Laserfiche WebLink
• li1VENTORY RESULTS <br />Duiring the course of the survey, t+vo sites ::sere recorded. No isolated artifacts <br />i <br />:vere discovered. The t:vo sites are not considered eligible to the National Register of <br />1 Historic Places (NRHP). <br />~ It is difficult to determine the age of a site without the; aid of diagnostic <br />materials. Such is the case for the two sites 5~iF1200 and 5;14F1201. Historic site <br />S~IF1200 exhibits methods and techniques of construction that give a good indication of <br />age and period of use. However, site 5?.IF1201 has little informational content that <br />would give an indication of its age. <br />While the architectural design of SlIF1200 is of interest, the site lacks integrity <br />' and associative significance. Homesteads in this area, as elsewhere, represent settlers <br />trying to take up land. The regular lots of lznd were usually insufficient to su~~crt a <br />Camily, so adjoining lots were also accuired. This may have been the case +vith this site. <br />The main house does exliibit what seems to be insufficient architecture for the :•:e:,t;~:er, <br />so it could have been a seasonal site with main winter ouarters out of the study ar=_a. a <br />check with the County Assessor shed less light on the origins than expected. AeParentl_ , <br />~• Sam Conboy owned the land as of 1939, but no record of a structure or assessment or" tiie <br />land has been made since the 1939 entry. <br />Site 51IF1201 appears to lack content for further determining temporal seouences <br />and is situated in an erosional situation which lessens significance. <br />The site summaries which follow describe each site in further detail. <br />• <br />8 <br />