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

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.

i y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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

ii y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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

iii y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 Positioning System (GPS) technology to accurately record the locations of the stone fences in the field and converted the GPS data into a digital geospatial database. GIS technology was then used to overlay the stone fence location digital data layer on high resolution color aerial imagery to verify the accuracy of the GPS data collection and identify possible locations of other stone fence remnants. The stone fence locations were also overlaid on Figure 1. City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee historic maps to interpret relative age and function.

Background Dry-stacked limestone fences are common cultural landscape features along roadways, in pastures and 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 County, Tennessee) were, in fact, largely built by Irish and Scottish immigrants with slave labor providing assistance to the stonemasons.

1 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992:93-96) postulate that slaves working with Irish stonemasons in the mid- nineteenth century learned stone fence building techniques from the Irish and continued to practice the masonry trade after emancipation. Investigations of stone fences in Middle Tennessee (Allen 2001; 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 tradition locally. Stone fence damage and loss While stone fences are considered valuable assets in local Landscape Assets communities, these vestiges of Middle Tennessee’s historic landscape are, nonetheless, disappearing from the modern In publications and terrain. Residential and commercial developments involving advertisements, the stone land-clearing, road-widening and utility construction are walls of Middle Tennessee responsible for destroying or damaging many sections of extant are considered signature fences. Other stone fences, especially those situated on vacant features of the modern landscape that show strong lots, have fallen into disrepair or have been robbed of stone for ties to and respect for this other uses. Tree growth along older fences and windthrow also region’s past. damage 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. The City of Belle Meade, a small municipality in Davidson County, Tennessee has repaired portions of the dry-stacked stone fence once belonging to Belle Meade Farm (Belle Meade Plantation) (Tackett 2001). Sections of the Belle Meade fence are also being conserved in Nashville’s West Meade neighborhood where landowners are encouraged to establish conservation easements for their properties containing covenants against tearing down stone walls (West Meade Conservancy 2007). “…..even horses grazing beside stacked-stone walls Conservation efforts in Forest Hills demonstrate Williamson Concern about local attrition of stone fences was also the reason County’s close relationship that the City of Forest Hills commissioned an inventory of extant with the past.” stone fences in 2001 (Allen 2001). The 2001 study was limited Renee Elder Williamson County Magazine to stone fences along public streets and roads in Forest Hills. 2007-2008 online edition However, 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 layer that would accurately show the locations of known stone fences and integrate with other digital land 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.

2 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

Scope of work The scope of work for the present mapping project was to accurately record the locations of previously- inventoried stone fences in Forest Hills and create a geospatial data layer of the fence locations that would be compatible with ESRI’s ArcGIS software. Metadata (“data about the data”) would also be created and included 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 reported 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 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 for 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 approximately 4,700 residents (Thomason and Associates 2001; U. S. Census Bureau 2000). Functioning as a separate municipality in Nashville’s suburban ring, Forest Hill’s corporate boundaries extend south from Harding Place 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-southwest through the city. The city’s topography is characterized by prominent, steep hills dissected by Otter Creek which flows in a southwesterly direction through Forest Hills to the Little Harpeth River.

Literature review Although many Middle Tennesseans consider dry-stacked, or dry-laid, stone fences to be historic features, this category of cultural landscape 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 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-ground features. In Tennessee, the locations of stone fences reported to the Tennessee Division of Archaeology 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).

3 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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.

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). The following year, Dan Allen conducted a windshield survey of stone fences along major roadways in the City 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

4 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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, 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 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 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 feature coordinate 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 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 2001:4). Initially, the plan was to walk along the fence lines with the GPS unit and collect location coordinates as line data. However, after relocating the fence segments, we realized that the amount of vegetation cover along most of the fence sections would likely interfere with satellite reception and coordinate accuracy. Consequently, location coordinates were collected 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 could The MTSU geospatial survey team not be positioned immediately adjacent to a fence because of vegetation or other physical obstructions. In those cases, we positioned the antenna in a location providing a clear view of the sky and good satellite reception and programmed an offset into the GPS receiver based on a taped measurement and compass reading.

In the 2001 windshield survey of stone fences along the major roads in Forest Hills (Allen 2001), fences were assigned identification numbers ranging from FH001-FH016. When collecting the GPS location coordinates for previously-inventoried fence segments, the MTSU team entered the “FH number” that

5 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

had been assigned to the fence in the GPS unit’s “fence_id” data field. However, “FH numbers” were not assigned to newly-recorded fence segments unless the new segment was physically connected to a previously-inventoried segment.

We chose not to continue using the “FH number” designation because surveyor-assigned ID numbers may give 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 from the road and may not be part of the same fence construction episode.

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 from the original fences, making it difficult to determine the age of individual fence segments in the field. A photo in Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992:41) shows a turnpike fence abutting a boundary fence, illustrating that adjacent fence segments may have different Stone fence segments labelled “FH015” functions, constructions and ages.

The research by Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992) suggests that ages, origins and functions of individual fences segments are best assessed using historical records, deed research and landowner interviews. Since chronological indicators of stone fence types for Middle Tennessee have not been formalized, we determined that we could not reliably assign “FH numbers” to multiple fence segments. Instead, each individual fence segment is recorded as a separate feature and automatically assigned a unique feature number (FID number) in the geospatial database. Using GIS to overlay fence segments with digital 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 be related 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 to assess the precision of the data we had collected and evaluate our methods. The GPS location coordinates were in the form of point data representing the starting points, ending points and vertices of fence segments. Using ArcGIS software, we used the point data to digitize line features representing individual, contiguous 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). Orthophoto imagery has been rectified for feature displacement and spatial accuracy. Since each pixel in the orthophoto layer represents six inches on the ground, using a high-resolution base image allowed us to

6 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 to complete the geospatial survey. The end product, a digital spatial database of line features representing the individual fence segments, was formatted as an ArcGIS shapefile in ArcGIS using a NAD 1983 Tennessee State Plane FIPS 4100 (Feet) projected coordinate system. Lengths for individual fence segments were calculated using the “calculate geometry” feature of ArcGIS and included in the shapefile.

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. Metadata can be accessed by the user to determine who created the dataset and where, how, when and why it was created even if a written report is not available. The metadata for the Forest Hills GPS survey documented the dates and location of the survey, purpose, keywords, data quality, spatial references and contact organization for the dataset.

Results MTSU’s geospatial survey mapped a total of 21,960.06 linear feet (4.16 miles) of stone fence segments in Forest 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- unrecorded fence segment identified by field-checking a linear landscape signature visible on the color orthophotos.

Table 1 shows the lengths and street addresses of all fence segments mapped by the geospatial survey cross-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 digital fence line data 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 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) shows a total 17,300 linear feet (3.28 miles) of stone fence segments in Forest Hills along major roadways. However, 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 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.

7 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 accuracy verification, three linear landscape signatures were noticed on the orthophotos near known fence segments. To assess whether these signatures represented previously-unidentified stone fences, 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 inventory as “FH012.” A third feature on private property could not be field-checked but was shown to Forest Hills Commissioner William Coke during a project update presentation. The location of the stone fence segment 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

8 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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# FID# Fence Segment Address Length (ft) 2001 ID# 27 1600 Old Hickory Blvd 182.59 FH001 54 Richland Country Club 440.77 FH013 28 1600 Old Hickory Blvd 268.59 FH001 3 5401 Hillsboro Pk 196.63 FH014 1411 Chickering‐ 20 1138.40 FH002 4 5401 Hillsboro Pk 368.96 FH014 1358 Page Rd 5 5401 Hillsboro Pk 216.40 FH014 21 1326‐1358 Page Rd 612.65 FH002 33 5100 Stanford 232.82 FH015 22 1326 Page Rd 1006.39 FH002 34 5300 Hillsboro Pk 374.21 FH015 23 1500 Chickering 405.00 FH003 35 5330 Hillsboro Pk 188.50 FH015 24 1418‐1500 Chickering 232.61 FH003 36 5350 Hillsboro Pk 181.11 FH015 25 1416‐1418 Chickering 691.84 FH003 48 1645 Tyne Blvd 225.34 FH016 26 1410‐1414 Chickering 496.86 FH003 FH002‐ 19 1411 Chickering 918.57 18 4390 Chickering 1144.85 FH004 new FH010‐ 16 6251 Hillsboro Pk 209.47 FH005 12 5826 Hillsboro Pk 147.67 new 17 6251 Hillsboro Pk 32.78 FH005 FH012‐ 9 5627 Hillsboro Pk 699.36 14 6231 Hillsboro Pk 347.57 FH006 new FH013‐ 15 6231 Hillsboro Pk 173.32 FH006 55 Richland Co Club 1206.83 new 51 6231 Hillsboro Pk 1447.90 FH006 37 2400‐2408 Hemingway 593.94 New 40 6011‐6017 Hillsboro Pk 160.48 FH007 38 4516 Alcott 68.13 New 41 6005‐6011 Hillsboro Pk 427.04 FH007 39 4516 Alcott 157.31 New 42 6005 Hillsboro Pk 76.40 FH007 8 5800 Hillsboro Pk 135.43 New 43 5915 Hillsboro Pk 371.24 FH008 44 5906 Hillsboro Pk 256.43 New 29 5840‐5904 Hillsboro Pk 520.33 FH009 45 5906 Hillsboro Pk 493.05 New 30 5836‐5840 Hillsboro Pk 397.04 FH009 46 5906 Hillsboro Pk 234.19 New 31 5836 Hillsboro Pk 279.75 FH009 47 5906 Hillsboro Pk 103.32 New 32 5826 Hillsboro Pk 187.70 FH009 49 1623 Otter Creek Rd 405.27 New 10 5819 Hillsboro Pk 530.62 FH010 50 1623‐1625 Otter Creek Rd 209.19 New 11 5819 Hillsboro Pk 561.97 FH010 52 1958 Old Hickory Blvd 124.90 New 13 5819 Hillsboro Pk 791.28 FH010 53 1958 Old Hickory Blvd 328.66 New 0 5810 Hillsboro Pk 22.30 FH011

1 5810 Hillsboro Pk 282.47 FH011

2 5810 Hillsboro Pk 38.28 FH011 TOTAL MAPPED (Ft) 21960.06 6 5627 Hillsboro Pk 215.91 FH012 TOTAL NEW SEGMENTS (Ft) 6082.25 7 5627 Hillsboro Pk 199.44 FH012

9 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

Figure 4. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 stone fe nce invento ries. Forest Hills boundary and street datasets courtesy of Metropolitan Government o f Nashville and Davidson County Planning Commis sion.

Table2. Comparison of fence lengths derived from 2001 inv entory map with GPS-mapped leng ths

2001 map GPS‐mapped 2001 map GPS‐mapped 2001 ID# length (ft) length (ft) 2001 ID# length (ft) length (ft) FH001 600.00 451.18 FH009 300.00 1384.82 FH002 4200.00 2757.44 FH010 1200.00 1883.87 FH003 2200.00 1826.31 FH011 200.00 343.05 FH004 400.00 1144.85 FH012 500.00 415.35 FH005 700.00 242.25 FH013 1000.00 440.77 FH006 1200.00 1968.79 FH014 900.00 781.99 FH007 1000.00 663.92 FH015 1600.00 976.64 FH008 500.00 371.24 FH016 800.00 225.34 TOTAL (ft) 17300.00 15877.81

10 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

Stone fence segment identified from aerial photo

Potential Stone Fence

Figure 5. E xample of potential and verified stone fence locations from aerial photos. Color orthophoto base map source: M etropolitan Governme nt of Nashville and Davidson Cou nty Planning Commission.

Comparison of results with Metro Planning Commission fence inventory The data layers provided to M TSU by the Metr o Planning C ommission included a d igital dataset for retainin g walls and fences in Forest Hills. The dataset includes locations and length s for the retainin g walls and fences but does no t characterize the features by construction materials(e.g. stone, wood or brick) or construction date. A map overlaying the locations of the GPS-mapped ston e fences (walls) o n the Metro fence data is shown in Figure 6. Analysis of this map suggests that over 11,207 linear feet (2.12 miles) of stone fences mapp ed by the GPS survey are not included in the Metro wall and fence data fil e.

11 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 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 overlaid on 1903 and 1932 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles for Nashville. Using GIS, the topographic maps were spatially georeferenced using physiographic features that are unlikely to change through time. Since 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 the utility of the method rather than an accurate evaluation of potential spatial locations. The results are shown in Figures 7 and 8.

12 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

Page Rd

6231 Hillsboro

Richland CC 1958 OHB

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.

Page Rd

6231 Hillsboro

Richland CC 1958 OHB

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.

13 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 the 2007 survey at 1958 Old Hickory Boulevard (1958 OHB) follow the route of Vaughan’s Gap Road on the 1932 map but do not correlate with roadway features on the 1903 map. Likewise, a stone wall segment 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 accuracy. However, 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 Stone fence remnant at 1958 Old Hickory Boulevard fence construction typologies. Stone fence types The stone fences in the 2001 inventory list were categorized as “plantation,” “turnpike” or “late nineteenth/early twentieth century (Allen 2001:13) following the Murray-Wooley and Raitz model of dry- stacked stone fence functional types. (1992: 73-83, 134-138). The scope of our geospatial survey did not include re-evaluating the cate gories assigned to specific stone fences. Murray-Wooley and Raitz’s research (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 images 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 applicable for interpreting stone fences in the Forest Hills area.

For example, a nineteenth-century drawing of the Henry W. Compton estate (reproduced in Historic Homes of Forest Hills [Thomason and Associates 2001:15] from Clayton’s 1880 History of Davidson County) shows both enclosure and road frontage stone fences, including a stone fence around a cemetery. The location of the Henry W. Compton estate is shown west of Hillsboro Road on Wilbur Foster’s 1871 Map of Davidson County. Hillsboro Road was develo ped as an improved turnpike in the mid-nineteenth century (Thomason and Associates 2001:16).

Clayton’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 Associates 2001:14), also shows a stone fence surrounding a cemetery. Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992) categorize cemetery fences as boundary types which includes “plantation-era” property boundaries, livestock enclosures and internal farm division fences. The Compton Cemetery still exists at 1645 Tyne,

14 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 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 Forest Hills since the 2001 stone fence inventory reports that stone walls have been built along Otter Creek (Allen 2001:10).

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.

15 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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

16 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 Newly-built Stone Fences In the process of verifying the accuracy of the GPS data using high-resolution color aerial photography, we In Forest Hills as well as in other printed a large format (34” x 44”) map on glossy photo communities in Middle Tennessee, new paper. We quickly realized that while the computer stone fences are being built that mimic th monitor was useful to zoom in to check the spatial the fence styles of the 19 and early 20th centuries. 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 sign ature represented a previously undocumented fence. The third signature is

17 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

located on private property and requires land owner permission to verify. A large-format copy of the aerial imagery with known stone fence locations was printed on glossy paper and provided to the City of Forest Hills. While all linear signatures visible on aerial imagery are not necessarily stone fences, large format maps 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-consuming process. We were fortunate that Fletch and William Coke undertook the task of contacting landowners and explaining the 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 aerial orthophotos can assist in targeting property owners to contact.

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 conditions in leaf-off conditions rather than during the height of summer vegetation growth. Variations in stone fence construction techniques and patterns could 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 used to interpret the ages of stone fences. However, examining fence patterns is easier to do when the fences when are not obscured Stone fence obscured by vegetation by vegetation.

Integration with historic and archaeological resource databases One of the questions we encountered in creating a spatial database of stone fences is how to determine if a specific fence segment is original or has been reconstructed. The two other stone fence surveys in Middle Tennessee (Allen 2001, Haynie 2000) suggest that many stone fences in this area have been reconstructed or repaired using stone from the original fences, making it difficult to determine the age of individual fence segments in the field. While reconstructed fences may follow the same routes as the original fences, considerable discussion was given to how to record reconstructed fence segments.

We chose to map all stone fence segments that had been identified in the scope of work without judging individual segments as “original” or “reconstructed.” If a reconstructed fence segments follows the same

18 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 other providers. In addition, a digital layer of stone fences routes does not require the fence segments to be 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. 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 including fences identified by Fletch Coke (Coke 2007) and a previously-unrecorded fence segment 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 Metro Planning Commission.

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 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 the best 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). 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.

19 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

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 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, Suzanne Hoyal at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Steve Rogers at the Tennessee Historical Commission and 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 providing color aerial imagery and digital data layers for our analyses.

References Cited

Allen, Dan Sumner, IV 2001 A Survey of Stone Fences in the City of Forest Hills, Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, 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, Tennessee. Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Submitted to the Tennessee Stream Mitigation Program, Nashville. Copies available 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.

20 y

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills

Elder, Renee 2007 Williamson County Residents Keep History Alive Through Preservation and Celebration. Williamson County Magazine, 2007-08 Edition, Williamson County Chamber of Commerce, Franklin, Tennessee. Electronic document, http://www.imageswilliamsoncounty.com/culture/Williamson_County_Residents_Keep_Histor y_Alive_Through_Preservation_and_Celebration.php.

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

Haynie, Mary Allison 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.

Murray-Wooley, Carolyn and Karl Raitz 1992 Rock Fences of the Bluegrass. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Tackett, Judith R. 2001 Belle Meade Paying $60,000 to Restore Historic Stone Walls. The City Paper, Tuesday May 29, 2001, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic document http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=4082.

Thomason and Associates 2001 Historic Homes of Forest Hills: An Architectural Survey. The City of Forest Hills, Tennessee.

U. S. Census Bureau 2000 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF-1) 100-Percent Data. Geographic Area: Forest Hills city, Tennessee. Electronic document, U.S. Census Bureau FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov.

U. S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S) 1903 Nashville, Tennessee Quadrangle. Topographic map, 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Map available from Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

1932 (reprinted 1943) Nashville, Tennessee Quadrangle. Topographic map, 1:625,000. Map available from Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

1968 (PR1983) Oak Hill, Tennessee, 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle. Electronic document, Tennessee Spatial Data Server. http://www.tngis.org/doqq/drgs/k_through_o/, accessed June 2007.

West Meade Conservancy 2007 West Meade Conservancy. West Meade Conservancy, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic document, www.westmeadeconservancy.org.

21 y