HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-02-1995 - IX-F t
1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 2, 1995
Agenda Abstract
Item #_=-F
SUBJECT: HP-1-95 ALEXANDER HOGAN PLANTATION SITE NATIONAL REGISTER
NOMINATION
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Don Belk X2594
(1) Letters to Moses Carey and Don Belk from the Planner EVSpecial Projects
State Historic Preservation Office
(2) National Register of Historic Places Registration Form PHONE NUMBERS:
(3) National Register Fact Sheets Hillsborough
(4) Notice of Public H 732-8181
Hearing Mebane 227-2031
(5) Minutes from the Public Hearing Durham 688-7331
(6) Statement from Duke University to the Historic Chapel Hill 967-9251
Preservation Commission
(7) Historic Preservation Commission Comments and Recommendation
PURPOSE: To consider the nomination of the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site to the
National Register of Historic Places and to make comments to the State Historic
Preservation Office.
BACKGROUND: Orange County has been designated as a Certified Local Government under
provisions and standards of the National Historic Preservation Amendments Act
of 1980 and the corresponding regulations (36 CFR 61.5 and 61.7). These rules
contain the legal basis of for the federal-state-local preservation partnership. As
a CLG, Orange County is responsible for the review and approval of National
Register nominations of properties within its jurisdiction. Review and comment
of the National Register nomination must be completed within sixty (60) days of
the nomination's submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Failure to provide comments within the specified 60-day period constitutes
approval of the nomination. Furthermore, the CLG's Historic Preservation
Commission is required to hold a public hearing on the nomination. (See
Attachment 1).
The National Register of Historic Places Registration Form is provided as
Attachment 2. The nominated property,the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site,is
located in Chapel Hill Township within the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest.
The tract lies on the north side of Eubanks Road (SR 1717) at the junction of
Eubanks and Rogers Road (SR 1729). The tract is approximately 12.4 acres and
is currently zoned Rural Buffer.
Located on the property are stone foundations that have been identified as the
location of the main house. A cemetery, believed to contain 24 graves, has also
been identified on the site.
2 j
Attachment 3 contains National Register Fact Sheets that explain the National
Register process. Fact Sheet#2 discusses how National Register nominations are
evaluated based on the following criteria:
A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components lack individual distinction.
D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
According to the authors of the nomination,the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site
qualifies for listing on the National Register under Criterion D. The Hogan
plantation represents an example of a small nineteenth-century North Carolina
Piedmont plantation that spanned the antebellum and postbellum occupation of
Orange County. The site contains well-preserved archeological data including
structural remains, artifact assemblages, and a cemetery that would contribute
significantly to our understanding of the daily life of its occupants. The site has
additional anthropological significance,with potential to address questions dealing
with slavery and plantation social structure. The site could make a valuable
contribution to the field of plantation archeology.
During the review period, the Planning Staff solicited comments from interested
agencies or groups. Because the property is located within a site being considered
for a future landfill to serve the county and its municipalities,the Landfill Owners
Group,Orange County Public Works,and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
were notified of the public hearing.
Listing on the National Register of Historic Places imposes no restrictions on
property owners; however, it does offer a degree of protection by ensuring a
review of federally-funded projects to determine if they pose adverse impacts to
National Register sites. This requirement is described in Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. Similarly, North Carolina law (General
Statutes Sec. 121-12a) provides for consideration of National Register sites in
state-funded or state-licensed projects.
If the proposed site within the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest is selected for
a landfill, and the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site is listed on the National
Register,then the Section 106 review process would be initiated when the landfill
owner applies for State permits required to construct and operate the landfill.
The Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on nomination on
September 12. The Commission found that the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site
does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(See Attachments 4-7). The Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation
will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office.
3
The Board of Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission must
separately notify the State and the property owners of their recommendations by
October 11, 1995. The nomination will be presented to the North Carolina
National Register Advisory Committee on October 12, 1995. The Committee's
recommendation will then be forwarded to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
4
• `r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hint, Jr.. Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary WiWarn S. Price, Jr., Director
August 11 , 1995
. Mr. Moses Carey, Chair
Orange Co. Board of Commissioners
901 Lystra Lane
Chapel Hill , N . C. 27516
Re: Alexander Hogan Plantation Site, 31OR296**
Blackwood Division , Duke Forest, Orange County
Dear Chairman Carey:
We are pleased to inform you that the above-referenced archaeological
site nomination has been scheduled for presentation to the National
Register Advisory Committee at its meeting on October 11 , 1995 in
Raleigh. The Committee will decide whether to authorize me as State
Historic Preservation Officer to sign the nomination and submit it to
the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, for final
review and listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
The National Register is the nation's official list of historic
buildings, districts, archaeological sites, and other resources worthy
of preservation. Enclosed is a set of National Register Fact Sheets
which includes a list of the criteria under which properties are
evaluated. More than 1800 North Carolina properties are now listed in
the. National Register.
Listing in the National Register does not affect the rights of a
private property owner to dispose of listed property in any manner:
The results of National Register listing are enumerated on the
enclosed National Register Fact Sheet 1 .
Owners of private property nominated to the National Register have an
opportunity to concur in or object to listing in accord with the
National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 60 . The procedure for
objecting to the listing of private property is indicated on National
Register Fact Sheet 5 . If the owner of the property chooses to object
to the listing of their property, the objection must be submitted to
me at 109 E. Jones Street. We would like to receive owners' comments
by October 11 , 1995 , but statements may be submitted up until the
actual date of listing , which usually takes place at least 15 days but
not more than 45 days after the nomination is received by the Keeper
of the National Register following the National Register Advisory
Committee meeting.
109 East Joora Smd - Raleigh,Noah Carolina 27601-2807
5
Chairman Carey, August 11 . 1995
Page Two
If you wish to comment on whether the archaeological site should be
nominated to the National Register, please send your comments to me at
the address indicated on National Register Fact Sheet 5 . Copies of
the nomination and information on the National Register and Federal
tax benefits for historic properties are available from the above
address upon request. For your information , a copy of the
notification letter to the property owner is enclosed .
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J . Crow
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
enclosures
cc: 'Donald Belk, Orange County
Historic Preservation Commission
6
K ✓•A
V
Sip..
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Bed, Ray McCain, secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
August 11 , 1995
Mr. Donald Belk
Orange County Historic Preservation Commission
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, N . C. 27278
Re: Alexander Hogan Plantation Site ( 31OR296**) ,
Blackwood Division, Duke Forest, Orange Co.
Dear Mr. Belk:
Enclosed is a copy of the above-mentioned National Register nomination
which is scheduled for presentation to the National Register Advisory
Committee on October 12 , 1995 . The owner of property, Duke Forest,
has been notified by individual letter. A copy of that letter is
included for your information .
As a Certified Local Government, you have sixty ( 60) days in which to
comment on the proposed nomination. If you do not respond by October
11 , 1995 on the proposed amendment, approval of it will be assumed .
Please note that, according to the certification agreement signed with
this office, you are to provide an opportuity for public comment on
this nomination according to the terms specified in the agreement. A
copy of this notice should be forwarded to our office along with any
comments you wish to make on the nomination to satisfy federal and
state requirements.
Please use the enclosed form to send us your response.
If you have any questions concerning this nomination, please contact
Dolores A. Hall at (919 ) 733-7342 .
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J Crow
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
enclosures
cc: Moses Cary, Chair
Orange Co. Bd . of Comm.
109 Fast Joan Street • Raleigb, North Carolina 276012807
7
In order to fulfill the required comment procedures, please complete
the information below and the appropriate comment paragraph which is
attached after you have reviewed the nomination . This information
should be returned to the National Register Coordinator. Office of
State Archaeology , 109 E . Jones Street, Raleigh , N . C. 27601-2807 .
COMMENTS ARE DUE TO THIS OFFICE BY OCTOBER 11 , 1995 .
1 . Name of Certified Local Government:
2. Name of CLG Commission:
3. Property being reviewed for nomination:
Alexander Hogan Plantation Site, 31OR296**
4. Please attach documentation of the measures taken to provide for
public comment during the nomination review and a record of any
comments received , as per your certification agreement with the State
Historic Preservation Office.
5 . In approving local governments for certification, the SHPO may
have stipulated that the Commission obtain the services of
professional historians, architectural historians, or archaeologists
when reviewing National Register nominations, if those disciplines are
not represented in the Commission memnbership. If this stipulation
applies to you, please note the name of the professional you consulted
below and his/her appropriate field. If you have any questions about
the applicability of this stipulation to your commission, contact the
Preservation Planner at the State Historic Preservation Office, ( 919 )
733-6545 .
8
CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER
The federal and state guidelines for the Certified Local Government Program
require that CLGs participate in the process of nominating properties to the
National Register of Historic Places. This participation involves the review
of nominations within the jurisdiction of the CLG by the CLG Commission and
the chief elected local official. Opportunity for public comment must be
provided during the 60 day comment period. The commission and chief elected
official are required to submit comments to the State Historic Preservation
Office and to the owner of the property relaying their findings as to the
eligibility of the property under consideration for listing in the National
Register. The attached forms are provided for you to facilitate your review
of nominations and your submittal of comments to the State Historic
Preservation Office. A copy of the criteria for listing in the National
Register is also enclosed for your reference and use.
Although the federal regulations governing the CLG program call for the chief
elected local official to provide comments on proposed National Register
nominations within the CLG jurisdiction, North Carolina law stipulates that
the mayor or chairman of the board of county commissioners may act only in an
administrative capacity on behalf of the local governing board. If a
certified local government has doubts about the legality of the chief elected
official assuming sole responsibility for comments on proposed National
Register nominations, it may wish to consider two alternatives: 1) having the
governing board review the nominations or 2) having the governing board pass a
resolution granting the chief elected local official the authority to furnish
comments on behalf of the governing board.
**The CLG Commission should complete one of the following comment paragraphs:
9
A. We, the , have reviewed and discussed the
(CLG Commission)
nomination for the and find that the property
(name of property)
meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places as stated in Section 8 of the report. We, therefore, recommend
that the property be submitted for listing in the Register.
Additional comments:
Commission chairman's signature and date
B. We, the have reviewed and discussed the
(CLG Commission)
nomination for the and find that the
(name of property)
property does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places as stated in Section 8 of the report. We, therefore,
do not recommend that the property be submitted for listing in the
Register. The reasons for our findings concerning this nomination are
stated below (use additional sheet if necessary) :
Commission chairman's signature and date
**The Chief Elected Local Official or the Local Governing Board should 10
complete one of the following comment paragraphs:
C. I, the , or We, the
(Chief Elected Local Official) (Local Governing Board)
reviewed the nomination for the and find that
(name of property)
the property meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places as stated in Section 8 of the report. I, or We,
therefore, recommend that the property be submitted for listing in the
Register.
Additional comments:
Chief Elected Official's signature and date
D. I, the or We, the
(Chief Elected Local Official) (Local Governing Board)
have reviewed the nomination for the and find
(name of property)
that the property does not meet the criteria for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places as stated in Section 8 of the report. I, or.
We, therefore, do not recommend that the property be submitted for listing
in the Register. The reasons for my (or our) findings concerning this
nomination are stated below (use additional sheet if necessary) :
Chief Elected Official's signature and date
NP5 Form 10-900
(Oct. 1990) OMB No. 10024-nn'B
United States Department of the Interior
11
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or
by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions,
architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional
entries and narrative items on continuation sheets(NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
1. Name of Property
historic name Alexander Hogan Plantation
other names/site number_31nP?9r,
2. Location
street & number N _p f Fi i h;;nos R ri (';R 1 7?7 R R v a r c R ri (,-;R . 1 7?9)® not for publication
JCt .
city or town . r In a n a l H i 1 1 E vicinity
state Nnrf-h rnrnli na code SIC— county nrargp code 135 zip code 27516
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this ❑ nomination
❑ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property
❑ meets ❑ does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant
❑ nationally ❑ statewide ❑ locally. (❑ See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying officiallTitle Date
State of Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ❑ meets ❑ does not meet the National Register criteria. (❑ See continuation sheet for additional
comments.)
Signature of certifying officiaUTdle Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that the property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
❑ entered in the National Register.
❑ See continuation sheet.
❑ determined eligible for the
National Register
❑ See continuation sheet.
❑ determined not eligible for the
National Register.
❑ removed from the National
Register.
❑ other, (explain:)
Alexander Hogan Plantation Orange Co. , N.C. 12
Name of Property County and State
5. Classification
Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property
(Check as many boxes as apply) (Check only one box) (Do not include previously listed resources in the count.)
® private ❑ building(s) Contributing Noncontributing
❑ public-local ❑ district
El public-State Z7 site buildings
❑ public-Federal ❑ structure sites
❑ object
structures
objects
Total
Name of related multiple property listing Number of contributing resources previously listed
(Enter "NA" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) in the National Register
N/A 0
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC: single dwelling IANDS(APF- fnrPSf
DOMESTIC: secondary structure
AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE: agricultural
ou ui ing
FUNERARY: cemetery
7. Description
Architectural Classification Materials
(Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions)
N/A foundation STONE
walls N/A
roof N/A
other N/A
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)
The Hogan site (31OR296) is located in the Blackwood Division of the Duke Forest in central
Orange County. Specifically it lies in a heavily wooded area just north of the intersection of Eubanks (SR
1727) and Rogers (SR 1729) roads.
Preliminary documentary work by Duke Forest staff has identified the site as being the Alexander
Hogan plantation which was established in 1838. Alexander inherited the land from his father Thomas
Hogan prior to the elder Hogan's death; the land had been in the Hogan family since the 1700s. The
plantation covered about 380 acres, one third of which was improved land. Wheat, corn, oats, and barley
were the primary plantation crops.
NPS fu m 10.900-a OMa MWaraj No.1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior 13
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page —1—
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County,NC
Description(continued)
Alexander marred Matilda Robson in 1854. The couple had 8 children, probably two of which died at a
young age. Alexander apparently also fathered at least one child by one of his slaves. As was typical for the county,
only a small number of slaves were ever present on the plantation. In 1840, 3 slaves were recorded for the property.
By 1850 Hogan had 8 slaves working on his plantation, most of which were under the age of 12. By the end of the
decade the slave presence grew to 13,most of whom were under 20 years old.
After the Civil War significant changes took place on the plantation as portions of it were rented to
sharecroppers. Alexander died in 1872 leaving Matilda in charge of the farm until her death sometime after 1890.
Some of the surviving children inherited the farm and subsequently sold or deeded portions of the property to former
Hogan slaves. At least one such descendent, Essie (Hogan) Leak, lives near the site today and has provided some
oral accounts of her childhood recollections of the plantation site.
Little is known about the disposition of the site during the early twentieth century. Duke Forest acquired the
former Hogan tract in several parcels from 1944 to 1945. Although there is some mention in Duke files of an
abandoned house site on the property, no standing structural remains were apparently present. Today the site is
primarily marked by the foundation remains of at least four and possibly five structures and a cemetery marked by a
low stone wall enclosure with unmarked fieldstones denoting burial locations both inside and outside the stone
enclosure (Daniel 1994). Together these remains cover approximately 12 acres. The site has received some
preliminary archaeological work in the form of a general survey, mapping, and augering. It should be emphasized,
however,that other less obvious remains might still be unrecorded. A more intensive and systematic survey is needed
to make this determination.
As described below, site integrity is unusually good. Because Duke Forest guidelines mandate that
archaeological and historic sites on University property be left undisturbed, the site has been well-preserved.
Excluding the presence of a powerline right-of-way that runs through the southern end of the site, it has suffered no
significant disturbances. In fact, with the exception of forest regeneration, the site probably appears much as it did
when acquired some 50 years ago.
The most apparent features of the site are the stone foundations. One of these foundations (Al)tentatively
has been identified as the location of the main house. Oral accounts have described it as a large two-story white
plank house with approximately 10 to 12 steps leading to a front porch. Foundation Al certainly appears to have
been a dwelling and it exhibits the largest dimensions of any of the known foundations on the site. The foundations
NPS F-xm 10.900-a OMB Approval No.1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior 14
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 2
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County,NC
Description (continued)
measure at least 50 ft long and 25 ft wide; a chimney fall is located on its east end. The remains of the west wall
could not be located, although a stone rubble pile (A2) was located just west of the missing wall. Whether it was
directly associated with the main foundation or not remains to be determined. At least three stone piers are situated
parallel to the south wall,presumably representing the porch support.
The remaining foundations are all located to the north of the presumed main house. Foundations B and C are
located relatively close to the house, while foundations E1 and E2 are some 500 ft away adjacent to the cemetery.
The function of the structures associated with these foundations is less certain. Given foundation B's proximity to the
main house and the presence of a chimney fall, it may represent a detached kitchen. Foundation C, which does not
exhibit any chimney remains, probably represents a plantation outbuilding. Likewise, foundations E1 and E2 also
lack chimney remains. Two possible interpretations are proposed for these remains. Given their identical size and
symmetrical placement (and their location away from the main house) they could represent the remains of slave
dwellings. But, they exhibit no chimney remains which would be expected for structures that served as dwellings.
Their absence, however, might be due to the fact that slave cabins in the state were often made from stick and mud
(Crow et al. 1992:56-57) rather than stone. Chimneys made from such perishable materials, of course, would leave
little archaeological evidence. On the other hand, it is also possible that no chimneys ever existed and these remains
belong to a single large outbuilding such as a barn or to two other smaller plantation structures.
Substantial artifact remains appear associated with most of these structures. Despite the presence of heavy
vegetation, ceramic, glass, and metal artifacts can be seen on the surface in and around the foundations. To better
assess the potential for buried deposits each of the foundation remains were subjected to some judgementally placed
auger tests. Significant soil deposits were revealed within every foundation excluding E1 and E2. For example,
about 12 inches of fill was encountered within foundation Al, including 8 inches of ash and 4 inches of humus and
burned clay. Furthermore, a similar soil and ash deposit was also present within foundation B. Because these
foundations likely mark the areas of the most intensive site activity as well as the most concentrated deposits from
these activities, the recovery of artifacts and features that would help interpret these former structures seems great.
Further discussion of the significance of these remains is presented below.
The only other known significant site feature is the cemetery that contains two distinct groups of graves. The
first group is contained by a low stone wall, 45 by 35 ft in size that contains four identifiable graves marked by
fieldstones. Judging from the layout of the headstones and footstones, three adult and one child grave are present.
No other graves are readily discernible within the enclosure. The second group is located in two rows just outside the
north wall of the enclosure and contains about 20 graves. These graves too are characterized by unmarked
fieldstones. All graves have a characteristic east-west orientation and are covered by a blanket of periwinkle.
NPS Form 10.900-a
(8-86)
OMB Approval No.1024-
15
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7.e Page 3
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County,NC
Description(continued)
Who exactly is buried here remains unclear. While members of the Hogan family were almost certainly
interred in the cemetery, there is some uncertainty as to whether any Hogan slaves, or freed African-Americans are
buried there as well. With regards to the latter possibility, some oral accounts claim that the cemetery contains some
black graves. Two of the graves are thought to belong to Zachariah and Alice Hogan, grandparents to Essie Hogan
Leak. On the other hand, the overall cemetery design is more typical of a southern folk family cemetery (Clauser
1994). That is, the immediate Hogan family would be buried within the enclosure with extended kin buried outside
the stone walls (John Clauser, personal communication 1995). Moreover, the grave layout is more representative of
white than black cemeteries, since black graves do not tend to be laid out parallel to each other or in rows as do white
graves (Little 1994). If true,this latter interpretation raises the possibility of the existence of another cemetery on the
property.
Statement of Significance
The significance of the Hogan plantation (31 OR296) is that it represents an example of a small nineteenth-
century North Carolina Piedmont plantation that spanned the antebellum and post-bellum occupation of Orange
County. Virtually no archaeological work has been done on any such site in the county and, in fact, only very limited
work has been reported from similar sites elsewhere in the state. The site contains well-preserved archaeological data
including structural remains, artifact assemblages, and a cemetery that would contribute significantly to our
understanding of the daily life of its African-American and Euro-American occupants. In addition, the site has the
potential to address anthropological questions dealing with slavery and plantation social structure. Not only would
such information be of value to local archaeologists and historians, it would also be of interest to researchers
elsewhere in the Southeast where plantation archaeology has been ongoing for over two decades. Therefore, the
Hogan site meets Criterion D for inclusion in the National Register.
Historical background and significance:
Farming dominated Orange County economic life throughout the nineteenth century. In the antebellum
years, for example, 75% of all white men reported farming as their primary occupation (Kenner 1987:30). Corn,
wheat,tobacco, and cotton were the primary crops of the county. Even those who did not farm were somehow tied to
its agricultural economy. Not surprisingly, most of the county's households grew enough food to maintain their self-
sufficiency. Moreover, what was not domestically produced, could be obtained at the neighborhood rural general
store. Thus, there was little reason—at least from an economic standpoint—to establish extensive contacts outside
one's neighborhood. In fact, Orange County has been described as a series of several rural neighborhood
communities tied together by kinship during the nineteenth century(Kenner 1987:19).
NPS Forth 10.900-a OMB Approval No.1020-0018
(8-86)
16
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number �, Page 4
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County,NC
Statement of Significance(continued)
The agricultural economy of the area was also reflected in its social structure. All blacks (primarily slaves)
were separated from whites. Whites were divided into either planter families who owned large plantations and large
numbers of slaves, or fanner families who lived on small land tracts and owned few, if any, slaves. The common
historical designation of a planter was one who owned 20 or more slaves (Kenzer 1987:2942). Although
slaveholding defined the southern agrarian economy, it was far from universal. In the mid-nineteenth century only
about one-third of white male household heads owned slaves. Furthermore, few such households owned many slaves.
In fact,the typical slave owner in the county owned fewer than 10 slaves (Kenner 1987:167). By contrast, the largest
slave holdings were concentrated in just a few households. That is, 10%of the households owned more than 70%of
the county's slave population(Kenzer 1987:38).
A significant change, of course, occurred in rural lifeways following the Civil War. The death of a large
number of white men coupled with emancipation changed the county's economic and social structure (Kenner
1987:97-127). Lacking a reliable black labor source, most planters were forced to take land out of production.
Consequently, the average farm size decreased from about 285 acres to about 200 acres in the decade following the
war. Perhaps the most significant economic change was in the creation of a new type of land tenure called tenant
farming or share tenancy. Tenant farming took one of two forms. The first form included those who rented the land
for a fixed price while the second included those who worked for a share of the crops (Powell 1989:417).
Nevertheless, in Orange County in 1870, most black farmers simply labored under the supervision of another farmer
who most likely was white(Kenner 1987:105).
This brief historical summary of the economic and social setting of rural nineteenth century Orange County
provides a framework by which to assess the archaeological significance of the Hogan farm or plantation. (The term
plantation as used here archaeologically does not strictly follow the notion of the term as used above in an historical
context. As Orser (1984) mentions, even though an intuitive notion exists of what "plantation" means, scholars do
not readily agree on its exact definition. Suffice it to say here that most historical archaeologists would readily
identify the Hogan site as a small plantation based upon its acreage and slave population.) In terms of property size
and slaveholdings, the Hogan site was typical of small plantations in the county. And while historic documents have
enabled us to associate the site with a particular historic family, and historians have provided us with a general
description of plantation life in the nineteenth century (e.g., Crow et al. 1992; Powell 1989; Kenzer 1987), none of
these are archaeological descriptions based upon the material remains of antebellum and post-bellum plantation
life. This is particularly true of the role of slaves who left few personal records, or were seldom written about.
Much of the black American role in plantation life is recorded in the archaeological record rather than the written
record(e.g., Deagan 1991; Ferguson 1992). Thus,the well-preserved remains of the Hogan site have the potential to
contribute significant information to our understanding of daily life on a small plantation in Orange County.
NPS Form 10.900-a
(9'86( OMB Approval No.1021-,M,.
United States Department of the Interior 17
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number s Page 5
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County,NC
Statement of Significance(continued)
With few exceptions (e.g., Daniel and Ward 1993), little archaeological work has been done on nineteenth-century
sites in the county.
The Hogan site, in particular, would fit neatly into the field of plantation archaeology. With some 20 years
of development, plantation archaeology is now recognized as area of specialization in historical archaeology.
Moreover, plantation archaeology has readily demonstrated its ability to provide unique insights into the historic
period(see e.g., Orser 1984). To this end,two lines of research could be pursued at the Hogan plantation: studies of
plantation material culture and history, and studies of plantation slavery and social structure. In fact, these two
avenues of research compliment each other.
First, a culture history approach could be utilized to provide a general description of the form, function, and content
of a nineteenth century artifact assemblage (cf. South 1977). Such a study would provide valuable information on
the material culture of a Piedmont plantation. Directly related to such a study would be the question of whether
distinct assemblages between the planter and slave class could be identified at the Hogan site. Along these lines, how
similar is the artifact assemblage from the Hogan plantation to other such assemblages elsewhere in the Southeast?
For example, among the unexpected remains associated with slave cabins from sites outside North Carolina have
been the consistent finding of firearms and writing materials, as well as a richer material culture than expected (Otto
1977; Singleton 1980). Such data could also be used to examine potential diachronic changes between antebellum
and post-bellum artifact assemblages.
Another aspect of plantation life that can be addressed at the Hogan site is describing the physical layout of
the plantation itself. In the absence of any documentary evidence, an archaeological examination of the architectural
remains and other potential features is the only way to address this issue. As mentioned earlier the remains of at least
four and possibly five structures are currently known. One of these foundations (Al) almost certainly represents the
main house, while the functional identification of the other remains awaits additional investigation. Initially, then, it
could be postulated that the spatial design of the Hogan site conforms to other Southeastern plantation sites. That is,
it is composed of a main house and associated buildings and a group of other out-buildings related to other plantation
activities that were clustered apart from but near the main house(e.g.,Lewis 1985). The main house complex should
be identifiable as an area primarily representing specialized domestic activities, while the other out-buildings
functioned as workers'living areas and other specialized plantation activities.
Thus, in order to identify the spatial layout of the Hogan plantation it is necessary to identify the function of
each of its structures. While the identification of structure function would be partly based upon the size and nature
of the foundation remains themselves, such an interpretation largely rests on the recovery of functionally significant
artifact classes associated with each structure. In addition to identifying the structures functionally,their artifact
NPS Form 10.9Ma OMB Approval No.1024-WIS
(8-M)
United States Department of the Interior 18 t
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 , 9 Page 6
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County,NC
Statement of Significance(continued)
associations should also determine each structures temporal placement. Were all the structures built and used at the
same time during the Hogan occupation? Or, given the significant economic changes that occurred during the
nineteenth century,were there settlement differences between the antebellum and post-bellum occupations (e.g., Orser
and Nekola 1985)?
In addition to providing further insights into everyday plantation life in Orange County,the Hogan site offers
the potential to address the anthropological issues of slavery and plantation social structure. An important aspect of
historic archaeology has been its work on studying "status" in plantation contexts. In these works, the degree of
social differentiation has variously been expressed in terms of a racial/economic continuum of planter-overseer-slave
(Otto 1977, 1980). In short, it has been argued that the remains left by these three plantation social groups can be
differentiated through the types and relative frequencies of certain artifact classes, and in terms of the food remains
associated with various plantation buildings.. Such a model was developed for larger lower South plantations and it
can be questioned whether it should be uncritically adopted for the Hogan site; however, its basic tenet is central to
current plantation studies and the model is worthy of consideration in some form here(see Orser 1984:5-6).
Finally, although controversial to excavate,the cemetery should not be overlooked as a potential data source
on plantation life. In the absence of any documentary evidence, excavation remains the only method by which to
answer the question of who is buried in the cemetery. Of course, certain ethical questions would need to be
addressed, but information related to mortuary practices and perhaps osteological analyses could be obtained. (see
e.g.,Lange and Handier 1985).
In sum, the Hogan site stands as a uniquely preserved and representative example of little studied part of
Orange County's historic past. While the site certainly can contribute important cultural historical information
concerning nineteenth century plantation life, it also has the potential to address one of the larger "questions that
count" in historical archaeology (Deagan 1988) by contributing to the study of slavery. As such, an archaeological
study of the Hogan site could provide information about plantation life not duplicable by any other social science.
Bibliography
Clauser, John W. "The Southern Folk Cemetery in Piedmont North Carolina." North Carolina Historic
Preservation Office Newsletter. Raleigh: Division of Archives and History, 1994.
Crow,J.J.,P.D. Escott, and F.J. Hatley.A History ofAfrician Americans in North Carolina. Raleigh: Division of
Archives and History,North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, 1992.
NPS Form 16.906-a
(8-86) OMB Approval No.1024-0018
r 19
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 9 Page 7
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County,NC
Bibliography(continued)
Daniel,I. Randolph, Jr. An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County, North Carolina. Research
Report 12,Research Laboratories of Anthropology,University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1994.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and H. Trawick Ward Test Excavations at Selected Log Cabin Sites in Orange County,
North Carolina. Research Report 10,Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, 1993.
Deagan,K. "Neither History nor Prehistory: The Questions That Count in Historical Archaeology." Historical
Archaeology, 1988,vol. 22: pp. 7-12.
. "Historical Archaeology's Contribution to Our Understanding of Early America."Historical Archaeology
in Global Perspective, L. Falk ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991, pp. 97-112.
Ferguson, C. Uncommon Ground.•Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1800.Washington D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.
Kenzer, Robert. Kinship and Neighborhood in a Southern Community. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press,
1987.
Lange, F.W. and J.S. Handler "The Ethnohistorical Approach to Slavery."The Archaeology of Slavery and
Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton,ed.New York:Academic Press, 1985,pp. 15-34.
Lewis, Kenneth E. "Plantation Layout and Function in the South Carolina Lowcountry." The Archaeology of
Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton ed.New York:Academic Press, 1985,pp. 35-66.
Little, M. Ruth. "African-American Grave Markers." North Carolina Historic Preservation Office Newsletter.
Raleigh: Division of Archives and History, 1994.
Orser, Charles E. "The Past Ten Years of Plantation Archaeology in the Southeastern United States." Southeastern
Archaeology, 1984,vol. 3: pp. 1-12.
Orser, Charles E. and A. M.Nekola. Plantation Settlement from Slavery to Tenancy:An Example from a Piedmont
Plantation in South Carolina,Theresa A. Singleton ed.New York: Academic Press, 1985,pp. 67-96.
NPS F OM 10-900-a OMB Approval No.1024-0078
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior 20
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 9' 10 Page 8
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Orange County, NC
Bibliography (continued)
Otto,John S. "Artifacts and Status Differences: A comparison of Ceramics from Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites
on an Antebellum Plantation." Re search Strategies in Historical Archaeology, S. South ed. New York:
Academic Press, 1977,pp. 91-118.
"Race and Class on Antebellum Plantations."Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America:
Afro-American and Asian American Culture History, R.L. Schuyler ed.New York: Baywood, 1980, pp. 3-13.
Powell,William S.North Carolina Through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,
1989.
Singleton,T. The Archaeology of Afro American Slavery in Coastal Georgia:A Regional Perception of Slave
Household and Community Patterns. Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology,University of Florida,
Gainesville. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1980.
South, Stanley A.Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology.New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Verbal Boundary Justification
Eubanks Rd. defines the southern boundary of the site,marking the southern-most edge of the house features. The
boundaries to the north and west roughly follow the elevation contours marking the gradient between high-lying
features, i.e., the cemetery and the 20' x 20' foundation remains, and the northern portion of the property. The site
also extends to a spring bank, a natural boundary which runs north-south along the western edge. Based on
preliminary investigations of the site's known features, it is highly probable that the wooded area between the
cemetery and the spring bank will yield additional archaeological assemblages.
NPS roan 10.900-a
(8-86) OMB Approval No.1024-0018
7^
United States Department of the Interior r1.1
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
photographs 9
Section number Page
Photographs
All photographs taken by Judson Edeburn, April, 1995. Original slides on file at the Office of the
Duke Forest, Duke University.
1) 20'x20' outlying foundations before vegetation cleared, looking northeast.
2) Cleared 20'x20' stone foundations, looking northeast.
3) Outlying cemetery, easternmost row, looking north.
4) Walled cemetery, looking southwest.
Alexander Hogan Plantation Orange Cn. , Nr 22
Name of Property County and State
8. Statement of Significance ,
Applicable National Register Criteria 'Areas of Significance
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property (Enter categories from instructions)
for National Register listing.) ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC - NON-ABORTGTNAI
❑ A Property is associated with events that have made FTHNIC HERTTAGF - FI IRO-AMFRTrAN RI ACK
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
❑ B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
❑ C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack Period of Significance
individual distinction. 1838-1940
® D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations Significant Dates
(Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.)
N/A
Property is:
❑ A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.
Significant Person
❑ B removed from its original location. (Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
N/A
❑ C a birthplace or grave.
Cultural Aff iliation
❑ D a cemetery.
EURO-AMERICAN
❑ E a reconstructed building, object, or structure. AFRICAN-AMERICAN
❑ F a commemorative property.
❑ G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance Architect/Builder
within the past 50 years. N/A
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibilography
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.)
Previous documentation on file (NPS): Primary location of additional data:
❑ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 R3 State Historic Preservation Office
CFR 67) has been requested ❑ Other State agency
❑ previously listed in the National Register ❑ Federal agency
• previously determined eligible by the National ❑ Local government
Register ❑ University
• designated a National Historic Landmark ® Other
❑ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey Name of repository:
# Office of the Duke Forest, Duke University
❑ recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record #
Alexander Hogan Plantation Oran e Co. , 3
Name of Property Co ty and_, NC
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property 12.4 ac
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.)
1 10 11 1 1617121010101 131918111911181 3 10 13 1 (6 17 12 11 18 14 1 I3191811I611 21
Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing
2b 2 1 16 17 12 11 18 Al 13 19 18 11 19 11 18 1 410 ,41 16171210iQi01 131918111911181
❑ See continuation sheet
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.)
Boundaries indicated on accompanying base and sketch maps.
Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.)
11. Form Prepared By
name/title L Randolph Daniel, Jr. , Archaeologist and Tatjana Vujic, Staff Specialist
UNC Research Laboratories of Anthropology Duke Forest, Duke University
organization Offi rP of thp ni ikin Forest date 9-9-95
street & number Box 90332 telephone 9191613-8013
city or town Durham state NC zip code 27708-0332
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items
(Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner
(Complete this item at the request of SHPO or FPO.)
name Duke University, Jeff Potter, Office of Real Estate
street & number 402 Oregon St. telephone 919/684-6420
city or town Durham state NC zip code 27705
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain
a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended(16 U.S.C. 470 at seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect
of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects(1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
i
r✓���T�'' ♦ �• ��'. � ifs R 4*•�
�-'1 r;+ ;� 1� : '=�.'oaf• �,�' �i:��"t': .�"` 'r`'�.'� �
r- �
A SO
I AL
►.� �
' -ri�:�+rr•'�.T r�� �._,���-.,irk_ � - .
� r e
•- - .' _ ��.fix`�! ��A L� , ' - � - _ - -
{y. •ten r �
f'
• "`" ) 1 `��V •'�i. � It'
�. .. f. � �' 4 .. air:• �.
- t - ,•.d flit+ �, �-'!7, -..yam - - ;• � � -
�t-�opl
�� -tie,
�` t�� t!' �• �"��-�
no
Pl, ,-\\\ (\ • )l.l T, 7), -
(`- 'im ;>f=ice?, - — �/ J �J D AT I n'
Ay
\}. ��)�1„�:'Z��J ,n 1 ��- = —.�_\( �\ ('i� ( i� _ \ �V� _ �-_- it 'l _,� 1 )�\,� ;•�;
r r•✓l� v./-r �` �``�_- �� 'CCU � \U /'�� ;� ? � _ ` ,
„_ •l%�' ,• U 1, �--_`' f., ._�' _ �1 � E
GE:
VL) Go
Lij
LLJ
J '', . It. `'�i - �- ;- -.I �� • - �,1/� � ,I . . ;r� ,°: _
"� � '�� � �� °°�\ ;L �•.-- I 1���{' � III
v��'�'3� �: � � c=�zJ�J� _ _ice=--=E`='I �• 'v -
0 0
LLI
z w 0
LQ
LLI
.�,f� a U /U e qr VV\�ll c ' J .o. C.O `- �C(�••�� I'/' •�c
i o'2d m
• • . n . . . / �• • 27
• �\
r
rT
• •• 1, . C O
00 1 . • • • • • • • - ••
C •• , •• •. 11• .rn-
• • 04 r .
•'• 1 •
•
• r di ••' _
rT•
3 r• !yl
P T z
1 a
N Rl
28
1717
! { .�,':i. ,�� •NI� Iii, ,
i�ig-IhIFI
4wt
I I flf-4v I G' -II
lJ
fill
i1 II I I�
_ , � ��- � ;i � ,, ►. i'' �,!' _ ; l,l`; ;11� _I{a ill i� I i �, II
7a.ij --- -1.1. I�i.'•" :I�''�,•il;i i,'�,I{I�' - - _- �i I!��' li ' 1il !il'i.�'},' '
i� - �� I i I•ii ; ; Ir'{1i I' i� - + 6,1
--
{iill'i� '1111 I
_
i�� ��I;
29
1
r
1 �
r '
• - - _ _ __
r
-.__ �a•_ ..1...-___ .___ T_.. : _ _fir—. - - �
:
i I
—_ __ _ __________I. __ _ _ _--_ _—_ --_
1
r .
at
-_
__ _ ..... .. ......'-.:_ _.11...x._-
11
-.-.......1 _ ___ _ _
_
_ _ - - _ - -_. -
-- ..._. _
_
1: Tar,nl 3
:7:
�$ I
-
Ifi
,.r
T . .
- r '
1
NOR T/ b�✓d - __—____�._.�L_.____
30
15
:14
+`
J t
...:b.: .......:.,• 4•..I 13
r�I _ .. tf 't .. •X �.
i
3
p
0
JI
„. .. 1
i
� .. � ::..�;=.rat•, -
.. i -... .
"...
........... r.aq::......... �A1.CIGVJQ.1t 11 Yi/,.11tMf1
..:......:....
4'1 1•
Il/IL116 a�E
Nul• X BLACKWOO
O nwnwx w� !
,�-= lOt/TION N,a1
DUNE FOREST
/l�M C�••0,e:1 6t 1 Inez !nll•,
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY 31
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
NA770NAL REGISTER FACT SHEET
WHAT IS TB:E NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES?
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation's official list of buildings, structures, objects,
sites, and districts worthy of preservation for their significance in American history, architecture,
archaeology, and culture. The National Register was established by the National Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1966. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that as a matter of public policy, properties
significant in national, state, and local history are considered in the planning of federal undertakings,
and to encourage historic preservation initiatives by state and local governments and the private
sector.
What the National Register Means for the Private Property Owner
The listing of a property in the National Register places no obligation or restriction on a private
owner using private resources to maintain or alter the property„ Over the years, various federal
incentives have been introduced to assist private preservation initiatives. A private owner of a
National Register property becomes obligated to follow federal preservation standards only if federal
funding or licensing is used in work on the property, or if the owner seeks and receives a special
benefit that derives from National Register.designation, such as a grant or a tax credit described
below.
National Register listing should not be confused with local historic property and historic district
designations. These designations are made by a local governing board on the recommendation of a
local historic preservation commission. This program of local designations is an option available to
local governments under North Carolina enabling legislation (G.S. 160A-400): Properties and dis-
tricts listed in the National Register sometimes also receive local designation in jurisdictions where
local preservation commissions have been established according to'the state enabling legislation, but
there is no direct correlation between National Register listing and local designation.
National Register listing means the following:
1. Consideration and Protection in Public Planning:
All properties and districts listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register are considered in
the planning of federal undertakings such as highway construction and Community Development
Block Grant projects. "Federal undertakings" also include activities sponsored by state or local
governments or private entities if they are licensed or partially funded by the federal government.
"Federal undertakings" do not include loans made by banks insured by the FDIC or federal farm
subsidies.
National Register listing does not provide absolute protection from federal actions that may affect the
property. It means that if a federal undertaking is in conflict with the preservation of a National Reg-
ister property, the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office will negotiate with the responsible
federal agency in an effort to eliminate or minimize the effect on the historic property: This review
procedure applies to properties that are determined eligible for the National Register in the day-to-
day environmental review process as well as those actually listed in the National Register.
Similarly, North Carolina law (G.S. 121-12a) provides for consideration of National Register
properties in undertakings funded or licensed by the state. Where a state undertaking is in conflict
with the preservation of a National Register property, the North Carolina Historical Commission is
given the opportunity to review the case and make recommendations to the state agency responsible
for the undertaking. The commission's recommendations to the state agency are advisory.
(see other side)
National Register Fact Sheet 1, Page 2
2. Incentives for the Preservation of National Register Properties: 32
Tax Benefits. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a privately owned building that is listed in the
National Register or is a contributing building in a National Register historic district may be eligible
for a 20% federal income investment tax credit claimed against the costs of a qualified rehabilitation
of the building. These credits apply only to income-producing, depreciable properties, including
residential rental properties. The credits do not apply to owner-occupied residential properties. The
cost of the rehabilitation must equal or exceed the adjusted basis of the building (original cost minus
land value, minus previous depreciation, plus previous capital improvements). Plans for the rehabili-
tation are reviewed by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Ser-
vice, and work on the building must meet federal rehabilitation standards. For more information and
applications, contact the Tax Act Coordinator at the address given below, or telephone 919/733-
6547.
The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides federal tax deductions for charitable contribu-
tions of partial interests (easements) in historically significant properties for conservation purposes.
Interested individuals should consult legal counsel or the local Internal Revenue Service office for
assistance in determining the tax consequences of the provisions of this act.
Grants and Loans. A limited program of matching grants for the rehabilitation of National Register
properties, including those that are privately owned, was authorized by the National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966, but has not been funded to a significant degree since the early 1980s. A loan
program authorized by the Act has never been funded. Similarly, there are no state grant or loan
programs specifically tailored for the preservation of National Register properties.
NOTE: A privately owned property may not be listed in the National Register over the objection of its owner or, in the
case of a property with multiple owners, over the objection of a majority of owners. A district may not be listed in the
National Register over the objection of a majority of owners of private property within the proposed district. For a com-
plete description of procedures for objecting to a National Register nomination,se&..Xational Register Fact Sheet 5: "Pro-
cedure for Supporting or Objecting to National Register Listing."
See also the following numbered National Register Fact Sheets:
2: "National Register Criteria for Evaluation"
3: "How Historic Properties Are Listed in the National Register of Historic Places"
4: "The National Register of Historic Places in North Carolina: Facts and Figures"
See the handout entitled "A Comparison of the National Register of Historic Places With Local Historic Landmark and
District Designations" for a review of the differences between these two programs.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Historic structures and the National Register: Survey and Planning Branch, 919/733-6545.
Archaeological sites and the National Register. Office of State Archaeology, 919/733-7342.
Preservation tax credits and technical restoration assistance:Restoration Branch, 9191733-6547.
Environmental protection and planning: Environmental Review Coordinator, Administration Branch, 919/733-4763
Written inquiries to-each of these branches may be sent to: - ---
State Historic Preservation Office
N.C. Division of Archives and History
109 E.Jones Street
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601-2807
The National Register program is governed by the following federal and state rules and regulations: 36CFR Part 60
(interim rule), 36CFR Part 61 (final rule), and North Carolina Administrative Code T07: 04R.0300.
03/24/95
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 3 3
NATIONAL REGISTER FACT SHEET 2
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The following criteria are designed to guide the states, federal agencies, and the Secretary of the Inte-
rior in evaluating potential entries for the National Register.
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship,feeling, and association, and.
A. , that are associated with events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,.period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high.artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
I
Criteria Considerations (Exceptions): Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical fig-
ures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for.religious purposes, structures that have
been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily com-
memorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall
not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are
integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
A. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or his-
torical importance; or
B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for
architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic
person or event; or
_y
C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other
appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or
D. a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent impor-
tance,from age,from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or
E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building-or-structure-
with the same'assoeiation has survived; or
F. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has
invested it with its own historical significance; or
- G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.
(see other side)
National Register Fact Sheet 2, Page 2
APPLYING THE CRITERIA
34
The two principal issues to consider in determining eligibility for the National Register are"significance" and"integrity."
A property may have "significance" for association with important events or patterns of history (criterion A); for association with
an important historical figure (criterion B); as an important example of period architecture, landscape, or engineering (criterion C);
or for the information it is likely to yield(criterion D, applied to archaeological sites and districts, and sometimes applied to certain
types of structures). A National Register nomination must demonstrate how a property is significant in at least one of these four
areas. For properties nominated under criterion A, frequently cited areas of significance are agriculture, community planning and
development, social history, commerce, industry, politics and government, education, recreation and culture, and others. For tech-
nical reasons, criterion B (significant person) nominations are rare. Criterion C (architecture) is cited for most, but not all, nomina-
tions of historic buildings. Archaeological sites are always nominated under criterion D,.but may also have significance under one
or more of the other three criteria.
Properties are nominated at either a local, state, or national level of significance depending on the geographical range of the impor-
tance of a property and its associations. The level of significance must be justified in the nomination. The majority of properties
(about 70%) are listed at the local level of significance. The level of significance has no effect on the protections or benefits of list-
ing.
Besides meeting one or more of the above criteria, a property must also have "integrity" of "location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association." This means that the property must retain enough of its historic physical character(or in the
case of archaeological sites, intact archaeological features)to represent its historic period and associations adequately.
All properties change over time, and in some cases past alterations can take on historical significance in their own right.The degree
to which more recent, incompatible, or non-historic alterations are acceptable depends on the type of property, its rarity, and its
period and area of significance. Buildings with certain types of alterations are usually turned down by the National Register
Advisory Committee. For example, 19th and early 20th century wood frame buildings that have been brick veneered in the mid-
20th century are routinely turned down for loss of historic integrity.
Criteria Exceptions
The criteria exclude birthplaces and graves of historical figures, cemeteries, religious properties, moved buildings, reconstructions,
commemorative properties, and properties less than 50 years old, with certain exceptions. The following exceptions are sometimes
encountered:
Historic churches that retain sufficient architectural integrity can usually be successfully nominated under criterion C (architecture),
sometimes together with criterion A for social or religious history.
Cemeteries may sometimes successfully be nominated under criterion C when they retain important examples of historic stone carv-
ing, funerary art, and/or Iandscaping, and they also may be eligible under criterion A or criterion D. However, both the National
Register Advisory Committee and the National Register have turned down nominations of graves when the historical importance of
the deceased is the sole basis for the nomination. The National Register was created primarily to recognize and protect historic
places and environments that represent how people lived, worked, and built in the historic past. Human burials are recognized and
protected under other laws and programs.
Moved buildings may sometimes be successfully nominated under criterion C for architecture when they remain in their historic
communities and the new setting adequately replicates the original setting. The point to remember is that the program is called the
National Register of Historic Places. not Historic Buildings-or-Historic Things,—because significance is-embodied in locations and
settings as well as in the structures themselves. Buildings moved great distances, buildings moved into incompatible settings (such
as a farmhouse moved into an urban neighborhood or a downtown residence moved to a suburb), and collections of buildings
moved from various locations to create a pseudo4iistoric "village" are routinely turned down. In some cases, the relocation of a his-
toric building to a distant or incompatible setting may be the last and only way to save it, and such an undertaking may be
worthwhile. However, sponsors of such a project must understand that the property subsequently may not be eligible for the
National Register.
If a property is less than 50 years old, it can be nominated only if a strong argument can be made for exceptional significance. For
example, Dorton Arena on the State Fairgrounds was completed in 1953. It was successfully nominated to the National Register in
1973 as one of the most important examples of modernism in post-WWII American architecture.
03/24/95
NORTH CAROLINA DMSION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY 35
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
NAT70NAL REGISTER FACT SHEET 3
HOW HISTORIC PROPERTIES ARE LISTED IN
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Who Administers the National Register Program?
The National Register of Historic Places is a list maintained by the National Park Service of build-
ings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that are significant in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering, and culture, and that meet criteria for evaluation established by the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Nominations to the National Register are submitted from
each of the states by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In North Carolina, the SHPO
is the Director of the Division of Archives and History. The section within the Division that adminis-
ters the National Register and related programs is the Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section,
also called the Historic Preservation Office (HPO). The personnel of the Historic Preservation
Office serve as staff for the SHPO in National Register activities and duties.
In every state, a review board examines potential nominations and makes recommendations to the
SHPO regarding the eligibility of properties and the adequacy of nominations. In North Carolina, the
review board is called the National Register Advisory Committee (NRAC). The NRAC meets
quarterly (January, April, July, October) to consider the eligibility of properties for nomination to the
National Register. Nominations prepared under the supervision of the HPO staff and approved by the
NRAC are forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register in the National Park Service in Washing-.
ton, D.C. Final authority to list properties in the National Register resides with the National Park Ser-
vice.
How are Eligible Properties Identified?
Properties and districts that may be eligible for the National Register are usually brought to the atten-
tion of the HPO staff and the NRAC either (1) through a county or community survey of historic
properties co-sponsored by the Historic Preservation Office and a local government or organization;
(2) by interested individuals who provide preliminary information about properties to the HPO staff;
or (3) through historic property surveys conducted as part of the environmental review process.
Persons who seek National Register listing for properties that have not been recorded in survey
projects co-sponsored by the Historic Preservation Office may submit a "Study List Application" to
the HPO. If adequate information and color slides of the property are included with the application,
the NRAC will consider the property at its next quarterly meeting. If in the opinion of the NRAC the
property appears to be potentially eligible for the National Register, it is placed on the Study List.
This action by the NRAC authorizes the HPO staff to work with the owner to coordinate a formal
nomination of the property to the National Register.
The NRAC can best evaluate the eligibility of an individual property within the context of a
community-wide or regional inventory of historic or prehistoric properties. This provides a basis for
comparing the relative significance of similar types of historic or.prehistoric properties in a com-
munity or region. In counties or communities where no such inventory has been assembled, the NRAC
will sometimes find it necessary to defer a decision about the eligibility of an individual property until
a comprehensive survey of historic properties has taken place. Likewise, the NRAC may consider
some properties as contributing components within larger districts but not as individually eligible.
Information about grants to local governments for local historic property surveys and nominations is
available from the Historic Preservation Office.
(see other side) —
National Register Fact Sheet 3, Pab 36
What is a National Register Nomination?
A National Register nomination is a scholarly and authoritative document that thoroughly describes
and evaluates a property's setting and physical characteristics, documents its history, assesses its sig-
nificance in terms of its historic context, and demonstrates how it specifically meets National Register
criteria for evaluation. It is supported by professional quality black and white photographs, maps
delineating the property's boundaries, and other materials and information. The nomination must be
prepared according to federal and state guidelines.
Who Prepares National Register Nominations?
Most nominations are prepared by private consultants hired either by individual property owners or by
local governments or organizations. Nominations of archaeological sites are sometimes prepared by
professional archaeologists as part of their on-going research. HPO National Register staff is
responsible for reviewing, editing, and processing nominations prepared in these ways. Due to the
great demand for National Register nominations, the small HPO staff is unable to prepare nominations
as a public service.
An owner of a Study List property who seeks to have it listed in the National Register may hire a pri-
vate consultant to prepare the nomination. A list of qualified consultants is available from the His-
toric Preservation Office. HPO staff cannot quote fees, and fees will vary depending on the consul-
tant and the complexity of the nomination. An owner may expect to pay a professional historian,
architectural historian, or archaeologist the equivalent of 40 to 80 hours of time at a professional
hourly wage.
Some owners are interested in preparing their own nominations and are capable of doing so. A packet
that includes the NPS instruction manual, the supplementary state instruction manual, and sample
nominations may be purchased from the Historic Preservation Office for $10.00. The.level of
description, historical documentation, analysis, and writing in every nomination must meet accepted
professional standards. The SHPO will not submit substandard nominations to Washington, and HPO
staff cannot make major revisions or provide detailed critiques of inadequate nominations. Because
documentation of archaeological properties always involves excavation, analysis, and interpretation
requiring specialized training, nominations of archaeological properties are always prepared by profes-
sional archaeologists.
What Happens to the Finished Nomination?
The nomination is reviewed by members of the National .Register Advisory Committee at one of the
regular quarterly meetings. If the NRAC recommends that the nomination be submitted to the
National Register, it is signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and forwarded to the Keeper
of the National Register. At the National Register office, the nomination is reviewed and the decision
to list or not list is made within not less than 15 and not more than 45 days of receipt. If the property
is listed, the HPO will notify the owner and provide a certificate stating that the property has been
listed in the National Register of historic Places. Owners who desire plaques may order them from
private commercial suppliers. The HPO does not provide plaques or recommend any particular sup-
plier, but a list of manufacturers is available on request.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: National Register Coordinator
Survey and Planning Branch
State Historic Preservation Office
N.C.Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 919/733-6545
Offices of the Survey and Planning Branch are at 515 N. Blount Street in Raleigh. For information about archaeological
sites and the National Register, contact the Office of State Archaeology at the above address or telephone 919/733-7342.
03/08/95
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY 37
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
NATIONAL REGISTER FACT SHEET 4
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IN NORTH CAROLINA:
FACTS AND FIGURES
• There are over 62,000 listings of historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts in the
National Register across the United States and its territories.
• The first nominations from North Carolina were submitted in 1969. Today there are approximately
1,900 National Register listings in the state. In recent years the state has submitted an average of
60 new nominations per year to the National Register. Most nominations are prepared by private
consultants working for local governments or for private property owners. Nominations are
carefully prepared and screened in the review process, and 99% of all nominations from North
Carolina have been successfully listed. A list of all National Register entries in North Carolina as
of the end of the most recent half-calendar year, arranged alphabetically by county and giving
name, town or vicinity, and date listed, is available from the State Historic Preservation Office for
$5.00.
• Of the 1,900 total listings in North Carolina, about 250 are historic districts, some of which
contain several hundred contributing historic buildings or sites: Types of districts include
residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, prehistoric and historic archaeological districts,
industrial complexes, mill villages, and rural farming districts. Since the first historic district
nominations did not include complete lists of all properties within district boundaries, it is not
possible to determine the precise number of historic properties in North Carolina that are listed in
the National Register. The National Park Service estimates that approximately 30,000 historic
properties in North Carolina are listed in the National Register either as individual listings or as
contributing properties within districts. Properties within districts that contribute to the historic
character of the district are eligible for federal environmental protections and benefits to the same
extent as if they were individually listed.
• Of all North Carolina properties listed in the National Register, approximately 85% are privately
owned and 15% publicly owned. About 70% are listed at a local level of significance, 25% at a
statewide level, and 5% at a national level of significance. The level of significance at which a
property or district is listed does not affect its eligibility for benefits or the consideration it receives
in environmental review processes.
• North Carolina's National Register listings reflect the whole spectrum of the state's human
experience through its long history: prehistoric Indian sites; shipwreck sites; modest log houses of
settlers and slaves; houses and outbuildings of ordinary farmers and townspeople; the mansions of
wealthy planters and merchants; churches of all sizes and denominations; courthouses, schools and
other public buildings; commercial buildings of many types; and industrial and transportation
buildings and sites. Listings vary from 10,000-year-old archaeological sites to the 1953 Dorton
Arena at the State Fairgrounds. What all these places have in common is that they reveal in a
tangible way some important aspect of past life in North Carolina and its diverse communities.
• The State Historic Preservation Office reviews over 2,500 federal and state actions annually to
determine their potential effects on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register. Where a federal or state undertaking is in conflict with the preservation of a National
Register property, the State Historic Preservation Office will negotiate with the responsible agency
in an attempt to eliminate or minimize the effect under procedures prescribed by federal law
(Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) or state law (G.S. 121-12a).
(see other side)
38
National Register Fact Sheet 4, Page 2
. Between 1976 and 1993, 803 National Register properties in North Carolina were rehabilitated
under federal historic preservation tax incentive programs, representing an investment of over
5286,000,000 in National Register properties in the state.
The Restoration Branch of the State Historic Preservation Office offers technical restoration
consultation services to owners of historic properties, including municipal and county governments,
churches, businesses, and private property owners. Restoration Branch staff provides consultation
services to more than 1,500 historic properties in a typical year. Restoration staff is located in
Raleigh (919/733-6547), Asheville (704/274-6789), and Greenville (919/830-6580).
. Since the mid-1970s three-fifths of North Carolina's 100 counties and scores of municipalities have
participated in survey and planning grant projects co-sponsored with the State Historic Preservation
Office to conduct comprehensive surveys of historic properties and prepare nominations of
properties and districts to the National Register of Historic Places. Many other counties have
participated in regional reconnaissance surveys. The Survey and Planning Branch maintains an
estimated 65,000 survey files with photographs and information about historic structures. The
Office of State Archaeology maintains information concerning the approximately 25,000
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites recorded in the state. Thirty-seven counties and twenty-
five municipalities have published historic architecture survey catalogues, many of which are still
in print and available for purchase from the State Historic Preservation Office.
For information about why the National Register was created and what listing means to a property owner, see NA27ONAL
REGISTER FACT SHEET 1, "WHAT IS THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES?"
For an explanation of National Register criteria for evaluation, see NA77ONAL REGISTER FACT SHEET 2, "NATIONAL
REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION."
For information about how properties and districts are listed in the National Register, see NATOONAL REGISTER FACT
S=T 3, 'HOW HISTORIC PROPERTIES ARE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES."
See the handout titled 'A COMPARISON OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES WITH LOCAL
HISTORIC LANDMARK AND DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS" for an explanation of the differences between the two
program.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Historic structures and the National Register. Survey and Planning Branch, 919/733-6545.
Archaeological sites and the National Register: Office of State Archaeology, 919/733-7342.
Preservation tax credits and technical restoration assistance:Restoration Branch, 919/733-6547.
Grants to local governments and organizations for historic property surveys and National Register nominations: Grants
Coordinator, Administration Branch, 919/733-4763.
Lists of available architectural survey publications: Administrative Assistant, Administration Branch, 919/733-4763.
Address correspondence to the appropriate branch named above at the State Historic Preservation Office, N.C. Division of
Archives and History, 109 E. Jones Street,Raleigh,N.C. 27601-2807.
The National Register program is governed by the following federal and state rules and regulations: 36CFR Part 60
(interim rde), 36CFR Part 61 (final rule), and North Carolina Administrative Code T07: 04R.0300.
7/15/94
• NORTH CAROLINA DMSION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY 39
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
NATIONAL REGISTER FACT SHEET 5
PROCEDURE FOR SUPPORTING OR OBJECTING TO
NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING
Under federal law a privately owned property may not be listed in the National Register over the objection of
its owner or, in the case of a property with multiple owners, over the objection of a majority of owners. A
district may not be listed in the National Register over the objection of a majority of owners of private property
within the proposed district.
Supporting a National Register nomination:
Private owners who seek National Register listing for their properties are not required to submit statements of
concurrence, though letters of support of the nomination are welcomed and become a permanent part of the
nomination file. Owners who wish to support a nomination are encouraged to submit letters of support to the
State Historic Preservation Officer prior to the National Register Advisory Committee meeting at which the
nomination is to be considered.
Objecting to a National Register nomination:
Any owner or partial owner of a nominated private property who chooses to object to listing must submit to the
State Historic Preservation Officer a notarized statement certifying that he or she is sole or partial owner of the
private property and objects to the listing. Each owner or partial owner of the property has one vote regardless
of what part of the property or how much property the individual owns. Owners who wish to object are
encouraged to submit statements of objection prior to the meeting of the National Register Advisory Committee
at which the nomination is being considered. However, statements of objection may be submitted and will be
counted up until the actual date of listing, which usually takes place at least 15 days but not more than 45 days
after the nomination is mailed to the Keeper of the National Register following the National Register Advisory
Committee meeting.
If a majority of private property owners should object, the property or district will not be listed. However, in
such cases the State Historic Preservation Officer is required to submit the nomination to the Keeper of the
National Register for a determination of eligibility for the National Register. If the property or district is
determined eligible for listing, although not formally listed, it will be treated as a listed property or district for
purposes of federal undertakings in the environmental review process. Such properties are not eligible for
federal preservation grants or tax credits until the objections are withdrawn and the property is listed.
Address letters of support or objection to:
State Historic Preservation Officer
N.C. Division of Archives and History
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
National Register Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Meetings normally are held the
second Thursday of January, April,July, and October in room 211 of the Archives and History Building,
109 E. Jones St., Raleigh. For more information, call 919/733-6545.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Historic structures and the National Register. Surrey and Planning Branch,919/733-6545.
Archaeological sites and the National Register. Office of State Archaeology,919/733-7342.
Preservation tax credits and technical restoration assistance:Restoration Branch,919/733-6547.
The National Register program is governed by the following federal and state rules and regulations: 36CFR Part 60 (interim rule),
36CFR Part 61 (final rule),and North Carolina Administrative Code T07:04R.0300.
11/1/94
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 40
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
c'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CON USSION
OF
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pursuant to the requirements to the Certification Agreement for Local Governments between Orange
County and North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, State Historic
Preservation Office and in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Orange County Historic Preservation Ordinance,
notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Orange County Historic Preservation
Commission in the Conference Room of the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough,
North Carolina, on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. to receive citizen comment on the following
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places:
HP-1-95 Alexander Hogan Plantation Site (3108296**)
The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the north side of Eubanks Road (SR 1727) at the
intersection of Rogers Road (SR 1729). The site is located within the Blackwood Division of Duke
Forest which is referenced as lot 7A on tax map 20.
The archeological remains of the Alexander Hogan Plantation cover approximately twelve (12) acres
and include foundations of four or five structures and a cemetery containing at least 24 graves. The
plantation was established in 1838. Farming of wheat, corn, oats, and barley continued until the end of
the nineteenth century when the plantation was divided by the heirs of Alexander and Matilda Hogan.
The property was later acquired by Duke University in the mid-1940's and has since been preserved as
part of Duke Forest.
All interested citizens are invited to'attend the public hearing and be heard.
Questions regarding the meeting may be directed to the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham) or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 2575 or
2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: August 24T 1995 - - -- --
August 31, 1995
a.
9 z Z
. z
z
o
Z �z
z
G
J
N o W ::::::a 41
N
N
N
N
N
eo
N
Q�
N _
I✓
rr °
Z
z
M
c�1
O
N
y
N
:.•.s..•a•.
O
O
•y
y
^l.
`V JJ
,
cd
1
,
,
., La
47
,
.,
4.3 4.
1
,
1 \ wV v"�V
o
)
:, •,,. .,:� ' `ia Vii:::;: > o
s�
t...•:..w:i. ......•..... ,. .../ '''''': : 1 Tt it
i � ►n
57,L1 c Kai 'aa '
cr
c�
p" O
LL Lo 4
�D-
cr, O� r ....... ia
Al
LLI
%A amp
�1:�t 1't• -1 , 1. ti'1' ,'v,i�, •�. ``
��`:� � ;,�a„1.x,1�\,,.,,:�)l,y• � �^�� �....
,
.,7,A'•,t,,•)1 7 1' '1 mil'
not
N Cl.
„ 99 ^^ N
J� Q,
l,�Z)��'•�� ������LLLSSS
�F 11'?
42
Excerpted from Historic Preservation Commission minutes,
September 12, 1995.
PUBLIC HEARING ON A NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES:
a. HP-1-95 ALEXANDER HOGAN PLANTATION SITE, OR296
1. Chair Comments/Open Public Hearing
T. Dickinson open the public hearing by asking for
anyone wishing to speak tonight to sign in. Those
signing in are:
Judson Edeburn
Essie Hogan Leak
Don Willhoit
Brenda Carney
David Rooks
Mrs. Mildred Rogers
T. Dickinson then gave a brief description of the
location of the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site and the
procedures that will be followed tonight for a
recommendation/nonrecommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Belk made a Staff report to the Commission. (See
attachments I & II)
After Belk's address to the Commission, he asked Dr.
Trawick Ward, Professor of Archeology at UNC Chapel
Hill, to speak about his study of the Alexander Hogan
Plantation Site. Belk swore in Dr. Ward at this point.
Ward addressed the Commission clarifying that he is a
Research Archeologist for the Research Lab and Board of
Anthropology. This site was first brought to Ward's
attention a couple of years ago by Dawn Bodo, who was
teaching a class in archeology at Elon College. She
came to Ward's lab and asked if he would look at the
site and give his impression in terms of its relevance
to an archeological field school that Bodo wanted to
offer through Elon College. After the site visit, Ward
determined that the best thing that could be done would
be a small scale mapping project, leaving all of the
artifacts in situ and to conduct no excavations. Bodo
agreed with that strategy. At that time, the only
visible remains were two rectangular to square stone
footings adjacent to a cemetery area that looked to
have 15 to 20 unmarked graves inside. Unmarked graves
in terms of rough field stones at the head and foot.
1
43
There are also a few graves within a large stone wall.
The graves are marked by depressions where the coffins
have rotted and the ground has collapsed creating the
depression on the surface. Also, for some strange
reason, almost any unmarked cemetery in the Piedmont,
North Carolinas will be covered by periwinkle, as were
these.
Ward stated that the next time he visited the site was
with Randy Daniel, who at that time was a PHd student
with Ward's research labs. Basically the same things
were observed as Ward had seen earlier with Dawn. Also
noticed were other footings located just north of
Eubanks Road that could have been chimney fall and
other remains in addition to the two rectangular
structures mentioned earlier. After Duke cleared an
area where it was suspected there might be footings,
Ward was able to identify what looks to be the stone
foundation for a relatively large house structure,
another stone foundation and chimney fall that may be
associated with the kitchen structure, but doesn't know
for sure. There is other structure evidence of a
foundation located in the same vicinity. So there are
probably the remains of five different structures and
the cemetery comprising the archeological site. Ward
was present when the site was tested using a small bore
auger to determine if there are any intact
archeological objects associated with the foundations
and footings themselves. The results of those tests
were positive in three of the areas that were tested.
In the house site there is almost of foot, of what
looks to be cultural deposits, that is preserved. With
the two outbuildings closest to the house site, there
is similar depth of deposit associated with the
footings themselves.
Ward explained that from an archeological standpoint,
there are intact cultural materials associated with
each of the stone foundations and footings except the
two that are closest to the cemetery. No real depth of
deposit was found there. Ward stated that what makes
the site significant is the fact that these buried
materials are in association with the structural
remains. There may be other things out there, such as
wells, trash goods, garbage disposal areas; all of the
kinds of things archaeologists study and get
information from regarding our past. What is standing
and visible is not at all impressive, it is what is
buried that has the potential for answering questions
about the past. From that standpoint, Ward feels that
the site is eligible for the Register under Criterion
D. It has the potential to yield significant
2
44
information on our history.
At this time, Belk asked for questions to be held until
the appropriate time on the agenda.
Belk reminded the Commission that the ultimate listing
of the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site on the National
Register of Historic Places imposes no restriction on
the property owner, however it does offer a degree of
protection by insuring a review of federally funded
projects to determine if they pose adverse impacts to
National Register sites. This requirement is described
in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
3 . Comments from the Public
Judson Edeburn, Resource Manager with Duke Forest, was
sworn in and addressed the Commission. (See attachment
III)
Essie Hogan Leak was sworn in and addressed the
Commission stating that she grew up adjoining this
plantation, playing and working on this plantation.
Leak's father rented land and worked for this family.
Leak's grandfather and all of his ancestors are buried
in this cemetery. All of Leak's father's family are
buried there, except Leak's father, who is buried in a
church cemetery. There was a large two story white
house. The water was carried to the house from the
spring. There were three or four log cabins on the
farm. At that time, to the best of Leak's knowledge,
the people that helped on the farm were not slaves.
This is an old, old place because Leak grew up with her
father telling her that his grandfather was there and
his father was there. Leak stated that she thinks the
plantation should be preserved.
T. Dickinson asked if Leak remembers when the farmhouse
was removed.
Leak replied that it was pushed down when the power
line came through, but does not remember the year;
maybe early 19401s. It was a big white house with
several trees in front. It had a big front porch.
T. Dickinson asked if Leak recalled what the other
buildings on the site were used for.
Leak replied that one was a barn near the cemetery.
3
45
The other cemetery was a barn. Leak's father was
caretaker of the cemetery. When Duke bought it, her
father stopped taking care of the cemetery. There were
a couple of other log cabins not too far from the white
house. There was an orchard beside the big house with
apple and pear trees. This is also where the garden
was. If you are looking at the house, the orchard
would be to the left.
Leak stated that her cousin, Ms. Rogers, could add to
this.
White, asked if the present Eubanks Road is the old
Eubanks Road? Is it the same roadbed?
Leak replied that it is. But then, it was a narrow
dirt road.
Leak stated that in most houses, you had to leave the
house to go to a separate building to get to the
kitchen. But in this house, there was a breezeway
connecting the house to the kitchen.
Anderson asked what was the distinction between the two
grave sites? The one within the wall and the one
outside?
Leak replied that the ones within the walls were for
the head men and their families. The other people
connected to the farm, such as Leak's grandfather, were
buried near the wall.
Don Willhoit, who was next to speak, asked that Ms.
Rogers speak next to keep the rhythm going.
Mildred Rogers was sworn in and addressed the
Commission stating that the first she knew of the
Alexander Hogan Plantation was in 1946. Rogers and her
husband walked down through the orchard consisting of
fruit trees and flowers and the cemetery.
Don Willhoit, Orange County Commissioner, was sworn in
and addressed the Commission stating that as a
Commissioner, he will have an opportunity to vote on
this at a later time. He is also the Chair of the
Landfill Owners Group, but not here in that capacity,
but just as an individual member and not presumed to
speak for that group. Most people know that one of the
sites being considered for the future landfill in
Orange County is OC17; which Duke University is a part
4
46
of that area. The landfill site search committee has
recommended OC17 as the preferred site as well as the
engineering firm that has been employed to assist in
the site search. The Landfill Owners Group has not
made a recommendation yet and will be holding a public
hearing on the 28th of this month. At some point this
Fall, they are hopeful to send a recommendation to the
three governing boards that currently own the landfill
giving them the Group's preference for a next landfill
site. Since this proposed historic site is in the area
of OC17, Willhoit's reading of the map indicates that
it is largely, if not wholly, outside of the area shown
on the map by the engineering firm. It would be in the
buffer area. Willhoit did not question the motive of
Duke University in submitting this request; although
the timing is of interest, being somewhat of a cynic.
Willhoit would like to, at some point in the study of
this request, determine what has been Duke's historic
record of interest in historic preservation or adding
their property to the National Register of historic
sites. Willhoit stated that his study of the site maps
indicate that this property is outside of the fill area
that would be proposed and therefore would be
compatible with being located in the buffer area of a
landfill. Willhoit asked when was the site's potential
historic significance recognized by Duke University?
(This should be in the records of the study that was
done. ) Also, Willhoit would like to know what
activities, foresting or others, have occurred on the
property that has been submitted for the Registry?
What work has been done prior to the recognition of its
historic significance? If OC17 is selected, Willhoit
will certainly do his part to work with the Duke
University to preserve and what they are studying.
Brenda Carney was sworn in and addressed the Commission
stating that she lives within 500 feet of the area
which contains the site under nomination tonight. As a
landowner, she is naturally concerned about any
activity on surrounding property that may affect her
land and her rights. After looking at this proposal
and speaking with representatives of Orange County and
Duke, Carney foresees no adverse affects for her from
the proposal as she understands it. Consequently,
Carney does not oppose the placing of this property on
the National Register of Historic places.
5. Close Public Hearing
T. Dickinson then closed the public part of the hearing
inviting the public to stay and listen to the
Commission's deliberations.
5
47
T. Dickinson opened the floor for questions, comments
and opinions from the Commission.
Rich asked Ward, of the many sites in North Carolina
that are well preserved, what is being done about
these? Is anything being done about the other sites in
Orange County?
Ward replied that this is one of the best preserved
sites in Orange County that he is aware of.
White asked Ward to speak about the Couch site which is
in Duke Forest. Would that be a similar kind of site
to this one in terms of what it might yield?
Ward replied that the Couch site probably would be a
similar kind of site, as well as some of the others
having the potential for intact deposits. Intact
deposits were demonstrated at this particular site
(Alexander Hogan) and that is why they are going on
with its nomination to the Register. On these other
sites, some kind of testing would have to be done in
order to verify what might be there.
White asked if classifications were done . . . We are
looking for some kind of a unique situation.
Ward replied that on archeological sites they are not
necessarily looking for anything unique. They are
dealing more with patterns than uniqueness. The fact
that makes this site significant is that there are
things there that are buried relatively close to the
locations where they were used. This is the primary
prerequisite for conducting their research to conduct
an excavation; is if there is something there that is
buried from the past that has not been disturbed, moved
around, bull dozed out, plowed out, eroded out, etc.
Rich asked if these other sites also have this.
Ward replied, sure.
Rich asked if any boring were made on these other
sites?
Ward replied that he did not know if Duke has done any;
Ward has not.
White asked if they (Duke) have chosen to preserve
these other sites as well.
6
48
Ward replied that they are preserved by the fact that
they are in the forest. All of these sites have been
mapped for years and have been avoided by logging
operations. Ward starting doing an inventory for the
Duke Forest sites 10 years ago and began to see how
well these have been preserved in the forest and
recognized that they were unique in the forest. This
wetted his interest in this 19th century farmstead
archeology.
White stated that the Commission is seeing a
significant number of sites and White is trying to
determine which of the ,14 Duke sites might also serve
and can a comparison be made between them?
Ward stated that the other 13 may have the potential,
but it is not known until testing is done on them. If
all 14 had that potential, they would meet National
Register Criterion D and it would not be a matter of
which one is best.
Allison stated that there seems to be no intent to find
out what is there; to do any archeological studies
other than the ones that have been done. Can we infer
that Duke intends to excavate and find out what is
there and publish that?
Ward replied that the purpose of the Register, as he
understands it, is not to excavate sites, but to
preserve sites. As long as nothing is happening to the
sites, and until someone has enough money and time and
expertise to put together a team to do research on the
site, it is hoped that nobody would do anything there.
Rich asked to clarify that if these sites have been
preserved for these last 50 years by Duke Forest, will
Duke preserve this site without a nomination?
Ward replied that he would hope they would.
Rich asked again to clarify that Duke doesn't need a
nomination to preserve it. They own the land and could
preserve it forever if they want to; assuming no
catastrophe?
Ward replied sure, assuming no catastrophe.
Allison asked if there has been any other disruption
aside from the maintenance of the power line?
Ward replied that the structures that they are aware of
7
49
look to be intact, at least the deposits in the
immediate vicinity of those structures. That is not to
say that the power line may not have obliterated things
that were there. But the foundation remains of the
structures themselves seem to be in tact.
T. Dickinson asked why is a ruin such as this more
interesting to the archeologist than an existing
structure with the same yard around it? An existing
structure of which we have upwards of 600 sites in
Orange County that we are now including on the
inventory, many of which are small farmsteads, some log
buildings, some frame, have all been built in the last
180 years or so; why does the archeologist focus
attention on a ruin more than the archeology to be
gained from an existing site?
Ward replied that they don't. In looking at the study
that was done for Orange County, the Davis Farm site
was excavated along with another site that still has a
standing structure. If there are buried intact
remains, dating to the time period of buildings
original construction and use, regardless of whether
they are standing or not, it still has archeological
potential.
Allison asked Ward what he expects to find at the
Alexander Hogan site that won't be found at other
antebellum sites in the County?
Ward replied that it is not known yet what it holds
relative to any other site in the County since they
have not excavated other sites in the County. What is
known, is that it has the potential for contributing
important information that may be used in a comparing
standpoint to begin to develop patterns that could be
used then, to evaluate other sites in the County.
Anderson asked what kind of remains Ward was able to
determine from his testing?
Ward replied that no artifacts were retrieved.
Deposits resulting from the destruction and rotted down
buildings, meaning that the artifacts are buried within
that matrix and Ward expects to find kitchen artifacts,
farm implements, etc. represented within that matrix
It should be relatively sealed to the early part of the
plantation's existence. Ward has seen some surface
artifacts that date to the middle/late 19th century;
ceramics, glass, etc.
8
50
White asked, in reference to cemeteries, that when it
says in the National Register Fact Sheet, that the
National Register was created primarily to recognize
and protect historic places or environments that
represent how people worked, lived and built. Human
burials are recognized and protected under other laws,
so even if this is not recognized as a National
Register potential place, that graveyard could still be
protected under its own?
Ward replied yes, the graves would be protected. But
the graveyard is a component of this larger thing and
not an entity of itself.
P. Dickinson stated that as a Historic Commission, they
are interested in and fascinated by the- collection of
history, but the Commission's charge tonight is much
narrower than that. The Commission is asked to comment
on a Register nomination itself and all they have to go
on is the document and the register forms which tells
how to apply the National Register Criteria for
evaluation. Because there are so many archeological
sites, this information gets very specific in talking
about Criterion D. It does have to contribute to the
understanding of history and it has to be considered
important information. To be considered important, it
has to be shown to have a significant bearing on a
research design that addresses such areas as current
data gaps or alternative theories that challenge
existing ones or priority areas identified under state
management plans.
T. Dickinson stated that he finds it very difficult to
comment under part two of Criterion D which states that
this is an important archeological site because to be
important, it must stand out amongst the 600 different
resources in Orange County that are obviously above
ground, not to mention the ones that have not yet been
found below ground.
T. Dickinson stated that in this case, the Commission
is dealing with an archeological site where the data is
there and preserved under the ground, which makes it
more difficult for the Commission to get a grip on
it. . .
Rich corrected that the artifacts may be there. It is
conjecture to say that they are there. It is not known
for sure if the are there.
White added that if the artifacts were known to be
9
51
there, it would be easier to recommend it.
Rich asked Ward why tests were not done of several of
the sites to come up with this being the best, or one
of the best sites. Or tested six and this is the best.
Or told that you would like to preserve all six (test
sites) , but this is our nomination because it was the
best. There is no comparison. The Commission is just
given a site here that was tested out of 14 possible
sites. Could there be more information at one of the
other 14 sites?
Ward explained that this particular site is being
evaluated at this time because it is threatened. Ward
would hope that Duke would operate in a similar manner
if any of the other sites were threatened.
Anderson spoke concerning the Couch site stating that
she has studied this site. The Couch site shows much
more potential than the Hogan site. In reality, the
manuscripts are there on the Couch site, the Commission
knows about the family and the other Couch sites that
still exist on Cornwallis Road, so Anderson would
prefer the Couch site if a choice had to be made
between the two.
P. Dickinson added that she has written nominations
that have resulted in approximately 700 buildings being
placed on the National Register. The thing seen most
often is that the site being nominated is written as
being the "best" or the "only" . This is not seen in
this nomination. The National Register process in not
meant to be just an information gathering process;
although a lot of information if gathered during the
course of it. But P. Dickinson does not find a strong
enough argument to find this to be an exceptional site.
T. Dickinson added that there must be two parts. The
nomination must have the information and that
information must be important. T. Dickinson does not
find this information to be important enough make a
recommendation. This same information can be found in
the back yard of any house in the County that was built
before 1880/1870.
P. Dickinson stated that very specific guidelines are
written on how to apply Criterion D. The information
on the site must be considered important. She does not
see that in this nomination as it is written. All
archeological sites are important sites, but not all of
them are significant.
10
52
Allison stated that there does not appear to be
significantly different information to be gained from
this than from many, many other sites in the County.
White stated that since this site is in the landfill
buffer, it will be protected from any landfill
disturbing activity. Why wouldn't the Couch site be as
well, a location? In trying to find the best
information, the best area to preserve, why would not
another site be as worthy or more worthy since the
Alexander Hogan site will already be preserved by being
in the landfill buffer?
Ward replied that he would like to see every site in
Orange County evaluated relative to National Register
criteria.
T. Dickinson stated that this recommendation needs to
be more specific about the information that will be
gained from this site, more specific about the
importance of the data that is at this site, and more
specific about the amount of area that it is taking
into account.
MOTION: Rich moved to end discussion on the
recommendation of the Alexander Hogan
Plantation Site for National Register
Nomination. Seconded by Anderson.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Although the site may have archeological significance,
the Commission feels that it does not meet the criteria
for National Register because of these reasons.
1. The Commission disagrees with the bounds of
the nomination.
2. The Commission has not been convinced of its
unique significance.
3. The Commission feels that it does not hold up
the integrity issue. It does not have the
ability to convey its significance as a site.
4. The Commission feels that it is redundant
sites in the County of similar age and
potential.
KOTION: Rich moved that the recommendation for the
11
53
Alexander Hogan Plantation Site, although
there may be archeological significance at
the site, does not meet criteria for listing
in the National Register. Seconded by
Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
T. Dickinson then address the audience stating that the
Commission is concerned with this site as well as other sites
within the County, whether they are above ground or below ground.
The Commission is not concerned, as historic preservationists,
with cemeteries and the remains of family members because that is
dealt with in another form by other people. The Commission is
caring human beings and are very concerned with what happens to
cemeteries, but that is not a historic problem for this Board.
If there is an impact by any County or private development, that
cemetery will have to be dealt with in a respectful way and you
will be consulted on how that is dealt with and you will have
your say on how that is dealt with at that time. But that is not
his Commission's purview This Commission's purview at this
meeting was merely to pass on the National Register Nomination.
The Commission will work towards mitigation at this site for you
as your preservation commissioners, but have not endorsed this
nomination.
12
54
Duke 3_�nifiersitu
DURHAM '
NORTH CAROLINA
27708-0332
SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT TELEPHONE (919) 613-8013
OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST FACSIMILE (91 9) 684-8741
eox90332
Alexander Hogan Plantation
Statement to the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission
September 12, 1995
The tracts of land comprising the Duke Forest contain several old farms with the remnants of
structures, cemeteries, grist mills and other evidence of early life in the North Carolina Piedmont. The
historical record of one such farm, the Alexander Hogan Plantation, was initially determined in the spring
of 1993 by Professor Dawn Bodo, a cultural anthropologist at Elon College. Professor Bodo and her
archaeology students began an investigation of the site for a class case study on the recommendation of
Eugene and Julia Blackwood, whose family history was the subject of Professor Bodo's research at the
time. The class uncovered a cemetery that included the graves of the Hogan family members, possibly their
slaves, and freed men who had inherited or purchased the land after the plantation's demise around 1890.
In addition to the cemetery, the students also found the remains of two outbuildings, a chimney which was
later associated with the house site, and numerous artifacts lying under thick vegetative cover. Her
students researched the genealogy and land use history of the site, and found that they had in fact
discovered a small plantation dating back to 1838. Based on the Elon College students' research, Professor
Bodo considered the plantation to be a"cultural resource that would shed light on life during the 18th and
19th centuries."
Archaeologists specializing in Southeastern archaeology corroborated Professor Bodo's beliefs
about the plantation's historical significance. Of the ten to fifteen plantation sites recorded in Orange
County, very few have been as well-preserved as the Hogan Plantation or have as much historical data
collected from them. According to Dr. I. Randolph Daniel of the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill's Research Laboratories of Anthropology, "virtually no archaeological work has been done on any
such site in the county and . . . only very limited work has been reported from similar sites elsewhere in the
state." The plantation has been left in much the same condition as it was when it was purchased some 50
years ago as part of the Duke Forest. Because site preservation is unusually good,the Hogan Plantation is
likely to yield significant information concerning the spatial arrangement of plantation structures and the
daily activities associated with them. In addition, as a good portion of African-American history from this
time cannot be found in written records, the Hogan Plantation should provide insight into the role of
African-Americans in small plantation life, and early American history in general, through the
archaeological record contained there.
Scholars from both Elon College and UNC have documented that the Alexander Hogan Plantation
stands as a notable example of daily life in the Piedmont during the antebellum and post-bellum eras and
should contribute greatly to the historical record of Orange County. We are extremely fortunate to have a
site as well-preserved as the Hogan Plantation on our property. It most certainly will be an invaluable asset
to researchers and residents alike.
We support the nomination of the Alexander Hogan Plantation to the National Register of Historic
Places and appreciate the work of all involved.
**The CLG Commission should complete one of the following comment paragraphs:
55
A. We, the have reviewed and discussed the
(CLG Commission)
nomination for the and find that the property
(name of property)
meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places as stated in Section 8 of the report. We, therefore, recommend
that the property be submitted for listing in the Register.
Additional comments:
Commission chairman's signature and date
B. We, the Orange County HPC have reviewed and discussed the
(CLG Commission)
nomination for the Alexander Hogan Plantation and find that the
(name of property)
property does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places as stated in Section 8 of the report. We, therefore,
do not recommend that the property be submitted for listing in the
Register. The reasons for our findings concerning this nomination are
stated below (use additional sheet if necessary) :
See attached.
-7iW 4V,,
Todd W. Dickinson September 12, 1995
Commission chairman's signature and date
56
HP-1-95 ALEXANDER HOGAN PLANTATION SITE
NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
The Orange County Historic Preservation Commission has
reviewed and discussed the nomination for the Alexander Hogan
Plantation site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places and, on September 12, 1995, held a public hearing on the
nomination. The Commission unanimously finds that the property
does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places as stated in Section 8 of the Report. The Orange
County Historic Preservation Commission, therefore, does not
recommend that the property be submitted for listing in the
Register. The reasons for its findings concerning this nomination
follow:
1. The site may have archeological significance but it does
not meet the criteria for nomination.
2 . The site as presented in the nomination is not unique but
redundant, and thus fails the requirement that the information must
be considered important.
3. The nomination does not demonstrate that the site has the
ability to convey its historic significance.
4. The boundaries of the site as defined in the nomination
exceed what is necessary to convey any historic significance that
the site may have.
Commission Chair's Signature
Date