that this segment of fence could have been constructed in the early decades of the 20th century rather than in the late 19th century.

Historical map analysis is best done with scans of original maps to provide good spatial wever, this preliminary analysis suggests that historic topographic maps of the Forest Hills area could be useful in determining the ages of specific sections of stone fences, interpreting function and developing chronological sequences of stone

gies.

tone fence types The stone fences in the 2001 inventory list were categorized as “plantation,” “turnpike” or “late

ineteenth/early twentieth century (Allen 2001:13) following the Murray-Wooley and Raitz model of dry-tone fence functional types. (1992: 73-83, 134-138). The scope of our geospatial survey did not

clude re-evaluatin gories assigned to specific stone fences. Murray-Wooley and Raitz’s esearch (1992) suggests that ages, origins and functions of individual fences segments are best assessed

using a combination of historical records, deed research and landowner interviews. However, historic ages of properties in southern Davidson County suggest that the Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992: 73-

83) plantation” (boundary and enclosure) and turnpike (road frontage) functional stone fence typology is pplicable for interpreting stone fences in the Forest Hills area.

or example, a ninetee awing of the Henry W. Compton estate (reproduced in Historic orest Hills [Th ssociates 2001:15] from Clayton’s 1880 History of Davidson

ounty) shows both enclosure and road frontage stone fences, including a stone fence around a cemetery. he location of the Henry W. Compton estate is shown west of Hillsboro Roa Foster’s 1871

p of Davidson County. Hillsboro Road w ped as an improved turnpike in the mid-nineteenth entury (Thomason and Associates 2001:16).

layton’s 1880 History of Davidson County also includes a drawing of the Henry Compton estate at 1645 Tyne Boulevard. The drawing, also reproduced in Historic Homes of Forest Hills (Thomason and

ssociates 2001:14), also shows a stone fence surrounding a cemetery. Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992) oundary types which includes “plantation-era” property bound

vestock en 45 Tyne,

ththe 1s

accuracy. Ho

fence construction typolo

S

nstacked sin g the cater

im

a

F nth-century dromason and AHomes of F

CTMa

d on Wilbur as develo

c

C

Acategorize cemetery fences as bli

aries, closures and internal farm division fences. The Compton Cemetery still exists at 16

Stone fence remnant at 1958 Old Hickory Boulevard


15

enclosed by a stone fence (Figure 9). The tree limbs resting on the fence illustrate the type of damage that can occur to stone fences.

Stone fences along waterways Included in the list of known stone features to

been built along Otter Creek (Allen 2001:10).

be mapped by the geospatial survey was a stone wall constructed parallel to the margins of an intermittent tributary at 5906 Hillsboro Pike (Figure 10). According to Fletch Coke (personal communication, August 16, 2007), a local resident, J.W. Rowland, told them that this stone wall had been constructed by an African-American stone mason in the 1930s or early twentieth century.

The stone wall or fence along the drainage at 5906 Hillsboro Pike was the only type of its kind observed in Forest Hills during the geospatial survey. However, similar features may exist in fe

Forest Hills since the 2001 stone nce inventory reports that stone walls have

According to Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992), dry-laid stone walls or fence features built in the early twentieth century were decorative landscape elements such as entrance gates and road frontage fences built for property ornamentation rather than function. Dry-laid stone bridges are included in this early twentieth-century category, but no mention is made of stone construction along the margins waterways or drainages.

While the stone walls along the waterway at 5906 Hillsboro may have had functional as well as decorative purposes, they can be reasonably classified as an early twentieth-century landscape type based on their reported 1930s (or earlier) construction date. However, stone wall or fence construction along waterways may represent a new subtype of early twentieth century landscape element that can be added to the Murray-Wooley and Raitz model.

Figure 9. Compton cemetery,1645 Tyne Boulevard.


16

Figure 10. Stone walls along drainage, 5906 Hillsboro Pike.


17

Dry-laid fences may also have been constructed in the nineteenth century along waterways in Middle Tennessee. Lengths of dry-stacked limestone walls paralleling the West Harpeth River have been reported as archaeological sites in Williamson County with estimated construction dates in the mid-nineteenth century (Angst 2006:36). Murray-Wooley and Raitz’ (1992) nineteenth-century plantation (boundary and enclosure) functional fence type does not include stone fences or walls built along waterways. While the stone fences along the West Harpeth River may be related to farm boundaries, they may also represent a new subtype of nineteenth-century stone fence feature.

Discussion The method of mapping stone fences with differentially-corrected GPS and verifying the accuracy of the data collection using high-resolution color orthophotos can provide sub-meter precision for the location coordinates of these features. The resulting geospatial data layer can easily be overlaid with other digital data layers such as land parcels and streets, and accurate locations of extant stone fence segments can be taken into account in land use and development planning.

Accurate geospatial mapping of stone fences provides additional support for conserving this type of landscape feature. Lengths of stone fence segments can be tracked and categorized, and digital condition assessment photos can be associated with individual fence segments. The locations of newly-identified fence segments can be easily added to the database, and the spatial data layer can be expanded to include stone fences from a larger geographic area.

Finding stone fences on aerial photos In the process of verifying the accuracy of the GPS data using high-resolution color aerial photography, we printed a large format (34” x 44”) map on glossy photo paper. We quickly realized that while the computer monitor was useful to zoom in to check the spatial precision of individual fence segments, the smaller scale, larger viewing field and glossy finish of the paper map allowed us to see larger patterns of landscape features and signatures that could not be easily noticed on computer screens.

Using the paper map, we identified three linear landscape signatures that might be stone fences. When these features were field-checked, one feature was a culvert, but the second sig ature represented a previously undocumented fence. The third signature is

n

Newly-built Stone Fences

In Forest Hills as well as in other communities in Middle Tennessee, new stone fences are being built that mimic the fence styles of the 19th and early 20th centuries.


18

located on private property and requires land owner permission to verify. A large-format copy of the aeimagery with known stone fence locations was printed on glossy paper and provided to the City of FHills. While all linear signatures visible on aerial imagery are not necessarily stone fences, large formmaps of known stone fences overlaid on aerial imagery could be used to obtain community input and locate additional stone fence segments in the area.

Securing permission to survey stone fences on private property can be a time-c

rial orest

at

onsuming process. We were fortunate that Fletch and William Coke undertook the task of contacting landowners and explaining

e survey process. When identifying potential stone fence locations from aerial photos or further documenting known stone fence segments, using GIS to overlay the city’s spatial database of parcels on

can assist in targeting property owners to contact.

also be better identified in leaf-off conditions.

Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992:22-71) provide numerous examples of the range of construction types of stone fences and their relationships to function. Their research suggests that some fence construction patterns are regionally-specific. Middle Tennessee may also have regionally-specific stone fence construction patterns. For example, the stone structures built by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in the Nashville area during the early twentieth century may have stonework patterns that can be u fences. How is easier to d red by v

ical resource databases l database of stone fences is how to determine if a ted. The two other stone fence surveys in Middle

uggest that many stone fences in this area have been reconstructed making it difficult to determine the age of individual

may follow the same routes as the original fences, constructed fence segments.

identified in the scope of work without judging cted fence segments follows the same

th

aerial orthophotos

Fence conditions and construction patterns

Although the geospatial survey was not designed to be a condition assessment, digital photographs were taken to document the survey. Our photos illustrate that it would be better to photograph fence conditionsin leaf-off conditions rather than during the height of summer vegetation growth. Variations in stone fence construction techniques and patterns could

sed to interpret the ages of stoneever, examining fence patterns

o when the fences when are not obscuegetation.

Integration with historic and archaeologOne of the questions we encountered in creating a spatiaspecific fence segment is original or has been reconstrucTennessee (Allen 2001, Haynie 2000) sor repaired using stone from the original fences, fence segments in the field. While reconstructed fences considerable discussion was given to how to record re

We chose to map all stone fence segments that had beenindividual segments as “original” or “reconstructed.” If a reconstru

Stone fence obscured by vegetation


19

route as the original, the location conserves the original intent and meaning of the fence even if the segment has been rebuilt. A digital spatial database of fence locations allows the route of the fence to be evaluated using historic maps to inform interpretation rather than the condition of the fence.

As shown in this study, historic map analysis shows promise once digital images of original nineteenth and early twentieth-century maps become available through the Tennessee State Library and Archives or

o other providers. In addition, a digital layer of stone fences routes does not require the fence segments tbe categorized as archaeological sites or historic architectural structures, yet the fence locations can be overlaid and correlated with archaeological or historic structure locations to aid in interpretation.

Conclusions The objective of mapping stone fences in the City of Forest Hills, Tennessee using GPS was to develop a spatial database of stone fence locations that could be used in municipal land use and development planning as well as conservation of this landscape feature. Differentially-corrected GPS technology was used to map location coordinates with a high degree of accuracy. The precision of the GPS-collected data was verified using high resolution color aerial imagery. Thpossible locations of other stone fence remnants.

The geospatial survey mapped 21,960.06 linear feet (4.16 mincludes the previously-recorded segments inventoried in 2linear feet (1.15 miles) of stone fence segments including fena previously-unrecorded fence segment identified from colchecking. The GPS-mapped stone fences include over 11,2segments that do not appear on a fence and retaining wall Planning Commission.

To evaluate whether historic maps could be used to provideindicators of stone fence types for Middle Tennessee, the GPoverlaid on photocopies of the 1903 and 1932 Nashville, Tthat had been scanned and georeferenced. While georefereto this preliminary analysthe Forest Hills area could be useful in determining the ages of specific sections of stone fences,

terpreting function and developing chronological sequences of stone fence construction typologies.

stone wall

e

2.25 ) and

or07di tro

enn

oric topographic maps of

aerial imagery was also used to identify

iles) of stone fence segments. This total 001 (Allen 2001) plus an additional 6,08ces identified by Fletch Coke (Coke 2007 orthophoto imagery and verified by field- linear feet (2.12 miles) of stone fence

gital data layer provided by Nashville’s Me

contexts for developing chronological S-mapped stone fence segments were nessee U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles cing is best done with scans of original maps

is suggests that hist provide the best spatial accuracy,

in

Finally, a potential new stone wall or fence subtype was identified by the survey. The type ofbuilt along an intermittent tributary at 5906 Hillsboro Pike does not appear as a subtype in the stone wall and fence categories proposed by Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992). The stone fence along the drainage may represent a new subtype of early twentieth-century landscape element that can expand the Murray-Wooley and Raitz model.


20

Acknowledgements We extend our sincere thanks to Fletch Coke and Forest Hills Commissioner William Coke for contacting MTSU to conduct this study. The Cokes provided invaluable historical background, pointed out the

ne Hoyal at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Steve Rogers at the Tennessee Historical Commission

nd Dr. Wayne Moore and Marilyn Bell at the Tennessee State Library and Archives. Finally, we thank David Kline at Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Planning Commission for

l imagery and digital data layers for our analyses.

locations of stone fences, and provided many introductions to landowners. We are very grateful to the landowners for allowing us access to their property, and especially to the Cokes who spent countless hours contacting the property owners and obtaining permissions for us to map the stone walls.

We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Brad Blevins at Neel-Shaffer Engineers, Suzan

a

providing color aeria

References Cited Allen, Dan Sumner, IV

2001 A Survey of Stone Fences in the City of Forest Hills, Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County,

ee. Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, ies

in the Central Basin of Tennessee. Cumberland Research Group, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Submitted to the City of Forest Hills. Copies available from City of Forest Hills, Nashville, Tennessee.

Angst, Michael G.

2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey of West Harpeth Stream Restoration Project, Williamson County, TennessKnoxville. Submitted to the Tennessee Stream Mitigation Program, Nashville. Copavailable from the Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

City of Forest Hills

2007 Help City Identify Stone Walls. Forest Hills News 12(2):3. City of Forest Hills, Tennessee. Clayton, W. W. (W. Woodford)

1880 History of Davidson County, Tennessee: with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of its Prominent Men and Pioneers. J. W. Lewis & Co., Philadelphia.

Coke, Fletch

2007 Forest Hills/Stone Walls. Email from Fletch Coke to Tom Nolan dated January 5, 20o7.


21

Elder, Renee 2007 Williamson County Residents Keep History Alive Through Preservation and Celebration.

or

Williamson County Magazine, 2007-08 Edition, Williamson County Chamber of Commerce, Franklin, Tennessee. Electronic document, http://www.imageswilliamsoncounty.com/culture/Williamson_County_Residents_Keep_Histy_Alive_Through_Preservation_and_Celebration.php.

Foster, Wilbur F.

rt

2000 Stone Walls of the Old Natchez Trace Road Williamson County: A Pilot Project for Historic Preservation. Manuscript on file, Center for Historic Preservation, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro.

Karl Raitz 1992 Rock Fences of the Bluegrass. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Tac200 y 29,

nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=4082

1871 Map of Davidson County Tennessee, from Actual Surveys Made by Order of the County Couof Davidson County, 1871. Map. G.W. & C.B. Colton & Col., New York. Map available from Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

Haynie, Mary Allison

Murray-Wooley, Carolyn and

kett, Judith R. 1 Belle Meade Paying $60,000 to Restore Historic Stone Walls. The City Paper, Tuesday Ma2001, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic document http://www. .

ciates

ee. U. S. Ce

200 1 lectronic document,

Bureau FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov.

U. S1903 Nashville, Tennessee Quadrangle. Topographic map, 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Map

193 ic map, 1:625,000. Map available

from Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

ssee

West Meade Conservancy 2007 West Meade Conservancy. West Meade Conservancy, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic

document, www.westmeadeconservancy.org

Thomason and Asso2001 Historic Homes of Forest Hills: An Architectural Survey. The City of Forest Hills, Tenness

nsus Bureau 0 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File(SF-1) 100-Percent Data. Geographic Area: Forest Hills city, Tennessee. EU.S. Census

. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S)

available from Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

2 (reprinted 1943) Nashville, Tennessee Quadrangle. Topograph

1968 (PR1983) Oak Hill, Tennessee, 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle. Electronic document, Tenne

Spatial Data Server. http://www.tngis.org/doqq/drgs/k_through_o/, accessed June 2007.

.

gps mapping of stone fences · 2020. 4. 24. · during the summer of 2007, the staff of the r.o....

Documents