A Report on the 7 99 7 Excavations at 

Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site, 

St. Louis, Missouri 

National Park Service - Midwest Archeological Center 
aov,(qo

-Ji

c4o

U,uo

t4 Iooozooq

t4

q,

t4

t4\

f,o

u, ooooxqJ

o\ o\ooto

o. q)

u.aooz
A REPORT ON THE 1991 EXCAVATIONS AT

ULYSSES S. GRANT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE,

ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI

By

Vergil E. Noble

Midwest Archeological Center

Technical Report No. 49

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Midwest Archeological Center

Lincoln. Nebraska

t997
This report has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A,

Section 7.18 (a) (l) and, upon recornmendation of the Midwest Field Area Office

and the Midwest Archeolosical Center. has been classified as

Available

Making the report available meets the criteria of 43CFR Part7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 (a) (l).
ABSTRACT

For three weeks during the summer of 1991, an archeological team investigated the

abandoned estate of White Haven, family home of Julia Dent Grant, which now is referred to as

Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site since coming into the National Park System in 1990.

Those excavations served two major purposes: (l) to provide information on the structural

evolution of White Haven for preparation of a Historic Structures Report on the property; and

(2) to examine two large open grassy parcels identified as possible alternative parking areas for

the Historic Site. Results of the study have contributed new data bearing on the main house and

particularly an attached stone structure. Survey of the parking alternatives, furthermore,

eliminated neither parcel completely from consideration at this time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study reported here represents the contributions of numerous individuals. Foremost

among those instrumental in its making are Superintendent Jill York O'Bright and Historical

Architect Al O'Bright, duty stationed at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site from the Great

Plains System Support Office. It was chiefly through their efforts that funds became available

for the 1991 project. Further, Al O'Bright worked closely with the archeological team to define

the scope of work that was to be accomplished during our stay.

In addition, former site historian Kim Little and the interning historical architect, Kristin

Marolf, provided helpful comments and needed information throughout our investigations.

Moreover, former Superintendent Jerry Schoeber of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial

Historic Site, which then had direct administrative oversight responsibility for Ulysses S. Grant,

took a keen interest in the progress of our research and visited us in the field more than once.

Dr. Mark Lynott maintained general project supervision from our offices at Lincoln,

Nebraska. Archeological Technicians Todd Ahlman and Todd Butler performed much of the

laboratory processing and artifact analysis, making significant contributions to the completion of

this report. Carrol Moxham supervised preparation of the various illustrations herein with

contributions from Janet Robertson. John Andresen supervised the editing and production of this

report with the assistance of Ken Gobber, and Marie Johnson formatted the text for the final,

camera-ready copy.

The Missouri Historical Society deserves special thanks for the prompt and thorough reply

to my letter inquiry concerning the nineteenth-century St. Louis manufacturer G.F. Filley. Senior

Curator Anne Woodhouse was most helpful in providing the needed information. Her research

volunteer Marian Davis was especially diligent in tracking down biographical data on Filley.

Local Boy Scout Andy Kuhnert volunteered several days of service in our field

excavations, for which we appreciate his assistance and interest.

Finally, it goes without saying that a competent field crew is the most critical component

in any successful archeological project, and the 1991 crew was no disappointment in that regard.

Accordingly, my sincere thanks go to Todd Ahlman, Todd Butler, Dennis Naglich, and Harold

Roeker for their capable performance in the summer heat of St. Louis, Missouri.
CONTENTS

Abstract

Acknowledgments ..... ii

List of Tables . . v

List of Figures vi

lntroduction . . . 1

Historical Background . . . a

J

Early Occupation J

Dent-Grant Occupation 3

Grant's Acquisition and Loss of White Haven 5

Description of the Site . . . . . . . 7

Archeological Investigations 9

Field Methods 9

Excavation 9

Shovel Testing l0

Parking Lot Investigations 10

ParkingAlternatel... 10

ParkingAlternate2... I2

Summary 13

Stone Building Interior I4

Unit Gl 15

Unit Gl Extension l6

Unit G2 I6

Unit G3 17

Unit G4 18

Unit G5 l8

Unit G5 Extenslon I9

Summary t9

Stone Building Exterior I9

Window Unit . 20

Doorway Unit 22

Summary 24

lll
Archeological Excavations (continued)

Breezeway Area . 25

Unit Bl 25

Unit 82 25

East-Wing Area 26

Unit EWI 26

Unit EW2 26

Unit EW3 27

Unit EW4 28

Unit EW5 28

Summary 29

Chimney Stacks 29

East Chimney 29

West Chimney . . 31

Summary

Front Porch a a

J J

Summary J J

Conclusion 35

ReferencesCited .....37

Tables ...41

Figures . . 69

IV
TABLES

1. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 1, shovel tests . 4l

2. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 1, Unit 1 42

3. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate l, Unit 2 43

4. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 1, Unit 3 44

5a. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 2, shovel tests, first group 45

sb. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 2, shovel tests, second group 46

6. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 2, Unit I 47

7. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 2,Unitz . . . 48

8. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit Gl 49

9. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit Gl Extension . . 50

10. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G2 5l

11. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G3 52

12. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G4 53

13. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G5 54

14. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G5 Extension . . 55

15. Artifagt inventory, stone building exterior, Window Unit 56

16. Artifact inventory, stone building exterior, Doorway Unit . 57

17. Artifact inventory, breezeway area, Unit Bl 58

18. Artifact inventory, breezeway area, Unit B2 . . 59

t9. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EWI 60

20. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EW2 6I
21. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EW3 . . 62

22. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EW4 . . 63

23. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EW5 . . 64

24. Artifactinventory,EastChimney .....65

25. Artifactinventory,EastChimneyExtension.. ......66

26. Artifactinventory,WestChimney.. ...67

27. Artifact inventory, Front Porch . . 68

FIGURES

l. Locationof UlyssesS.GrantNationalHistoricSite.. ......69

2. Webster Groves USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle . . . . . . 70

3. Plan map of Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site . . 7I

4. Plan of White Haven . . . 72

5. WhiteHavenmainhouse,lggl ......73

6. Cellar bulkhead, 1991 t 3

7. Main house, showing cellar entrance, l9I3 . 74

8. Stone building, 1991 . 74

9. White Haven from northwest, 1875 engraving 75

10. Detail of 1875 engraving, showing stone building . . 75

11. Workshop addition, 1991 . 76

12. HABS plan drawing, 1940 77

13. Hunt addition ("Room 6") from northwest, 1913 . 78

VI
t4. Hunt addition during demolition, 1940 7

15. Main House from southeast, showing east wing and stone

building in background, circa 1872 engraving . . 7

16. Former east wing and stone building. circa 1938 7

17. Outbuildings at rear of White Haven, 1991 8

18. Relocated historic barn, 1993 8

19. Caretaker's house, l99I . 8l

20. Parking Alternate I . . . 8

2I. Parking Alternate 2 . . . 8

22. Plan of stone building excavations 8

23. Unit Gl, Level 1, showing foundation 8

24. Plan drawing of Unit Gl, Level 2 . . . 84

25. Plan drawing of Unit G2, Level I . . . 8

26. Plan of breezeway and east wing test units . 8

27. Chimney base ruins in Unit EW5 8

28. Porch excavation plan . 8

29. Diagnostic artifacts 89

30. Diagnostic artifacts 90

31. Diagnostic artifacts 9

32. Diagnostic artifacts 92

8

9

9

0

0

2

2

3

3

5

6

7

8

1

vll
INTRODUCTION

From June 11 through June27,1991, a research team from the National Park Service's

Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) carried out the first archeological investigations ever

undertaken at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site (ULSG), located in the extreme

southwestern part of metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri (Figure 1). At the time of this study,

Ulysses S. Grant was the newest National Park Service acquisition in the ten-state Midwest

Region, having been transferred to the federal government from private ownership in 1990.

Although currently staffed by National Park Service personnel, as of the end of the project the

site had not yet been opened to the public on a regular basis. That event has been delayed until

the primary historic structure is fully restored and ready for general visitation.

Historically known as White Haven and in modern times as the Grant-Dent House, the

estate once was the property of Frederick Dent, father-in-law to Ulysses S. Grant. Now reduced

to aproximately 9.5 ac (3.8 ha), White Haven, including the main house and several lesser

associated outbuildings, was in generally poor repair at the time of acquisition. The main house

had been modified and modernizedby various owners through the years, and several outbuildings

had been razed, moved, or added to the property since the primary historic period. Historical

Architect Al O'Bright, who has major responsibility for the preparation of a Historic Structures

Report (HSR) on the new Historic Site, was charged with researching such changes and

documenting the existing conditions.

The archeological team's primary task was to investigate several areas of the property,

particularly about the main house, in order to help resolve lingering questions raised by historical

research, as well as to make a physical inspection of the structure itself. To that end, the

historical architect directed placement of particular excavation units that would potentially cast

light on the historic form of the structure and the sequence of changes made to it. Other units

placed at the discretion of the author also were productive.

In addition to efforts in support of the HSR, the tearn also investigated two areas of the

property that were then under consideration as possible parking lots for the site. It was known

at the outset that one of the alternates might overlap with a former barn complex. Further, the

other alternate is reputed in local lore to have been the site of the Dent family slave cabins, a

claim of dubious authenticity.

This report presents the methods and results of the three-week field project carried out on

the grounds of White Haven. Test units are described individually, except when it is more

appropriate for them to be grouped as elements of a larger analytical unit. The description of

particular artifacts is included in the narrative only where it contributes meaningful information

that furthers interpretation of a feature or area of the site. All materials recovered in the course

of these investigations, however mundane, is summarized in tabular format. The report concludes

with a reiteration of the major archeological findings of 1991 and their limitations.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The following historical sketch is drawn primarily from an information sheet prepared

without attribution by former site historian Kim Little (Anonymous n.d.). That document is

employed by Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site staff for special tours, media releases, and

similar purposes.

Early Occupation

Under terms of a 1796 Spanish land grant, one Hugh Graham acquired a tract of nearly

800 arpents (680 ac) on Gravois Creek in what is now east-central Missouri but was then a part

of Spanish Upper Louisiana. Soon thereafter, Graham exchanged the land to James Mackay

(spellings vary) in return for some of the latter's holdings along the Missouri River. Mackay,

it should be noted, was a prominent trader and entrepreneur of the eighteenth-century West.

Born in Scotland in 1759, Mackay emigrated to America in 1776 and then spent the next

15 years as a trader with the North West Company in Canada. He moved to Missouri in about

1793 and soon returned to trading through the Spanish Commercial Company (sometimes known

as the Missouri Company), making trade expeditions from 1795 to 1797. Afterward he took

appointment as commandant of the settlement of San Adres, located in the northwest part of what

is now St. Louis County. His 1800 marriage to Isabella Long produced many descendants,

including some who achieved historical prominence of their own. In later years, after transfer

of the territory to the United States, Mackay served as a judge and also as a representative to the

Territorial Legislature. He died at St. Louis in 1822 (Quaif 1916:187-188).

In 1808, Mackay sold some of his acreage on Gravois Creek to his brother-in-law, William

Long. Long built a two-story frame house on the land, which he later would sell with

improvements to Theodore Hunt in 1818. Frederick Dent, Grant's future father-in-1aw, bought

the property from Hunt in 1821.

Dent-Grant Occupation

Dent used the place primarily as a country retreat from the often stifling summer heat of

St. Louis, where he maintained his permanent residence. Despite its initial limited function, he

made a number of improvements to the property, making it more suitable for his large family and

eventually transforming it into a working plantation. Moreover, it was at White Haven, as it

became known, that events brought his daughter Julia together with the future Civil War hero and

U.S. president.

Dent's son Frederick (Fred) was appointed to West Point, where, as it happens, his

roommate was Ulysses S. Grant. Upon graduation from the military academy in 1843, Grant's
first assignment was to Jefferson Barracks, then well south of St. Louis but now within its urban

sprawl. While posted there, his high regard for young Frederick led him to call on the Dent

family at White Haven, a trip that would have taken him 8.5 mi northwest, as the crow flies. It

would appear that Grant was almost immediately taken with Fred's sister, Julia, for when his

military company was to be transferred out in 1844 he proposed marriage. For her part, Julia

was doubtless equally taken with the young soldier (then aged but22 years), and they were soon

married.

The couple lived at White Haven before his transfer orders came for posts first in New

York and then in Michigan. They returned to White Haven periodically, however, and their frrst

son, Frederick Dent Grant, was born there in 1850. When Grant received transfer orders for the

West Coast in 1852. Julia and their son remained at White Haven. She traveled to the Ohio

home of Grant's parents during that period, however, giving birth to their second son, Ulysses,

while there.

Ultimately, the separation from his family over such great distances led Grant to resign his

military commission in 1854. He returned to White Haven and lived for a while with his young

family in the main house. Soon thereafter they moved into Wish-ton-Wish, the house belonging

to Julia's brother and located elsewhere on the plantation.

While residing at Wish-ton-Wish, Grant began to farm 100 ac of White Haven land given

to his wife Julia by her father. This at last provided Grant with the opportunity to build his own

domicile, a log structure he named Hardscrabble, perhaps only partly in jest. Only a few months

after its completion Julia's mother died, however, and her father, probably out of loneliness,

requested that they move back to the main house.

Farming proved to be difficult in the years Grant attempted the enterprise at White Haven.

A depression in the farm market, an early June frost, and sickness in the family, as well as among

the slaves, forced Grant to let go of the farm in 1858. Dent and Grant agreed to sell 400 ac of

the estate, including the land on which Hardscrabble stood. However, since Dent had never

formally deeded the 100 ac to either his daughter or son-in-law, it is unlikely that Grant profited

from the transaction.

The Grant family then moved into the city, where Ulysses formed a brief real estate

partnership with Julia's cousin, Harry Boggs. Grant's role in the partnership was to collect

delinquent accounts, a task he found distasteful and difficult. Accordingly, with the nation

heading toward civil war, Grant headed to Galena, Illinois, where he would work for a time in

his father's store.

An abject failure in almost every civilian pursuit he entered, Grant did not hesitate to

return to military service when the war came. During the opening years of the war he rose

through the ranks, and his distinguished service eventually caught the eye of President Lincoln.

Having struggled with one incompetent general after another, Lincoln took a chance by
appointing Grant to head the Army of the Potomac, and Grant singularly honored the president's

trust by leading the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy.

Grant's Acquisition and Loss of White Haven

During the war years, Grant reaffirmed his devotion to his wife's family home, White

Haven. Whenever he had put aside sufficient funds, Grant would buy parcels of the Dent

property. Grant continued that practice after the war and through his presidency, eventually

acquiring the entire estate and several neighboring tracts. At its largest, White Haven measured

over 1,000 ac.

As perhaps the greatest American war hero since Washington, Republican political brokers

quickly seized upon him as the ideal person to pick up the torch from the fallen Lincoln, who

was assassinated within a few days after the Confederate surrender. Certainly in their minds he

had the makings of a formidable presidential candidate for the 1868 elections, more so at least

than the incurnbent, Andrew Johnson, who after all was a border-state Democrat soon to be

impeached.

The two terms in office of the nation's eighteenth president were hardly distinguished. The

Grant administration was rife with scandal, though Grant himself tended to remain above the fray.

He was, in essence, an honest man ill-served by his advisors and political cronies. Still, Grant

held ambitions for an unprecedented third term of office. Those aspirations would split the

Republican party, effectively cutting Grant out of the 1876 polling and bringing forth a darkhorse compromise candidate, James A. Garfield of Ohio, in the 1880 election year. Indeed, a

zealous Stalwart loyalist, that is, a member of the Grant faction of the party, shot Garfield early

into his term so that the ticket-balancing Stalwart, Vice President Chester Alan Arthur, would

succeed to the presidency.

During the presidential years, Grant continued to acquire land and make improvements at

White Haven. It would appear from those activities that Grant intended to ready the place for

his retirement from public life. His unabated desire for a third term through two elections,

however, demanded that he remain close to the centers of political power in the East. Even after

the 1880 election, Grant stayed in New York City as a principal partner in a financial concern.

In that last foray into the private sector Grant proved no more successful than in his earlier

civilian pursuits. Indeed, the unscrupulous practices of his partner led to financial ruin for the

firm, and Grant was left with a mountain of debt when his associate fled the country. Grant

would spend the rest of his days trying to make good on those debts, selling off his beloved

White Haven and completing his still important memoirs shortly before his death in 1885. The

latter effort was particularly crucial in providing a steady income for his widow in a time before

presidential pensions.
Over the next hundred years, occasional land sales pared away the property Grant had

amassed about the main house at White Haven. Further, during the last fifty years, developers

subdivided much of what was then left of the estate for residential construction. Thus, the

remaining 9.65-ac plot is nowbordered on three sides by modern single-family dwellings. To

the west, across Gravois Creek, lies the former Augustus Busch estate, Grant's Farm, now a

popular tourist attraction run by the Busch Foundation on lands also formerly owned by Grant.

A log structure claimed to be Grant's relocated Hardscrabble is prominently displayed at Grant's

Farm; that claim, however, is open to question.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

White Haven is located in part of Section 16, Township 44N, Range 6E, as well as in all

of U.S. Survey 9 (Figure 2). The latter tract is retained from early Spanish claims platted in the

area and does not conform to the township and range system established by the Northwest

Ordinance of 1796. As depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Webster Groves

Quadrangle map (photorevised 1974; photoinspected T979, portion shown in Figure 2), UTM

coordinates for the property are Northing 4270020 to 4270200, Easting 730800 to 730660 (Zone

15). The site totals approximately 9.5 ac (3.8 ha) in area and has dimensions of approximately

180 m by 260 m (590 ft by 853 ft). White Haven is referred to as "Grant's Home" in the files

of the Archaeological Survey of Missouri, which assigned it the site number 23SL765 upon

application of the author. A second site number (23SL857) was mistakenly assigned to the site

in 1992, but the earlier designation takes precedence in such cases.

The site lies largely between 510 ft and 520 ft amsl (above mean sea level), though the

western limits fall to the 500-ft contour (Figure 3). The site can be characterized as a dissected

uplands hilltop. Gravois Creek, which drains from the northwest toward the southeast through

this area, represents the rnajor source of surface water near White Haven, the center of which lies

approximately 200 m east. A small ephemeral stream skirts the current northwest boundary of

White Haven and empties into the perennial Gravois Creek. Furthermore, a spring used by the

Dent family is on the property. At least one well and one cistern also are known to be present

that would have provided potable and utilitarian water, respectively.

At the crest of the hill sits White Haven's main house (Figures 3, 4 and 5). It is a twostory frame structure, with lesser wings and modern additions, some of which have been razed

since their original construction. The front porch is a striking double gallery employing

inegularly spaced support posts. The gable-ended structure is flanked by massive stone chimneys

on either side. The overall appearance is eclectic in style, showing minor influences of the

French colonial architecture common to this part of the continent.

A single-story wing addition off the west side includes a hatchway that leads to the cellar

by way of exterior stairs (Figure 6). Historic photographs, however, show that, formerly, entry

was gained through a short door in the west elevation that must have employed interior stairs to

reach the cellar floor (Figure 7). It should also be noted that the west addition is of heavy timber

construction and may have been moved here from some another location.

Probably built in the 1950s, a breezeway connects the rear of the main house with a

massive stone structure most recently used as an automobile garage (Figure 8). The stone

structure (Figures 9 and 10), which may even predate the main house, is reputed to have been

a slave cabin. Not only is its original function in question, but historic photographs suggest that

it may have been smaller before it was repaired by subsequent owners of White Haven.
A large room added sometime in the 1950s extends eastward from the rear of the stone

structure (Figure l1). That addition served as a workshop for the last private residents of White

Haven. During the period of our investigations, it had been adapted for use by the team of

historical architects working on the HSR investigations.

A set of measured drawings prepared by the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)

show White Haven as it looked prior to its last major remodeling nearly 50 years ago (Figure l2).

Numerous engravings and photographs also depict two former additions to the main house earlier

in time (Figures 13-16). Details about uses of those rooms (namely, the east wing and the Hunt

addition) are generally lacking. They were demolished in 1940, and the breezeway that connects

the main house to the stone building today now partly overlaps their former positions.

Behind the main house, generally toward the north, are two side-by-side outbuildings on

the slope leading down to the ephemeral stream that demarcates the north property line. One is

believed to have served as a smokehouse, and the other is commonly identified as a shed (Figures

3 and 17). It is believed that a third outbuilding, perhaps a barn, formerly stood in this general

area.

A large historic barn stands next to the west property line near the commonly used entrance

tothe site (Figures 3 and 18). Thatbuilding, however, originally stood southeastof its current

location, along with several minor dependencies, such as a corncrib. It is likely that construction

of a subdivision to the south of that complex demanded the barn's relocation and the razing of

its several associated structures.

One other standing structure, dating from the early part of this century, is present on the

grounds. Built as a caretaker's house, the building lies between the relocated barn and the main

house at the base of the hill (Figures 3 and 19). Although not associated with White Haven's

designated historic period, the building will be retained indefinitely as administrative headquarters

for the site.

Minor site amenities include two circular holding ponds formerly used to cool parts of the

main house in the years immediately preceding modern air conditioning. In addition, a flag pole

and a standard for either a sundial or bird bath are located just west of the main house. Finally,

the grounds are dotted with several hundred trees, some of which are reputed to have direct

associations with President Ulysses S. Grant.
ARCHEOLOGICAL INVE STIGATIONS

The 1991 archeological project at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site was the first such

investigation to be undertaken at the site since federal acquisition. Furthermore, no archeological

excavation is known to have taken place at White Haven during the entire period it was in private

ownership. As a result, efforts at the site in 1991 produced entirely n.* information about

limited aspects of the former estate. In addition, the excavation project demanded that a formal

site number be requested for White Haven through the Archaeological Survey of Missouri.

Henceforth, Grant's Home is officially designated 235L765, idurtifying it as the 765th

archeological site recorded in St. Louis County, Missouri.

Moreover, it is anticipated that the 1991 project will prove to be the first of many similar

investigations that will be undertaken over the next decade. ln 1992, for example, a research

team investigated certain areas of the site using geophysical remote-sensing techniques;

specifically, magnetometry and soil resistivity (Noble 1992; Weymouth 1993). That study'was

then followed by a program of limited testing with the goal of verifying tire remote-sensing

implications (Noble 1993). More recent excavations focused on deposiis beneath a modern

concrete floor in the cellar of the west wing (Price 1996a, 1996b) and on the continued search

for evidence of the Hunt addition (Price 1995).

Field Methods

Excavation

Because the bulk of our work at White Haven would be aimed at examining certain parts

of the main house, placement of many test units followed the specific needs of the HSR study.

Accordingly, it was not necessary, nor was it feasible, to establish a surveyed excavation grid

about the house. It was sufficient to place the units against a recognized structural element or

at a precise distance from some fixed point, such as a corner. This was true even of those units

that were well away from the building in areas where evidence of razed additions might have

survived.

Having established a test unit on the ground, however, field methods generally followed

normal excavation protocols. The team of excavators employed 10-cm (4-il) arbitrary levels,

which the team removed with shovels and trowels. In order to ensure near complete iecovery

of cultural materials, excavators also put removed soils through a quarter-inch (6.a-mm) screen.

This procedure continued until it was certain that culturally sterile soils had been reached. The

cultural deposits ranged from shallow to deep.

Documentation of the field excavations at White Haven also followed standard operating

procedures. Measured field drawings, for example, record all unit-level floors and representativl
profile walls. Black-and-white prints and color transparencies record the progress through each

unit, as well. Close-up photographs also capture important details of some units.

Shovel Testing

Investigation of the two areas identified for the site as possible parking lot locations

proceeded in a more customary manner. Indeed, given the fact that both areas were open, grasscovered lawns with few trees, it was possible to tape out regular grids to assist efforts of tn"

shovel test teams. The 10-m transect spacing thus was more accurate than is the norm for work

in a thickly wooded environment, as was the lO-m interval spacing between each shovel test.

Accordingly, relocation of any shovel test hole that produced cultural materials of consequence

would be much easier.

The standard shovel test routine required that each data point be excavated to a depth of

approximately 50 cm (20 in). Depths might vary, however, depending upon the presence or

absence of cultural materials in the fill. In addition to enabling the detection of potentially

significant artifact scatters, the shovel tests also provided regular glimpses of the stiatigraphit

profile across two large areas of the site.

Parking Lot Investigations

As noted previously, prior to initiation of the current project park management had

identified two areas of the site as possible candidates for the construction of a parking lot. In

l99l there were only a few places designed for parking, and they were not even idequate for the

regular staff. Many simply parked on the edges of the several lanes that course through the

grounds. Grant's Farm, it bears noting, operates alarge parking facility within sight of the Wttit.

Haven gate. Whether some cooperative parking agreement might be desirable and feasible,

however, remains to be seen. In the meantime, a small staff parking area was designed,

approved, and built near the former caretaker's house.

Parking Alternate I

This alternate lies in the western sector of the White Haven grounds (Figures 3 and 20).

Further, it lies generally north of the primary access lane that enters the site from Grant Road

across the abandoned Missouri and Pacific Railroad tracks. Farther to the north of the parcel is

an intermittent stream that borders the site and empties into Gravois Creek.

Parking Alternate I is gently sloping, with the ground surface falling from east to west.

Some hummocks and surface depressions are observable, but they seem to be the result of such

processes as natural tree falls, not human purpose. A well-trimmed lawn of grass covers most

of the area in question, though a few large trees grow at the peripheries.

10
Of particular concern to the investigators was the long-standing belief among locals that

this particular patch of ground was where the Dent slave cabins once stood. Though never

presented with any compelling evidence in support of this contention, the endurance of local lore

dictated that extra caution should be exercised in the examination of this part of the site.

Given the presumption that significant cultural resources were present, the survey team

employed a relatively close transect interval of l0 m. The team recovered only a very few

artifact fragments from the entire area, however. Even the positive shovel tests normally yielded

only one or two items (Table l). The only find of any consequence was a concentration of large

rocks in the southeast quarter of Parking Alternate 1, downslope from the route of the prop"riy

entrance lane.

In order to investigate the rock concentration further, excavators opened two test units

measuringlmx2mandathirdmeasuringlmxlm,whichrepresentedanadjacentexpansion

of one of the l-m-x-2-m units. Those efforts exposed more rock, but no meaningful pattern

could be discerned in their relative positions. Artifacts were fairly numerous about the rocks, but

they constitute a temporally mixed assemblage. Items of clearly modern origin were deposited

with materials that appear to date from the turn of the century, as well as with some that are

prehistoric. Accordingly, it is likely that the artifacts are redeposited debris, and they might have

accumulated here during improvement of the lane.

Test Unit I in Parking Alternate I extended to a depth of 30 cm, or three arbitrary levels.

The content included largely artifacts associated with domestic activities, such as ceramics and

bottle glass (Table 2). Both cut and wire nails occur in the unit, with one modern-type wire nail

deriving from Level 3 (2010 cm below surface [cmbs]). None of the historic artifacts, however,

is indicative of any ruilrow time frame; some are generally nineteenth-century items, whereas

others represent the twentieth century. It is interesting that four flakes of Burlington chert came

out of Unit l, and a fifth flake of the same material showed clear signs of retouch on its surfaces.

In addition, excavators retrieved what appears to be a decortication flake from Level 3.

Unit 2 in Parking Alternate I yielded a similar of modern and older artifacts (Table 3). Because nineteenth-century items lay in the same depositional contexts as twentiethcentury artifacts, establishment of a more specific date for this area of the site was impossible

from such evidence. In addition, Level 5 (40-50 cmbs) yielded two flakes of Burlington chert.

Even at that deep level, however, excavators found a cut nail and a sherd of undecorated

whiteware. Further, the final level, Level 6 (50-60 cmbs), contained yet another fragment of

whiteware and two sherds of bottle glass.

Unit 3, measuring only I m x I m, expanded Unit 2 in order to examine further the

concentration of rock exposed there. Unfortunately, that extra effort revealed nothing to increase

our understanding of the remains in the other test units. In all four levels excavated, the materials

again were highly mixed, and specific items were only generally indicative of the century of manufacture (Table 4). More prehistoric materials *"re pres"nt in Unit 3, including several small flakes and apparent cores of Burlington chert.

ll
Parking Alternate 2

This alternate also lies in the western sector of White Haven's grounds, though generally

south of the primary access lane (Figures 3 and 2l). Both the relocated barn and the former

caretaker's house, now park headquarters, lie between Parking Alternates I and2. There is good

documentation, furthermore, that the bam and several associated dependencies (e.g., a cornirib)

once stood on part of Parking Alternate 2. Accordingly, expectations were that the distribution

of historic artifacts in this area might be more concentrated where structures had been razed.

Investigation of Parking Alternate 2 followed the same pattern as that undertaken for

Parking Alternate I ' Again, the open, level space enabled the archeological team to establish a

controlled grid by using surveying instruments, which would assist implementation of the

systematic transect interval shovel testing. Such control would facilitate collection of materials

from the study area and also help relocate find spots in the field after the fact, should that be

necessary.

Shovel tests in Parking Alternate 2 generally revealed few materials of any consequence.

Larger concentrations of material seemed to lie at the eastern end of the study area, but even

those were slight in comparison to what would be expected for a formei barn complex.

Moreover, most of the materials recovered do not suggest correlations with a service builiing.

To the contrary, almost all of the identifiable artifacts, such as ceramic and bottle sherds, aie

more commonly associated with domestic activities (Table 5). Datable artifacts recovered were

few and include a partial l2-gauge shotgun shell marked "U.M.C. CO. / NEW CLUB" around

its base. The Union Metallic Cartridge Co. used the designation "U.M.C." on many of its shells

and cartridges produced from 1867 through l91l (White and Munhall1977:148). Unfortunately,

other datable materials in direct association with this artifact were not present for refinement of

that date range.

The field crew excavated two controlled test units measuring I m x 2 m atlocations where

artifact distributions were slightly more concentrated in Parking Alternate 2. Theunits, however,

revealed relatively little about the area in question. Together, they suggest that demolition of the

various outbuildings was complete, leaving a temporally and functionally mixed deposit.

Materials found in Unit I of Parking Alternate 2 represent primarily domestic refuse

(Table 6). Most of the recovered items cannot be considered tempoially diagnostic, but a few

could be roughly dated. Cut nails found throughout the unit, for exarnple, could derive from

almost any time in the nineteenth century. Four solarized, amethyst-colored bottle glass sherds

from Levels 2 and 3 generally are more narrowly associated with the period beginning in the last

quarter of the nineteenth century, circa 1880, to the onset of World War I, circa 1916 (Munsey

1970:55). It is also worth noting that the unit yielded four flakes of Burlington chert, indicating

that a prehistoric archeological deposit may have been present at this location prior ti

construction and demolition of the outbuildings.

l2
The second test unit excavated in Parking Alternate 2 yielded substantially more artifacts

than the first (Table 7). The materials from Unit 2, however, proved little more informative than

those of Unit I because of their jumbled depositional context. The only historic artifact with

much power to ascribe a rough date to the deposit is a milk glass storage jar lid liner, typically

used in concert with a zinc jar lid. The Boyd Company patented two versions of the liner in

1869 (Toulouse 1971:116), which represents the earliest possible date of deposition for this

artilact type. Since milk glass lid liners enjoyed prolonged use in home canning, it is likely that

this specimen was deposited many years later.

Two solarized bottle glass sherds (Munsey 1970:55) would likely have been manufactured

in the period circa 1880-1916. Again, that does not mean those sherds came to be deposited

during that precise period. The date could not have been earlier than 1880, to be sure. but it

could have been much later than 1916.

Almost no prehistoric materials surfaced in Unit 2, withonly a possible core deriving from

Level 2 (1010 cmbs). Given the numbers of flakes present in Unit l, however, as well as the

shovel tests, it is likely that a prehistoric occupation site predated the early historic settlement of

this land.

Summary

Investigation of the two parking alternates tentatively identified in 1991 revealed little of

consequence. Transect interval shovel testing, of course, merely provides sample data on the

areas so examined. Accordingly, the method is not foolproof and might fail to intersect and

detect some classes of cultural remains. Based upon crurent information, however, it would

appear that no real archeological impediment stands in the way of developing either parcel for

visitor parking.

It is worth noting that archeologists performed a follow-up study in the two parking

alternates during 1992 as part of a larger remote-sensing investigation of the historic site.

Researchers employed a proton magnetometer and soil resistance meter in an attempt to delineate

any subsurface anomalies. Subsequent ground truth verification in 1993 corroborated the

presence of several anomaly sources that had been indicated by the geophysical examination.

Results showed that Parking Alternate 1 contains a thick cover of soil, both natural alluvium and

purposeful fill, exceeding 70 cm in some places. Further, the old ground surface exposed below

that layer has apparent World War Il-era materials associated with it. Parking Aliernate 2, on

the other hand, proved to be radically disturbed by demolition and relocation of the former barn

complex. Thus, the remote-sensing project, which served in part as an evaluative check on the

efficacy of transect interval shovel testing, confirms that neither alternative should be excluded

from consideration as parking locations on the basis of cultural resources CNoble 1992" 1993:

Weymouth 1993).

13
Stone Building Interior

As noted previously in this report, a building made of local stone stands at the rear of the

White Haven main house, perpendicular to it (Figure 22; see also Figure 4). Now attached to

the main house by a 1950s-ercbreezeway, the stone building was once an independent structure.

Origins of the building are veiled in obscurity, but many local residents believe it to have been

a slave quarters. Others argue that it was simply a summer kitchen, and there even has been

some speculation that it might be the surviving first structure built on the tract. Whatever the

case might be, the excavators hoped that testing inside and outside of the structure would shed

light on the many questions that bear on it.

The last private owners of White Haven converted the stone building for use as an

automobile garage. That conversion, of courseo presumably required removal of most of the

structure's west wall for installation of two large garage doors. A possibly original doorway is

present at either gable end of the building, though the south portal may have been raised several

inches to meet the breezeway floor level (risers are required inside the stone building for access

to the breezeway, whereas the north door lacks risers both inside and out). A third doorway at

the northeast corner is in all likelihood modern, for it provides communication between the stone

building and the 1950s workshop. A single window brings light into the room through the east

wall. It is unknown whether that opening is original to the stone structure, or a more recent

addition. Further, it is possible that other openings formerly were present in the east wall.

Other remarkable features of the stone building interior are two large fireplaces, one each

in the two gable ends. Together, they at least suggest that the building may have been divided

at the time of construction by a central wall. Moreover, that initial hypothesis seems to be borne

out by the archeological evidence uncovered in 1991 and described shortly.

The several modifications necessary to convert the stone building into a garage alternately

helped and hindered interior investigations. The large garage doors facilitated the movement of

people and equipment into the building and usually allowed sufficient light to fall on the floor,

enabling careful excavation. On the other hand, the entire floor was covered with loose-laid brick

on a poured concrete slab, a portion of which had to be removed before work began. Historical

Architect Al O'Bright, however, accomplished that task prior to our arrival. ihe only other

impediment was the presence of some utility lines buried under the concrete. Not only did they

present obstacles to our progress, but their installation made linear disturbances across the

structure's subfloor.

O'Bright had broken up the concrete in such a manner as to form a rough T in the central

part of the garage. The cross-bar of that opening lay along the western eage of the interior, just

inside the garage doors, approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) from the exterior stonelace of the west wall.

It was in that general area that O'Bright expected to see evidence of an earlier foundation wall

representing a smaller incarnation of the stone structure. Similarly, the perpendicular element of

the opening fell over an area where indications of the supposed centrai aiviaing wall might lie.

I4
In all, the excavators collected five 1-m-x-2-m test units, as well as extensions off two of

them measuring less than I m by I m (Figure 22). There was little variation in the soil matrix

from unit to unit, so it should be sufficient to provide only one general description. However,

the features present and the artifacts recovered warrant separate treatment.

Unit Gl

The first unit excavated in the stone building can be said to form the north arm of the T

cross-bar (Figure 22). Upon preparing the unit for excavation, the team noted the presence of

sand and black, gritty cinders immediately below the concrete layer and across the entire unit

floor. Apparently put in as fill before pouring the concrete, the rather thin (<10 cm) deposit

contained fewer artifacts relative to the layers subsequently removed (Table 8), thougir several

specimens are quite interesting.

Among the artifacts collected from Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) is an 1840 Liberty Seated half

dime bearing the distinctive "O" mint mark on the obverse, indicating manufacture in New

Orleans (Figure 29a). Although the United States government struck half dimes in silver from

1794 to 1873, minting of the seated variety occurred only between 1837 and 1g73 (Stack

1986:68). Another interesting artifact from that level is a two-piece military button bearing the

flying-eagle device above the letters "lJ.S." and an oval wreath below (Figure 29c). The words

"United States" and a series of stars appear on the reverse. Wyckoff (l9Sa:S5-86) offers a date

range of 1820 to circa 1840 for the variety and believes it to be a greatcoat button. Although

the two items described above are consistent with the period of historical significance for White

Haven, it is unlikely that any materials in this deposit lie in a primary depositional context.

Clearing of the fill layer from the floor revealed a concentration of limestone boulders and

tabular fragments, some of which appeared to align (Figure 23). The major elements of this

concentration seemed to fall at the north end of the rectangular unit. Smaller stones lay scattered

in a seemingly random fashion in the south half of the unit.

Below the layer of cinder, the excavators encountered a dense deposit of reddish-brown,

silty clay, which may represent the original prepared floor surface of ihe structure. Level 2

(10-20 cmbs) produced a variety of artifacts suggesting domestic use of the structure, such as

bottle glass, ceramics, and buttons (Table 8). In this level, however, the presumed stone

foundation alignment became more definite, and an apparent construction trench containing dark

fill lay adjacent to its west edge (Figure 24). That trench could be seen to stretch the entiri 2-m

length of the test unit, despite the fact that the patterned stone ended approximat ely l.l7 m from

the north profile. That might indicate that other stones in the alignment had been present and

have since been removed.

The excavators collected the apparent construction trench separately in order to determine

if it contained diagnostic materials that might enlighten interpretation of the feature (Table g).

Unfortunately, the specimens recovered were mundane. The most definitive item from tLe trench,

a small sherd of luster-decorated whiteware, can hardly be considered temporally diagnostic.

15
Unit Gl Extension

In order to examine the stone alignment discovered in Unit Gl more fully, excavators

extended that unit another 0.5 m north (Figure 22). Whatunderlay the 3 cm of cinder fill proved

to be no more than loose limestone, rubble and mortar fill, and the same reddish-brown, silty clay

found elsewhere in this area. The defined stone alignment did not continue to the north.

Despite the smaller area excavated in the Gl Extension, artifacts were plentiful (Table g).

Coins included a l9l9 penny and a Liberty Seated half dime identical to the Unit Gl specimen

except for its 1853 date. In addition, the first level yielded a fragmentary embossed patent

medicine bottle (Figure 30a ) that may represent MgLEAN'S/ /OLaANT|TILilLINIMENT.

The Dr. J. H. Mclean Medicine Company operated out of St. Louis, Missouri, at 3ll4 Franklin

Avenue, and introduced that particular product in 1841 (Fike l9g7:194).

Level 2 (10-20 cmbs) also yielded a few interesting artifact specimens. Among them were

two fragments of a terra-cotta stub-stemmed pipe, similar to nineteenth-century products of

several Ohio River towns. Although the molded zig-zag design on the bowl is distinctive, it

cannot be precisely dated nor attributed to a particular manufacturer. Further, there is a bottle

fragment exhibiting the distinctive "gob top" of a Hutchinson spring stopper closure system

(Figure 30b). Patented in 1879, such closures continued to be used weti into ttre 1900s gaul and

Parmalee 1973:12-13). Discovery of this relatively late artifact supports the belief that

disturbances have mixed the depositional context of the stone building floor.

Unit G2

Immediately south of Unit Gl in the stone building, Unit G2 forms the central portion of

the cross-bat that tops the T-shaped excavation opening (Figure 22). Numerous urg.r1- stones

appeared beneath the gritty cinder fill, which here was much thinner (=3 cm) than had been the

case in Unit G I . Excavation of Level 1 (0-1 0 cmbs), therefore, for the most part removed the

underlying reddish-brown, silty clay deposit.

The stone present in Unit G2 was not aligned in a clear pattern suggesting a foundation

(cf. Figure 25). Rather, the stones are displaced, obscuring their original relat-ionship. The

supposed construction trench, however, is still visible along the same path it took in Unit Gl.

It also bears note that a trench containing a water pipe angles across the southeast corner of this

unit. Although it does not appear to have been responsible for disrupting the stone alignment,

it most certainly affected the depositional context of Unit G2.

Artifacts collected from Unit G2 (Table 10) include a few temporally diagnostic materials.

Furthermore, most of the specimens recovered here might be associated with domestic activities.

The most readily identifiable and datable item is a U.S. coin dated 1851 (Figure2gb). The

obverse of the silver coin bears a six-pointed star and the reverse shows a Roman numeral three (III) within a large cursive "C," representing the word cents. Small three-cent pieces struck in

l6
silver, such as the specimen in question, date from 1851 through 1873 (Stack 19g6:55).

Accordingly, the coin found in Unit G2 derives from the first year of *irrting this variety.

The remaining roughly datable artifacts, such as ceramics and bottle glass, derive mainly from the second half of the nineteenth century. One sherd of flow blue ceralic is likely to date

between 1840 and 1860 (Lofstrom et al. 1982:9), but the others provide relatively Uroaa ranges

of time. In Level 2 (lO-20 cmbs) it was possible to collect the presumed construction trench

separately from the rest of the unit floor. That effort went unrewarded, however, since it produced only four nondiagnostic pieces of glass and two cut nails (Table l0).

Unit G3

Last in the series of original north-south test units in the stone building, Unit G3 formed

the south arm of the T-shaped open excavation (Figwe 22). A continuaiion of the trench

containing a water pipe angled across the northwest quarter of the unit. Other than that there was

little of note and no substantial rocks that could be interpreted as foundation stones. Given the

amount of ground disturbance here, however, it is quite possible that such stones could have been

removed.

The material culture recovered from Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) is largely unremarkable

(Table I l). One corroded piece of iron with a carved bone utensil handle could be a button

hook. A bottle fragment is embossed "J. WALKER'S / V.B." on its base (Figure 30d).

According to Fike (1987:185), Joseph Walker patented his "California Vegetable *novating

Vinegar Bitters" in 1863. A slightly different product, "J. Walker's Vinegai Biffers," was als6

available from the Stockton, California, firm by 1866, and it is that produ-ct to which the mark

refers. Walker appears to have moved to New York around 1870 *d i. said to have died soon

thereafter. The bitters may have still been sold by a former partner, however, until 1g90.

Other diagnostic items from Level I include a sherd of flow blue whiteware, which

preceded the Civil War Era; developed in the 1840s, the ware type remained popular until the

1860s(Lofstrom etal. 1982:9). Inaddition,an1846largecentoccurredinthehlof Level 1

(Figure 31a). Large cents issued by the united States date from 1793 through 1g57. The lg46

specimen found here, Liberty with Braided Hair, was among the last of sevlen large cent types

to be put in circulation, minted during the years 1839-1857 (Stack 19g6:37-3g).

No clear diagnostics appeared in Level 2 (10-20 cmbs). Similarly, Level 3 (20-30cmbs),

the last level excavated, contained only one possible diagnostic (Table 11). That clay pipestem

fragment, however, could not be identified, owing to the fragmented maker's mark it bears. This

unit, as a result, provides little assistance in the interpretation of remains within the stone building.

I7
Unit G4

This was the upper half of the vertical part of the T excavated in the stone building floor (Figxe 22). As a result, it lay adjacent and perpendicular to Unit G2. It will be recallJd that

Unit G4, and Unit G5 farther east, sought to confirm the supposed former presence of a central

dividing wall.

Level I (G-10 cmbs) Unit G4 revealed l-2 cm of black cinder fill spread thinly over g-10

cm of reddish-brown, silty clay. Most obvious was a continuation of the water line trench

already noted in previously described test units. Limestone cobbles also occurred throughout the

level, but they were not in a compact pattern that would suggest the foundation of a central wall.

If such a wall were not load bearing, however, substantial support probably would not be

required.

Among the artifacts recovered from the first level were several diagnostics (Table l2).

Perhaps most interesting were four marbles, all of which appear to date tom the mid-lg00s

(Figure 32d). The types include three that date from the 1850s and 1860s-a marble with

intersecting parallel lines, a regular bull's-eye marble, and a bull's-eye with parallel lines-as

well as a plain porcelain marble made as early as 1830 (Carskadden and Gartley 1990:6143).

In addition, there appeared a "gob top" bottle finish exclusive to the Hutchinson stopper closure

system used after 1879 (Paul and Parmalee 1973:12-13). Furthermore, that the glass is solarized

indicates that the bottle probably was made prior to World War I (Munsey 1970:55).

Excavation of the next two levels revealed no soil changes or other indications of a cultural

feature. Only the water line trench persisted (collected as area "36b"); so the excavators halted

efforts in Unit G4 after completion of Level 3 (2010 cmbs), which was otherwise sterile. Some

interesting artifacts, such as a brass cane tip, did come to light, but temporally diagnostic artifacts

were not present in either of the last two levels (Table l2).

Unit G5

This test unit, the last of those originally laid out in the stone building floor, represents the

base of the T formed by the entire set of excavations (Figure 22). In fact, ils eastern iimit nearly

reached the back wall of the garage. As in the case of other units excavated before it, Unit GS

contained a thin zone of sand and cinder fill over a reddish-brown clay. Unlike Unit G4,

however, this excavation did indeed show evidence of a stone foundation.

The alignment of limestone exposed in Level I (0-10 cmbs) lay entirely within the southwest quarter of the l-m-x-2-m test unit. Oriented east and west, ttre line of stone almost precisely paralleled the surveyed edge of our unit. Furthermore, limited probing beneath the lip of cut concrete showed that very little of the apparent foundation extended beyond where we could see. Accordingly, it would appear that the approximate width of the foundation is no more than20 cm (or slightly less than 9 in). Evidence of the foundation, however, was not continuous

across the length of the unit, terminating about I m from the east edge of ihe unit.

l8
Artifacts from the first level were largely unremarkable (Table 13), and none can be

considered temporally diagnostic. One sherd of white earthenware bears a partial mark

(apparently the British Coat of Arms), but this is insufficient to make an identification. Level

2 (10-20 cmbs), the second and last level excavated in Unit G5, yielded only a few artifacts,

which again were of little interpretive value (Table 13).

lJnit G5 Extension

In order to expose the stone alignment more completely, excavators extended Unit G5 a

short distance south (Figure 22). The extra effort went unrewarded, however, because it exposed

no additional foundation stones. Furthermore, only a few artifacts turned up in Level f (O-f O

cmbs) and none in the second level of excavation (Table 14). The one item worth mentioning

was a brass button marked "LEAVENWORTHS & KENDRICK / DOUBLE GILT" on its back

surface (Figure 29e). That Waterville, Connecticut, firm is known to have manufactured such

gilt buttons during the period 1829-1837 (Luscomb 1967:117\.

Summary

Although preservation was not the best, there was sufficient tabular limestone to indicate

the presence of an earlier primary foundation, as well as the support for an interior dividing wall.

Although the stones were not dressed with mason's tools, they seem to have been select"a fo.

size and shape. There is little doubt that remodeling efforts in the stone building resulted in the

removal of many stones, which perhaps ended up being reused in other structures.

Remains of the central wall were not quite so dramatic, yet the few stone remnants

appeared to lie precisely at the room's midpoint. That would tend to support the position that

a dividing wall at one time split the large room in two, each separate room having its own

fireplace. We did not attempt, however, to determine whether the open room was subdivided into

any smaller rooms.

The material culture recovered from the stone building floor primarily consisted of

domestic refuse, such as ceramic sherds, bottle glass, and various personal items. Many of the

datable items probably represent the mid-nineteenth century. Their depositional contexts are not

firm, since to some degree they seem to derive from temporally mixed deposits. More excavation

of the stone building floor will be necessary in order to attempt any clear interpretations

concerning the function of that structure.

Stone Building Exterior

Investigation of the stone building continued with the excavation of two test units along

the exterior perimeter of the structure. Both units measured 1 m by 1 m and lay flush againsi

the foundation (Figure 22). The first described here fell directly below the window opening at

the rear of the building. There was some thought at the time that the window might in iact

T9
represent a partly filled doorway. The other test unit was a short distance north, where the

modern workshop addition meets the stone building. That location also seemed to be near the

place where a doorway might have formerly passed through the rear wall. Indeed, in this

instance the regular, linear masoffy noted here strongly argued that a portal had been filled with

stone to match the original character of the wall.

Window Unit

Located as it was beneath the only window in the stone building (Figure 22), the

excavators anticipated that the unit would yield numerous artifacts within the "toss zone,of the

opening' In addition, it seemed reasonable to expect the presence of a trench associated with

construction of the stone building. It was also possible, however, that repair of the structure

might have obliterated such evidence.

Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) consisted of a dark topsoil strewn with numerous pieces of broken,

angular limestone. Those rocks are likely to have derived from occasional repaii to the structure,

which may have had some sections totally rebuilt. Artifacts in the first level were fairly mundane

(Table l5). Some of the ceramic sherds are of interest, but only one is narrowly datable: a sherd

of slip-banded mocha ware with finger-swirled decoration. Although never commonplace, mocha

varieties were popular during the first half of the nineteenth century (Cleland l98i:3S-39). In

addition to the ceramics, two iron objects were present: a mule shoe and the bit from an axe

head.

Level 2 (T0-20 cmbs) yielded only two bottle glass fragments that deserve comment; the

rest of the inventory is unremarkable (Table 15). One of the pieces is from a panel bottle and

bears the partial mark DR HA.... A search of Richard Fike's (1987) Bottle Bookfailed to locate

a product name with those four characters together, though there are many entries with surnames

beginning with the letters "HA." The other is a fragment of a cathedral-type pickle jar, which

was a popular jar form starting in the 1860s and continuing through the 1890s(M.ntr"y1O70:152;

Switzer 197 4:5 I-58; Zumwalt 1 980:452-45 g).

Level 3 (20-30 cmbs) contained another sherd from a cathedral-type pickle jar, probably

representing the same vessel as that in Level 2. As noted above, such veisels afpear to date

primarily from the 1860s to the 1890s. Several stoneware ceramics bearing various iypes of slip

decoration also occurred, but they cannot be defined any more specifically than having derived

from the nineteenth century. One whiteware sherd could be part of a flow blue table service,

which became available in the 1840s and continued in popularity until the 1860s (Lofstrom et

al' 1982:9). The sherd, however, is too small for us to be certain of the ware identification.

other materials recovered from Level 3 are less consequential (Table 15).

Level 4 (30-40) contained numerous artifacts, among which were 12 sherds of solarized

glass deriving from a Mason jar (Table 15). Patented in 1858, the canning container is still

widely used today, though changed in some key respects. A narrower time iung., however, is

suggested by the fact that solarization has changed the glass from clear to a bright amethyst color.

20
That fact indicates that the storage jar would likely have been manufactured in the period circa

1880-1916 (Munsey 1970,55). A solarized "gob top" closure from a Hutchinson spring stopper

also is solarized, tending to affirm that time range.

Most remarkable, however, are the Level 4 ceramics, which include a flow blue sherd,

dating roughly from the mid-nineteenth century (Lofstrom et al. 1982:9). part of a green

transfer-printed pearlware plate was found bearing a patriotic motif called "Arms of the United

States," which is printed in large capital letters among clouds at the top of the design

(Figure 32a). Other sherds recovered lower in this unit and in the nearby stone building doorwiy

unit provided enough parts of the design to identift the shell-edged plate precisely. Other design

elements include stars above an eagle with a shield on its breast; a scarf ;E displaying the phrase 

PLURIBUS t lUM" in the eagle's beak; and below the eagle a scroll bearing the motto "MAy

SUCCESS ATTEND OUR AGRICULTURE, TRADE, AND MANUFACTURES.'' ThE

unmarked plate is illustrated as No. 658 in Ellouise Baker Larsen's (1975:240) American

Historical Views on Staffordshire China, but she gives no specific dating information on the type.

Larsen notes in the introduction, however, that the Staffordshire potters produced most of iheir

American ceramic views during the period 1818-1860 (Larsen 1975:l). It may be safe to

assume, then, that the Grant finds represent a pre-civil war specimen.

In the course of excavating Level 5 (40-50 cmbs), the excavators collected a wide variety

of artifacts in good number (Table 15). Most interesting was a secret society'lodge pin or button

struck in brass and covered with esoteric symbols. The item's iconography includes a lamb, an

upraised palm, a sunburst, an eye, and a chain of three links (Figure 31e). That particular

combination of symbols is exclusively associated with the IOOF (Independent Order of Odd

Fellows). It is not known, however, if any resident of White Haven belonged to that

organization.

In addition, Level 5 yielded a four-holed pewter trouser button and a white metal button

face crimped over a clay filler; the button back was absent. Two rim sherds are clearly from the

same scalloped blue shell-edged plate, which is a type of ceramic decoration popular before the

1830s (Price 1979:18). Despite such early specimens in the fill, however, wire nails and plastic

also occurred at this level (Table 15). Accordingly, it is clear that this is not a primary d-posit,

but a mixture of redeposited materials representing a long time span.

The dominant artifact class in Level 6 (50-60 cmbs) of the stone building's window unit

was cerzrmics, 64 sherds of various kinds being collected (Table 15). One sherd derived from

the green transfer-printed patriotic plate, apparently pre-Civil War, which was also represented

by sherds found in Level 4 of this unit and in the Doorway Unit to be described shortly. Four

Old Blue transfer-printed sherds can be assumed to date from the first quarter of the nineteenth

century (Cleland 1983:36). Five different motif patterns are evident among the six black transferprinted sherds, and another five patterns are discernable among the 11 blue transfer-printed

sherds. Four other sherds appear to be embossed wares, perhaps of the fish scale variety. Such

edged wares are believed to have been at their peak of popularity from about 1820 through the

early 1840s (Miller and Hunter 1990:ll7-118).

2l
Levels 7 (60-70 cmbs) and 8 (70-80 cmbs) contained a similar variety of ceramics, as well

as a large number of probable window glass sherds (Table l5). Several of the ware types, such

as the finger-trailed mocha, flow blue, and molded blue-edged ceramics, are common to the first

half of the nineteenth century, whereas others are not distinctive. Further, it is quite possible that

many of the like sherds derive from a single vessel. In addition, Level 7 yielded some white clay

pipe fragments, a partial stemware base, and a brass garter catch. Level 8 had only one other

remarkable aftifact, a four-hole bone button with "rolled" edge. Although interesting, those

particular artifacts cannot be reliably dated.

Level 9 (80-90 cmbs) yielded no materials that can be considered temporally diagnostic,

though one piece of burned chert debitage is certainly prehistoric (Table 15). At the floor of that

level, however, the construction trench used in laying up the stone foundation at last became

apparent. The trench at that level appeared as a zone of dark organic soil with a straight edge

parallel to the foundation line and approximately 20 cm from it. Accordingly, the excavato-rs

limited collection of Level l0 (90-100 cmbs) to that discrete area, the remaindii of the unit being

sterile at that depth. Unfortunately, no good datable artifacts that would help narrow the period

of probable construction occurred in this apparently undisturbed context. In fact, only a bone

utensil handle with incised cross-hatching (Figure 30c) and four porcelain sherds, all apparently

from a single claw-footed, basketlike vessel (Figure 30e), are worthy of remark.

Although the construction trench seemed to terminate at or about 100 cmbs, it was also

apparent that the stone foundation continued below that depth an unknown distance. Safety

concerns, howevero prevented the excavators from seeking out that information. It was als6

possible, of course, that any additional excavation might compromise the structural stability of

the foundation.

Doorway Unit

In addition to the window unit described above, excavators placed a second test against the

stone building's east exterior (Figure 22). As noted earlier, that second unit fell at the 90-d.gt".

turn where the south elevation of the shop addition meets the much earlier stone building.

Accordingly, the two foundations formed north and west limits of the test unit, which ro,tgit

more explicit evidence of a suggested former doorway into the stone building.

Excavation of the unit immediately demonstrated its similarities to the stone building,s

window unit. The soil matrix and fill materials were of the same sort as that previouily

described test unit. Furthermore, the artifacts contained in this unit showed the same degree of

mixture that typified the window unit. Accordingly, it is not possible to draw inferences

concerning age or function of the stone building from the evidence gathered from the doorway

unit.

Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) of the doorway unit yielded few artifacts that can be considered good

indicators of temporal associations (Table 16). In fact, only a single sherd of painted pearlivare

can be dated with any confidence; that particular ware type was popular in the Midwest around

22
1830-1840 (Price 1979 18). Other than that, the only remarkable artifacts in the first level were

a carved seven-value @13) ivory domino face (Figure 32b), two mold-decorated whiteware sherds that mend into a plate, and thirteen plain whiteware sherds that form a complete bowl and serving

dish when articulated.

The second level (10-20 cmbs) also had little in the way of diagnostic material (Table 16). The only good, datable artifact in the level was a single rimsherd from a scalloped green sheliedged whiteware, which probably predates 1840 (Miller and Hunter 1990:10). Dispiie that early

date, however, other items in the fill are almost certainly of the present ..nt r.y.

In Level 3 (20-30 cmbs) fewer materials came to light, only one of which is useful for

dating purposes (Table l6). That item is a sherd of whiteware marked "IM]AN[UFACTUR]ED

FoR G.F. FILLEY [S]t. LOUIS" on its inferior surface (Figure lzc1." Research into the

biographical files of the Missouri Historical Society shows that Giles F. Filley (1S15-1900) was

a prominent citizen of St. Louis, and that his various endeavors included u pott"ry business that

operated from 1841 to 1849.

Since the pottery mark claims the vessel was "manufactured for" Filley, it is probable that it dates from the period 1841-1844. an 1844 trip to England, he attempted fftel to import

skilled workers and technology to St. Louis to exploit ihe abundant local clays. His pottery

works failed by 1849, however, and Filley established the Excelsior Stove Works (later the

Excelsior Manufacturing Company and, after 1895, the Charter Oak Range & Iron Company).

That long-lived business concern, which made the famed "Charter Oak" Jooking stoves fre frrst

developed in 1851, elevated Filley to national renown as a manufacturer.

No temporally diagnostic artifacts turned up in the course of excavating Level 4 (3040

cmbs); indeed, nothing in that level was remarkable (Table 16). In Level 5 (40-50 cmbs),

however, a larger sample was present (Table 16). Ceramics in this level were numerous, and

several wares represented can be dated with some certainty. Among them are scalloped edge

wares (four blue rimsherds and one green) that date to the period 1300-1840 (Miller and Hunter

1990:147) and the finger-trailed variety of mocha, which also corresponds generally to the first

half of the nineteenth century (Cleland 1983:39).

Level 6 (50-60 cmbs) yielded an even larger number of artifacts and several diagnostics

(Table 16). Chief among those were the ceramics, which included five sherds of the pre-1g40

patriotic plate excavated in the window unit and aheady described fully under that heading. In

addition, there were two rimsherds of scalloped green edge-decorated pearlware, suggesting a

range of dates from 1800 to 1840 (Miller and Hunter 1990:ll7). There also was one scallofed

blue edge-decorated sherd that most likely derives from a soup tureen or similar hollowware.

Miller and Hunter (1990:117) ascribe the period 1780-1810 to such wares. Two flow blue

sherds, on the other hand probably date to the period 1840-1860 (Lofstrom et al. l9g2:9).

The Level 7 (60-70 cmbs) artifact assemblage was much smaller than was the case for

Level 6, and fewer diagnostics turned up (Table 16). At least one sherd of the pre-1g40 plate

23
appeared in this level, as did a rim representing a scalloped green edge-decorated plate (perhaps

the patriotic plate) of the sort popular from 1800 to 1840 (Miller anJ Hunter 1990:ttz;. ottrer

items recovered from the level cannot be so readily dated.

The 38-item assemblage recovered from Level 8 (70-S0 cmbs) was paltry in comparison

with the upper levels. Nothing in it can be considered diagnostic, and the same can be said for

the 52 artifacts that Level 9 (80-90 cmbs) gave forth 6iUte to;. The final level excavated,

however, contained a relatively large number of artifacts, some of which are worthy oi

discussion.

As in the case of the window unit, Level 10 (90-100 cmbs) was the last level to be

excavated in the doorway unit. Although there was no indication here of an extant construction

trench, it was surprising to find an extremely high number of artifacts at this depth (Table 16).

Indeed, there were 84 ceramic sherds and 187 pieces of flat glass among the other materials.

Few of the items, however, can be dated with any precision. Those that can be dated

approximately include finger-trailed mocha and flow blue sherds, of which the former dates to

the first half of the nineteenth century and the latter more generally to mid-century (Cleland

1983:36, 39). Two Old Blue sherds represent a type popular in the first quarter of the nineteenth

century (Cleland 1983:36). One creamware bowl Uisi is probably urnong the oldest ceramics

found on the site, but its age cannot be determined with certainty. Althougtisuch ceramics might

appear on the eastern seaboard shortly after 1761, it is unlikely that they would be present J a

far interior location until the last quarter of the eighteenth century. It is also possible, of course,

that this particular ceramic-and almost any other, for that matter---could have been curated for

a long period of time before being brought to the St. Louis area and deposited next to the stone

building foundation.

Summary

The two test excavations against the east exterior wall of the stone building provided

evidence that the foundation of that structure is of substantial proportions. Confirmed to reach

more than a meter in depth below the ground surface, the foundation also appeared to be laid

without mortar. Only in the window unit, however, could a construction trench be discerned

extending approximately 20 cm from the foundation.

Artifacts recovered from both units largely appeared to be redeposited. Especially in the

upper levels of excavation, the unit yielded artifacts of mixed temporal affiliation. ihat is, pre-Civil War items lay in close association with materials of much more recent vintage.

Accordingly, it impossible to make any informed estimate of age for the stone building from tf,is evidence. Even so, the high number of artifacts from the nrit hatf of the nineteenth century,

even if not in primary context, suggest an early date for the structure.

The matter of interpreting age of the structure from archeological data might have been

enlightened by recovery of temporally diagnostic artifacts from the afparent construction trench fill exposed in the window unit. Unfortunately, the specific items recovered in l99l from that

24
apparently undisturbed context were not the sort that would provide much information.

Discovery of the trench, however, suggests that further investigations around the stone building

perimeter might result in collection of diagnostic artifact types that could indicate a more definite

period of construction.

Breezeway Area

At the suggestion of the project historical architect, the excavation team examined the area

immediately west of the breezeway connecting the main house to the stone building. Specifically,

efforts focused on an area where it was believed that evidence of the former Huni Addition,

removed in 1940, might be found (Figures 13 and l4). Placement of the test units was guided

by reference to the HABS plan drawing prepared prior to the White Haven remodeling Gigure l2)' It was first necessary, however, to remove a layer of brick pavers that formed a makeshift

patio.

Unit Bl

This 1-m-x-2-m test unit paralleled the breezeway, with its northeast corner located 160

cm south of the stone building's southwest corner and 40 cm west of the breezeway (Figure 26).

Excavation of the first level revealed a drainage line running perpendicular to the bieezeway

through the north half of the unit. Numerous tabular limestone fragments also seemed to form

an east-west line immediately south of the drainpipes.

In addition to those elements, the southwest corner of Unit 81 revealed a poured-concrete

support for a square post. The concrete surrounded a posthole measuring approximately 13 cm

(5 in) square. Furthermore, the posthole contained a grey-brown clay and small pieces of wood.

Given the small size of both the concrete pour and the posthole, most probably the concrete held

the support for an awning or some other relatively light burden. It is unlikely that the rather

slight support indicated by the post mold could have been a porch pier.

The first level yielded few artifacts, and none were diagnostic (Tabl e l7). Level 2 (1010

cmbs) gave up even fewer artifacts (Table l7), though one specimen can be daied roughly. That

artifact, a brass button, is of three-piece construction with a crimped face. The backing bears a

stamped maker's mark, "BENEDICT & BURNHAM / EXTRA," around the p.-erimeter

(Figure 31c). According to Sally C. Luscomb (1967:21),the Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing

Company produced such buttons in Waterbury, Connecticut, between 1843 and lg4g. Lackin!

any good feature context, however, the button cannot be employed to its fullest interpretivi

potential.

Unit B2

Excavators opened a 1-m-x-1-m test unit next to Unit Bl in order to obtain more

information about the apparent limestone alignment that lay next to the drainage conduit

25
(Figure 26). The drain tiles did continue through Unit B2, not surprisingly, but there was no

good indication of a foundation remnant. It is quite possible, however, thai such evidence might

have been obliterated by more recent construction or demolition activities. The artifaits

recovered in three levels of excavation, furthermore, proved to be unremarkable (Table 18).

EastWing Area

There is ample photographic and other documentary evidence to show that a small addition

to the main house formerly stood adjacent to the present breezeway along the east elevation

(Figures l5-16). Although that room would not be reconstructed as part of the period restoration,

since it was of more recent construction, preparers of the Historic Stiuctures Report desired more

detailed information on the addition. In order to confirm its precise location, lio*"u.r, it would

be necessary to excavate certain areas of the east lawn. Accordingly, the research team laid out

test units with reference to measured drawings produced by the Historic American Buildings

Survey in 1940 (Figure 12). The five l-m-x-l-m units excavated in this area fell in line with the

supposed locations of the addition's foundation walls.

Unit EWI

Located 4 m outward from the east elevation of White Haven's breezeway and,2.5 m north

of the northeast corner of the main house, Unit EWI should have straddled the east edge of the

east wing (Figure 26). The first level (0-10 cmbs), however, revealed neithei artifact

concentrations nor indications of cultural features being present. Cultural materials were few and

largely uninformative (Table l9). The only diagnostic artifacts were three ceramic sherds

probably deriving from the same Old Blue vessel; such decorated wares are believed to have been

popular during the first quarter of the nineteenth century (Cleland 1983:36). As for a possible

foundation, the only suggestion of that was in the scattered pieces of mortar and limestone

throughout Level 1.

Level 2 (10-20 cmbs) was not much more informative. Again, the artifact assemblage was

small and mundane (Table 19). The only artifacts that might provide temporal data were Jtearty

modern: a plastic cigarette mouthpiece and a piece of cobalt blue glass bearing the partial product

name of Bromo Seltzer. Several larger pieces of tabular limestone came to tigtrt, Uut theyiormed

no kind of pattern that might suggest their being parts of a foundation. Furthermore, probing of

the soils gave no indication that more substantial stones lay below this level. Removal of a third

and final level yielded only a single cut nail fragment and no evidence of the elusive east

foundation of the addition.

Unit EW2

This l-m square also lay 4 m east of the breezeway. Its distance north from the northeast

corner of the main house, however, measured 5.8 m to the southwest stake (Figur e 26). That left

a space of 2.3 m between the north profile of Unit EWl and the south profile of Unit EW2.

26
Fewer than 20 artifacts derived from Level 1 (0-10 cmbs), though they appeared to

increase in frequency with greater depth through the 10-cm level (Table 20). Furthei given the

relatively small sample of materials, it is not surprising that no diagnostics appear among the

collection from this level. Nor did examination of the unit floor reveal any sign of a feature such

as the supposed foundation wall.

Artifact tallies increased dramatically in Level 2 (10-20 cmbs), though the number of

diagnostics was not substantially improved (Table 20). Three ceramic sherds appear to be creamcolored earthenware, a distinctive ware type produced in England after 176I and a dominant

commodity from then until the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Creamware continues to

be apopulartable service, however, eventoday. As inthe case of Unit EW2, Level 2 exposed

several large pieces of limestone that could conceivably represent elements of a stone foundation.

Still, they clearly were not bonded into a structure, nor did the lay of the stones reveal any

pattern.

Level 3 (20-30 cmbs), the last excavated in EW2, saw a reversion to the lower artifact

frequencies manifested by Level I (Table 20). The sole diagnostic artifact, a sherd of creamware,

provides little temporal definition, owing to the long period of use for such wares. Scattered

pieces of limestone occurred in this level, but again they showed no discernible pattern to their

distribution' An iron pipe trended across the west half of the unit, angling slightly southeast to

northwest. This doubtless is associated with the chilled water line system formerly used for

cooling the main house. Accordingly, it probably dates near the time of World War II or shortlv

thereafter.

Unit EW3

The third test unit excavated in the general area of the former east wing addition lay

adjacent to the west edge of EW2 (Figure 26). The l-m square fell toward the breezeway portion

of the house on the prospect that EW2 might lie outside the east foundation of the razeduddition.

Evidence gathered from EW3, however, gave no indication of that being the case.

Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) revealed a large limestone slab in the center of the unit's west edge.

At first, the presence of that stone and surrounding rubble gave hope that a foundation remnant

would be exposed. Continued excavation, however, failed to lend greater credence to that

supposition. Artifacts from the level, furthermore, were relatively few and unremarkable

(Table 21). Only a single sherd of flow blue whiteware can be considered to have any diagnostic

power, and its depositional context is poor.

The large limestone slab evident in Level 1 continued into Level 2 (10--20 cmbs). and

smaller pieces of limestone rubble and flecks of mortar were also present. Together they suggest

that a stone foundation might have been present in this general vicinity. It appiars, -Artifacts tro*"u"flrut

demolition of the addition precludes confirmation of the precise location. again were

uninformative, though more numerous in Level 2 (Table 2l).

27
Level 3 (20-30 cmbs), the last level excavated in Unit EW3, revealed no additional stones

of substantial size. Furthermore, the artifact inventory diminished markedly to a mere 27

specimens (Table 21). Accordingly, the excavators abandoned efforts at the base of this level.

Unit EW4

Unit EW4 expanded Unit EWl to the north by an additional meter (Figure 26). Because

no good evidence of a foundation line appeared in EWl, it was possible that the first unit lay

outside the tazed addition. Therefore, opening an adjacent unit to the north might succeed in

intersecting a foundation remnant. Unfortunately, that proved not to be the case.

Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) appeared devoid of any substantial deposits or materials that would

be consistent with the remains of a building foundation. The artifactinventory, however, includes

a good number of specimens, including several diagnostic materials (Table 22). The ceramics

include three flow blue sherds (circa 1840-1860s), four creamware sherds (late eighteenth and

early nineteenth centuries), and one finger-trailed mocha whiteware sherd (firsi frutf of the

nineteenth century) among others (Cleland 1983:36-39). A panel bottle bearing the partial mark

"...VOGELE.-. /---LTIMO..." appears to have contained "St. Jakob's Oel," the circa 1-879 product

of A. Vogeler & Co., a Baltimore firm (Wilson and Wilson l97l:79). In addition , a .22-caliber

cartridge casing is marked with a "U" headstamp at its center. That single maker's mark

represented the Union Metallic Cartridge Company (1861-1911), the Remington Arms-Union

Metallic Cartridge Company (1911-1921), and the Remington Arms Company (1921-present),

all of Bridgeport, Connecticut (White and Munhall 1977:31). Although identifiable, ttt" -*[

cannot be considered tightly datable, since the same mark has been in use for over 130 years.

In Level 2 (10-20 cmbs) the situation did not change. No substantive evidence of any

element associated with the east wing addition came to light, and artifact frequencie, *"r"

minimal (Table 22). Diagnostic materials also were few and do not contribuie to a better

understanding of the deposits. The same can be said of Level 3 (20-30 cmbs), which for lack

of compelling results was the last excavated in EW4. Artifacts were limited to a mere seven

fragmentary items (Table 22).

Unit EW5

This unit, the last to be opened in the east wing area,lay directly against the east edge of

the breezeway (Figure 26). The purpose of the excavation was to explore for remains of a

chimney base that photographs indicated should be present here. Further, it appeared that the

1-m-x-2-m test unit should expose evidence of the east-wing addition.

Considering the fact that the unit is twice the area of the standard l-m square , artifacttotals

in Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) were slight (Table 23). Effective area of the deposit, lio*"r"., was much

less, resulting from the confirmed presence of a chimney foundation. Diagnostic materials in the

first level gave clear indication of a mixed deposit. Although a mid-nineteinth-century flow blue

sherd was present, so also were such modern items as a clay skeet target, a plastic button, a

28
plastic cigarette filter casing, and pieces of a plastic sandwich pick from a Howard Johnson

restaurant.

Excavation of Level 2 (T0-20 cmbs) helped define the chimney base (Figure 27). The

level also yielded artifacts on a par with the first (Table 23). Again the materials that could be

roughly dated showed the deposits to be mixed. Some of the ceiamics probably derive from the

late nineteenth century, whereas other specimens are clearly of the recent past. The latter

category includes a galvanized roofing nail and yet another plastic cigarette filtei casing. A small

aluminum tag bears the stamped partial product or company name, "Lawn....,, Thi tag also

identifies a city of origin, which may be Belleville, Kentucky.

The remaining three levels in Unit EW5 continued to yield artifacts in approximately the

same numbers (Table 23),but never gave any evidence that could be directly associated with the

east wing addition. The chimney base proved to be of substantial size and appeared to be sited

at the location suggested by photographs and earlier measured drawings. Only one green shelledge rim sherd from Level4 (30-40 cmbs), dating circa 1800-1840 (Miller and Hunt"1 tllO,tg;,

can be considered remarkable.

Summary

Excavations in search of the White Haven east-wing addition simply were 'nproductive.

Although situated in the most likely spots to intersect sections of the addiiion, according to its

depiction on the 1940 HABS plan drawing, no irrefutable evidence of a foundation could be

discerned. Since there is no doubt of the east wing's former existence or position, it must then

be concluded that either demolition obliterated the evidence or such expected evidence never

existed. The latter case would obtain, perhaps, if the addition stood on pi.r, rather than a full

foundation. The limited presence of rock and mortar would be consisteni with the use of piers,

but it could also be a result of demolition debris having been removed incompletely. Failure to

confirm the former presence of a documented structural element emphasizes the limitations of

archeological investigation under certain circumstances.

Chimney Stacl$

The main house at White Haven is flanked by two massive limestone chimney stacks (Figure 4). The project historical architect was interested in resolving certain questions about

their construction, as well as the relationship of those features to other elements of the domicile.

East Chimney

Examination of the east chimney base entailed the initial excavation of a single l-m square

against the south half of the structure (Figure 4). The purpose was twofold: 1o inspeci the limestone stack for its manner of construction and .*t.nf and to explore the adjacent soils for evidence of the ground rod for "ordition a supposed lightning suppression system. Later,in-order

29
to examine the chimney more fully, the excavators extended the unit 50 cm to the north. The

initial unit and its extension are both described as a single entity in the following paragraphs.

The excavator of the east chimney unit accomplished the collection of six levels in the

primary unit and its extension before abandoning the effort. The excavation of those levels

resulted in the accumulation of a good number of artifacts (Tables 24 and 25). Few of them are

useful in interpreting the deposits at this location, however, primarily because the materials are

likely to have been redeposited. The more interesting items are reported below by level.

Level I (0-10 cmbs) yielded one scalloped blue shell-edge whiteware sherd among its

ceramics; such decoration is generally associated with the period circa 1800-l S40 (Mille. *a

Hunter 1990:1 17). There is also a sherd of sprig-decorated whiteware, which is a type believed

to occur only after circa 1836 (Lofstrom 1976:29-32). In addition, there was a singie, retouched

flake of Burlington chert that confirms a prehistoric component at the site even thoush the

deposits are now mixed.

In Level 2 (10-20 cmbs) of the unit and its extension several recovered artifacts are worthy

of remark. Chief among them is a silver Spanish real piece of small denomination bearing an

apparent 1753 mint mark (Figure 31b). As author Laurence Brown (1962:104) points out,

throughout the colonial period Spanish specie "remained the principal form of currency and it was

not until 1857 that these coins were officially demonetized." It is probable that, especially on

what was then the western edge of American expansion, such coins continued to be exchaneed

as payment of indebtedness for several years thereafter.

Other Level 2 diagnostic items include five monochrome blue-painted pearlware sherds,

which derive largely from the first quarter to the middle-second quarteiof the nineteenth century

(Lofstrom 1976:29-32). A brass suspender guide, furthermore, is stamped with the legeni

"PATENT 1854" (Figure 31d). In addition, two bottle fragments exhibit diagnostic attributes:

an empontiled base, which suggests a pre-I870s manufacture, and an improved lipping tool finish,

which ranges generally from the 1870s to circa 1910.

Level 3 (20-30 cmbs) contained a sherd of cream-colored earthenware and five sherds of

blue transfer-printed pearlware, both types deriving from the early nineteenth century at the latest.

Three other sherds are possibly decorated in the style of Old Blue wares, also dating to the first

quarter of the nineteenth century (Cleland 1983:36). In addition, a two-piece military button

bealing the eagle-on-cannon device, with the word "CORPS" below, out of the extension

at this level (Figure 29d). Martin Wyckoff (1984:4142) "u-" refers to such buttons in his typology

as belonging to Series G, Type 1, Variety 1, sub-variety l, and dates them to the perioi

1814-1821. A spread-eagle device adopted by all services in 1821 quickly replace^d this

particular variety.

No good diagnostic artifacts occurred in Level4 (30-40 cmbs) of the primary east chimney

unit, and the extension was virtually sterile. In Level 5 (40-50 cmbs) the combined artifact total

of both was negligible, consisting of I cut nail, 4 bottle glass sherds, l0 pieces of mortar, and

30
9 small limestone fragments. Level 6 (50-60 cmbs) yielded materials only from the initial test

unit, but included a Burlington chert flake and a small nodule of the same material.

Excavation of the east chimney test unit and its extension revealed no indication of a

lightning ground rod, or any other cultural feature, having been present here. A very narrow line

of dark organic soil suggests that construction of the chimney proceeded by laying up the stones

within a space only slightly larger than the base itself. In addition, a small copper gas line ran

through the chimney stone, and an armored cable ran through the unit toward some other

connection with the house.

West Chimney

The project historical architect desired more detailed information on construction of the

west chimney; so from the beginning investigators employed a larger test unit at this location.

The 1-m-x-2-m unit stretched across nearly the entire width of the chimney base and butted

against the cellar entry bulkhead at the south end (Figure 4). That conjunction would allow the

simultaneous examination of the chimney and the cellar entry, an element of the house that

appears to have changed over the years.

Because of root disturbances from several bushes, Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) provided little

contextual information on either the cellar bulkhead or construction of the west cliimney. Even

the artifacts in this level were relatively few, considering the fact the unit was twice the standard

area (Table 26). One sherd of whiteware bears a mark, but it is too fragmentary to be read. The

only other item that can be roughly dated is an empontiled medicine bottle, probably

manufactured before 1870.

Level 2 (1010 cmbs) continued to show the effects of root disturbances across much of

the floor. Soils became more loosely compacted, however, and easier to excavate. A small

triangular area of light-colored soil approximately 50 cm from the north end of the unit

surrounded a smaller ovate, dark organic stain. Such an anomaly would be consistent with a post

mold, suggesting that this could be associated with a trellis that stood against the chimney in

many historic photographs of White Haven. Artifacts in the level represent a long time span,

ranging from pre-Civil War era ceramics to a modern crown cap bottle closure (Table 26)^.

In Level 3 (20-30 cmbs) one could distinguish the possible trellis post mold readily and

collect it separately from the rest of the test unit. Although cultural materiais were indeed piesent

in the soil anomaly, they were not of the sort that would give clearer insights into the character

of the anomaly or its age (Table 26). The general fill of the level, on thqother hand, yielded a

great variety of materials, though most of the artifact varieties were each represented by only a

few specimens (Table 26). A single sherd of flow blue whiteware probabiy derives from ihe

period 1840-1860 (Lofstrom et al. 1982:9), but no other item can be dated to even that general

level of precision. A small cast-iron pintle is not temporally diagnostic, but it could have been

shutter hardware for a nearby window or even part of a hinge assembly for the outer cellar door.

31
Level 4 (30-40 cmbs) still yielded a good number of artifacts (Table 26), most of them

seeming to derive from along the chimney base, though no construction trench was apparent at

that depth. Fewer items derived from the soil anomaly, collected separately, and the anomaly

itself appeared to be diminishing. Accordingly, the excavators bisected the soil zone and

examined it in profile. That action showed that the anomaly terminated only about 34 cmbelow

the floor of Level 4. It also appeared that the anomaly was not the result of natural causes,

though it could not be confirmed that it represents a trellis post hole.

Because most of the cultural material seemed to be originating from the areaimmediately

adjacent to the chimney base, for Level 5 (40-50 cmbs) the excavators removed only a 30-cmwide strip the length of the unit along the masonry. No construction trench became apparent in

this level, though a root cast and two pieces a tabular limestone were evident. Artifacts were few

in Level 5, totaling 26 items (Table 26); none can be considered diagnostic.

Level 6 (50-60 cmbs) was the last level excavated in the west chimney unit. Once again,

of course, the level consisted of only the 30-cm strip alongside the chimney base. Here, however,

a sizeable arc of dark organic soil appeared through much of the northern half of the excavated

area. The soil stain, which contained several small slabs of limestone, may be related to

construction of the chimney. Only three pieces of probable window glass came out of the

anomalous zone, however (Table 26).

Summary

Excavations next to the west chimney resulted in the collection of several very interesting

artifacts, though their contexts offer only limited analytical power. Similarly, the soil matrix

itself revealed no sign of interpretable cultural features or possibly meaningful soil anomalies.

The only findings of consequence relate to the presence of two modern utility lines that pass

through the test unit, one of which is a gas line that enters the main house through the chimney

masonry.

Controlled excavation against the west chimney provided scant new information. Primarily

the exercise enabled the project historical architect to examine the stone masoffy at some depth

below grade. The test unit also revealed a soil anomaly that possibly represents a post mold left

by the support for a trellis that stood against the chimney stack. Even if that interpretation is

correct, however, the existence of a trellis at that location was already well known. Therefore,

the possible confirmation of its presence here is of little significance.

32
Front Porch

In order to determine if the front porch configuration might have been different in the past,

excavators opened a small test unit underneath the decking. The unit measured 2 m by 5d cm

and fell immediately west (left) of the porch steps between two piers (Figure 28). This would

enable inspection of an area that might contain remains of one or more forrner porch piers.

Removal of the obvious layer of recent overburden resulted in the collection of three

probable window glass sherds, a sherd of blue transfer-printed ceramic, and a length of electrical

cord (Table 27). Excavation of Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) resulted in the collection of a mixture of

modern and much earlier materials (Table 27). Most remarkable of the latter category was a

ceramic marble featuring a bull's-eye with repeating palmate leaf pattern as decoration (fig*"

32e). Carskadden and Gartley (1990:62-63) refer to the decorative motif as "Type #4" inJheir

classification and attribute it to the middle decades of the nineteenth century @rimarily the 1g50s

and 1860s).

Between the two brick porch piers, excavators found ample evidence to suggest that

limestone piers formerly supported the porch joist. Several angular limestone tablets lay in close

association, and others lay scattered about the remainder of the test unit. It could not be

determined from their present positions whether the stone piers once stood where the brick piers

now stand or in some other spot. It did seem likely, however, that the fallen stones represented

a single pier.

The second and last level excavated in the front porch unit failed to clarify the questions

left by Level 1. Limestone was even more prevalent in Level 2 (10-20 cmbs), but patterning

of the tablets was not sufficient to indicate precisely the former position or positions of an!

earlier piers. Artifacts recovered in this level, furthermore, provide little heip toward fuller

understanding of the front porch configuration (Table 27).

Summary

Limited excavations beneath the White Haven front porch indicate only that limestone piers

apparently preceded the current joist supports. The use of such material should not be surprising,

since several other elements of the structure employ limestone. It should also be cautioned,

though, that the archeological data at hand cannot confirm that the porch evidence described

relates to original construction of the Grant-Dent House. Rather, th-y could relate to a more

recent replacement of the original piers.

33

CONCLUSION

The survey work and excavations described herein contribute the first archeologi cal data

on the property known historically as White Haven. The investigations focused on two distinct

areas of inquiry. First, excavators sought information on the structural evolution of White Haven

in order to assist efforts to prepare a Historic Structures Report. Second, the investigators

employed transect interval shovel testing to search two proposed parking lot alternates to assess

the impact of any contemplated construction upon the cultural resource base.

Investigation of the house itself involved excavations both inside and outside parts of the

structure. Five test units inside the stone building (adapted in modern times for use as a garage)

demonstrated that the west elevation once stood approximately 2 m east of where it now stands,

indicating that the stone building was once nurrower. In addition, testing beneath the floor

revealed that a smaller foundation effectively bisects the large interior .pu"", suggesting that a

wall once divided the structure into two rooms. Fireplaces located at either end of thi stone

building are consistent with that finding.

Perhaps even more significant were the findings in two test units outside the east elevation

of the stone building. Although in themselves they did not confirm the former existence of any

additional doors or windows in the structure, they did yield a large number of interesting artifacts.

Further, they revealed the presence of a sizeable construction trench about the foundation

perimeter. Thus, it is possible that recovery of temporally diagnostic artifacts from the fill of that

trench will provide data that will assist interpretation of this presumed early structure.

Excavations about the main house, unfortunately, were less informative. Attempts to locate

evidence of two removed room additions were unsuccessful; either earlier demolition activities

destroyed any such evidence, or such evidence never existed in a form sufficient to be detected.

Similarly, work adjacent to the two huge chimney stacks revealed nothing not already known

through documentary sources. Those excavations, however, did enable direct inspection of the

stone masonry below grade.

Investigation of the two contemplated parking lot alternates confirmed the presence of

debris from a former barn complex in Alternate 2 but failed to locate any eviden.. of a reputed

slave cabin compound in Alternate 1. Shovel tests and two controlled excavations in Alternate

2, south of the present barn location, yielded various late-nineteenth-century artifacts but no sign

of features that would indicate the locations of structural elements. Alternate l, on the other

hand, provided even fewer indications of cultural activity. Based upon these findings -impact alone, it

seems that selection of Alternate 1 for construction would likely result in less on

significant cultural resources. Subsequent investigations at the site in 1992 and 1gg3, hlwever,

showed that neither alternative contains cultural resources that would affect the proposed facility

location.

J )
The l99l archeological investigations at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site represent

the first such examination of that recent National Park Service acquisition. Further, the expressed

purpose of the investigations was to provide general planning information on the possible lbcation

of a future parking facility and to address specific questions concerning discr.ete elements of the

primary historic structure. Accordingly, grand findings and conclusions can hardly be expected

from such a limited scope of work. Rather, the 1991 excavation project should be seen more as

a foundation upon which future research efforts can build.

36
REFERENCES CITED

Anonymous

n.d. Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. Xeroxed leaflet. U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, St. Louis.

Brown, Laurence

1962 Coins Through the Ages. sterling publishing co., Inc., New york.

Carskadden, Jeff, and Richard Gartley

1990 A Preliminary Seriation of l9th-Century Decorated Porcelain Marbles. Historical

Arc hae o I o gt 24(2) : 5 5 49 .

Cleland, Charles

1983 A Computer Compatible System for the Categorization, Enumeration and Retrieval

of Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Archaeological Material Culture, part II,

Manual for ldentffication and Classification. Michigan State University Museum, East

Lansing.

Fike, Richard E.

1987 The Bottle Book. Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.

Godden, Geoffrey A.

1964 Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Bonanza Books. New york.

Larsen, Ellouise Baker

1975 American Historical Views on Staffordshire Pottery. 3rd ed. Dover publications.

New York.

Lofstrom, Edward

1976 An Analysis of Temporal Change in a l9th-Century Ceramic Assemblage from Fort

Snelling, Minnesota. Minnesota Archaeologlsl 35(l): 16-47.

Lofstrom, Ted, Jeffrey P. Tordoff, and Douglas C. George

1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares in the Midwest, 1780-1870. Minnesota

Ar c hae o I o gi s t 4l (l) :3 -29 

.

Luscomb, Sally C.

1967 The Coltrector's Encyclopedia of Buttons. Bonanza Books, New york.

Miller, George L. , and Robert R. Hunter, Jr.

1990 English Shell Edged Earthenware: Alias Leeds Ware, Alias Feather Edge. Thirtyfifth Annual Wedgwood International Seminar, pp. 107_136.

J I
Munsey, Cecil

1970 The lllustrqted Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorne Books, New York.

Noble, Vergil E.

1992 Trip Report - Ulysses S. Grant, Jrne 8-17, 1992. Memorandum [A2624 (MWAC)]

to Chief, Midwest Archeological Center, dated July l, 1992. On file, National Park

Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1993 Trip Report, Ulysses S. Grant, hne 7-25, 1993. Memorandum 1A2624 (MWAC)I

to Chief, Midwest Archeological Center, dated Jwrc 29, 1993. On file, National Park

Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Paul, John R., and Paul W. Parmalee

1973 Soft Drink Bottling: A History with Special Reference to lllinois. Illinois State

Museum Society, Springfreld.

Price, Cynthia R.

1979 Nineteenth Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Region. Monograph Series

No.l. Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University,

Springfield.

Price, James E.

1995 Exit Memorandum in Lieu of Exit Conference. Memorandum to Jill O'Bright,

Superintendent, Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site, dated September 20, 1995. On

file, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

I996a Limited Archeological Investigations at the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site,

235L857: A Brief Report on Subsurface Excavations Conducted October 10-13, 1995.

Report on file, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

I996b Description of the Artifactual and Ecofactual Archeological Specimens Recovered

from the Winter Kitchen at the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. Report on file,

National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Quaif, Milo

1916 Extracts from Capt. McKay's Journal-and Others. Proceedings of the Society at

its 63rd Annual Meeting, pp. 186-210. Publications of the State Historical Society of

Wisconsin, Madison.

Stack, Norman

1986 U.S. Coins of Volue. Dell Publishing Company, New York.

38
Switzer, Ronald R.

1974 The Bertrand Bottles: A Study of l9th-Century Glass and Ceramic Containers.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Toulouse, Julian H.

l97l Bottle Makers and Their Marlcs. Thomas Nelson. Camden. New Jersev.

Weymouth, John W.

1993 An Analysis of Magnetic and Resistance Surveys on the Ulysses S. Grant National

Historic Site. Report on file, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center,

Lincoln, Nebraska.

White, Henry P., and Burton D. Munhall

1977 Cartridge Headstamp Guide. H. P. White Laboratory, Inc., Street, Maryland.

Wilson, Bill, and Betty Wilson

l97l 19th Century Medicine in Glass. 19th Century Hobby & Publishing Co., Eau

Gallie, Florida.

Wyckoff, Martin A.

1984 United States Military Buttons of the Land Services, 1787-1902: A Guide and

Classificatory System. Mclean County Historical Society, Bloomington, Illinois.

Zmwalt, Betty

1980 Ketchup, Pickles, Sauces: l9th Century Food in Glass. Mark West Publishers,

Fulton, California.

39
40
,F$gH$

aA

6

o

6

o

o

-

o

(E

c

o)

o,

=

(!

(L

F

o

o

.E

o

(5

.

o

-o

$

1--

(5

o

F

{rtst F(\l-tF---O{(\l

F

F

r.r)

t - r N

@

@ rrNrrr

c'

al)

lr,

lo

N

F'o)ttr-l

o

o

o

F

6

o

(t)

to(,

(t()

(\

(f)

rr)

N

(!

C{

C!

N

(o

c

.9

.g

o

o

()

o

.CEE E

,^(,q)cq)

! i . 4 E = = 9E dt-E E E o

ii;E? s F Er=; *sr-;cs*E,s=BA,eF

gEEEEEFgEfrEg
Table 2. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 1, Unit 1.

Description 3a 3b

Burlington chert flake

Worked flake

Decortication flake

Whiteware

Albany slip stoneware

Porcelain (doll fragment?)

Curved glass-amber

Curved glass-aqua

Curved glass-PurPle tint

Wire nail

Cut nail

lron harness buckle

Unidentified metal

Coal

Brick

Plastic toY fragment

(not collected)

:

4

2

4

I

3

2

2

4

1

1

4

I

1

5

3

1

5

3

2

4

4

723

3a = General fill

3b = corner lnside southeast 
Table 3. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 1, Unit 2.

Level

Description Total

Rock (not collected)

Chert flake-unworked

Chert flake-worked

Clay pigeon fragment

Ceramic drain tile

\Miteware

Blue transfer print

Porcelain

Curved glass-amber

Curved glass-aqua

Curved glass-dark green

Curved glass-colorless

Flat glass

Wire nail or fragment

Cut nail or fragment

Large iron staPle

Shell-oyster

Brick fragment

Cinder (not collected)

Plastic toothbrush handle

1

30

- 2

- ;

- 2

-,i

1

t -

- 2

- 2

3

1

2

1

4

9

1

3

I

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

I

;

1 -

1 -

1

1 1

: _

- 1

: _

1

3

I

2

1

1

31

2

7

1

1

3

2

1

7

5

5

4

1

4

4

1 2

1

Total 31 26 1 8 95

43
Table 4. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 1, Unit 3

Level

Description 3a 3b Total

Flake I 1

Chert flake 1 1 2

Heat-spalled flake fragment 1

Possible flake

Chert shatter i- 1

1

Chert core 2 - 2

Core aI 1

\Mriteware

Stoneware-Albany slip interior

2 1 4

Stoneware lid

Hand painted porcelain 1

Curved glass-aqua

Curved glass-amber ; ? 2

2

Curved glass-dark green 1 1

Curved glass-colorless 4 I 1 7

Flat glass 1 1

Cut nail fragment ; 2 ; 8

^ Knife or saw blade fragment

Unidentified lead w/ screw perforation

1

,| I

4

I

Cinder (not collected)

Charcoal 1 ;

3

2

Coalfragment 3 3

Total 1 5 1 2 1 3 47

3a = General fill

3b = Southwest corner

44
oo

o)

aL

tt

a

o

o

o

-c

a

N

o

o

c

L

o

.s

or

v

(u

(L

j

o

c

o

.s

()

(5

E

d

to

o

o

o

F

6

o

F - r r Crtrre I (Y)GI I (gNGlFF | | | r

@I

N tttllllrll

rr)

I

c{ ritllatlllttlrlllll-

$I

c! trrtllllNlll

c\II

C\l lttllFlllltllllll

N

I lllFllllllllllllll

o

o

F

6

o

E

a

o)t lllFrllltllllllltll

t^c) rlllllrr-llll-ellr

\t | | | rfl | | | | l(\l I I t I r | |

(f)

rttttl-ll-lr(\lllrl

c\l I l | | | | | | r-lAll I I | | r I r

e

- | | | | | t | | | | l(\l | | | | | | |

3E E 

E HEE.*-€-H E E E*-

C

o

oC)

o

o

o

glEEEgufiEtEesE
o

a

o

ol

p

c

o

o

o

o

a

a

c)

6

o

.C

o

N

o

(t

CL

o

o)

C

-Y

o

(L

5

o

c

o

.9.

ij(tl

'a

-ci

ro

o

_o

o

t6

o

F

I NN(\- | | <Orf:etf) | | | F I rr I r\

N

(f,

I

@

sfI

s

(o

$ | | | | | | r(v)r | | | | | | | | | | |

I

(f)

lllrlllllllfllllrl

o

(r) tttrlllllllll

a

c)

F f6 (o

o

-c

U)

(o

I

(r)

ttllllllllr-lllltlll

llllllllFNllllllll-l

lo

cf) lllllllllFlllll-ll

s

(o rrrrrtrllltNlllllrll

(f)

I

(f) tlll-llllFtlllllllll

N

cf, tNllltlllrllllllll

c

o

oo

U' o)

o

e $: I E SE-=o. p

E EEE.*Ee E g E- g;;EsBs -E 5 # EF f;g; E: H#A':':':Hgg -g $E5F g$HgEggEEEgF#;E(o

o

F $$EFE
Table 6. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 2, Unit 1.

Description

Fire-cracked rock 1 1

Chert flake ; ?

Flake 1

\A/hiteware (plain) 3 1 4

Over glaze painted whiteware 2 2

Blue transfer print ; 1

Curved gfass-amber 1 1

Curved glass-aqua 4 3 I

Curved glass-cobalt blue 1 1

Curved glass-colorless 5 ; 7

Curved glass-colorless & pressed 1 1

Curved glass-dark green 2 2

Flat glass o 2 1

Cut nail fragment 1 1 5 6

Roofing nail 2 2

lron strip

Unidentified metal

1

1

1

1

Mortar 1 1

Total 27 29

47
TableT. Artifact inventory, Parking Alternate 2,Unit2.

Level

Description Total

Possible fire-cracked rock 1 1

Core 1 1

Whiteware 1 3 4

Albany slip stoneware 1 1

Curved glass-aqua 1 1 2

Curved glass-colorless 2 o ; 1 3

Curved glass-colorless and pressed 1 a

I

Flat glass 6 1 ; 1 2 1

Glass frag. from lightbulb filament 1 1

Milk glass jar lid liner fragment 1 1

Cut nailicut nail fragment 1 5 1 2 ; 33

\Mre nail 1 5 6

\Mre 1

Bolt ,l

I

Cast-iron fragment 1

Tin fragment 2 2

Lead alloy tube application spout 1 1

Unidentified metal 1 1

Charcoal 2 3

Cinder (not collected) 3 3

Pebble (not collected) 3 3

Total 29 60 101

48
Table 8. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G1.

Level

Description 2a 2b Total

Coin 1 1

Brick fragment 3 3

Bone 2 1 4

Shell 2 2

Tooth 1 1

Clay pipe fragment I 1

Button 5 ; I

Limestone 2 2

Cinder 2 1 5

Burtington chert 1 1

Earthenware I 1 1 2

Stoneware 1 1 2

Porcelain 2 2

Curved glass 40 1 0 1 51

Flat glass 44 44

Mirror glass 1 ; 6

Nonferrous metal 1 4

I

Metal 2 2

Wire nail 25 25

Cut nail 3 I

Total 147 26 180

2a = General fill

2b = Possible foundation trench

49
Table 9. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit Gl Extension.

Level

Descriotion Total

Coin 2 2

Button 2

Mortar 7 : 7

Concrete 1 1

Limestone 3 2 5

Slag

Charcoal

4

i 4

1

Shellfragment 1 1

Clay pipe fragment 2 2

Bone I I

Tooth ; I 2

Brick 1 1

Earthenware 3 1 6 1 9

Stoneware 1 1

I 2

Porcelain 13 1 3

Curved glass 2 30 32

Flat glass 4 29 33

Cut nail 4 34 38

\A/ire nail 3

Metal : 1 1

Total 35 143 178

50
Table 10. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G2.

Level

Description 2a 2b 2c 2d Total

Marble

Bone

2

9

2

1 3

Coin 4

I 1

Button

Hard rubber comb fragment

J

1

3

1

Brick fragment

Earthenware

1

6 ;

I ; 1

1

1 0

Porcelain 2 2

Stoneware

Curved glass

Flat glass

1

60

37

;

5 a

I

; 1 ;

2

1

84

48

Metal

\Mre nail

7

2

2 : I

2

Cut nail 46 1 2 4 ; 57

Total 178 12 13 25 234

2a = General fill

2b = Soil from west of stones

2c = Water pipe trench

2d = Foundation trench rubble fill

51
Table 11. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G3.

Level

Description Total

Bone utensil handle 1 1

Bone 22 ; 31

Tooth 1 1 2

Nonferrous metal

Brick fragment

3

1 0 2

3

1 2

Mortar fragment

Clay pipe fragment

Charcoal

Limestone

Button

6

1

1 0

5

6

4

22

;

:

I

6

1 0

2

38

5

7

Coin 1 1

Debitage, chert

Porcelain doll fragment

1 1

;

2

1

Earthenware 27 ; 4 35

Redware

Porcelain

Curved glass

Flat glass

Melted glass

Metal

2

8

26

36

3

4

3

1 6

1 4

3

1

2

1 4

1 7

2

3

1 3

56

67

3

9 Cut nail 55 20 , : 93

Wire nail 1 1

Shell 1 1

Total 229 94 73 396

52
Table 12. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G4.

Level

Description 2a 2b 3b Total

Marble 4 3 7

Button 2 1 1 5

Nonferrous metal 2 1 3

Slag 1 1

Limestone

Clay pipe fragment

2

2

2 4

2

Bone

Tooth

45 1 4

4

I

60

1

Bone toothbrush 1 1

Shell 1 1

Earthenware

Porcelain

Curved glass

Flat glass

;

1

36

84

;

5

;

2

1 4

1

43

115

Mirror glass

Melted glass

3

1

3

1

Metal 8 1 I 1 8

\Mre nail

Cut nail

2

23

2 3

5

;

3

1 3

36

Mortar : 1 0 1 0

Total 226 1 1 75 27 339

2a = General area

2b = Trench fill

3b = Trench fill

3a (General Area) was sterile.

I

53
Table 13. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G5.

Description

Snail shell 2

Button 1

Brick fragment 1

Concrete 1

Chert flake I

I 1

Bone 22 32

Earthenware I 9

Porcelain 2 2

Redware

Curved glass

1

'10 1

1 3

Flat glass 23 26

Metal 4 4

Cut nail 8 8

Total
Table 14. Artifact inventory, stone building interior, Unit G5 Extension.

Description Level 1

Button 2

Limestone 2

Bone 6

Plaster 1

Cinder 1

Charcoal 1

Concrete 1

Possible chert flake 1

Porcelain 1

Curved glass 6

Flat glass 1

Nonferrous metal 3

Cut nail 1

27

Note: Level 2 was excavated but no artifacts were encountered.
Table 15. Artifact inventory, stone building exterior, Window Unit.

Level

Description 91011 Total

Plastic

Bone

7-2

7 1 1 0

,|

4

2

1 0 u 'to 10 1

1 2

63

Brick fragment 513 5 - l 4

2 2 1 21

Concrete 1 - 2 3

Charcoal - 4 7 - ; 1 9

Rock - 2 : 2

Cinder 9

Teeth -:: 4 ; ; ; ; 1 5

Caulking 2 : 2

Eyelet 1 1

Shell 211 4

Button 221 6

Limestone 314 1 5

Slate 4 - : 4

Lodge pin

Mortar

Clay pipe fragment

1 -

- 1 1

:1

1

5

3

Chert debitage :-: ; 1

Bone utensil handle - l 1 1

Earthenware 18 1 8 3; 70 60 20 1 1 1 5 247

Porcelain 1 2 2 4 12 1 3 1 4 - 34

Redware 248 6 7 511 1 54

Stoneware - 1 1 4 4 324 2 30

Unidentified ceramic 1 1 - 2

Curved glass

Flat glass

12 15

o:'?1

39

08

61

347

75168

367 58 64

6 2;;

17 12

274

1 106

Mirror glass 1-1 2

Melted glass 1 1

Nonfenous metal

Metal

4 1

',t1 28 

2

1 5

1

6

2-1

482

1 1

79

Cut nail -16 48 40219 : 5 205

Wire nail 7 - 1 1 - I

Roofing nail 1 - 1

Total 158 92 267 540 622 180 135 89 71 56 32 2242

Level 11 = South wall scrapings

56
Table 16. Artifact inventory, stone building exterior, Doorway Unit.

Level

Description 1 0 Total

Coal

Buttons

3

2 4 i 3

7

lvory domino face 1 1

Teeth 2 4

I I 3 1 1 9

Brick fragments 1 1 2 1 5

Bone 1 2 1 c 1 ; 4 45

Cinder : 1 : 1

Mortar 3 - 1 4

Charcoal 4 8 4 1 6

Plastic 1 - 1

Shell fragment - 2 1 5 ; I 20

Burnt flake - l 4

Limestone - 3 1 2

Clay pipe fragment ; 1

Bone utensil handle ; 1

Earthenware 54 14156 791012615 78 379

Porcelain 4 111 982- 4 ?n

Redware 4

t - 2-1- 4

Stoneware 3 2-4 2031 2 35

Curved glass 52 52835 68532066 26 299

Flat glass 147 158 274 50 23 30 187 940

Mirror glass 1 23',1 1 3 6 1 7

Glass slag

Nonferrous metal

1

21 - 1

1

4

Metal 4 -133',1 --311 26

Cut nail 8 91410272931226 129

Wire nail 7133- 23

Roofing nail 225--1 1 0

Total 289 ',t04 63 117 389 497 123 38 52 352 2024

57
Table 17. Artifact inventory, breezeway area, Unit B1.

Description

Button 1 2

Bone 1 6

Mortar 1

Earthenware 1 3

Redware 1 1

Stoneware 6 6

Porcelain 1

Curved glass 1 0 1 3

Flat glass 6

Wire nail ; 5

Cut nail 5 6

21

58
Table 18. Artifact inventory, breezeway area, Unit 82.

Description

Bone z 1 6

Ceramic drain tile 1 : 4

I

Mortar 2 2

Brick fragment 1 a

I

Earthenware 1 0 ; 1 4

Porcelain 2 2

Curved glass ; 6 ; 1 1

Flat glass

Metal

1 1 1 2 2

'l 25

1

Wire nail 11 8

Cut nail I

I 1

28

59
Table 19. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EW1.

Descriotion

Bone 4 3 7

Cigarette filter 1 1

Coal 2 2

Earthenware 10 14 24

Porcelain 2 2 4

Stoneware

Curved glass

Flat glass

22

35

1

29

33

1

51

68

Metal 1 2 3

Cut nail 4 19 23

\Mre nail 2 I 12

115

60
Table 20. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit E\M.

Description Total

Concrete I 1

Brick fragment ;

t 1

Bone/tooth 3 1 4

Earthenware ; 12 2 1 7

Redware 1 5 o

Stoneware 1 1 2

Curved glass 25 5 37

Flat glass 5 42 8 55

Nonferrous metal 1 1

Cut nail 4 13 4 1 8

Wire nail 5 5

Roofing nail ; 1

1 8 108 148

61
Table 21. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EW3.

Description Total

Button 1 1

Bone 3 3

Brick fragment 4 1

Earthenware ; 1 6 27

Redware I

I 1

Porcelain 1 1 2

Stoneware 1 3 I

Curved glass 17 35 56

Flat glass 18 48 74

Metal 1

Cut nail 10 15 31

Wire nail 4 10 14

134 219

62
Table 22. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EW4. 

Description 

Level 

2 3 Total 

Bone 

Mortar 

Burlington chert 

Slate 

Coal 

Slag 

Shotgun shell casing 

.22-caliber casing 

Earthenware 

Porcelain 

Stoneware 

Curved glass 

Flat glass 

Metal 

Cut nail 

Wrre nail 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

18 

3 

23 

38 

2 

167 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

4 

7 

1 

10 

4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

10 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

25 

3 

1 

30 

46 

4 

26 

6 

Total 112 39 7 158 

63 
Table 23. Artifact inventory, east-wing area, Unit EWS.

Level

Description Total

Concrete 3 .- 2 6

Bone 4 1 ; 4

Button 1 1

Blue rock fragment 1 I

Brick

Cigarette filter

4

I

1 i 1

2

Hard rubber comb fragment 1 1

Sandwich pick fragment

Burnt wood ? 1

2

1

Coal 3 ; 6

Seed/nut shell 1 1

Rock

Ceramic drain tile :

I

3

; ; ;

3

6

Limestone 1 3 4

Mortar 2 2

Earthenware ; ; ; ; 9 20

Redware 1 4 10 1 1 3 3 4 1

Stoneware 2 1 3

Porcelain 1 1

Curved glass 1 1 8 ; 2; 6 53

Flat glass 1 4 2 1 2 27 I 64

Nonferrous metal 1 1 1 2

Metal

Cut nail

1 3

2 2

1

3

4

-,

2

2

20

1 6

Wire nail 5 3 1 9

Roofing nail 1 1 4

1 4

Total 72 43 44 71 44 274

64
Table 24. Artifact inventory, East Chimney. 

Description 

Level 

2 3 4 5 6 Total 

Button 1 1 

Brick fragment 1 3 5 

Limestone 3 2 4 9 

Mortar 2 2 3 3 12 

Burlington chert 1 2 3 

Seed 3 1 4 

Cinder 2 9 11 

Bone 1 2 3 

.32-caliber casing 1 1 

Earthenware 11 14 7 8 40 

Porcelain 1 1 2 

Stoneware 7 6 13 

Curved glass 44 43 18 6 112 

Flat glass 85 86 56 227 

Mirror glass 1 2 12 15 

Suspender guide 1 1 

Cut nail 22 21 11 5 61 

Wire nail 1 1 

Roofing nail 1 1 

Staple 1 1 

Nonferrous metal 

Total 

1 

189 

1 

184 101 33 7 10 524 

65 
Table 25. Artifact inventory, East Chimney Extension.

Level

Description Total

Cinder 1 1

Coin 4

I 1

Brick fragment 2 ; 3

Bone 4 4

Mortar 2 3 2 14

Limestone 2 5 7 14

Concrete 12 12

.38-caliber casing 1 1

Button I

I 1

Earthenware 1 2 26

Porcelain 1 : : 1

Redware 1 1

Stoneware 1 1

Curved glass 1 E 15 ; 40

Flat glass 43 12 61

Cut nail 2 14

Roofing nail 1 : 1

Total 36 B6 51 17 196

66
Table 26. Artifact inventory, West Chimney.

Level

Description 3a 3b 4a 4b 5* 6* Total

Seed/nut shell 3 4

I 4

Concrete 7 6 12

Limestone 2 2

Charcoal

Mortar ? i ; 2 5

2

11

Bone 4 2 1 20

Shell 1 : I

Tooth 1 1

Cinder 1 2

Button 2 2

Brick fragment

Earthenware ; i 1

7

;

5 J -

3

39

Redware 3 5 1 ; 2 12

Porcelain .l

I 3 1 6

Curved glass I 22 21 4

I J ; : 58

Flat glass 16 45 59 7 44 143 189

Metal 2 o 2 1 2 13

\Mre nail

Cut nail

4

5

I

36 28 2

3

'1 16

83

Roofing nail 2 1 3

Nonferrous metal 2 2

Total 64 148 127 22 81 10 26 481

3a = General fill

3b = Soil anomaly

4a = General fill

4b = Soil feature

*Levels 5 and 6 are trench fill

67
Table 27. Artifact inventory, Front Porch. 

Description 0 

Level 

2 Total 

Electrical cord 1 

Plastic 1 1 

Missouri sales tax token 1 1 

Shell fragment 1 1 

Marble 1 1 

Cork disk 1 1 

Brick fragment 1 3 4 

Bone 3 3 

Mortar 1 1 

Earthenware 3 5 9 

Red ware 2 2 

Curved glass 10 8 18 

Flat glass 3 14 9 26 

Metal 1 1 2 

Cut nail 8 9 17 

Wire nail 

Total 5 

4 

48 39 

4 

92 

68 
Figure 1. Location of Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. 

69 

Niobra~ ~ .,.. ' "'-

A Agate Fossil Beds NM Missouri NR'fi' 

... 

Scotts Bluff NM 

N 

1 

NEBRASKA 

KANSAS 

0 

0 

... 

Ar.{: 

Homestead 

... 

Brown v. Board A 

of Education NHS 

Q-"2 

J'QS' 

Fort Scott NHS A 

National Park Units 

200mi 

200km 

Effigy Mounds NM 

IOWA 

Herbert 

Harry S Truman 

NHS 

MISSOURI 

Wilson's ' Ozark 

... Creek NB _.>. ... 

George Washington Carver NM 

APea Ridge NMP 

r _ /suffalo NR 

Hot Springs ... 

NP 

ARKANSAS 

Illinois & Michigan 

Canal NHC / _(,I 

ILLINOIS 

.&. Lincoln Home 

NHS 
Figure 2. Webster Groves USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle. 

70 
Figure 3. Plan map of Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. 

71 
Figure 4. Plan ofWh' Ite Haven. 

72 

--

--

~Cooling 

~Fountain 

,.---------

' \ 

I 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ ' / ' ..... "'""' 

B 

West 

526 -- _// 0 T "' Uoih 

0 

rn 

Chimney 

~ 

\ 
Figure 5. White Haven main house, 1991. 

Figure 6. Cellar bulkhead, 1991. 

73 
Figure 7. Main house, showing cellar entrance, 1913. 

Figure 8. Stone building, 1991. 

74 
Figure 9. White Haven from northwest, 1875 engraving. 

Figure I 0. Detail of 1875 engraving, showing stone building. 

75 
Figure II. Workshop addition, 1991. 

76 
-.....) 

-.....) 

Figure 12. HABS plan drawing, 1940. 

ROOf OW:R Wltll& NOW REMOVED 

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 

SCALI .. • 11

• o• 

LATER ADDITIOII TO THE .. E.U Of TMl IUILDIIII 

IIICLUDIIIIII 1100111 I Alii NOW IIEINI ltiiiiO'IID,IOOM 

t Olllllll,t,LLT WAI COY.£RIO IT A C"OMII'LlTI DICK 

1100,. TNl ITRUCTUU II "tAIU WITH LINliTOliE 

POUIIOATIOIII AND CHIIU.!YI, UTIItiOII WALLI 0, 

ROOMS I AND I Alii OF 4• X 4• WHIPIAWID ITUDI. D· 

11111011 WAI.LI 0, liDO• I Allll OP' EJITIIAOIIOIIIIAIIIP .. Y 

MUVY HIWN U(IIRIGHTS. TNI MAll ROOF INCI.UDlS A 

HlAYT NIWII 111011 POLE AI OITAILED. TMI SUYI 

OUAII:TUS HAl J STONE WALLS MD THl IOUTHWIU 

WALL II OP' YUTICAL I OAR OS AMO IATTUI, THI.S! 

OUUTI:III CONTAINED I HUU 110111 ,llll,LACli,O.NE 

AT .liTHlfl lEND, IIIAUI HOUSE INTIIIIDII WALLS·AJIID ~ILINGS 

Allll PLAITIIIID, "lilT PLOOII CIIL.Illl HIIOHT II I'· I• 

AND SECOND fLOOII CElLINI N(IIHT IS 7'·5•. II'LANK 

FLOOll Alii TILI.OW PINE. TMI flliT fLOOit II'OaCN 

II'OSTI Alii IUILT • UP SECTIONS AIIIO Of LATI:ft CDfl· 

IUUCTIOM, TNI CHAIHIRlO 101.10 WALIIIUT POllS 0111 

THl IICONO fLOOR II'OII:CH APPEAR TO 0( ORIIINAL 

.., ~-··· - ' 4" ,-1'-o• D.C. 

DETAIL Of RAFTlRS UD RID&f. 

f.H.IIIANit:R DlL. 

~ 

U40 PYOLIC WlJIIS A"jtiiii.UII'"A-TIOIII PIOIUM 

fiD~IAL 1 .. 0-I.CITI •oa-& 

..... ~-W'UNITI:I)IIT ... TDDIPNITMDn'fWTHEIIIITDII-

-"'-M. ,._K -IC&, -lot 01'....__ AW0 --

"WHITE HAVEN" 

NAME C# .n~UCTUIIIE. 

/ 

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 

tCA Ll .. • 1'- o• 

OLD 

SI..AVE 

QUARTERS 

C ltOSSIILT A 

II:ITCHI!N) 

LATII ADDITION MCINTLY RIMOVIO 

I CALl 

, 7 10 ' 0 ® & !. • J :1 1 a 

... 1'•0" 

IIIITJII; 

AFFTON POST OFFICE 

SAINT LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI 

HISTORIC AMERICAN 

8UILDINGS SURVEY 

Ull:ll I W J SIGnS 
Figure 13. Hunt addition ("Room 6") from northwest, 1913, at left. 

Figure 14. Hunt addition during demolition, 1940. 

78 
Figure 15. Main House from southeast, showing east wing and stone building in background, circa 1872 engraving. 

Figure 16. Former east wing and stone building, circa 1938. 

79 
Figure 17. Outbuildings at rear of White Haven, 1991. 

Figure 18. Relocated historic barn, 1993. 

80 
Figure 19. Caretaker's house, 1991. 

81 
Figure 20. Parking Alternate l. 

Figure 21. Parking Alternate 2. 

82 
Figure 22. Plan of stone building excavations. 

~ 

~ [] Test Units o~Oill"'""""'::iiiii~~2m 6ft. 

GARAGE 

>-

<( 

~ 

w 

N 

w 

w 

"' ID 

=.s: 

Figure 23. Unit Gl, Level I, showing foundation. 

83 
Figure 24. Plan drawing of Unit Gl, Level2. 

84 

NW 

sw 

Limestone slob 

(set on edge at 

border of trench) 

c 

"' E 

c 

0> 

0 

"' 0> 

lJ 

"' 

lJ 

"' E 

::J 

Ul 

~ 

0.. 

Root 

NE 

N 

1 

0 15in 

0 40cm 

C) Limestone 

D Brown Silty Clay 

D Gray-Brown Silty Clay 

SE 
N 

1 

15in 

40cm 

u Limestone 

D Brown Silty Clay 

D Gray-Brown Silty Clay 

[] Red-Brown Silty Cloy 

~ Woterpipe Trench 

Figure 25. Plan drawing of Unit G2, Level 1. 

85 

NW NE 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

o: 0 

0 

() 

() 

0 

CJ 

q 

0 
Figure 26. Plan of breezeway and east wing test units. 

86 

0 6ft 

0 2m 

D Test Units EW2 

EW3 

EWS 

BREEZEWAY 

I Bl 

82 

~ 

\ 

MAIN 

HOUSE 
Figure 27. Chimney base ruins in Unit EW5. 

87 
00 

00 

Figure 28. Porch excavation plan, Level I. 

0 

0 

15in 

50 em 

() 'V 

0 

N 

~ Concrete Porch Footings 

1 D Brick Fragment 

CJ ' . Concrete 

D Limestone 
Figure 29. Diagnostic artifacts. 

89 

a 

c 

d e 

o§§§§§§iii::::r--•1 inch 

0 2cm 
Figure 30. Diagnostic artifacts. 

90 

a 

b c d 

o~~~~~§iii=:=:=::;~--2--inches 

0 4cm 
Figure 31. Diagnostic artifacts. 

91 

a b 

c 

d e 

o§~~~iii:===--1 inch 

0 2cm 
Figure 32. Diagnostic artifacts. 

92