2009 Archaeological Investigations 

at the Walters, Beedle, and Lyon Lots, 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Midwest Archeological Center 

Lincoln, Nebraska

By

Dawn Bringelson 

Gosia Mahoney 

and Steven L. De Vore

2015

Archeological Report 5

2009 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

AT THE WALTERS, BEEDLE, AND LYON LOTS,

LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

By 

Dawn Bringelson

Gosia Mahoney

and Steven L. De Vore

Archeological Report # 5

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Midwest Archeological Center

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Midwest Archeological Center

Lincoln, Nebraska

2015
This report has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43CFR Part 7, Subpart 

A, Section 7.18 (a) (1) and, upon recommendation of the Midwest Regional Office

and the Midwest Archeological Center, has been classified as

AVAILABLE

Making the report available meets the criteria of 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 

(a) (1).
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of many people over the course of 

two rounds of field work. Lincoln Home National Historic Site staff members Tiffany Bowles, 

Kevin Bowman, Melissa Weissert, David Bell, Dan Perushich, Matt Turner, and Volunteer-InParks Laura McClatchey (now Bender) participated in geophysical data collection. Midwest 

Archeological Center staff members Lisa Stanley-Smith, Gosia Mahoney, and Volunteers-InParks McClatchey and David Wolf worked on subsurface investigations and thanks to Ashley 

Barnett who digitized profile drawings. Thanks to Lincoln Home Mechanic Supervisor Vee 

Pollock, Curator Susan Haake, and Superintendent James Sanders; this project would not have 

been possible without their support and assistance.
ii
iii

TABLE OF CONTENETS

Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................i

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................iv

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 1

Historic Background .................................................................................................................. 2

Walters ................................................................................................................................. 2

Beedle.................................................................................................................................. 3

Lyon ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Previous Investigations .............................................................................................................. 4

Inventory: Geophysical Investigations..................................................................................... 5

Survey Methods ................................................................................................................. 5

Geophysical Techniques ................................................................................................... 6

Magnetic Survey ................................................................................................................ 6

Conductivity Survey .......................................................................................................... 7

Resistance Survey .............................................................................................................. 7

Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey ................................................................................. 8

Data Processing And Interpretation ............................................................................... 9

Interpreting The Magnetic Gradient Data .................................................................... 10

Interpreting The Conductivity Data ............................................................................... 11

Interpreting The Resistance Data ................................................................................... 12

Interpreting The Ground-Penetrating Radar Data ...................................................... 13

Combined Geophysical Data Set Interpretations ........................................................ 13

Summary Of Geophysical Results .................................................................................. 13

Evaluation: Subsurface Investigations .................................................................................... 14

Walters ................................................................................................................................ 14

Beedle................................................................................................................................. 15

Lyon .................................................................................................................................... 18

Artifacts ...................................................................................................................................... 19

Architectural Items ........................................................................................................... 20

Domestic Items ................................................................................................................. 23

Personal Items ................................................................................................................... 26

Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................... 27

Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 27

References Cited ........................................................................................................................ 31
iv

FIGURES

Figure 1. HVAC geophysical project area at The Lincoln Home National

Historic Site................................................................................................................................ 39

Figure 2. Sketch map of geophysical project area, Lincoln Home National 

Historical Site. ........................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 3. Interpretative map of the single fluxgate gradiometer data ................................. 41

Figure 4. Interpretative map of the conductivity data........................................................... 42

Figure 5. Interpretative map of the resistance data............................................................... 43

Figure 6. Interpretative map of time slice 4 (7-10 ns) GPR data ......................................... 44

Figure 7. Combined geophysical anomalies from the geophysical 

project area................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 8. Subsurface investigations at Lincoln Home National Historic Site.................... 46

Figure 9. Backhoe Trench 1, west profile. .............................................................................. 47

Figure 10. Artifacts recovered from Backhoe Trench 1. ...................................................... 48

Figure 11. Backhoe Trench 2, west wall profile. ................................................................... 49

Figure 12. Backhoe Trench 2B (south of fence), east wall profile. ..................................... 50

Figure 13. Photo showing the extent of disturbance during the 1979 

restoration work in the back of the Beedle house. ............................................................... 51

Figure 14. Beedle house backyard, 2009 project area........................................................... 52

Figure 15. Circular lens (Feature 1) in Backhoe Trench 4 ................................................... 53

Figure 16. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 2. ................................................................... 54

Figure 17. Backhoe Trench 4, north wall profile. ................................................................. 55

Figure 18. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 1..................................................................... 56

Figure 19. Test Unit 1, west wall profile. ................................................................................. 57

Figure 20. Test Unit 4, 0-70 cm below surface. ...................................................................... 58

Figure 21. Test Unit 4, north wall profile. ............................................................................... 59

Figure 22. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 4. ................................................................... 60

Figure 23. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 5..................................................................... 61

Figure 24. Backhoe Trench 3, Feature 2, west wall profile. ................................................. 62

Figure 25. Artifacts recovered from Feature 2. ...................................................................... 63

Figure 26. Geothermal route recommendations................................................................... 64
1

INTRODUCTION

Established in 1971, the Lincoln Home National Historic Site (LIHO) 

commemorates the life of the 16th President of the United States. The park contains 

the neighborhood where Abraham Lincoln spent most of his adult life in Springfield, 

Illinois (Townsend 2008:76-149). The Park consists of a four-block historic 

neighborhood, which is partly restored to the year of Abraham Lincoln’s election as 

President. The centerpiece of the park consists of the restored house where Lincoln’s 

family lived from 1844 to 1861, when he became the 16th President of the United States. 

The Walters, Beedle, and Lyon house lots are located in the northeastern 

corner of the park (Figure 1). Archeological inventory and evaluation were requested 

by the park as part of the replacement project for the existing heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning (HVAC) system at the Lyon and Beedle houses. LIHO proposed 

the installation of two sets of geothermal wells in the currently vacant Walters lot, 

with HVAC lines running from the geothermal wells to the Beedle and Lyon houses. 

Archeological inventory and evaluation were performed to gain information that 

will advise the park in the placement of wells and HVAC lines, minimizing impact 

to archaeological deposits within the project area. Geophysical survey covered all 

three lots, and those results were used to plan subsurface investigations. Evaluation 

focused on the areas most affected by ground-disturbing activities proposed in the plan 

provided by LIHO. 

All field records and artifacts were accessioned as LIHO-424 and MWAC-1306A 

(geophysical data collection) and MWAC-1306B (subsurface inventory and testing) 

They are curated at the Midwest Archeological Center while undergoing study and will 

be transferred to Lincoln Home National Historic Site for permanent curation upon 

completion of the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Lincoln Home National Historic Site is located in the Till Plains section of 

the Central Lowland province of the Interior Plains division of the North American 

continent (Fenneman 1938:499-518). The region is relatively young with a moderately 

to strongly dissected rolling Illinoian till plain covered by moderate amounts of 

Wisconsinan age loess. The loess-mantled plains are dissected by the Sangamon River 

and its South Fork (Steinkamp 1980:1). The region is underlain with Pennsylvanian 

limestones, shales, and siltstones (USDA 2006:337).

The area lies within the Illinoian biotic province (Dice 1943:21-23). The province 

is covered with alternating prairies and deciduous forests. Tall prairie grasses include 

big bluestem, indiangrass, prairie dropseed, and switchgrass (USDA 2006:338). The 

region lies within the oak-hickory deciduous forests of the Eastern United States with 

basswood, walnut, hickory, sugar maple, white ash, black oak, shingle oak, and white 

oak found on better-drained soils on scattered upland locations while silver maple, 

cottonwood, sycamore, and black willow are found on the flood plains along major 

streams. Wildlife in the region includes white-tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, coyote, 
2

LIHO

red fox, raccoon, skunk, opossum, muskrat, squirrel, and smaller mammals (Shelford 

1963:328-355; USDA 2006:338). Turkey, Canada goose, red-tailed hawk, great horned 

owl, blue heron, redheaded woodpecker, quail, mallard duck, and wood duck are 

among the numerous avifauna present in the region along with a variety of song birds 

(Shelford 1963:328-355; USDA 2006:338). A variety of reptiles, amphibians, and insects 

are also present in the region (Shelford 1963:328-355). Several species of fish, such as 

bluegill, sunfish, crappie, catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and mussels are found in the 

streams (Shelford 1963:328-355; USDA 2006:338).

The dominant soils included mollisols, entisols, inceptisols, and alfisols (USDA 

2006:337-338). The soils in the region have a mesic soil temperature regime with aquic 

or udic soil moisture regimes. The soils have a mixed mineralogy. The project area 

lies within the Ipava-Tama-Sable soil association of “nearly level to strongly sloping, 

somewhat poorly drained, well drained, and poorly drained, moderately permeable and 

moderately slowly permeable soils; on uplands” (Steinkamp 1980:3-4). The project area 

is located within the urban land soil-mapping unit (533). This unit consists of nearly 

level to gently sloping soil material that has been severely impacted by the construction 

of streets, buildings, parking lots, and other structures (Hornickel 2004:100; Steinkamp 

1980:38). Originally, the soils formed in calcareous loess, which covered the uplands.

The area has a temperate continental climate with moderate temperatures and 

wide seasonal variations, including long hot summers and cold winters (Hornickel 

2004:15,148-149; Steinkamp 1980:1-2,88-89; Trewartha and Horn 1980:297-302; USDA 

2006:337). The average January temperature is -4° C with an average daily minimum 

temperature of –8.4° C while the average July temperature is 24.7° C with an average 

daily maximum temperature of 30.6° C. Average annual precipitation is 91 cm. Average 

snowfall for the year is 61.2 cm. Thunderstorms commonly occur in the late spring and 

summer months. The number of frost-free days averages 185 days.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

The project area covering the Lyon, Beedle, and Walters lots at Lincoln Home 

encompasses lots 13-16 of Block 7 of the Elijah Iles addition to Springfield, Illinois. 

Elijah and Malinda Iles sold several lots, including 14, 15, and 16 to Peter Van Bergen 

in 1836, who sold these lots to William Walters in 1839. The Iles’ sold lots 12 and 13 to 

Abraham Lincoln in 1838, who kept the property until selling Lot 13 and the north half 

of Lot 12 to Alexander Graham in 1853 (Banton et al. 1987). 

Walters

The north end of Block 7 is known as the Walters lot. This is by far the most 

complicated in terms of land use and structural history of the three project areas. 

Newspaper man William Walters purchased lots 14, 15, and 16 in 1839. It is assumed 

that he built the house shown on early maps as a two-story frame structure, built in an 

ell on the corner of 8th and Capitol Ave (formerly Market St). He lost it in 1845, but his 

brother-in-law, Charles Lanphier, paid the debts and assumed ownership. Lanphier 

deeded the property back to his sister, Anna Walters, in 1849, after William Walters’ 
3

death (Banton et al. 1987). Anna ran a boarding house on the west end of lots 16 and 

15, living in the house just to the south (discussed below), and left the neighborhood 

in 1864.

Before she left, Walters sold the south 10 ft of Lot 14 to Henson Lyon and then 

sold the north portion of Lot 14 and the south 8 ft of Lot 15 to Washington Crowder. 

The Walters property (i.e., the north part of Lot 15 and all of Lot 16) went through 

several owners between 1864 and 1890, when then-owner Elizabeth Booth divided it 

into east and west parcels. The west parcel, 87 ft wide, contained a large outbuilding at 

the southwest corner as of 1884 (Sanborn map shown on p. 177 of Banton et al. 1987). 

The east parcel, 65 ft in width, was largely filled with the boarding house.

Sometime after 1890, the outbuildings and boarding house were replaced with 

four two-story frame structures as shown in the 1896 Sanborn-Perris map (Banton et 

al. 1987). These structures, used as apartments and offices, changed and expanded over 

the subsequent decades. Slight modifications to these buildings were made through the 

years and are indicated in later Sanborn maps. Three of these buildings were purchased 

and removed by the NPS in the 1970s (Raynolds 1974); the western-most building 

was removed prior to NPS acquisition of the lot. NPS contracts called for removal of 

foundations, cellar floors, and architectural debris, with the resulting pits backfilled 

with “clean” off-site fill, and the area capped with topsoil (V. Pollock, personal 

communication 2009).

Beedle

The Beedle lot consists of the south 8 ft of Lot 15 and the north 30 ft of Lot 14 

of Block 10 (Banton et al. 1987). The Beedle house was built around 1840, probably 

when lots 14-16 were owned by William Walters. As mentioned above, he transferred 

ownership to his sister, Anna, in 1849. She split the property around 1859, selling the 

south 10 ft to Harrison Lyon, and then transferring the Beedle lot (as described above) 

to Washington Crowder in 1864. This marked the first of six transfers of ownership 

by 1884; an additional four transfers occurred before ownership by the United States 

government in 1980. The Walters family owned the Beedle house for many years, using 

it as a rental property during the period of significance for LIHO (Banton et al. 1987). 

The Beedle house is named for one of those renters; William Beedle was a railroad 

worker who lived there around 1860.

Banton and colleagues (1987) interpreted architectural modifications made to 

the Beedle house over the years, based largely on interpretation of Sanborn maps. In 

summary: by 1884, the one-story structure of 1840 included a two-story front wing, an 

addition on the rear, and a north porch. Additionally, three sheds were in place along 

the west end of the lot. By 1896, the house had some changes in roofing and specific 

footprints, and only one shed stood along the rear of the lot. The house underwent 

drastic changes by 1917, with an extension of the north wall by 4 ft and a second story 

added to the rear ell. The outbuilding remained in the rear of the lot, however. No other 

structural changes were recorded in the Sanborn maps until NPS ownership.
4

LIHO

Lyon

The Lyon House sits just south of the Beedle house, on the south 10 ft of Lot 

14, all of Lot 13, and the north 20 ft of Lot 12. The house was built around 1854 by 

Alexander Graham, who had purchased Lot 13 and the north portion of Lot 12 from 

Abraham Lincoln in 1853. The property was transferred from Graham to another party, 

who sold it to Henson Lyon in 1857. This property subsequently transferred with the 

Lyon estate in 1868, and the south 10 ft of Lot 10 was added to the Lyon Lot sometime 

prior to 1918. In all, some eight separate families owned or occupied the Lyon House 

between the Lyon ownership and acquisition by the city of Springfield in 1969. Details 

on the chain of ownership are available in Banton et al. 1987. 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the current project only intersects the 

northwest corner of the house and lot adjacent to it. Little information on the original 

footprint of the structure is available, but Banton et al. (1987) indicate a one-story rear 

addition is evident on the 1884 Sanborn map, which was augmented slightly by 1896, 

then reduced by 20 ft by 1917. The overall footprint transformed during this span from 

an 85-ft long linear form to a shorter, broader floor plan. Part of this transition included 

the attachment of two single-story, 10-ft-x-10-ft additions to the rear of the house, the 

northernmost part of which intersects the APE for the current project. 

Banton and colleagues (1987) indicate that the NPS waterproofed the northwest 

corner of the basement, installed plumbing, and repointed the foundation in 1983. 

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Beginning with the 1951 excavations by Richard Hagen in the backyard of the 

Lincoln House, more than 30 archeological projects have been undertaken at Lincoln 

Home NHS (Osborn 2001). They have sampled most of the lots at the park and 

ranged from full-scale excavations aimed at identifying structures, to small-scale 

emergency monitoring during infrastructure repairs, or assisting in restoration or 

stabilization activities. 

Unlike the rest of the park, most of the Walters, Lyon, and Beedle house lots 

have not been subjected to formal archeological investigations. The only related project 

was archeological monitoring conducted by the park’s Historical Architect during 

emergency electrical repairs at the Beedle house lot in 1991 (Krupka 1991). Francis 

Krupka documented manual excavation to locate the ends of a defective power line and 

subsequent mechanical excavation of a 30-in deep trench (averaging 4-6 in wide) within 

the previous line’s existing trench fill. 

Krupka documented a collection of building materials, housewares, personal 

items, faunal remains and mineral fragments from the utility trench, which extended 

from the northwest corner of the Beedle house Lot to the north wall of the house. 

The author makes note of two historic cisterns in the Beedle Lot. “Historic 

Cistern No. 1” is located east of the back door of the house, just beyond the current 
5

boardwalk location. “Historic Cistern No. 2” is plotted within a group of mature locust 

trees just north of the northeast corner of the house. Based on examination of drainage 

tiles recovered from the utility trench in these areas, Krupka believed the cisterns 

date to early 20th century (Krupka 1991:6). Unfortunately, the author does not reveal 

the source of information regarding the existence and location of these cisterns in 

his report. 

While the scale of the project did not allow for any more extensive investigation 

and the trench passed through previously disturbed soils, the significance of some of 

the recovered artifacts suggest that potentially undisturbed archeological deposits 

are still present in the backyard of the Beedle house. This especially relates to the two 

cisterns, as well as outbuildings that once stood in the rear of the lot. Krupka also 

postulates a backyard rubbish pit in the west half of the back yard. Locations of the 

historic outbuildings and cisterns are shown in Figure 7.1.

INVENTORY: GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical survey played an integral role in the inventory phase of the current 

project, providing a cost effective, systematic means to investigate the locations and 

extent of possible archeological features across the project area. To this end, NPS 

staff applied magnetic, resistance, conductivity, and ground-penetrating radar survey 

techniques across the three house lots. For administrative purposes, each house lot was 

considered an archeological site and has been assigned a state number. The Walters 

House Lot is assigned site number 11SG1373, The Beedle house Lot is 11SG1374, and 

the Lyon House Lot is 11SG1375.

Survey Methods

Initially, the Ushikata S-25 TRACON surveying compass was set up at the 

southwest corner of the Lyon House lot backyard. The geophysical grid was oriented 

6.5° east of magnetic north. The wooden hub stake was placed 2.5 m north of the south 

yard fence and 2.5 m east of the west yard fence. From that initial mapping point, the 

north-south baseline was established along the west fence that separated the yards from 

the park’s bus parking lot. The north-south baseline extended 52 m to the north. The 

east-west baseline was established along the southern edge of the Lyon House lot and 

extended to 43 m to the east. Using the surveying compass and 100-m tape, the mapping 

station, and grid reference points used to establish the north-south and east-west base 

lines, the remainder of the geophysical grid corners were established in the three house 

lots that were included in the HVAC project. Two complete 20-m-x-20-m grid units 

and seven partial grid units, totaling 0.54 ac, were surveyed during the geophysical 

investigations at the geophysical project area of the three sites in Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site (Figure 2). Survey grid corner stakes in the three lots along with 

the fence corners separating the three lots were mapped with a Trimble GeoXH global 

positioning system (GPS) handheld receiver and external antenna. 

Twenty-meter ropes were placed along the north-south base lines connecting 

the grid unit corners. These ropes formed the east and west boundaries of each grid 
6

LIHO

unit during the data collection phase of the survey. Additional ropes were placed at 1-m 

intervals across the grid unit in an east-west orientation. These ropes serve as guides 

during the data acquisition. The ropes were marked with different color tape at halfmeter and meter increments designed to help guide the survey effort. A sketch map of 

surface features was completed for each survey area after the guide ropes were placed 

on the grids (Figure 2). 

The four geophysical techniques utilized in this study include magnetic, 

conductivity, resistance, and ground-penetrating radar surveys. The following 

discussion presents a brief overview of each technique; more detail on methods and 

data processing related to these techniques can be found in DeVore (2006). 

Magnetic Survey

Magnetic survey is a passive technique that records the local effects of magnetic 

materials on the earth’s magnetic field. Anomalous conditions result from magnetic 

materials and minerals buried in the soil matrix. Iron artifacts have very strong effects 

on the local earth’s magnetic field. Other cultural features that affect the local earth’s 

magnetic field include fire hearths and soil disturbances (e.g., pits, mounds, wells, 

pithouses, and dugouts), as well as geological strata. Magnetic surveying applications to 

archeological investigations have included the detection of architectural features, soil 

disturbances, and magnetic objects/artifacts (Bevan 1991; Clark 2000;92-98; Gaffney et 

al 1991:6; Heimmer and DeVore 1995, 2000; Weymouth 1986:343). 

Magnetic field strength is measured in nanoteslas (nT; Sheriff 1973:148). In 

North America, the earth’s magnetic field strength ranges from 40,000 to 60,000 nT 

with an inclination of approximately 60° to 70° (Milsom 2003:43; Weymouth 1986:341). 

The project area has a magnetic field strength of approximately 55,900 nT (Peddie 1992; 

Sharma 1997:72-73) with an inclination of approximately 68° 23’ (Peddie and Zunde 

1988; Sharma 1997:72-73). Magnetic anomalies of archeological interest are often in 

the ±5 nT range, but may vary more over the historic features likely in the project area. 

Target depth in magnetic surveys depends on the magnetic susceptibility of the soil 

and the buried features and objects. For most archeological surveys, target depth is 

generally confined to the upper 1-2 m below the ground surface with 3 m representing 

the maximum limit (Clark 2000:78-80; Kvamme 2001:358). 

A single fluxgate gradiometer was used to collect magnetic data at the three 

house lots in the geophysical project area, and the survey was designed to collect 8 

samples per meter along 0.5-m traverses or 16 data values per square meter. The data 

were collected in a zigzag fashion with the surveyor alternating the direction of travel 

along each traverse across the grid. Sixty-four hundred data values were collected for a 

complete 20-m-x-20-m grid unit surveyed during the project. The magnetic data were 

recorded in the memory of the gradiometer and downloaded to a laptop computer at the 

completion of the survey. The magnetic data were imported into Geoscan Research’s 

GEOPLOT software (Oswin 2009:76-79,135-136) for processing. Both shade-relief and 

trace-line plots were generated in the field to confirm successful data collection and 

transfer before the instrument’s memory was cleared. 
7

Conductivity Survey

Electromagnetic induction (EM or EMI) survey in the conductivity or 

quadrature phase is an active geophysical technique, in which an electromagnetic 

field is induced into the ground. This survey technique measures the apparent soil 

conductivity in millisiemens per meter (mS/m; Sheriff 1973:197). The present survey 

was conducted with a Geonics EM38 ground conductivity meter operating in the 

quadrature phase or conductivity component operating mode. 

Differences in conductivity are related to electrical and magnetic properties 

of the soil matrix. Contrasting values may be caused by materials buried in the soil, 

differences in soil formation processes, or disturbances from natural or cultural 

modifications to the soil. EM instruments are also sensitive to surface and buried 

metals. Due to their high conductivity, metals show up as extreme values in the 

acquired data set. The application of conductivity to archeology relies on the ability 

of the instrument to detect lateral changes on a rapid data acquisition with highresolution basis, where observable contrasts exist. Lateral changes in anthropogenic 

features result from compaction, structural material changes, buried metallic objects, 

excavation, habitation sites, and other features affecting water saturation (Heimmer 

and De Vore 1995:37). 

The EM38 ground conductivity meter was connected to the DL720 Polycorder 

for digital data acquisition. Readings were collected every 0.25 seconds in 0.5-m 

traverses, resulting in 4 samples per linear meter and 8 samples per square meter 

across the three geophysical survey areas. The data were collected in a unidirectional 

mode, with the surveyor conducting the data acquisition in the same direction 

of travel for each traverse across the grid. The data and header files stored in the 

polycorder were downloaded into the laptop computer at the end of the survey. The 

survey of the grid unit began in the lower right hand or southwest corner of the grid, 

with the initial or first traverse headed towards the east. The EM38 was used in the 

quadrature or conductivity phase, the vertical dipole mode, and one orientation 

parallel to the direction of travel along the traverses. It provided an exploration depth 

of approximately 1.5 m with its effective depth around 0.6 m in the vertical dipole mode. 

The instrument was nulled and calibrated at the same point, to balance and align the 

instrument, before the start of each conductivity survey. 

Thirty-two hundred data measurements were collected for each complete 

20-m-x-20-m grid unit during the survey. The data were downloaded to a laptop 

computer at the end of each day’s survey effort. 

Resistance Survey

Resistance survey is an active geophysical technique, in which current is injected 

into the ground. Resistance (or resistivity) values relate to electrical properties of the 

soil matrix, and differences in the strength of the returning current are influenced by 

materials buried in the soil, differences in soil formation processes, and disturbances 

from natural or cultural modifications to the soil. In archeology, resistance survey is 

used to identify areas of compaction and excavation, as well as buried objects such as 
8

LIHO

brick or stone foundations. It is highly sensitive to contrasts in water saturation, directly 

related to soil porosity and permeability (Clark 2000; Heimmer and De Vore 1995:30); 

thus, this technique is especially useful for location of buried features affecting water 

saturation, such as wells, cisterns, and privies (Heimmer and De Vore 1995:37). 

This resistance survey was performed using a Geoscan Research RM15-D 

resistance meter with the PA20 multiple-probe array. It was designed to collect 2 

samples per meter along 0.5-m traverses or 4 data values per square meter. The data 

were collected in a zigzag fashion with the surveyor maintaining the alternating the 

direction of travel for each traverse across the grid beginning in the lower left-hand 

corner facing the grid or at the northwest corner of the grid. Sixteen hundred data 

values were collected for a complete 20-m-x-20-m grid unit with a traverse interval 

of 0.5 m. The resistance data were recorded in the memory of the resistance meter 

and downloaded to a laptop computer at the completion of each day’s survey effort. 

The resistance data were imported into Geoscan Research’s GEOPLOT software 

for processing. Both shade-relief and trace-line plots were generated before the 

instrument’s memory was cleared. 

Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey

The ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey is an active geophysical technique 

that uses pulses of radar energy (i.e., short electromagnetic waves) transmitted into 

the ground through the surface-transmitting antenna. Radar waves are reflected off 

buried objects, features, or interfaces between soil layers. These reflections result from 

contrasts in electrical and magnetic properties of the buried materials or reflectors. The 

contrasts are a function of the dielectric constant of the materials (Sheriff 1973:51). The 

depth of the object or soil interface is estimated by the time it takes the radar energy to 

travel from the transmitting antenna and for its reflected wave to return to the receiving 

antenna. The depth of penetration of the wave is determined by the frequency of the 

radar wave. The lower the frequency, the deeper the radar energy can penetrate the 

subsurface; however, resulting resolution, or the ability to distinguish objects, features, 

and soil changes, decreases. These low-frequency antennas generate long-wavelength 

radar energy that can penetrate several tens of meters under certain conditions, but can 

only resolve larger targets or reflectors. The higher the radar wave frequency, the higher 

the resulting resolution but the penetration depth decreases. High frequency antennas 

generate much shorter wavelength energy, which may only penetrate a meter into the 

ground. The generated reflections from these high frequency antennas are capable 

of resolving objects or features with maximum dimensions of a few centimeters. A 

resulting trade-off exists between subsurface resolution and depth penetration: the 

deeper the penetration, the lower the resulting resolution. 

The success of the survey is dependent on soil and sediment mineralogy, clay 

content, ground moisture, depth of the archeological resource, and surface topography 

and vegetation. The ground-penetrating radar signal can be lost or attenuated (i.e., 

quickly dissipated) in soils that have high moisture content, high electrical conductivity, 

highly magnetic materials, or high clay content. Dry soils and sediments, especially 

those with low clay content, represent the best conditions for energy propagation. 
9

The TerraSIRch SIR System-3000 survey cart system operated an antenna at 

a nominal frequency of 400 megahertz (mHz). The antenna was mounted in a cart 

that recorded the location of the radar unit along the grid line. The GPR profiles were 

collected along 0.5 m traverses beginning in the southwest corner of the grid unit 

with the initial profile collected from west to east. The data were collected in a zigzag 

or bidirectional fashion with the surveyor alternating the direction of travel for each 

traverse across the grid. One hundred five radar profiles were collected across the 

geophysical project area in the three lots for a distance of 3,389 m. 

Data Processing and Interpretation

Processing of geophysical data requires care and understanding of various 

strategies and alternatives (Kvamme 2001:365; Music 1995; Neubauer et al. 1996). 

Walker and Somers (Geoscan Research 2003) provide strategies, alternatives, and case 

studies on the use of several processing routines commonly used to process magnetic, 

resistance, and conductivity data in the GEOPLOT software. Kvamme (2001:365) 

provides a series of common steps used in computer processing of geophysical data:

Concatenation of the data from individual survey grids into a single composite 

matrix;

Clipping and despiking of extreme values (that may result, for example, from 

introduced pieces of iron in magnetic data);

Edge matching of data values in adjacent grids through balancing of brightness 

and contrast (i.e., means and standard deviations);

Filtering to emphasize high-frequency changes and smooth statistical noise in 

the data;

Contrast enhancement through saturation of high and low values or histogram 

modification; and

Interpolation to improve image continuity and interpretation.

It is also important to understand the reasons for data processing and display 

(Gaffney et al. 1991:11). They enhance the analyst’s ability to interpret the relatively 

huge data sets collected during the geophysical survey. The type of display can help the 

geophysical investigator present an interpretation of the data to the archeologist who 

will ultimately use the information to plan excavations or determine the archeological 

significance of the site from the geophysical data. 

For details regarding computer software used in geophysical data processing see 

De Vore 2006.

David (1995:30) defines interpretation as a “holistic process and its outcome 

should represent the combined influence of several factors, being arrived at through 
10

LIHO

consultation with others where necessary.” Interpretation may be divided into 

two different types: geophysical interpretation of the data and the archaeological 

interpretation of the data. At a simplistic level, geophysical interpretation involves the 

identification of the factors linked to contrasts in the geophysical data. Archeological 

interpretation takes the geophysical results and tries to apply cultural attributes or 

causes. In both cases, interpretation requires both experience with the operation of 

geophysical equipment, data processing, and archeological methods, and knowledge 

of the geophysical techniques and properties, as well as known and expected 

archeological phenomena. Although there is variation between sites, several factors 

should be considered in the interpretation of geophysical data. These may be grouped 

under natural factors (such as geology, soil type, geomorphology, climate, surface 

conditions, topography, soil magnetic susceptibility, and seasonality), and cultural 

factors (known and inferred archeology, landscape history, survey methods, data 

treatment, modern interference, etc.) (David 1995:30). 

Each instrument responds primarily to a single physical property: 

magnetometry to soil magnetism, electromagnetic induction to soil conductivity, 

resistivity to soil resistance, and ground-penetrating radar to dielectric properties of 

the soil (Weymouth 1986:371).

The use of multiple instrument surveys provides the archeologist with very 

different sources of data that may provide complementary information for comparison 

of the nature and cause (i.e., natural or cultural) of a geophysical anomaly (Clay 2001). 

Further refinements in the geophysical interpretations may be made with feedback 

from subsequent archeological investigations. 

Interpreting the Magnetic Gradient Data

Interpretation of the magnetic gradient data (Bevan 1998:24) from the project 

requires a description of the buried archeological feature or object (e.g., its material, 

shape, depth, size, and orientation). The magnetic anomaly represents a local 

disturbance in the earth’s magnetic field caused by a local change in the magnetic 

contrast between buried archeological features, objects, and the surrounding soil 

matrix. Local increases or decreases over a very broad uniform magnetic surface would 

exhibit locally positive or negative anomalies (Breiner 1973:17). Magnetic anomalies 

tend to be highly variable in shape and amplitude. They are generally asymmetrical in 

nature due to the combined effects from several sources. To complicate matters further, 

a given anomaly may be produced from an infinite number of possible sources. Depth 

between the magnetometer and the magnetic source material also affect the shape of 

the apparent anomaly (Breiner 1973:18). As the distance between the magnetic sensor 

on the magnetometer and the source material increases, the expression of the anomaly 

becomes broader. Anomaly shape and amplitude are also affected by the relative 

amounts of permanent and induced magnetization, the direction of the magnetic field, 

and the amount of magnetic minerals (e.g., magnetite) present in the source compared 

to the adjacent soil matrix. The shape (e.g., narrow or broad) and orientation of the 

source material also affects the anomaly signature. Anomalies are often identified 

in terms of various arrays of dipoles or monopoles (Breiner 1973:18-19). A magnetic 

object is made of magnetic poles (North or positive and South or negative). A simple 
11

dipole anomaly contains the pair of opposite poles that are relatively close together. A 

monopole anomaly is simply one end of a dipole anomaly (and may be either positive or 

negative depending on the orientation of the object), with the other end too far removed 

to have an effect on the magnetic field. 

Determining the type of cultural cause from magnetic data requires information 

on anomaly type and morphology. Isolated artifacts tend to appear as compact circles 

in contour outline, due to the small size of the objects in relation to the survey interval. 

Archeological features or dense clusters of artifacts are more likely to appear as lines or 

lenses. Magnetic anomalies may be associated with iron, but also other materials, such 

as fired earth or volcanic rock. Such materials are not usually distinguishable from the 

magnetic data collected during the survey (Bevan 1998:24). 

The first step in interpreting the magnetic anomalies from the LIHO project 

area is to identify areas of high magnetic contrast, and especially the strong positive 

(North pole of the dipole) and the weak negative (South pole of the dipole) magnetic 

anomalies. Numerous magnetic anomalies from the single fluxgate gradiometer 

survey occur across the three lots (Figure 3). A number of linear magnetic anomalies 

appear to represent the locations of some of the buried utility lines in the three yards, 

including gas, water, electrical, and fiber optic communications. These modern features 

are identified by strong linear anomalies of positive and negative values arranged in 

a beaded fashion. Modern boardwalks are also identified as linear anomalies with 

alternating positive and negative values, similar to the buried utility lines, but with 

patterning of positive and negative values set much closer together.

In addition to the linear patterned anomalies, various monopole and dipole 

magnetic anomalies may represent archeological materials. Several isolated magnetic 

dipoles within the three yard sites may be ferrous materials, such as brick and nails, 

left after the demolition of the buildings. Other dipoles cluster in groups, which may 

also represent demolition materials. Other isolated magnetic dipole anomalies may 

represent buried ferrous objects, such as nails, bolts, or tools, lost in the yards of the 

three lots. This dataset is combined with those of the other instruments in order to 

augment interpretation and guide subsurface evaluative efforts, discussed below.

Interpreting the Conductivity Data

Interpretation of the conductivity data results in the identification of lateral 

changes in the soil matrix. The conductivity data may be divided into three classes 

of anomalies; linear anomalies, point anomalies, and broad anomalous areas. Linear 

anomalies may represent foundations of buildings, trenches, buried utility lines, paths, 

trails, or roads that are longer than they are wide. Point anomalies tend to represent 

buried objects or vertical structures such as cisterns, wells, or storage pits. Occasionally, 

these anomalies may have negative values resulting from the saturation of the receiving 

coil by the overwhelming conductive metal response of buried metals to the generated 

electromagnetic field. Comparisons between these negative conductivity anomalies and 

the magnetic anomalies can elucidate the nature of the buried object. If the magnetic 

and conductivity point anomalies coincide, it is assumed that the buried object is 

made from ferrous material. The presence of a magnetic anomaly and the lack of a 
12

LIHO

corresponding conductivity anomaly suggest that the magnetic anomaly is composed of 

non-metallic material such as fired clay typically found in fire related features (i.e., fire 

hearths or pits, concentrated areas of ceramics, ash lenses, or bricks). The presence of 

a negative conductivity anomaly, in the absence of a corresponding magnetic anomaly, 

strongly suggests that the buried object is some type of non-ferrous metal (e.g., brass, 

copper, lead, etc.). Broad anomalous areas typically represent large areas of soil 

disturbances or compaction often found associated with gardens, basements or cellars, 

parking pads, compacted dirt floors, or areas of concrete or asphalt.

There are a few negative value conductivity anomalies spread across the survey 

area (Figure 4). Several of these coincide with magnetic anomalies suggesting that 

the use of these two complementary data sets helps in the identification of the buried 

ferrous metal objects. In addition, the density of these point conductivity anomalies 

is much less than the associated magnetic dipole anomalies, suggesting that several 

magnetic anomalies represent other materials, such as bricks or other construction 

debris related to the demolition of the buildings or other remodeling episodes of the 

houses and other associated outbuildings. Other clusters of conductivity anomalies do 

not appear to be associated with the magnetic clusters but may also represent building 

locations in the yards of the three lots. The buried utility lines are present as linear 

conductivity anomalies and in several cases are better represented by the conductivity 

data than the magnetic data. The boardwalks and the board fence lines are also 

indicated by linear conductivity anomalies. 

Interpreting the Resistance Data

Interpretation of the resistance data results in the identification of lateral 

changes in the soil. Since the array parameters are kept constant throughout the 

survey, the resulting resistance values vary with changes in the subsurface sediments/

soil matrix and buried archeological resources. For each probe separation, the 

depth penetration is approximately the same as the distance between the current 

and potential probe on the mobile array frame, which is 0.5 m for this project. The 

resistance measurement for each point represents the average value for the hemispheric 

volume of soil with the same radius. If the soil below the survey area were uniform, 

the resistance would be constant throughout the area. Changes in soil characteristics 

(e.g., texture, structure, moisture, compactness) and the composition of archeological 

features result in differences in the resistance across the surveyed grid. Large general 

trends reflect changes in the site’s geology, whereas small changes may reflect 

archeological features. An advantage to the resistance survey and its interpretation is 

its usefulness in areas that have high concentrations of metal objects such as the three 

project areas in this study.

The resistance data from the geophysical survey area illustrates a number of 

resistance anomalies (Figure 5). Several areas of contrasting resistance values appear to 

represent the locations of the buildings that have been removed from the three yards by 

the previous owners or by the National Park Service. Such areas are clearly indicated 

in the Walters lot and along the back fences in all three lots. Other locations near the 

houses may be areas of ash from the fireplaces or stoves that have been dumped outside 

the back doors of the houses. 
13

Interpreting the Ground-Penetrating Radar Data

Analysis and interpretation of the GPR data may be conducted in several 

different ways. The individual radargrams for each profile line may be analyzed for 

hyperbolic reflections. The radargrams may be combined and processed to provide 

planar time slices of the data. The time slices may also be combined to form 3D cubes 

of the GPR data. The majority of the GPR radargrams show numerous small reflections 

along any given profile. Most of the analysis of the GPR data is done with the 3D display 

while moving through the numerous time slices, but in order to provide a graphic 

representation of the anomalous areas, an individual time slice was selected.

The ground-penetrating radar data from the geophysical project area, 

illustrated by the time slice 4 layer (Figure 6), contains a number of high-amplitude 

strength reflections across the three yards. Several of the GPR anomalies correspond 

to magnetic, conductivity, and resistance anomalies representing the board fences, 

boardwalks, buried utility lines, and foundation remains of historic buildings that once 

occupied the lots.

Combined Geophysical Data Set Interpretations

A different way of looking at the geophysical data collected during the 

investigations of the survey area is to combine the complementary data sets into 

one display. Several different geophysical anomalies overlap, suggesting a strong 

correlation between the geophysical data and buried archeological features (Ambrose 

2005; Kvamme 2007:345-374). These areas of overlap would be considered areas of 

high probability for buried features, and given priority for ground-truthing, or test 

excavation. While these correlations are important, individual isolated occurrences 

also need ground-truthing in order to determine their unique nature as well. The 

locations of the possible buildings, outbuildings, privies, buried utility lines, artifact 

locations and concentrations are present in the geophysical data from the geophysical 

project area (Figure 7). Areas of particular archeological interest include the 

northeast corner of the project area, in the location of the previous Walters House 

(and subsequent structures); in the west end of the Beedle house lot in the location 

of previous outbuildings, and across the back yard of the Lyon House lot. A series of 

strong isolated anomalies through the center yard of the Beedle house lot also indicates 

the potential for artifacts and feature remnants within the path of planned activities. 

Summary of geophysical results

Geophysical surveys resulted in the identification of numerous subsurface 

anomalies. The magnetic, conductivity, resistance, and ground-penetrating radar 

data collected at the three sites within the geophysical project area provided 

information on the physical properties (magnetic, soil conductivity, soil resistance, 

and ground-penetrating radar reflection properties) of the subsurface materials. 

Buried archeological resources identified may include remnants of buildings and their 

associated artifact deposits; artifact-rich features such as wells, privies, or cisterns; 

scattered artifacts associated with demolition; and buried modern and abandoned 

utility lines.
14

LIHO

EVALUATION: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 

Geophysical data add to historical sources and previous archaeological work 

to develop a comprehensive view of potentially significant archeological deposits 

within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the geothermal well projects for the 

Beedle and Lyon houses. These sources of data are all relevant to design of evaluative 

testing efforts. Field work was limited to areas within the APE of the HVAC project: 

the geothermal well fields and lines. Specific focus within this area was given to testing 

locations of geophysical anomalies. Evaluation efforts are described here in relation to 

the APE within each house lot.

Walters

Two series of five geothermal wells are planned, at 10-ft (or greater) intervals, 

to be connected to manifolds somewhere on the Walters lot. Because the 1890s 

buildings were documented to have garden-level apartments, it is assumed that their 

complete removal would have severely disturbed or obliterated any remains of previous 

structures. It was determined that placing the well systems within the footprints of 

the removed 1890s buildings would avoid adverse impacts during the HVAC project in 

this area. Historical records and geophysical data were used to estimate the boundary 

of disturbances related to the building removal. Mechanical trenching was used to 

confirm the southern boundary of the two westernmost building footprints.

A small John Deere tractor, fitted with a 24-in toothless backhoe bucket, was 

used to open two trenches, one targeting the southern boundary of the westernmost 

building footprint (716 East Capitol), and a second aiming for the southern end of the 

next apartment building footprint to the east (720 East Capitol). Backhoe Trench (BHT) 

1, placed on the Geophysical grid at 7-8 m East, extended from 31-37 m North (Figure 

8). This excavation extended beyond the base of disturbance anticipated by geothermal 

lateral lines (V. Pollock, personal communication on-site).

BHT 1 revealed two sets of archeological deposits, separated by a dual drain tile 

(see profile in Figure 9). The southernmost portion of the trench contained low-fired 

bricks, soft mortar, and artifacts that date to the mid to late 19th century. The portion 

of the trench located north of the drain tiles contained construction debris more typical 

of the late 19th century, including high-fired bricks and fragments, and harder, highly 

consolidated (Portland cement) mortar. Figure 10 depicts examples of artifacts found 

north and south of the drain tile. It appears that the drain tiles were placed around 

the exterior of the late 19th-century building (or a later addition), while the area to the 

south retains at least partly intact deposits originating prior to 1896. 

BHT 2 was placed at 17 m East, from 31 to 36 m North, in order to confirm the 

southern boundary of the next apartment building to the east (see profile in Figure 

11). This trench was also excavated below the base depth anticipated for geothermal 

lines within the well field. The entirety of this trench appeared to be within the 

former building footprint, as the sediment profile revealed over 1 m of clean “bluff 

fill” (dark yellowish-brown silty clay) under approximately 40 cm of black clay loam, 
15

presumably deposited as topsoil after removal of the previous building. This profile 

was consistent all the way to the lot boundary fence, so an extension of this trench 

(BHT 2B) was placed immediately south of that fence, within the Beedle house Lot, 

in order to confirm the extent of the building footprint. BHT 2B exposed a very 

different profile, including a series of burned fill and construction debris deposits 

(see profile in Figure 12). 

It appears that the apartment foundation removal and fill at 720 E Capitol 

extended only to the Beedle lot line. It also appears that this building was removed 

in a manner consistent with general expectations of NPS contracts in the early 1970s 

(including complete removal of all building elements and contents, using clean off-site 

sediment as fill). This is in stark contrast to the archeological deposits observed at 716 E 

Capitol, where architectural and domestic debris appear to have been left in place after 

building demolition. Property surveys conducted in 1974, contracted by the NPS upon 

acquiring this land (Raynolds 1974), indicate that the building at 716 was absent at that 

time, although artifact content indicates that the structural demolition likely occurred 

not long before (see Crest toothpaste in Figure 10). This information, in combination 

with geophysical and archeological data indicating existence of intact pre-1890s 

deposits in the 716 E Capitol parcel, shows this area to retain some archeological 

integrity and potential significance, with information relevant to the period of interest 

for Lincoln Home NHS. 

Beedle

Evaluation of archeological deposits in the Beedle Lot focused on areas with 

potential to contain significant resources at risk of impact by the proposed HVAC 

project. Based upon geophysical results, Figure 7 shows a series of point anomalies 

within the APE. Directional boring is proposed to connect each system of wells to the 

HVAC systems at each house. Impact of this activity is not expected to exceed a prism 

10 cm (4 in) in diameter along the route of the boring. In order to maintain ground 

water temperature effectively for the geothermal HVAC systems, depth of boring is 

proposed to occur at or below 4 ft. 

Extensive disturbance took place in this lot in 1979, when the NPS restored 

the exterior of the Beedle house and removed the post-1884 additions to the structure 

(Banton et al. 1987:192). LIHO archives show the extent of disturbance of this project 

(Figure 13). A member of the park staff indicated that he was on duty at that time, and 

observed the removal of foundation and footings (V. Pollock, personal communication 

2009). Areas between the foundation footings and behind the house addition, however, 

were considered potential candidates to retain architectural features such as cisterns, 

privies, or walkways. 

Geophysical data and historical records were used to develop expectations for 

potentially significant archeological features within the proposed boring impact areas. 

Interpretations were tested with a combination of subsurface techniques: tile probes, 

1-in soil cores, 3-in bucket auger cores, hand-excavated test units, and mechanically 

excavated trenches.
16

LIHO

Tile probes: A 5-m-x-5-m grid of tile probes, each spaced 1 m apart, was placed 

in the Beedle lot, at 10-15 m East, and 25-30 m North on the Geophysical grid (see 

Figure 8). At each of the 36 data points, the tile probe was inserted into the ground, 

with observations recorded on changes in compaction and encounter with subsurface 

obstacles, such as concrete or brick. This was intended to determine whether 

architectural or landscaping features were extant in this area of the back yard.

Results of this inventory indicate bricks or other hard materials at five data 

points across the inventory grid. These five points were all isolated, and follow-up 

probes in adjacent areas were negative. These results do not support the presence of any 

intact architectural features in this area of the yard. 

Backhoe Trench 4/Test Unit 2 – BHT 4 was excavated to evaluate an anomaly in 

resistance data at approximately 27 m North, and 10-12 m East (see Figure 7). Trench 4, 

extending along the 27 North line from 10-12.7 m East, uncovered a circular clay lens 

at approximately 55 cm below surface (Figure 15). Given the geophysical signature at 

this location, it was possible that this represented the top of a capped cistern or privy 

deposit. Continued trenching was shifted 75 cm to the south in order to bisect the 

southern portion of this potential feature (designated Feature 1). This southern portion 

of BHT 4 extended along a line at 26.25 m North, from about 10-11 m East, and was 

excavated to a depth of 115 cm below datum (bd), or about 110 cm below surface (bs).

Test Unit 2, measuring 0.5 m x 1 m, was opened within BHT 4 at 26-27N and 

10.5-11E to bisect Feature 1. Excavation proceeded in 10-cm levels, with contents 

screened through 1⁄4-in mesh, to 110 cmbd. This effort exposed a series of mottled clay 

and loam strata, some with concentrations of charcoal, one with concentration of ash. 

All had a variety of historic artifacts throughout (Figure 16). Ultimately, this excavation 

did not reveal an intact architectural feature as was initially anticipated, but mixed 

deposits. Flat glass analysis of the Test Unit 2 sample (n=29) shows two distinct 19thcentury modes, separated from each other by more than 50 years (interpretation of 

dates is discussed in Chapter VII), consistent with mixed deposits. It is concluded that 

this part of the Beedle lot is highly disturbed, and corresponds closely with the extent 

of house modifications completed by the NPS in the late 1970s. Figure 17 shows the 

trench and unit profile.

Test Unit 1, a one-meter square excavation unit, was placed at 15-16 m North, 

and 25-26 m East, to evaluate a subtle anomaly in the resistance data lying within the 

potential route of directional boring. This unit also intersected the southeast corner of 

the tile probe survey area, in which three adjacent probes encountered hard substances 

(e.g., bricks or gravel) at 25-39 cmbs. 

Excavation revealed a layer of rubble, including brick and mortar fragments 

as well as sand lenses, between 25 and 35 cmbs (explaining both the resistance and 

tile probe results). Below this deposit, crew encountered the possible remains of a 

midden deposit containing a quantity of domestic debris (various ceramic wares and 

egg shell fragments) and personal items (pipestem, slate pencil, button). All 20 flat 

glass fragments derived from this deposit correspond to the early 19th century. The 

applicability of particular formulae to, and the interpretation of specific dates for, the 
17

LIHO flat glass assemblage is debatable, as discussed in Chapter VII. However, the 

distribution of flat glass thickness measurements from this test unit (n=26) is unimodal, 

suggesting a single construction episode reflected in this area, and a relatively cohesive 

(and perhaps intact) midden deposit. 

Excavation was discontinued at 50 cmbs, with sediment coring (using 1-in soil 

core) indicating that the midden deposit extends to approximately 60 cmbs. Sediments 

below this level are consistent with an undisturbed prairie soil. Figure 18 illustrates a 

sample of artifacts from Test Unit 1, while Figure 19 shows the West wall profile. 

Test Unit 4, a one-meter square excavation unit, was placed near Test Unit 1 to 

explore the cause of a discrete anomaly in the GPR data at 18 m East/23 m North. This 

unit, extending from 17 -18 East and 23-24 North, was excavated in similar fashion 

to other test units (in 10-cm levels with fill screened through 1⁄4-in hardware mesh); 

however, the top 20 cm were sample-screened (volume of 10 gallons). This approach 

was chosen in order to determine the nature of cultural materials within this upper 

zone, while maintaining focus on the primary goal of excavation here, which was to 

determine the cause of the GPR anomaly and check for architectural/building features 

within the potential route of the underground borings.

Excavation revealed the source of the anomaly to be a large (30 cm wide) and 

intact concrete slab. This slab, approximately 20 cm in height, lay across the southwest 

quadrant of the unit, extending into the wall but with some 80 cm of its length 

exposed. The top of this slab lay at 26 cmbsand was found to extend sufficiently into 

the southwest unit wall to preclude its removal without extending the unit to do so. 

Excavation continued around this artifact to 40 cmbs, then continued only in the north 

half of the test unit, with the slab documented and left in-place (see Figure 20). 

This slab was but one element of a deposit of large construction-related 

fragments and debris laying roughly between 30 and 60 cmbs, perhaps resulting from 

NPS actions taken during Beedle house renovations in the late 1970s. Distribution 

of flat glass thickness measurements is multimodal, with four peaks in the curve. 

This rather large sample (n=58) appears to represent multiple construction episodes, 

consistent with large-scale demolition and disposal activities reflected in NPS archival 

photos (see Figure 13). 

This area, just 2 m southeast of Test Unit 1, contains many of the larger 

demolition fragments removed from the Beedle house in the late 1970s. Sediment 

descriptions indicate midden remnants, mixed with less dense construction debris 

below this zone. This mixing of construction with domestic artifacts, and the mottling 

of clay sediments below 60 cmbs (as observed in bucket auger and 1-in soil cores), 

extends to approximately 100 cm below the current surface. Cores below this point 

reveal an intact B/C horizon, with unmottled, dense yellow clay below 120 cmbs. The 

absence of a buried A-horizon (or intact topsoil), the presence of large debris, and 

coarsely mixed sediments is consistent with the filling of a crawl space during removal 

of superstructure and lot grading. Figure 21 shows the North wall profile, while Figure 

22 illustrates a sample of artifacts. 
18

LIHO

Test Unit 5 was placed in the northwest portion of the Beedle Lot to evaluate 

deposits at risk from subsurface boring from the western end of the Walters Lot, was 

located at 29-30 m North, 5-6 m East (Figure 8). This part of the project area is within 

a potential boring path, so Test Unit 5 was excavated in order to evaluate the edge of an 

anomaly in the GPR data, and the possibility of a privy or other early outbuilding in this 

part of the APE.

As with Test Unit 4, the MWAC team sampled the top 20 cm of fill for artifacts, 

then screened all fill from each 10-cm level below that. Artifact content in this unit 

is relatively sparse, with small amounts of construction debris mixed with domestic 

materials (Figure 23). Unfortunately, excavation revealed two PVC pipe conduits 

running though this unit at some 50 cm below surface; the team had thought that the 

line was located slightly to the north, but was mistaken. No differences were apparent 

in the field between intact and trench sediments, although slight differences in color 

are detected in profile photographs. All sediment is dark brown clay loam, with a 

slight change at 30 cmbs between the top soil and B-horizon. Excavation terminated 

at 57 cmbs; cores below that level (using a bucket auger and 1-in soil core) indicate 

homogenous sediments with sparse artifacts. The soil profile grades to dark yellowish 

brown clay loam by 110 cmbs, and the cores terminate at 114 cm below surface. These 

data indicate that this area of the lot has been disturbed relatively recently for electrical 

trenching (Krupka 1991 documents this NPS project), but it does not appear that the 

drastic disturbances of 1978, apparent further east on the Beedle lot, impacted this 

corner. The substantial (n=65) flat glass sample, derived largely from the lower levels 

of this unit, indicates a bimodal curve, with most pieces dated to the mid-19th century, 

and a few to the early 20th century. Viewing the contents by level shows apparently 

younger specimens lying beneath older ones, not surprising given the stratigraphic 

context here. However, the overall distribution highlights the potential of this western 

portion of the lot to contain archeological deposits of interest for interpretation at 

Lincoln Home NHS.

Lyon

A small portion of the Lyon Lot lies within the APE for the geothermal project. 

A line, bored across the Beedle lot from the well field in the Walters lot, will penetrate 

the Lyon House foundation to connect to the air handling system. A tour of the Lyon 

basement and information from park staff indicated that most of that foundation had 

been recently replaced. A single four feet wide section of historic brick foundation 

remains in the north end of the west foundation wall, just north of the back porch; 

this small section of historic wall likely corresponds to the last remaining section of 

original, intact builders’ trench for the Lyon House.

Resistance data show a distinct anomaly within the APE, approximately 5 

m in diameter and centered under the boardwalk at 17 m North, 21 m East. This is 

similar in density to the anomaly that correlated with the location of a known cistern 

off the south end of the north wall, and was investigated for the presence of a similar 

feature. The backhoe was used to open a trench, 68 cm east-west by 2.5 m north-south, 

with the southwest corner at 16 m North, 22 m East (Figure 8). This trench was 

mechanically scraped to remove sod and top soil, and to explore for the presence of 
19

architectural materials. As no clear evidence of built features was apparent by 34 cm 

below surface, trenching was paused and a hand-excavation unit (designated Test 

Unit 3) was placed at the south end of the trench to collect a more controlled sample of 

deposits corresponding with the resistance anomaly. Excavation and screening of TU3 

to 50 cmbs revealed highly compacted clay loam (a pick-axe was required to remove 

sediments), with sediment and artifact contents not unlike that found elsewhere in the 

project area: fragmented domestic and construction debris, mixed within a dark brown 

clay loam matrix. 

Given the difficulty of hand excavation here and the lack of unique or especially 

informative findings, the backhoe was reinstated in order to provide stratigraphic and 

other data relevant to the source of the anomaly. BHT 3 was continued to 70 cmbs, and 

halted again when loose, organic-rich deposits containing large diagnostic artifacts 

were intersected. A sample of this deposit, 5 cm in depth by 50 cm in width, was sifted 

through 1⁄4-in screen and artifact content collected. The profile was documented, and 

the floor of the trench probed with a 1-in soil core to determine the total depth of this 

feature and its relation to original grade.

The top 25 cm of exposed sediments comprise very dark grayish brown clay 

loam with occasional clay mottles. Under this layer lies a lens (approximately 10 cm in 

thickness) of dark reddish-brown ashy, sandy debris (similar to that found in BHT 2). 

Below this, on the north end of BHT 3, is a lens (also 10 cm thick) of olive brown clay 

mottled with topsoil, flecks of mortar and debris. The source of the resistance anomaly 

is interpreted as the highly porous, organic-rich deposit lying below this, extending 

from 50 cmbs to approximately 95 cmbs. This unit is very dark gray silty clay with 

organic material, coal fragments, low-fired brick, soft mortar, and domestic debris 

throughout. Coring data below this level indicate an intact soil profile, with dark gray 

clay loam grading into the B-horizon at approximately 130 cm below modern surface. 

Coring terminated at 154 cmbs, showing a continuation of grade toward a yellower clay. 

Figure 24 shows west wall profile of Trench 3. 

The organic and artifact-rich deposit documented in BHT 3 and Test Unit 3 

is designated Feature 2. This feature appears to be a trash deposit, containing early 

domestic and construction materials (see Figure 25). Pottery and bottle fragments 

indicate a pre-1890 and likely 1860s date for this deposit. Twenty-six fragments of 

flat glass were recovered from this unit. The distribution of thickness measurements 

for this small sample is dominated by a mode at 1820 (as per Ball’s formula), with a 

minor second peak tied to a slightly later date. Although, as mentioned elsewhere, 

interpretation of dates requires further qualification (as discussed in the Artifacts 

section), analysis suggests this feature contains construction debris from removal of 

early house elements. This location appears to contain intact historic stratification, 

which may offer significant information on the history of the neighborhood.

ARTIFACTS

Archeological testing resulted in the recovery of 1,849 artifacts. They were 

cleaned, sorted, identified, and quantified by MWAC staff. Information was recorded 
20

LIHO

onto catalog cards and catalog records were created using Re:Discovery museum 

software. All records are on file at MWAC.

Artifacts were first sorted by material class and subclass. Ceramics were sorted 

into subcategories by paste (stoneware, yellowware, whiteware, porcelain); metals 

were distinguished as ferrous or non-ferrous; glass was subdivided into flat and curved 

subgroups. Artifact classes with potential to provide temporal information were 

treated in greater detail. Curved glass was sorted by color, and bottle fragments with 

technologically or chronologically relevant traits were individually researched. Historic 

ceramic fragments with potentially diagnostic patterns were treated similarly. Flat glass 

fragments were weighed and measured, with data on thickness and color collected for 

each fragment.

Artifacts are presented according to interpreted function. Categories include: 

architectural, domestic, personal, and items of unknown function. 

Architectural Items

Architectural materials listed here are all items related to the construction 

of a house or structure. This includes building hardware, limestone, mortar, plaster, 

window (flat) glass, and nails.

Nails

Nails compose the most numerous group of construction hardware. They 

can provide important information useful for interpretation of deposit chronology. 

Machine-cut nails, which replaced hand-wrought nails near the end of 18th century, 

were cut from a sheet of iron or steel and dominated the 19th century. Wire nails, 

which were manufactured from spools of wire, were being made in North America by 

the 1850s, but were not used in construction for several decades after that, and did not 

actually dominate until the 1890s (Adams 2002; Nelson 1968; Wells 1998). 

Eighty-four whole or fragmented nails were recovered during this project. The 

majority of them are so badly corroded that it is not possible to identify their method 

of manufacture. Of the identifiable group, nine are wire nails and twelve are cut nails. 

Although all test units produced some nails, the majority come from Test Units 1 and 4, 

which were placed right outside the Beedle house footprint and within the crawlspace, 

respectively. Both cut and wire nails are present in all stratigraphic levels, which may 

be indicative of a mixed and disturbed nature of deposits in the site area. However, the 

small sample size greatly limits any statistical analysis. 

Brick

One hundred forty-two small brick specimens were sampled from the project 

area, selected to represent the chronological and technological range of this materials 

class encountered during the project. One complete brick was collected from BHT 

3, located just off the northwest corner of the Lyon House. It measures 81⁄2 in x 4 in 
21

x 21⁄4 in, and has soft lime mortar adhering to all sides. Several other brick samples 

collected exhibit a layer of such mortar still adhering to the surface. Given the nonsystematic collection method for this material class, little can be said regarding 

distribution of brick types, but it should be noted that both high- and lowfired bricks were encountered.

Several artifacts (Figure 23 g-i) are probably fragments of structural clay 

tiles (also referred to as structural terra cotta block or hollow tile block). They have 

either rectangular or rounded grooves on external surfaces, which served to improve 

adherence of mortar. One piece (see Figure 23 h) has the mortar still attached. It is very 

hard and looks like it must have been mixed with a significant amount of Portland 

cement. These kind of blocks were manufactured as early as the 1890s but were 

mostly in use in the first two decades of the 20th century (Winstel 1991). Most of these 

fragments came from Test Unit 5, which was located in a previously disturbed area near 

the North boundary of the Beedle house lot, and may have been related to the turn-ofthe-century apartment buildings that were located to the north in the Walters lot. 

Mortar

Because the components of mortar changed over time, this material class has 

potential to be a useful tool in dating historic structures and archeological deposits. 

Major changes occurred towards the end of 19th century and in the early 20th century 

with the introduction of Portland cement. Over time, as more of it was added to the 

mix, mortar gradually became faster-setting and harder. 

Throughout most of the 19th century in America, mortar consisted mostly of 

lime and sand. Portland cement was patented in Europe in 1824 and first manufactured 

in the United States in 1872, but was not in common use in the U.S. until the early 20th 

century. Until the turn of the century, Portland cement was considered primarily 

an additive, or “minor ingredient” to help accelerate mortar set time. By the 1930s, 

however, most masons used a mix of equal parts Portland cement and lime putty. 

Thus, the mortar found in masonry structures built between 1873 and 1930 can range 

from pure lime and sand mixes to a wide variety of lime, Portland cement, and sand 

combinations (Mack et al. 1980). 

The mortar collection from LIHO consists of 121 specimens, including 69 hard- 

(Figure 16l, 23i) and 55 soft-lime mortar (Figure 10h, 16k). Although a representative 

sample was attempted, some pieces were discarded in the field, rendering quantitative 

analysis untenable. The mortar sample may also be biased against soft mortar due to 

its friable nature. However, nominal mortar data can still be useful in relative dating of 

archeological deposits. 

The distribution of mortar suggests some mixing of deposits, which is not 

surprising considering the extent of ground disturbance during NPS restoration 

projects (see Figure 13). Both types of mortar are present in most levels in all test units. 

Hard 20th-century mortar was recovered from levels as deep as 90-100 cmbd (TU2), 

mixed with thin early flat glass, while soft mortar was encountered in levels containing 

more modern material (TU1, Level 3). 
22

LIHO

Flat glass

Flat, window, or plate glass can be a useful tool for dating archeological deposits 

(Moir 1982; Roenke 1978; Schoen 1990). Technological evolution of the manufacturing 

process during the 19th century resulted in successively thicker average pane 

thicknesses through time, until a major innovation in the production process in the 

early 20th century reversed this trend. Histogram distributions of fragment thickness 

data can thus be interpreted chronologically; several studies have correlated thickness 

with construction dates (e.g., Moir 1987; Schoen 1990). 

Formulae derived from these studies differ, and have varying results, depending 

on the subject data used to create them. Beyond production technology, factors 

affecting the relationship between flat glass thickness and date of building construction 

include geography, structural function, and economic setting at the time of 

construction. One would expect that a building constructed in a community with good 

access to a glass factory would be built using window glass more recently produced 

than one built in a remote setting, where transport of glass is more costly. One would 

also expect a higher rate of windowpane recycling in the latter setting, which would 

further separate dates of pane manufacture from building construction. 

Choosing the best formula to apply to a given assemblage is thus ruled largely 

by geography. Ball (1982) derived the chronological formula using samples from 

Kentucky, Alabama, and Arkansas, to the south of Springfield. Schoen (1990) used 

assemblages from ten sites, six of which were along the middle and upper Missouri 

River in Nebraska and the Dakotas. Given that little is known about the supply chain 

for window glass into Springfield in the early 19th century, both formulae were applied 

and compared for interpreted dates.

A digital calipers was used to measure sherd thickness, to .01mm, on a total of 

245 glass fragments. All pieces were measured, but if larger than one inch in diameter, 

three measurements were taken to offset effects of flow, idiosyncrasies across 

individual pieces, and individual measurement errors. All pieces were also weighed 

(to .01 g). 

Comparing the Schoen-derived dates to those derived from Ball’s formula 

suggests that the Schoen formula is a better tool for the LIHO sample. Given the fact 

that the earliest-documented construction dates in the project area were circa 1840, the 

earlier modes on the Ball histogram require scrutiny. 

In order to ensure that this analysis considered only window glass, fragments 

likely to represent other sources, such as lamp chimney or windshield, were removed. 

Removing from analysis all pieces thinner than 1 mm, and all those with thickness 

greater than 2.75 mm leaves an assemblage of 214 fragments. The distribution of 

thickness measurements shows two modes within the 19th century: one associated with 

the 1840s, and one with the 1880s. Given historic knowledge of the project area, these 

modes are generally consistent with initial construction dates of around 1840 for the 

Walters and Beedle houses, as well as the reworking of structures documented during 

the late 19th century. 
23

Overall, flat glass analysis is useful here for interpreting deposits in terms of 

general shape of thickness histograms, and prove useful here as a means of evaluating 

the nature and condition of archeological deposits across the project area. As discussed 

individually for each test unit, flat glass distributions indicate two essential states of 

integrity of deposits across the tested areas. Deposits sampled in Test Units 1, 2, and 4 

show large-scale mixing, with multimodal thickness distributions, while those in Test 

Units 3 and 5 show more strongly modal curves. 

Mean flat glass fragment size (measured here by weight), provides another 

perspective on condition of the artifact deposit; processes responsible for large-scale 

mixing or disturbance of archeological deposits should also impact individual fragment 

size, so mean size should be smaller in more disturbed areas. Mean weight in Test Units 

1, 2, and 3 is approximately half of that in Test Units 4 and 5; higher fragmentation 

suggests greater disturbance in the former Test Unit areas. This holds true for Test 

Units 1 and 2, located in zones likely in the thick of wholesale structural demolition 

in the 1970s, while the highly compact nature of sediments in Test Unit 3 can explain 

the smaller fragments there. The larger relative shard size in Test Unit 4, also within 

the larger demolition zone, requires a closer look. The prevalence of constructionrelated debris in this unit suggests this specific area was used for the disposal of larger 

structural fragments during the late 1970s event, and that the archeological deposit here 

is really a primary deposit of that particular event. The sample from Test Unit 5, with 

its strong mode associated with the 1880s-1890s and large mean shard size, appears 

to represent a relatively undisturbed deposit (despite the electrical trenching that 

intersected the test unit). 

Based on flat glass analysis, certain portions of the project area – namely those 

sampled by Test Units 3 and 5 – likely retain intact archeology relevant to 19th-century 

activities at Lincoln Home NHS.

Domestic Items

The domestic items category includes artifacts related to the storage, serving, 

and consumption of food or drink. Therefore, the discussion here focuses on ceramics, 

curved glass, and fauna. 

Ceramics

Ceramics recovered during the project were separated into classes defined 

by paste type, including whiteware, porcelain, ironstone, yellowware, and redware. 

Whiteware has, by far, the highest representation, with 251 fragments recovered 

during the investigations. They come from all proveniences and span various styles and 

decorative techniques. 

Transfer-printed whiteware is represented by 66 fragments. Colors include blue, 

brown, green, mulberry, black, red and lavender, with blue being the most numerous: 

41 fragments (see Figure 18a, d, e; Figure 22 l, m, p; Figure 23a, b, c; Figure 25d, e, f, 

h). Five pieces (see example in Figure 23c) are examples of the Blue Willow pattern, 
24

LIHO

which likely dates to the first half of the 19th century (Gaston 1990). Another category, 

represented by nine fragments (see example in 22m), is Flow Blue whiteware, which was 

most popular in the mid-1800s (Williams 1981; Gaston 1983). Six of those came from the 

compacted deposit in TU3 in the Lyon House lot. One sherd came from BHT1 south of 

the drain tile, an area with what appeared to be undisturbed deposits potentially related 

to the original outbuildings in the back of the Walters lot. Seventeen other fragments 

of transfer-print whiteware, recovered from Test Unit 1, are identified to pattern: 

“Lawrence” in lavender of unknown manufacture and date (Williams and Weber 

1986:216 and Snyder 1997:103) (see Figure 18a). 

Fourteen of the whiteware sherds are hand-painted (see Figure 18b), including 

examples of both under- and over-glaze decoration. Five fragments from the same 

provenience (Feature 2 in BHT3) appear to be from the same object, which was 

hand-painted on the body and sponge decorated on the rim (Figure 25g). Sponge, 

or spatterware, with hand-painted decoration, is represented by 4 more (Figure 18c) 

sherds. This was most popular from 1850 to 1890 (Derven 1980:125) and was used on 

cheap dinnerware and serving pieces (Hunt 2007:21).

Three fragments of blue edge-decorated whiteware (Figure 25i) were found in 

Feature 2 in BHT3 as well. Edge decoration was popular in the first half on the19th 

century and began to fade by the 1860s. These particular pieces have unscalloped and 

unmolded edges, which is characteristic of later edge decoration. Miller and Hunter 

(1990) place this variety in the 1870-1890 timeframe. This and other artifacts found in 

Feature 2 (transfer print whiteware, bottle fragments) suggest a post-1860s date for this 

deposit of domestic debris.

Overall, the majority of the whiteware assemblage is undecorated (169 

fragments). This supports the interpretation of a late 19th-century and later deposition 

time frame for these materials, as popularity of the highly embellished printed table 

service was declining in favor of simpler molded and plain white-surfaced types in the 

later 1800s (Lofstrom 1976; Miller 1980; Richner 1992, 1996).

Porcelain, a finer ceramic ware, is represented by 27 fragments. They derive 

from all proveniences and represent serving dishes, bowls, saucers, and cups. Most of 

the pieces are undecorated. One sherd has remnants of a decal, one is pink-and-white 

glazed with gilt edging, and one is handpainted with double-gilt edging (Figure 10f).

One fragment of ironstone with a maker’s mark was recovered from the early 

deposit south of the drain tile in BHT1 (Figure 10g). The mark reads “Royal Premium, 

Semi-Porcelain, T. & R. Boote, England.” It is printed in brown or black and can be 

dated to 1842-1906 (see Coysh A. W. and R. K. Henrywood 1982: 47) although this 

particular version of the mark suggests a late 19th-century date (Thorn 1947:48).

Two utilitarian wares, yellowware and redware, are also present in the ceramic 

assemblage. Only four fragments of yellowware were recovered, two of which have 

brown glaze, and one of which has raised decoration (Figure 22j). This type of ware 

was popular between 1870 and 1900, although some production still continued through 

about 1930. The redware assemblage consists of 36 pieces, the majority of which are 
25

unglazed. Seven of those fragments come from two possible terra cotta flower pots 

that had rim decoration (Figure 16b-d). The remaining 29 fragments are glazed with 

either orange or brown glaze. This ware likely competed poorly against newer, more 

durable stonewares leading to a fall-off in production by the turn of the 20th century 

(McConnell 1988). 

Stoneware is represented by only 3 specimens, one with salt glaze, and two with 

dark brown Albany-type glaze.

Curved glass

Curved glass includes various glass containers used for storage or consumption 

of food and drink. 

Glass vessels, and especially historic bottles, can be extremely useful in dating 

archeological deposits. Bottle manufacturing methods evolved through time as the use 

of molds became increasingly popular, leading to standardization and mechanization 

of the bottle manufacturing process. Analysis of bottle characteristics linked to certain 

manufacturing techniques allows for chronological interpretation. Furthermore, 

where a maker’s mark or other distinguishing characteristics are present, historical 

documentation can provide detailed information about the manufacturer, bottle 

contents, and place of manufacture, thus allowing for more precise chronological, 

functional, and economic analyses. 

Two hundred forty-nine fragments of curved glass are present in the collection. 

Of these, 169 (69%) are colorless, 58 (23%) are aqua color, with the remainder 

split among green, amber, black/olive, purple, and cobalt blue. Most of the bottles 

represented are highly fragmented; only two complete bottles were recovered. Both 

came from BHT1 south of the drain tile which, as also supported by the dating of other 

artifacts from that provenience, indicates the presence of undisturbed 19th-century 

deposits in the southwest corner of the Walters lot.

One of these is a small colorless round-corner Blake type prescription bottle 

with a tooled finish (Figure 10e). The Blake style is rectangular in cross-section with 

beveled corners and four flattened sides. Similar to other druggist bottle styles, the 

neck on the Blake style is relatively short, only 25 to 30 percent of the body height. 

Blake druggist bottles were almost always blown in cup-bottom molds and have 

tooled finishes. It was the most popular style of rectangular druggist bottle and was a 

standard offered by most glassmakers that produced druggist bottles from the 1880s 

well into the 1920s and beyond (Lindsey 2010). The bottle’s embossed panel reads “G. 

A. Hulett, Dispensing Druggist, Franklin Building,” while the base provides maker 

information. The mark, “W. T. & CO., A, U.S.A,” belongs to Whitall Tatum & Company 

from Millville, New Jersey. The specific combination and placement of letters in this 

particular mark can be dated to 1890-1901. The combination “W. T. & CO” was no 

longer used after 1901, whereas “U. S. A.” was in use after 1890, a fact that probably 

reflects the company’s entry into the international market (Lockhart et al. 2006). 
26

LIHO

The other complete bottle was also likely a prescription bottle (Figure 10d). It is 

an oval-type aqua bottle with tooled finish that Fike (1987:8) calls “ring or oil.” It has no 

maker’s mark or embossing.

Two fragments of what appears to be the same bottle were found within Feature 

3 in BHT3 (Figure 25a). It is a very dark olive (almost black) beer or ale bottle made in 

a 3-piece mold with large kick-up in the base and rather crudely applied finish. The 

3-piece mold was in use throughout the 19th century and for beer bottles even into 

early 20th century. However, the applied finish most certainly dates the bottle to before 

1890 or 1895. The shape, dark color and crude finish resemble what Lindsey (2010) calls 

“Black glass ale bottle,” which he dates to the mid-1860s. This type of ale bottle faded in 

popularity by the 1870s. 

The other piece from the same provenience is a neck and shoulder fragment 

from a small rectangular aqua color bottle (Figure 25b). The color and shape is typical 

of mid-19th-century proprietary medicine and the crudely rolled (inwards) finish dates 

it to around 1865-1870 (Lindsey 2010). 

The presence of these two bottles alongside sponge- and edge-decorated pottery 

in the undisturbed deposit outside of the Lyon house (Feature 3) supports its early date 

(mid-1860s and certainly pre-1890) and archeological significance with information 

relevant to the period of interest for Lincoln Home NHS. 

Fauna 

One hundred seventy-four animal bones and fragments were recovered 

during excavations. These derived from all test units, as well as Backhoe Trenches 1 

and 3 (Feature 2). No formal analysis was conducted on this assemblage, but catalog 

records indicate a number of calcined or burnt bones (n=47) and multiple examples of 

butchering or cut marks (n=14). Test Unit 1 produced the most pieces, making up 32 

percent of the assemblage (n=51), followed in frequency by Test Unit 5, which produced 

20 percent of the assemblage (n=34). This is consistent with interpretation of the former 

unit as the location of a kitchen midden. It is also consistent with a debris deposit 

located at the back of the lot, near former outbuildings, as is the case for the latter unit. 

Without further analysis, little more can be said about this class of domestic artifacts. 

However, this small assemblage has potential to provide information on diet, economy, 

and post-depositional processes within the study area.

Personal Items

Three glass beads were recovered during the excavations. A blue opaque bead 

(Figure 23d) similar to variety #246 (see Ross 2000) was found in TU 5. The other two 

came from Test Unit 2 (Figure 16g, h): a green opaque bead with slight patina, similar to 

variety #312, and a 6-sided light amber drawn bead, similar to variety #336. 

Several buttons were recovered throughout the site area. They are made of 

various materials: glass (Figure 16i), wood, metal, and shell (Figure 22o). 
27

Test Unit 2 in BHT4 produced a plastic comb tooth (Figure 14e) and a sewing pin 

made of cuprous metal (Figure 16f). 

An interesting artifact came from Test Unit 4. It is a Boilo Armitype detachable 

dental mirror head (Figure 22n), made by Specialty Mfg. Co. (see “Oral Hygiene,” vol. 

9, pp 57, 236, 318, 448, 754, 1175, 1482, 1645. Published by Robert C. Ketterer, 1919. 

Accessed via Google Books, 01/05/2010). It is worth noting that early 20th century (1917 

and 1941) Sanborn Fire Insurance maps indicate the presence of doctor’s offices in 

three of the four buildings in the neighboring Walters lot (from Banton 1987). 

A Crest toothpaste tube (Figure 10c) is an example of modern materials 

recovered from the northern section of BHT1 - north of the drain tile. Crest with 

Fluoristan was first launched in 1955 and Fluoristan was replaced by Fluoristat by 

1981. This particular tube is plastic, which likely dates it to post-1969 when the shift 

from metal to plastic tubes occurred. This, in combination with the 1974 survey maps 

showing no structure at 716 East Capitol, indicates that the removal occurred not long 

before the Walters lot was acquired by the Park Service.

Miscellaneous

One hundred six small painted stones (see Figure 22k) were collected from 

several test units, with an overwhelming concentration in Test Unit 4 (n=100). They 

are small rocks, painted blue (n=103) or green (n=3); they are currently interpreted as 

aquarium or terrarium fill. 

CONCLUSIONS

Investigations at the Walters, Beedle, and Lyon house lots (state site numbers 

11SG1373, 11SG1374, and 11SG1375, respectively) were conducted in two sessions 

during October and November, 2009. Geophysical inventory was conducted across all 

three lots October 4-10, 2009, incorporating magnetic, electrical resistance, electrical 

conductivity, and ground-penetrating radar. This effort identified a number of areas 

of potential sensitivity across the project area, and helped to focus efforts during 

subsurface evaluation. Subsurface investigations were conducted November 2-7, 2009. 

As mentioned, efforts during this phase were focused, in part, by results of geophysical 

inventory, but were also bounded by the Area of Potential Effect (APE) specific to the 

HVAC projects for the Beedle and Lyon houses. 

Geophysical investigations and historic records identified potentially sensitive 

areas within the APE, so subsurface testing was particularly intense in several areas. 

In order to minimize impacts of the geothermal project, former apartment building 

footprints in the Walters Lot, visible in geophysical data, were proposed for well field 

locations. Backhoe trenching was used to confirm the location of basement walls and 

the absence of sensitive deposits in two building footprints. This was confirmed for 

one of the suggested locations, but not the other. Potentially sensitive and informative 

archeological remains were found to remain near and within the footprint of the 

building formerly at 716 East Capitol (westernmost on the Walters Lot). For this reason, 
28

LIHO

it is recommended that well fields for both the Beedle and Lyon houses be located 

within the building footprint at 720 East Capitol, or the second footprint east of the 

north end of that lot (see Figure 26).

A cluster of geophysical anomalies, Sanborn maps, and the results of backhoe 

trenching near the west end of the project area all indicate a high potential for intact 

and informative archeological deposits at the west end of the Beedle house lot. This is 

supported by analyses of artifacts from Test Unit 5, located near that end of the yard. 

Fortunately, moving of the well field slightly to the east also removes this area of the lot 

from the APE for the HVAC project. Any future undertakings in this part of the Beedle 

and Walters lots should be taken with extreme care; detailed evaluation of deposits is 

recommended as part of future project planning.

No large clusters of anomalies were identified within the APE for lines running 

from the new well field to the Beedle and Lyon houses, although several strong point 

anomalies were investigated within the APE of the Beedle and Lyon House yards. 

Excavations resulted in a better understanding of the extent of disturbance associated 

with NPS remodeling activities at Beedle, and were used to develop recommendations 

for specific line placement. Areas to avoid include a section of original foundation 

at the northwest corner of the Lyon House as well as an intact trash deposit off the 

back corner of the house (Feature 3), and two cisterns identified by previous park 

staff off northwest corner of the Beedle house (see Krupka 1991). Figure 26 provides 

recommendations for HVAC project activities and sensitive areas to avoid. 

Two areas outside of the current project APE are worthy of note here for future 

reference. Figure 7 shows clusters of geophysical anomalies particularly concentrated in 

two areas. One is located in the northeast quadrant of the Walters Lot, the other in the 

back yard of the Lyon House. Both areas show a high potential to contain archeological 

deposits holding information relevant to the late 19th century, if not earlier. Any 

future park activities in these parts of the block should include detailed archeological 

investigation as a part of project planning. 

This project examined three lots within the Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site, including some areas with histories of intensive disturbance. Preliminary 

assessment supported a belief that the project area was without integrity or potential 

to yield significant information about the past. However, examination of artifact 

content and distribution, as well as geophysical information and historical documents, 

has demonstrated that this is not necessarily true. Results of this project are relevant 

not only for the current undertaking, but will be useful for design of future projects, 

indicating the existence of several areas with potential to inform on the period of 

interest for the park. 
29
30

LIHO
31

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, William H. 

2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production and Use for Dating 

19th-Century and Early-20th-Century Sites. Historical Archaeology 36(4): 66-88.

Ambrose, Heather M.

2005 Quantitative Integration and Three-dimensional Visualization of Multiarchaeological geophysics Survey. ProQuest Information and Learning Company, 

Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Ball, Donald B.

1982 Chronological Implications of Window Glass Thickness and Coloration at the 

Linville Site (15BK12), Bracken County, Kentucky. Manuscript, Office of State 

Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Banton, Albert W., Jr., Ellen Carol Balm, and Jill York O’Bright

1987 Historic Resource Study and Historic Structures Report. Blocks 7 and 10, 

Elijah Iles’ Addition, Springfield, Illinois. Lincoln Home National Historic Site, 

Springfield, Illinois. 

Bevan, Bruce W.

1991 The Search for Graves. Geophysics 56(9):1310-1319.

1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical 

Exploration. Special Report No. 1. Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, 

Nebraska.

Breiner, S.

1973 Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. GeoMetrics, Sunnyvale, 

California.

Clark, Anthony

2000 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. Reprint. Routledge, 

London. Originally published in 1990 by B. T. Batsford, Ltd., London.

Clay, R. Berle 

2001 Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways are always 

Better than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20(1):31-43.

Coysh A. W. and R. K. Henrywood

1982 The Dictionary of Blue and White Printed Pottery 1780-1880. Antique Collectors’ 

Club Ltd. Baron Publishing, Woodbridge, England.

David, Andrew

1995 Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. Research & Professional 

Services Guidelines No. 1. Ancient Monuments Laboratory, English Heritage, 

London.
32

LIHO

De Vore, Steven L. 

2006 Geophysical Investigations of the Miller House Property (11SG1318) at Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site, Sangamon County, Springfield, Illinois. Manuscript 

on file. USDI, NPS, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, NE.

2009 Geophysical Survey of the Proposed HVAC System Project Area at Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site, Springfield, Illinois (October 4-10, 2009). Trip report 

on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Derven, Daphne L.

1980 A Field Guide to Historic Artifacts: Ceramics in Oklahoma. Bulletin of the 

Oklahoma Anthropological Society 29:103-142.

Dice, Lee R. 

1943 The Biotic Provinces of North America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Fennenman, Nevin M.

1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Fike, Richard E. 

1987 The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine Bottles. 

Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.

Gaston, Mary Frank

1983 The Collector’s Encyclopedia of Flow Blue China. Collector Books, Paducah, 

Kenucky. 

Gaffney, Chris, John Gater, and Sue Ovenden

1991 The Use of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeological Evaluations. Technical 

Paper Number 9. Institute of Field Archaeologists, University of Birmingham, 

Birmingham, England.

Heimmer, Don H. and Steven L. De Vore

1995 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource 

Management and Archeological Investigations. Revised edition. National Park 

Service, Denver, Colorado.

2000 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource 

Management and Archaeological Investigations. In Science and Technology in 

Historic Preservation, edited by Ray A. Williamson and Paul R. Nickens, pp. 53-73. 

Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, Volume 4. Kluwer Academic/

Plenum Publishers, New York.

Hornickel, James K.

2004 Soil Survey of Sangamon County, Illinois. Soil View Version 2.0. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Champaign, Illinois.
33

Hunt, William J., Jr.

2007 Archeaological Testing at the Miller House Site (11SG1318), Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site. U.S. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, 

Lincoln, NE. 

Ketterer, Rober C.

1919 Oral Hygiene. Volume 9. Accessed via Google Books. 

Krupka, ,Francis O.

1991 Report of Emergency Electrical Repairs and Archeological Monitoring of 

Ground Disturbance at Beedle House (HS-12), Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site, Sprincfield, Illinois, February 19-21, 1991. Letter Report on File, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 

Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Kvamme, Kenneth L.

2001 Current Practices in Archaeogeophysics: Magnetics, Resistivity, Conductivity, 

and Ground-Penetrating Radar. In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, edited by Paul 

Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday, and C. Reid Ferring, pp. 353-384. Kluwer Academic/

Plenum Publishers, New York.

2007 Integrating Multiple Geophysical Datasets. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology, 

edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz, pp. 345-374. Springer, New York.

Lindsey, Bill

2010 Bureau of Land Management Historic Bottle Glass Identification and 

Information Website. http://www.sha.org/bottle. Accessed on December 22, 2010. 

Website last update December 1, 2010.

Lockhart, Bill, Carol Serr, David Whitten, Bill Lindsey and Pete Schulz

2006 The Dating Game: Whitall Tatum & CO. Bottles and Extras, Summer 2006: 57-

59.

Lofstrom, Edward U.

1976 An Analysis of Temporal Change in a Nineteenth Century Ceramic Assemblage 

from Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Minnesota Archaeologist 36:16-47.

Mack, Robert C., de Tell Patterson Tiller and James S. Askins

1980 Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Brick Buildings. Preservation Briefs: 2. 

USDI, NPS, Preservation Assistance Division, Technical Preservation Services, 

Washington, DC.

McConnell, Kevin

1988 Redware, America’s Folk Art Pottery. Schiffer Publishing Incorporated, 

Westchester, Pennsylvania.
34

LIHO

Miller, George L.

1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th-Century Ceramics. Historical 

Archaeology 14: 140.

Miller, George L. and Robert R. Hunter

1990 “English Shell-Edged Earthenware: Alias Leeds Ware, Alias Feather Edge,” The 

Consumer Revolution in 18th Century English Pottery, Proceedings of the Wedgwood 

International Seminar, no. 35, pp. 107–136

Milsom, John

2003 Field Geophysics. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United 

Kingdom.

Moir, Randall W.

1982 Windows and Pane Fragments: Sources of Chronological Data for Historic 

Archaeologists. Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist 

University, Dallas, TX.

1987 Socioeconomic and Chronometric Patterning of Window Glass. In Historic 

Buildings, Material Culture, and People of the Prairie Margin: Architecture, 

Artifacts, and Synthesis of Historic Archaeology, Richland Creek Technical Series, 

Vol. 5, David H. Jurney and Randall Moir, editors, pp. 73–81. Southern Methodist 

University, Dallas, TX.

Music, B.

1995 On-Site Prospection in Slovenia: The Case of Rodik. Archaeological Computing 

Newsletter 43:6-15.

Nelson, Lee H.

1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Associatioin for 

State and Local History Technical Leaflet 48. History News 24(11).

Neubauer, W., P. Melichar, and A. Eder-Hinterleitner

1996 Collection, Visualization, and Simulation of Magnetic Prospection Data. 

In Interfacing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in 

Archaeology, CAA95, Volume 1, edited by H. Kamermans and K. Fennema, pp. 

121-129. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia No. 28. University of Leiden, Leiden, 

The Netherlands.

Osborn, Alan J. 

2001 Archeological Overview and Assessment of Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site, Sangamon County, Springfield, Illinois. USDI, NPS, Midwest Archeological 

Center Technical Report No. 72.

Oswin, John 

2009 A Field Guide to Geophysics in Archaeology. Springer-Praxis Books, Chichester, 

United Kingdom. 

 
35

Peddie, Norman W.

1992 The Magnetic Field in the United States, 1990, Total Intensity Chart. U.S. 

Geological Survey Geophysical Investigations Map GP-1002-F. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Peddie, Norman W., and Audronis K. Zundie

1988 The Magnetic Field in the United States, 1985, Inclination Chart. U.S. Geological 

Survey Geophysical Investigations Map GP-986-I. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

Raynolds, John L.

1974 Plat of Survey, Block 7 of E. Iles Addition to the City of Springfield. Conducted 

under order number PX-6530-4-0101 for the National Park Service, Omaha, 

Nebraska. Raynolds and Walschleger, Reg. Ill. Land Surveyors, 217 E. Pine St., 

Springfield, Illinois.

Richner, Jeffrey J.

1992 Archeological Excavation at Site 33CU314: A Mid-Nineteenth Century Structure 

on the Ohio and Erie Canal. Midwest Archeological Center Technical Report 

No. 14. USDI, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center. Lincoln, 

Nebraska.

1996 Archeological Investigations at Boston Village, Boston Township, Summit County, 

Ohio, Part I: Inventory and Evaluation at the Boston General Store, 1991. Midwest 

Archeological Center Technical Report No. 53. USDI, National Park Service, 

Midwest Archeological Center. Lincoln, Nebraska.

Roenke, Karl G.

1978 Flat Glass: Its Use as a Dating Tool for Nineteenth Century Archaeological Sites in 

the Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 

Memoir No. 4, Moscow, ID.

Ross, Lester A.

2000 Trade beads from archeological excavations at Fort Union Trading Post National 

Historic Site. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, with the Fort 

Union Association, Williston, North Dakota

Schoen, Christopher

1990 Window Glass on the Plains: An Analysis of Flat Glass Samples from Ten 

Nineteenth Century Plains Historic Sites. Central Plains Archaeology 2(1):57–90.

Sharma, Prem V.

1997 Environmental and Engineering Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom.
36

LIHO

Shelford, Victor E.

1963 The Ecology of North America. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.

Sheriff, Robert E.

1973 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics. Society of Exploration 

Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Snyder, Jeffrey B.

1997 Romantic Staffordshire Ceramics. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.

Steinkamp, James F.

1980 Soil Survey of Sangamon County, Illinois. U. S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D. C.

Thorn, C. Jordan

1947 Handbook of Old Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Tudor Publishing Company, New 

York.

Townsend, Timothy P.

2008 Almost Home. In Abraham Lincoln: A Living Legacy, A Guide to Three Abraham 

Lincoln National Park Sites, by Eastern National, pp.76-149. Donning Company 

Publishers, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Trewartha, Glen T., and Lyle H. Horn

1980 An Introduction to Climate. Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New 

York.

USDA

2006 Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, 

the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agriculture Handbook 296. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Wells, Tom

1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical 

Archaeology 32(2):78-99.

Weymouth, John W.

1986 Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying. In Advances in 

Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 9, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 

311-395. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Williams, Petra

1981 Flow Blue China: An Aid to Identification. Fountain House East, Jeffersontown, 

Ketucky.
37

Williams, Petra and Marguerite P. Weber 

1986 Staffordshire II. Romantic Transfer Patterns. Jeffersontown, Kentucky: Fountin 

House East.

Winstel, Jeff

1991 “The Hear of It All” Materials and Innovation in Ohio’s Historic Architecture.

Manuscript on file. NPS Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, NE
38

LIHO
39

FIGURES

Figure 1. HVAC geophysical project area at the Lincoln Home National Historic Site. 
40

LIHO

Figure 2. Sketch map of the geophysical project area at the Lincoln Home National Historical Site. 
41

Figure 3. Interpretative map of the single fluxgate gradiometer data. 
42

LIHO

Figure 4. Interpretative map of the conductivity data.
43

Figure 5. Interpretative map of the resistance data.
44

LIHO

Figure 6. Interpretative map of time slice 4 (7-10 ns) GPR data with a 50 ns window. 
45

Figure 7. Combined geophysical anomalies from the geophysical project area. 
46

LIHO

Figure 8. Subsurface investigations at Lincoln Home National Historic Site.
47

Figure 9. Backhoe Trench 1. west profile. 

Fence

5

2

6

4 A

2

1

Intact Soil Profile

3 2

c

8

E

9

D 1

7 Intact Soil Profile

LIHO 2009

Backhoe Trench 1, West Wall Profile

Dawn Bringelson, Gosia Mahoney, and Laura McClatchey

0m 0.5m

N

A Window GlassB Brick Sample (Soft)C Mortar SampleD Brick Sample with mortar (hard)E Ferrous Metal1 2.5Y 4/4 olive brown clay (”C” horizon?)2 5YR 2.5/1 black clayey loam3 Similar to 2, less compact4 Ashy, crumbly, very dark black, burned material5 “Bluff Fill,” silty clay, 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown6 Pit fill, fewer artifacts than surrounding soil7 7.5 YR 3/1 very dark grey mottled (sediments 

 similar to 6 at south end)

8 10 YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown clay9 7.5 YR 3/1 very dark grey, compact clay loam; few 

 artifacts

Root TileSoft Mortar BrickChamber Pot Phone LineCharcoal

KEY

3 May 2010

B

+

138.5 cm 

below datum
48

LIHO

Figure 10. Artifacts recovered from BHT1. Upper two rows – north of drain tile; lower – south of 

drain tile.
49

Figure 11. Backhoe Trench 2. west wall profile. 
50

LIHO

Figure 12. Backhoe Trench 2B (South of fence). East profile. 
51

Figure 13. Photo showing the extent of disturbance during the 1979 restoration work in the back of 

the Beedle house. Courtesy of Lincoln Home National Historic Site Photo Archive Database. http://

liho.missouri.edu/Default1.asp. Photo ID B8F12P136 
52

LIHO

Figure 14. Beedle house backyard, 2009 project area. BHT4/TU2 in 

foreground. 
53

Figure 15. Circular lens (Feature 1) in BHT4 visible at 55 cm below surface. 
54

LIHO

Figure 16. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 2. 
55

Figure 17. Backhoe Trench 4. north wall profile. 
56

LIHO

Figure 18. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 1.
57

Figure 19. Test Unit 1, west wall profile.
58

LIHO

Figure 20. Test Unit 4. 0-70 cm bs.
59

Figure 21. Test Unit 4, north wall profile.
60

LIHO

Figure 22. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 4. 
61

Figure 23. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 5.
62

LIHOFigure 24. Backhoe trench 3, Feature 2. west wall profile. 
63

Figure 25. Artifacts recovered from Feature 2 in Backhoe Trench 3, Test Unit 3. 
64

LIHO

Figure 26. Geothermal route recommendations.