How to Research Your Land's History

1. Every piece of land has a history

Every piece of land has been somebody’s pasture, woodlot, hunting ground, shortcut or worry. The fences, stumps, roads and odd clearings on your place are clues to that history, and so are the papers, photographs and memories that go with them. This booklet shows you where those clues are kept, what each kind can and cannot tell you, and how to weigh them against each other.

The methods come from four studies by forest historian Dr. Bob Zybach, listed in section 7: his 1999 thesis on Soap Creek Valley, Oregon (the Soap Creek study); his 2003 dissertation on the Great Fires of the Oregon Coast Range; the 2011 Tiller study of the South Umpqua headwaters; and Coquelle Trails (2013), written with Don Ivy.

Why it’s worth knowing

Knowing how your land looked, and how people used it, helps explain what you see on it now: why one slope grew up in fir while the next stayed in grass, where an old road ran, why a fence line sits where it does.

It is also a matter of time. Great Fires 2003 turned up “a number of threatened or obscure sources of information, including fading memories, 90-year old hand-colored timber cruise maps, collections of 60 to 120 year-old photographs, agency reports, etc.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 302). Papers get thrown out, and memories leave with the people who hold them.

What the evidence can answer

More than most people expect. In the Soap Creek study, the original land surveys of the 1850s and 1880s “recorded specific locations, sizes, and species of trees and understory vegetation on a regular grid that subdivided the landscape into square-mile sections and pioneer land claims” (Thesis 1999, p. 21). The surveyors also noted crops, buildings and roads (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 21). Great Fires 2003 found that the same kind of survey maps and notes can show Indian trails, homesites and campsites, berry patches and fields of root crops, mapping that “cannot be duplicated by any other source of information” (Great Fires 2003, p. 96).

With patience you can often learn what grew where, where trails and roads ran, where fires burned, when fields were cleared and who lived near the spring.

What the evidence cannot do is hold still. In the words of Great Fires 2003, “each landscape pattern that is shown represents only a point in time for a selected area” (Great Fires 2003, p. 11). An old map, a photograph or a neighbor’s story is one look at one moment.

Weighing many sources together

No single record gets the last word, not even the oldest one in the courthouse. Great Fires 2003 describes its approach this way:

“Two key features of this methodology are that research questions are answered based on the "weight of evidence" from multiple sources, and research findings include the formal identification of additional "tangible" questions as they present themselves.”

In plain terms: gather several kinds of evidence, see where they agree, and keep a list of the new questions that turn up. Answers are held loosely: “The preponderance of available tangible evidence is used to select likely answers, given the likelihood that such answers are intended to change or be modified as more information is made available” (Great Fires 2003, p. 53). The Tiller study works the same way, “making a reasoned answer to the question based on the weight of the gathered evidence” (Tiller 2011, p. 8). The rest of this booklet is about doing that on your own ground.

2. Where the evidence lives

The Soap Creek study lists the kinds of evidence it drew on:

“At least 19 different types of information were used for research purposes during the course of this thesis. Specific sources of information are listed in the reference section and representative findings are described in text and/or displayed as tables, figures, and/or maps in the body of this document. Types of information used in this research included: 1) aerial photographs, 2) archives (including libraries), 3) artifacts, 4) drawings, 5) fossils, 6) journals (including diaries and correspondence), 7) land surveys, 8) living memory (source of oral traditions, oral histories, interviews, and consultations), 9) maps, 10) newspapers, 11) photographs (other than aerial photographs), 12) pollens, 13) popular literature, 14) satellite imagery, 15) scientific literature, 16) timber cruises, 17) tree rings, 18) vegetation patterns, and 19) video (and film).”

This booklet sorts the 19 into four groups and keeps the numbers from the list above. The grouping is the booklet’s, and the order is not a ranking: the thesis does not say which types to consult first. Its Table 7, which numbers the types differently, scores each one for how useful it proved at Soap Creek and how useful it might be in similar future studies (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, pp. 57–58), and the thesis says “Arbitrary numbers are also assigned by the author” (Thesis 1999, p. 57). Each Where to look line is a general suggestion unless it carries a citation.

Written records

Archives (2). Records kept at libraries and archives; for Soap Creek, “student and business reports, census data, property transaction records, photographs, maps, and legal filings” (Thesis 1999, p. 19). Where to look: the county clerk, the county historical society or museum, the state archives, and university special collections. The Tiller study searched a county museum and the county surveyor’s office, the state forestry department’s history center, university map libraries, archives and special collections, and a national forest office (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 14).

Journals (6). Diaries, letters and other correspondence. “Journals were the first form of historical documentation for Soap Creek Valley” (Thesis 1999, p. 21). Mind who held the pen. Of the earliest Coast Range journals, Great Fires 2003 notes: “All of the journalists were white males, so a certain amount of demographic bias needs to be taken into account for these narratives.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 77). Where to look: family papers, the county historical society, and published travelers’ journals in libraries.

Land surveys (7). The original land surveys of the General Land Office (GLO), made and recorded by the US government: a map of each township, called the plat, and the surveyor’s field notes. Most in western Oregon were finished by 1910, though remote areas with few private land claims were not surveyed until the 1920s and 1930s (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 20). They “provided valuable information regarding forest cover patterns that preceded living memory (1890s), timber cruises (1910s), and aerial photographs (1930s)” (Thesis 1999, p. 21). But surveyors were “probably not trained to recognize such localized features as elk pits, peeled trees, or rock ovens” (Great Fires 2003, p. 96). Where to look: the county surveyor’s office or the Bureau of Land Management; Coquelle Trails used both (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 15).

Maps (9). Here, maps other than survey plats and timber cruises, such as county land ownership maps (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 22). Soap Creek’s maps “provided good means for directing oral history subjects to designated meeting spots and for helping to document recorded tours of the study area” (Thesis 1999, p. 22). But a simplified map drops detail, such as “the locations of roads, trails, springs, and houses” (Great Fires 2003, p. 101). Where to look: county surveyor and assessor’s offices, university map libraries, and old county atlases.

Newspapers (10). “Newspapers were used extensively as a source of background data and to corroborate names, dates, and events discussed by oral history subjects.” (Thesis 1999, p. 22). Where to look: the public library, the paper’s own files, and university and state libraries.

Popular literature (13). Local histories and the like: good for context and for keeping a conversation going (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 23), though for Soap Creek “more precise and reliable information was readily obtained through other sources” (Thesis 1999, p. 23). Where to look: the library’s local-history shelf and the county historical society.

Scientific literature (15). Published research, used at Soap Creek for methods, for times before anyone’s memory, and to check other evidence (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 24). Where to look: university libraries and agency publications.

Timber cruises (16). “Timber cruises are usually systematic and detailed accountings of the amount and value of principal tree products within a given area.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 56). At Soap Creek, “A key use of timber cruises was to interpret and display new findings” (Thesis 1999, p. 25). Coverage is patchy, and “existing cruises are of a highly uneven quality” (Great Fires 2003, p. 98). Where to look: county archives and assessor’s records, the state forestry department, and timber company or family papers.

Images

Aerial photographs (1). “Aerial photographs are photographs taken from the air typically from airplanes or balloons.” (Thesis 1999, p. 19). At Soap Creek, a series running from the 1930s on (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 19) “provided the surest, most reliable, and most detailed form of repeat photography” (Thesis 1999, p. 19). For earlier times, Great Fires 2003 found them “limited principally to interpretive--rather than documentary--purposes” (Great Fires 2003, p. 85). Where to look: university map libraries, national forest offices, and federal agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey. In 2003, “The University of Oregon has the most complete collection of aerial photographs available in Oregon” (Great Fires 2003, p. 84). Question for Bob: written in 2003, and repeated in the Tiller report in 2011 (p. 21); is this still the best place to start?

Drawings (4). For Soap Creek, drawings were “of limited value for this research, unless one includes hand sketched maps” (Thesis 1999, p. 20). But detailed landscape drawings published in 1885 bridge the 1850s surveys and the 1890s photographs, and one drawing helped secure the oral histories of two people (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 20). Where to look: old county histories and atlases, family papers, and local museums.

Photographs (11). “Photographs were also important stimuli at key points of nearly all of the oral history interviews conducted for this study” (Thesis 1999, p. 23). They also allow repeat photography: “taking new landscape photographs from the same locations and perspectives as historical photographs in order to compare differences and document change” (Thesis 1999, p. 23). The Tiller study used 1930s fire-lookout panoramas, “highly detailed maps of the visible landscape created at an exact point in time” (Tiller 2011, p. 22). Where to look: family albums, historical societies and museums, and national forest offices.

Satellite imagery (14). At Soap Creek, less detailed than aerial photographs for the people interviewed to read, and less accurate than land surveys and timber cruises for showing most forest conditions at a useful scale (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 23), with “no data before the 1970s” (Thesis 1999, p. 24). Where to look: online map services and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Video and film (19). “Videos (and films) were likely the most underutilized and, potentially, one of the most useful types of data associated with this study.” (Thesis 1999, p. 26). No earlier video or film of Soap Creek turned up; the study made its own video panoramas of the valley in 1998, and the thesis says video could capture much of what a sound recording misses, and tours of particular places (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 26). Where to look: home movies, historical societies, and local television archives.

The land itself

Artifacts (3). In the Soap Creek study, “the physical cultural remains of past and current residents and visitors” (Thesis 1999, p. 20), from stone tools to telephone poles; they were good at jogging memories and checking other sources (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 20). Archaeological finds can be hard to date, and site locations are usually kept from the public to discourage looting (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 9). Where to look: your own fields and old house sites. If something may be old, leave it where it lies and ask the State Historic Preservation Office or a tribal cultural resources office.

Fossils (5). Remains of prehistoric plants and animals (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 20). Soap Creek’s only example, two elephant teeth found by a local family, still helped spark the interest and cooperation of several people in the study (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 20). Where to look: natural history museums and university geology departments.

Pollens (12). Ancient pollen, which lasts tens of thousands of years and gives the long view back to the last ice age (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 23). For Soap Creek’s last 500 years its value “was minimal and limited largely to discussions of their seasonal allergenic properties” (Thesis 1999, p. 23). Where to look: published pollen studies in university libraries.

Tree rings (17). A tree adds a ring each year, so rings can age a stand and hint at past climate (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 31). At Soap Creek they were “a useful tool for interpreting forest conditions for prehistoric time in Soap Creek Valley” (Thesis 1999, p. 25). Tiller 2011 judged others’ fire-scar studies “of limited value for detecting landscape-scale practices that occur on a regular basis or wildfires that result in stand replacement events” (Tiller 2011, p. 10). Where to look: fresh stumps on your own land.

Vegetation patterns (18). “Documented vegetation patterns, in conjunction with early land surveys, also provided a useful source of information for interpreting late prehistoric and early historical forest cover conditions.” (Thesis 1999, p. 26). Long-lived trees, and plants such as camas and bracken fern, can hold their ground for decades or centuries (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 31). Where to look: your own land: old oaks among younger firs, patches of camas or fern, prairie plants in openings.

Living memory

Living memory (8). “Living Memory is the basis for oral histories, oral traditions, formal interviews, focus groups, conversations, and consultations.” (Thesis 1999, p. 21). In the Soap Creek study it was “the principal, and foundational, data source used for this study” (Thesis 1999, p. 21). Where to look: neighbors and former owners; retired loggers, foresters and ranchers; and the oral history collections of county and state historical societies. In most cases the original Soap Creek tapes went to the Oregon Historical Society, with copies to the Oregon State University Archives (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 51).

3. Talking with people: oral history basics

An oral history is more than a visit on the porch: “Oral histories are tape recorded and transcribed interviews with individuals that document living memory.” (Thesis 1999, p. 26). Oral traditions are different: they tend to pass culture along through spoken words, songs and the like, while oral histories set out to record historical information (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 13). The Soap Creek study is built on oral histories (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 27).

Choosing people

The Soap Creek study applied two tests: “participants must have had a first-hand knowledge of events in Soap Creek Valley and they must have lived or worked in the area for a significant period of time” (Thesis 1999, p. 35). It also sought women and men, different occupations and experiences, and a range of ages (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 35). And it did not wait: “Older participants were given priority and interviewed first whenever possible” (Thesis 1999, p. 36), because “the oldest members of potential interviewees held the earliest and most fragile memories of Soap Creek Valley” (Thesis 1999, p. 36).

Most people were found by referral; the first interview led to several more (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, pp. 36–39). So end every visit by asking who else you should see.

Asking, and recording

People were interviewed when and where it suited them, and were told what kinds of questions would be asked, that they could stop at any time or skip a question, and that the recording would be transcribed and shared, with a chance to edit the transcript first (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 47). Recorded sessions typically began with introductions, then with discussing and signing an informed consent agreement (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 47). Do the same: ask before you record, explain what will happen to the recording, and put the agreement on paper. Question for Bob: is a written agreement the right suggestion for landowners, and should the booklet offer a sample?

Record rather than take notes: a recording keeps tone and background sounds, and the talk usually flows better (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 33). Most Soap Creek sessions ran one to two hours, and repeated questions were kept few so as not to irritate anyone (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 48).

Prompting memory with places, photographs and objects

“In order to facilitate recall, interviews were often conducted at locations in which specific events had transpired” (Thesis 1999, p. 46). Interviews also used maps, aerial photographs, sketches, prehistoric tools “and even broken glass, old bricks, and nails” (Thesis 1999, p. 46), prompts that “proved very effective in rekindling memories or triggering additional thoughts” (Thesis 1999, p. 47). A one-page outline of topics served as a checklist (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 46). General topics included family history, how the family made a living, neighbors, major events, old documents and objects, and changes in plants and wildlife (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 45). Bring photographs, and walk the ground if your guest is able.

Transcripts the speaker checks

New recordings were typed up, then checked against the tape by people who had been at the interview (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 48): “The interviewees were often the best people for this step because they were most aware of who and what was talked about, general accuracy, how names were spelled, what they had intended to say, and what had been left unsaid.” (Thesis 1999, p. 48). The Soap Creek interviews leaned toward an approach in which, if a date is later found to be wrong, the transcript is corrected and a note added (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, pp. 43–44), while the tape keeps the original: “The recording can always be used to determine exactly what was said, and the oral historian can safely quote transcribed text with assurance that historical documentation is given priority over human recollection.” (Thesis 1999, p. 44).

Testing memories against documents

In the Soap Creek study, doubts about spoken memories “were resolved by triangulation of oral history transcripts with other scientific and documentary sources of information” (Thesis 1999, p. 59). Triangulation, as the thesis uses the term, means using two or more sources, methods or theories to check one another (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 24). The usual result was “striking degrees of consistency in detail” (Thesis 1999, p. 59).

Memory’s limits

Memories differ: two of the people interviewed gave quite different accounts of the same structure from before the First World War, and two others gave contradictory accounts of a local flock of what were believed to be feral sheep (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 46). In the Soap Creek study, memory seemed to keep its own calendar: “most memories seem to focus on key events that occur about once every generation—on average, about every 30 years, no matter what topic is considered” (Thesis 1999, p. 56). For older people, “a decade is generally too short a period to discuss in detail, and a century is too long” (Thesis 1999, p. 56). Some effects slip past: a long-term study the thesis cites found that a sudden cold spell in 1955 had measurable, lasting effects on trees’ health and survival (paraphrase; Thesis 1999, p. 68), yet “these effects went undetected by Soap Creek Valley subjects, several of whom were foresters, farmers, loggers, and ranchers” (Thesis 1999, p. 68). Question for Bob: the thesis dates this cold spell to October 1955 on p. 68, and its Table 22 (p. 204) lists a major cold snap in 1956; are these the same event? Ask about the big events, then check the dates.

4. Putting the pieces together

The Tiller study outlines the whole job:

“Research for this project was conducted in four basic steps: archival research and literature review, predictive field map construction, “ground-truthing” the predictive map (field research), and synthesis. These are not discrete steps in any sense, and usually two or three were being undertaken at the same time throughout the course of this project.”

In plain words: gather records (section 2) and talk to people (section 3). Next, mark on a modern map where the records say something should be, such as an old trail or clearing; the Tiller study calls this a predictive map (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, pp. 25–26). Then go and look, which is ground-truthing. The Tiller map marked a landmark where two ridgeline trails meet, and named campsites and springs along those trails, as likely places to find stone artifacts or culturally important plants (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 26), and the study reports: “And, in fact, just such evidence was readily found at each of these exact locations.” (Tiller 2011, p. 26). Last comes synthesis: putting it together and writing it down.

Township, range and section

Most old maps, and today’s property lines and tax lot maps, are based on the survey grid (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 91). Oregon’s grid starts at the Willamette Stone, in the hills above Portland. Townships are six-mile-square blocks counted north or south from an east-west baseline; ranges are counted east or west from a north-south meridian. So T. 12 S., R. 7 W., the township with Marys Peak, lies 12 tiers south and seven west of the Willamette Stone (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, pp. 90–91). Each township normally holds 36 square-mile sections, numbered from Sec. 1 in the northeast corner, back and forth, to Sec. 36 in the southeast (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 91). Surveyors marked corners with bearing trees, which “were carefully marked, identified as to species and general condition, measured for diameter, and located by distance and compass bearing from each corner” (Great Fires 2003, p. 401). Distances are in chains, and “a chain equals 66 feet” (Thesis 1999, p. 275).

Why it matters: “Before 1851, these lines were absent from the environment. Since that time they have served as an exacting index to specific trees, points, locations and cultural artifacts on specific days in time.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 91).

Layering the same ground over time

Line up records of the same ground by date. Old lines can show through. Of a 1948 aerial photograph of the town of Alsea, Great Fires 2003 says: “General Land Office (GLO) subdivision and Donation Land Claim (DLC) boundary lines dating to the early 1850s are clearly apparent a century later as the straight courses of roads, fence lines, crop borders, and logging boundaries.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 85). Donation Land Claims were the original land claims (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 91). Watch the dates: on unclaimed land, typically steep, forested or burned, section surveys “were often delayed for a period of twenty to fifty years after initial township boundaries had been established” (Great Fires 2003, p. 113).

When the evidence disagrees

Disagreement is information. In the Tiller study, a 1936 government vegetation map showed mostly old-growth Douglas-fir (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 24), but “This map was constructed before aerial photos were taken of the study area, before GLO surveys had been completed, and before extensive logging and road building had taken place.” (Tiller 2011, p. 24). Later sources showed most of the Douglas-fir timber volume then was in saplings, poles and second growth (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 24). Ask who made each record, when, how and why; keep both versions.

Saying how sure you are

Use words, not false precision. The Tiller study rounded acreages partly “to dispel the illusion that there is more precision to the numbers generated by GIS” (Tiller 2011, p. 69), GIS meaning computer mapping. Looking out from ridgeline roads, the Coquelle Trails authors wrote of “likely, possible, and improbable trail locations” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 11). Great Fires 2003 states its main finding carefully: “This research has shown a strong correlation between Indian burning practices in the Oregon Coast Range and subsequent Great Fire events; however, it has not demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between the two.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 296).

5. Worked examples

Abbott Butte, from the Tiller study

The question. The Tiller study set out “to describe forest conditions for the study area as they existed 200 years ago, and to contrast them with current conditions” (Tiller 2011, p. 8). Abbott Butte served as its step-by-step example (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 9).

The sources. One ridgeline route, the North-South Trail, appears on a 1936 Forest Service recreation map and the 1938 survey plat, is referenced in the 1937 survey field notes, and was copied onto the 2010 predictive field map (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 33). The study also had a 1939 aerial photograph of the butte and a 1933 fire-lookout panorama taken from it (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, pp. 21–24), and photographs taken from and on the butte between 1899 and 2010 (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 32).

How they were layered. Records, field visits and measurements were combined into a map of trails and vegetation for about 1800 (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 33).

What it found. The photographs show “the steady influx of conifers over the past 100 years, but also the persistence of many of the prairie plants” (Tiller 2011, p. 32).

What stayed uncertain. Along one stretch of the trail the records disagreed: both the 1936 vegetation map and the study’s own map for about 1800 showed subalpine forest, but the trees recorded in the 1937 survey were almost pure Douglas-fir, many of them small or medium-sized (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, pp. 36–37). Drawing on forester Mike Dubrasich’s analysis in the report’s Appendix B, old aerial photographs and field observations, the report concludes that this stretch of ridge was likely a bracken fern prairie, grassland or huckleberry field before contact with Europeans, later seeded in by Douglas-fir from below (paraphrase; Tiller 2011, p. 37). Likely, not certain, and the report does not say which.

One thing to borrow. Pick one feature, such as a trail, a clearing or an old fence line, and follow it through every record you have, year by year.

Port Orford trails, from Coquelle Trails

Coquelle Trails is by Bob Zybach and Don Ivy. Question for Bob: should Don Ivy, or the Coquille Indian Tribe, see this summary before it is published?

The question. On ancestral Coquille Indian lands, the project set out “to locate and document, so near as possible, the exact locations of the earliest historical trails, named landmarks, private landowners, and important events” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 1). Its approach: “This project is based on traditional archival research methods, followed by physical transcription of data to maps, and then location and documentation in the field.” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 7).

The sources. The report’s example starts with an 1875 government township map of the Port Orford area, a road highlighted and section numbers circled to show which survey notes its lines were drawn from (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 7). Then come a geological map from the late 1890s, “apparently showing pre-automobile roads and trails to a very accurate degree at that time” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 10), and a 1941 Metsker county ownership map of the same township (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, pp. 10–11).

How they were layered. The maps share the same survey lines (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 10), so they line up: “Note the differences in Port Orford between the maps, but also the similarity in road and trail alignments between 1875 and 1941.” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 11). Possible routes went onto modern topographic maps, with solid lines along roads and trails that still exist and dotted lines for predicted routes or documented ones no longer shown (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 11). Then came the field: GPS-tagged photographs (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 16) and talks with knowledgeable local people (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, pp. 11–12).

What it found. A final network of routes, recording “the final editorial decisions made by the authors following much discussion and consideration of the possible alternative routes and the documentation that supported each alternative” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 13).

What stayed uncertain. About 80 percent of the whole study area was visited (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 16), but “Some areas could not be visited because of locked gates, snow, or time” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 16). Survey notes of 1855 from another township name an old Indian trail and a Klickitat trail; the authors judged the first more likely a foot trail and the second a pack trail, though separate trails for political or social reasons remained possible (paraphrase; Coquelle Trails 2013, pp. 9–10).

One thing to borrow. Each survey-note find was printed, “annotated with the name of the surveyor and date the observations were written, and filed in a folder labeled with the individual township in which the notes were made” (Coquelle Trails 2013, p. 15).

Alsea Valley maps, from Great Fires

The question. How well do three regional vegetation maps, from 1900, 1914 and 1936, show one valley, or one square mile? Great Fires 2003 tested them on the Alsea Valley in Benton County (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, pp. 119–120).

The sources. The three maps; a new map of the valley about 1850, built from the original survey data; and five square-mile timber cruise maps by Bagley, dated 1915 (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 120).

How they were layered. The cruise maps were placed on each of the other maps “in their correct geographic positions, and to scale” (Great Fires 2003, p. 120), and the five sections were compared map by map (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 123).

What it found. On the 1900 map, the mix of forest, burn, grass and brush was “almost abstract, with Lobster Valley appearing to be three or four times as large as Alsea Valley” (Great Fires 2003, p. 120). For one section, “none of the four other maps comes close to matching 1915 Bagley for detail or accuracy” (Great Fires 2003, p. 126). Yet “In sum, all of the regional maps use representative vegetation types that are comparable over time and at differing scales.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 126). And two maps can seem to agree while their lines mean different things. A shape labeled A, drawn around the valley’s bottomland Indian prairies, seemed to match on the 1850 and 1936 maps (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 122), but:

“However, the two were drawn in entirely different fashions: the 1936 "A" was drawn by following the innermost forest and wildfire boundaries, while the other three maps, including the 1850 "A," were drawn by following the outermost grassland boundaries.”

What stayed uncertain. Simplifying the 1850 map made conifer forest look scarcer low down and more common up high, hid openings at middle elevations, and probably shows too few trails, especially low down; even so, the dissertation judges the overall pattern recognizable and representative of the time before white settlement and survey (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 117). The valley seems to have escaped catastrophic fire for 250 years (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 122), but “It may not be possible to determine why--or even if--this is true.” (Great Fires 2003, p. 122).

One thing to borrow. Before comparing two maps, find out how each line was drawn. And lay a small, detailed map on a large, general one, in the right place and at the same scale.

6. Getting started

A checklist for your first season. The order is this booklet’s suggestion, not a rule; change it to suit your place. One field or one section is plenty to start with.

1. Write down your questions: what you want to know, and for which years.
2. Find your township, range and section (section 4). Tax lot maps are drawn on the same survey lines (paraphrase; Great Fires 2003, p. 91).
3. Start a file. For every record, note what it is, who made it, when, and where you found it, and label every copy the same way.
4. Go through family papers, photographs and letters. The attic is closer than the archive.
5. Get copies of the original survey plat and field notes for your township (section 2 says where).
6. Collect aerial photographs of your place from as many years as you can find.
7. List the older neighbors and former owners who know the place, and visit them soon (section 3).
8. Record each interview with permission, and give the speaker the transcript to check.
9. Walk the land with your copies in hand, and photograph from the spots where old photographs were taken.
10. Lay the records side by side by date. Note where they agree, where they don’t, and what new questions they raise.
11. Write down what you found and how sure you are, in plain words.
12. Know where this booklet stops. It is about historical research, not title research. Questions about boundaries or ownership belong with a surveyor, a title company or a lawyer.

Still open Where to get help, and one simple ask of the reader: wording for Dave and Bob

7. Further reading

The four studies behind this booklet, under the short labels used in its citations, with the parts this booklet leans on most.

Thesis 1999. Zybach, Bob. Using Oral Histories to Document Changing Forest Cover Patterns: Soap Creek Valley, Oregon, 1500-1999. A thesis submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies. Presented March 5, 1999; Commencement June, 2000. http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Thesis/Zybach_MAIS_1999.pdf. Oral history, and the 19 types of information: see pp. 18–26 for the types and pp. 26–62 for the interviews.

Great Fires 2003. Zybach, Bob. The Great Fires: Indian Burning and Catastrophic Forest Fire Patterns of the Oregon Coast Range, 1491-1951. A dissertation submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Presented July 8, 2003; Commencement June 2004. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/5x21tj35x. Land surveys, aerial photographs and landscape patterns: see Chapter 2, from p. 52, including the Alsea Valley maps and comparisons on pp. 111–127.

Coquelle Trails 2013. Zybach, Bob, and Don Ivy. Coquelle Trails: Early Historical Roads and Trails of Ancestral Coquille Indian Lands, 1826 - 1875. Volume I: Trail Maps, Research Methods & Historical Accounts. Coquille Indian Tribe Cultural Geography Project. North Bend, Oregon, January 4, 2013. Part 1, Making the Trail Maps. Web: http://www.orww.org/Coquelle_Trails/Methodology/index.html. PDF: http://www.orww.org/Coquelle_Trails/References/Zybach-Ivy_2013/Volume_I/Part_1.pdf. Mapping from old records, checked on the ground: see section 2 of Part 1, pp. 7–14. The web and PDF versions differ in wording in places; this booklet quotes the PDF.

Tiller 2011. Zybach, Bob, PhD. Tiller Pre-Contact Reference Condition Study. Final Report Prepared For Resource Management Services, Roseburg, Oregon. February 14, 2011. http://www.orww.org/Reports/Tiller_Precontact_Conditions/Zybach_20110214.pdf. How the methods fit together: see Chapter II, pp. 8–37. Appendix B, a stand reconstruction study, is by forester Mike Dubrasich.

Still open Bob may add titles