Creating Contexts and Using Multiple Property Documentation Forms
1. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Creating Contexts
and
Using Multiple Property
Documentation Forms
3-4PM
Bureau for Historic Preservation
2. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Context
Information and perspective about related properties
organized by theme, place, and time
Required for both our Resource Survey Forms and
National Register nominations
Establishes the framework for evaluating
significance
NPS White Papers— Evaluating Common Resources &
Components of a Historic Context
are available to supplement the NR
Bulletins and our Guidance
Bureau for Historic Preservation
3. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
History Context
Statement of Significance Context
Context supplements an individual history, supports
the statement of significance, gives us the
perspective we need to assess if something is
important
•Explains role of individual property in relationship to
broad historic trends, drawing on specific facts
about the property and its community
•Briefly describes the prehistory/history of the community
as it directly relates—stays concise, relevant
•Shows us what types of resources should be found to
reflect trends and community, how this compares
Bureau for Historic Preservation
5. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Multiple Property Documentation Forms
Bureau for Historic Preservation
6. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Some Existing BHP Contexts and MPDFs
•Adams County Properties Associated with the Battle of Gettysburg
•African American Churches of Philadelphia, 1787-1949
•Agricultural Resources of Pennsylvania, c.1700-1960
•Allegheny County Owned River Bridges
•Allegheny River Navigation System
•Aluminum Industry Resources of SW PA
•Bituminous Coal and Coke Resources of PA
•Civil War Era National Cemeteries
•Covered Bridges (for 22+ Counties)
•Emergency Conservation Work in PA State Parks: 1933-1942
•Four Public Squares of Philadelphia
•Highway Bridges Owned by PA Department of Transportation
•Historic Educational Resources of PA
•Industrial Resources of Huntingdon County, 1780-1939
•Iron & Steel Resources of PA
Bureau for Historic Preservation
8. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Lake Erie Fruit &
Vegetable Belt Potter County Potato &
Cannery Crops
Northwestern
Woodland, Allegheny
Grassland & Northern Tier Grasslands
Specialized Mountain
Plateau
Diversified North & West Branch
Susquehanna River Pocono Resort &
& Part-Time Diversified Anthracite Coal
Diversified
Farming
Central
Southwestern Limestone
Diversified & Valleys
Sheep
Adams County
Fruit Belt
Bureau for Historic Preservation
10. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Ag Context Contents
•Intro/User Guide
•Agriculture in the Settlement Period (c.1700-c.1840)
•Specific Region Descriptions
•Property Types & Registration Requirements
•Bibliography & Resources
Within Each Regional Chapter
•Location
•Climate, Soils & Topography
•Period Overviews (c.1840-1960)
Products
Labor & Land Tenure
Buildings & Landscapes
Bureau for Historic Preservation
11. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Allegheny
Mountain
Plateau
Diversified
& Part-Time
Farming
Bureau for Historic Preservation
12. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Centre County farm Crops, 1880, ten percent sample. Average farm size 133 acres, 77 tilled
1400
Farm Livestock by Region, 1880 bushels rye per farm
bushels buckwheat per farm
bushels potatoes per farm
1200 90 bushels wheat per farm
80 bushels oats per farm
bushels corn per farm
1000 70
60
Number
800 50
40 Poultry
600 30 Sw ine
20 Sheep
400 Steers
10
0 Milk Cow s
200
Horses
a
h
er
y
n
y
ni
nc
nt
ai
le
Ti
va
ou
nt
ra
al
rn
yl
ou
tB
V
C
he
ns
e
M
0
r
es
eg n
te
n rt
r n
gr sto
t y
t
oo o
tte e
rW
pa en
Po
P
y
ia
ty
n
oe
or
d
er
n
de
g
n
tr F lege
nn
s
ghles
g
th
m on
or s
sh
n
s
r
lfm N
ke
nt
ri
gg
ne
io
to
o
io
rin
a/
an
er
e
or
yl
nn
twh
r
ru
si
sh
st
pe
Li gus
lle mi
ou
ar
un
al
ha
po
ta
ai
bo
lib
sp
w
rn
lv
l
hu
be
co
ho
w
m
H
C
ow
sy
bu
al er
ha
tre
nn
N
sn
en
A
Pe
C
en
C
Bureau for Historic Preservation
14. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Knees Farm, Clearfield County,
FSA/OWI photo, 1940, Library of
Congress. Jack Delano,
photographer. Digital ID fsa
8c02939 .
Bureau for Historic Preservation
15. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Schrot Family Farm
Lawrence Township, Clearfield County
c.1896
Bureau for Historic Preservation
22. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Allegheny Mountains Plateau Diversified Part-time Farming Region
1830-1850: Farming & Small-scale Industry
Products—sparsely settled; lacked
easy access to markets; extractive
industries dominated; acreage mostly
wooded
Labor & Land Tenure—farms often
part-time; women & children
responsible for much farm labor;
tenancy rates low; neighbors
exchanged services, work, goods
Buildings & Landscape—primary
building material wood; modest
buildings; few early outbuildings
remain
Bureau for Historic Preservation
23. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Allegheny Mountains Plateau Diversified Part-time Farming Region
1850-1920: Farming & Large-scale Industry
Products—diversified; farm size varies/
improved land increasing; livestock
holding steady; low mechanization.
Labor & Land Tenure—industrialization
of lumbering; rise of coal mining;
charcoal production continues;
corresponding family labor or neighbor
participation; tenancy rates low.
Buildings & Landscapes—balloon
framing & manufactured brick
replacing log & plank; houses still small,
additions more common than new;
barns more modest than other regions;
typical outbuildings; fields small and
square-ish, woodlots prominent.
Bureau for Historic Preservation
26. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Allegheny Mountains Plateau Diversified Part-time Farming Region
1920-1960: Allegheny Mountain Industrial Regions
Products: Subsistence level; cropland
emphasis on hay
Labor & Land Tenure: Part-time
farming accounts for 18% of family
income; relatively unmechanized;
conveniences more common; more
southern/eastern European
immigrants
Buildings & Landscapes: small plots;
multi-purpose buildings; similar
construction and modest
appearance; intertwining with
industry
Bureau for Historic Preservation
28. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Joe Schrot, RD 4, Clearfield
Owner
2 males age 10 or older
3 females age 10 or older
17 acres total
10 acres in crops, all in “other tame hay”
50 apple trees, 4 peach trees, 5 pear trees
1 milk cow, 2 swine, 35 laying hens and 15 other chickens
Furnace, automobile, telephone, electricity from power station
Bureau for Historic Preservation
29. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
farm cows milk cows other sows & other sheep pullets chickens bee hives
animals cattle breeding swine
gilts
# animals 618 705 201 102 913 75 8287 6017 155
Figure #12
1927: Lawrence Township - Kind and Number of Farm Animals (1927, Records of the Department of Agriculture
Division of Crop Reporting Farm Census Returns, Clearfield County)
Bureau for Historic Preservation
30. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
# of fruit trees/ farm 1 - 5 trees 6 - 10 trees 11 - 20 trees 21 - 30 trees 31 - 50 trees over 50 trees
bearing apple/ farm 17 16 12 1 1 1
peach/ farm 9 1 1 1 1 1
pear/ farm 28 5 2 1 0 0
Schrot Farm bearing apple 0 0 0 0 1 0
Schrot Farm pear 1 0 0 0 0 0
Schrot Farm peach 1 0 0 0 0 0
Figure #11
1927: Lawrence Township - Kind and Number of Fruit Trees Planted (1927, Records of the Department of Agriculture
Division of Crop Reporting Farm Census Returns, Clearfield County)
Bureau for Historic Preservation
36. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Buildingsthis an important example multi-purpose, reflect history of
Is are modest, frame, some of farming trends in the
Landscape reflects field patterns, products,
products and livestock, gender for a small portion of family income
Diversified; farmingPlateau Diversified & Part-time Region? level of
Allegheny only accounts roles/labor patterns and
woodlots, orchards
mechanization Bureau for Historic Preservation
37. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
A context should help us understand
how a property fits into the bigger
picture, and provide us with the
information we need to assess if it is
an important example of a specific
type of resource within a specific
place and time.
Bureau for Historic Preservation
38. Cultural Resources Essentials 2012
Best Practices
Best Practice Recommendations:
•Current aerial views, close-up and surrounding area
•Historic aerial views, ditto, and circle the subject property
•“Relationship” photos
•Specific references to existing contexts, and how this
“fits” or doesn’t
•Concise summaries
•Focus the history & context on what’s relevant
•Continue the history/use up to present-day (briefly)
•Census data for specific property, and how it measures
up to township/compares to surrounding farms
•Summary of similar properties nearby
•Could the property be eligible for other reasons?
Bureau for Historic Preservation
42. A. Pennsylvania Railroad: Schuylkill Valley Branch
(West Philadelphia to New Boston Junction)
B. Bangor & Portland Railroad (Ackermanville segment)
43. B. Bangor & Portland Railroad (Ackermanville segment)
44. A. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad: Pittsburgh Division (Maryland line to city of Pittsburgh)
B. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad: Philadelphia Branch (Philadelphia to Delaware State Line)
56. Lancaster, PA 1910
The issues involved in addressing urban
renewal projects are hardly new. The
underlying challenge is to approach the
task with an open mind, checking one’s
assumptions at the door as it were, and
acquiring a strong base of knowledge of
pertinent source material. The widespread
prejudices against urban renewal and
much of the legacy of the second half of
the 20th century generally must be set
aside in order to assess the real
significance of such initiatives. Our cities
and towns changed dramatically during the
postwar era, and we can ill afford to
dismiss those transformations out of hand.
Richard Longstreth
Lancaster, PA 1971 The Difficult Legacy of Urban Renewal
57. “Plans for Downtown Renaissance” ca 1950 – Model of downtown Pittsburgh showing proposals for Point State
Park, the Manchester and Point Bridges, Gateway Center, the ALCOA Building and Crosstown Boulevard
Courtesy of Paul Slantis Photograph Collection, Historic Pittsburgh Image Collection
58. Thousands of people who were formerly
the victims of scurrilous, profit-greedy
landlords, that provided dwellings of the
most dilapidated sub-standard grade, many
being potential fire traps and breeding
places for diseases, now live, laugh, and are
happier with a new lease on life in the
clean, modern, and healthful surroundings
of the Raymond Rosen Projects.
Lloyd King
Philadelphia Tribune, July 30, 1955
Immigrants and Suburbs:
Growth and Distribution in
Greater Philadelphia, 1970-
2000: A Tract-Level Analysis
Philadelphia - Modern Design
Thematic Historic Context 1945-1980
(Malcolm Clendenin, PhD)
64. DERAILED
• No consistency in naming resources
– Baltimore and Ohio (Philadelphia Branch)
– B&O Rr
– Branch of the Balt.&Ohio RR
• Resource type unclear
– A bridge
– A station
– A segment of right of way (ROW)
• New naming standardization
– Baltimore & Ohio Railroad: Philadelphia Branch: trestle
– Baltimore & Ohio Railroad: Station (Connellsville)
– Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (West Homestead to Pittsburgh)
Bureau for Historic Preservation
65. DERAILED
• NO consistency with resource types
– Stations recorded as structures, sites, and objects
• New resource standardization
– Stations – buildings
– Bridges – structures
– Right of Ways – districts
– Yards – districts
– Tunnels – structures
Bureau for Historic Preservation
66. DERAILED
• NO consistency in recording “historic function”
• Engine House
– Historic Function:
• Domestic
– Historic Sub-function and Particular Use:
• Single Dwelling, Engine House
• ALL railroad resources should at least have
„Transportation: Rail-Related‟ as the Historic Function
and Sub-function
Bureau for Historic Preservation
67. DERAILED
• NO way of linking a railroad‟s “associated resources”
• Key# 086386 Lehigh Valley Railroad: Station (Bethlehem)
• Key# 078945 Lehigh Valley Railroad: Station (Sayre)
Bureau for Historic Preservation
68. Key# 102978
Pennsylvania Schuylkill Valley Railroad
(Muhlenberg to Hamburg)
Berks
Montgomery
Key# 124898
Pennsylvania Schuylkill Valley Railroad
(Plymouth Twp. To Norristown)
69.
70.
71.
72. Central Railroad of New Jersey
Lehigh Valley Railroad Key# 155754
Key# 156109
Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad
Key# 156193
Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad
Cumberland Valley Railroad
Monongahela RailwayKey# 156194
Key# 155448
Philadelphia &156260
Key# Columbia Railroad
Bessemer & Lake ErieWestern New York & Pennsylvania Railway
Railroad
Philadelphia & Erie Railroad 156141 156895
Key# Key#
Key# 155731
Key# 155661
73.
74. TRACKS AHEAD
• Continue to “clean up” database entries
– Naming standardization, historic function, etc.
• Continue researching and mapping “aggregate files”
• Map unmapped, previously surveyed railroad resources
• Apply “Aggregate File” blueprint to historic roads and
waterways
Bureau for Historic Preservation
We’ve gone over “Context” development in previous CRE training sessions, so today my part of this presentation is going to focus more on “best practices” for actually applying the context statements, and MPDFs, we already have. Before we get to those examples, for the new folks in the room that aren’t familiar with our jargon, let’s go over a few things quickly.
What is a context and how is it used? We expect all Resource Survey Forms to provide us with some context to help us evaluate whether a resource is eligible for the NR and then even more context in the NR nom itself.From Barbara Wyatt’s paper: “The evaluation of properties for National Register eligibility involves an assessment of the significance of a property in terms of the history of the relevant geographical area, the history of associated historical themes or subjects, and within an historical and contemporary time frame—in other words, its context. The context in a listed MPDF should not be repeated in related nominations, although salient aspects should be summarized. Because the MPDF is considered the model for context development, this paper may seem like instructions for that form. In fact, individual nominations not related to an MPDF should contain a context that is essentially a microcosm of an MPDF context. Historic contexts should be considered a summary document, not a thesis. They should present relevant information, and avoid extraneous information. The author needs to evaluate what is relevant and understand that mere length does not lend credence to a subject.”
Visit our website for the entire list of contexts to date; some are available to view online, others can be requested from our office.
Some chapters of the Agricultural Context are available now through our website, others are being completed and will be available later this year.
These are the regions/chapters completed so far.
They are based on recent fieldwork, geographic regions, and historic data.
The overall document includes an Intro & User’s Guide; a chapter about Pennsylvania’s agriculture during the settlement period (there wasn’t much variety at that time); chapters about each of the identified regions; property types and registration requirements; and a bibliography.Each regional chapter is divided into subheadings that follow this format: a description of the location (counties included within), the physical distinctions that create the region, and period overviews (usually three periods) that extend from the end of the settlement period up to 1960. The Period Overviews describe trends in products; labor, tenancy, and gender roles; buildings and landscapes.
We’re going to look more closely at this region, and one particular farm.
The context chapter for the Allegheny Plateau provides an overview of the trends typically found here, and will include some charts and tabulations.
It will also include historic and current images of the typical (and not-so typical) types of buildings found within the region.
Materials were drawn from local historical societies, county ag extension offices, and other sources—especially helpful for some regions were the FSA, WPA, and other program documentation efforts that can be found online through the Library of Congress’s website.
The Schrot Farm is within the region. The family has a wealth of documentation, which we seldom ever are lucky enough to have available in our “regular” projects. But even without their private family records, other information that can be found locally or online is often enough to give us an understanding of how a property fits into the larger context. Schrot Farm Overview:
We really appreciate current aerial views, taken from some distance for perspective . . . . . (potential for district? Setting?) . . . . . .
As well as close-ups. These aerial photos can be used to help define property boundaries.
And they can also sometimes show great detail. Even in areas where “birds-eye” views aren’t available, we can still see truck patches or large vegetable plots, evidence of a farm lane, orchard remnants, the relationship of the house to the outbuildings . . . .
Site plans should also note landscape features, as well as buildings.
For farms and large resources, it’s often helpful to provide inset or close-up plans so that details are easier to read.
So let’s talk about the region quickly, and see how the Schrot farm fits.
To read the chapter covering the Allegheny Mountains Plateau Region, visit our website.
standard PA barn & variants, three-gable barn, basement barn, & English barn;
http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/Penn Pilot, a project sponsored by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, is an online library of digital historical aerial photography for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Using the interactive map provided on this website, you can browse, view, and download thousands of photos covering the Commonwealth from 1937 to 1942 and 1967 to 1972. The photos were produced by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration (now known as the Farm Service Agency).
See the BHP Railroads of Pennsylvania Guidelines http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/research_tools/20176/guidelines_for_documenting_and_evaluating_railroads/943356
