Archaeological and Architectural Documentation of the Craig-Ewalt Farmstead and Craig Cemetery in...

Archaeological and Architectural Documentation of the Craig-Ewalt

Farmstead and Craig Cemetery in the East Bend Area of Boone County, Kentucky

March 31, 2016

G R AY PA P E , I N C.&ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORY HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Prepared by:Gray & Pape, Inc.1318 Main Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Archaeological and Architectural

Documentation of the Craig-Ewalt Farmstead and Craig Cemetery in the East Bend Area of

Boone County, Kentucky

Prepared by:

Gray & Pape, Inc. 1318 Main Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 287-7700

Fax: (513) 287-7703

Authors: Brian Mabelitini, M.A., RPA

Morgan Wampler, M.A., RPA

____________________________ Brian Mabelitini, M.A., RPA

Principal Investigator March 31, 2016

ABSTRACT

In cooperation with the Boone County Public Library, the Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board, and the Rabbit Hash Historical Society, Gray & Pape, Inc. conducted an archaeological and architectural assessment of the Craig-Ewalt farmstead and cemetery in Boone County, Kentucky. These investigations were focused on documenting the log house prior to disassembly, identifying any intact subsurface archaeological deposits, and delineating the boundaries of the Craig Cemetery. The Craig-Ewalt farmstead is located on the south side of Beaver Road (KY 338), approximately 1.25 kilometers (0.78 miles) west of its intersection with Riddles Run Road, in the East Bend area of Boone County. This research was conducted as a “rescue archaeology” effort to document the site prior to removal of the log house and subsequent grading and contouring of the landscape. The log house (KHC Resource Be-315) associated with the Craig-Ewalt farmstead was disassembled in late April 2015, and moved to the farm of Butch and Mary Ann Wainscott in Petersburg, Kentucky. Although architectural elements suggest that the house was constructed during the mid-nineteenth century, artifacts found within the fill surrounding the foundation indicate that it was constructed adjacent to Beaver Road (Locus 1) during the late-nineteenth century. It appears that the log house was originally constructed approximately one-half mile to the south (Locus 2), shortly after William Ewalt acquired the property in 1844. Based on the results of this research, it is likely that the log house was moved from Locus 2 to Locus 1 sometime after publication of D. J. Lake’s (1883) Boone County Atlas. A Ground-Penetrating-Radar survey of the Craig Cemetery identified at least nine potential interments. This family cemetery appears to have been established in 1852, with the death of Capt. John Hawkins Craig, a veteran of the Revolutionary War. However, earlier graves may be present. Additional known burials include Franklin Craig and John P. Craig; both of whom are sons of Capt. John Hawkins Craig and Sallie Snelling Craig. Historical research indicates that Sallie Snelling Craig is also buried in this cemetery. Currently, the Craig Cemetery is in disrepair and nearly all grave markers have been moved, broken, or are missing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Gray & Pape would like to thank Bridget Striker at the Boone County Public Library, Matt Becher at the Boone County Planning Commission, and Don Clare at the Rabbit Hash Historical Society for their interest and assistance with this research. We are very grateful to Mr. George Budig for allowing us to conduct this research on his property, and to Mr. Dickey Boh and Mr. Terry Sawyer for sharing their knowledge of the area. We also extend our gratitude to Scott Clark, Kaitlin Barber, and Hillary Delaney for their invaluable assistance. Special thanks to Dr. George Crothers and the University of Kentucky for use of the Ground-Penetrating-Radar (GPR) device. The GPR survey of the Craig Cemetery was conducted by Donald Handshoe, who also provided mapping and GIS support. Thanks also to Carly Meyer, who created the cover graphics, and to Sarah E. Holland, Ph.D., who oversaw production of this report. All work for this research was carried out pro bono.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. v LIST OF PLATES ................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Historical Background .................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Previous Site Documentation ........................................................................................ 10

2.0 PROJECT METHODS ..................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Archaeological Field Methods ...................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Trench Excavation ................................................................................................. 11 2.1.2 Soil Coring ............................................................................................................. 11 2.1.3 Metal Detector Survey ........................................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Ground-Penetrating Radar ..................................................................................... 11

2.2 Laboratory Methods ...................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Historical Artifact Classification and Analysis ...................................................... 12

2.3 Curation ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.0 ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 17

3.1 Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-135) ............................................................... 17 3.2 Stock/Dairy Barn (Barn 1) ............................................................................................ 30 3.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 33

4.0 RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT .......................................... 35

4.1 Locus 1 .......................................................................................................................... 35 4.1.1 Architectural Group ............................................................................................... 39 4.1.2 Kitchen Group ........................................................................................................ 39 4.1.3 Personal Group ....................................................................................................... 42

4.2 Locus 2 .......................................................................................................................... 43 4.2.1 Architectural Group ............................................................................................... 43 4.2.2 Kitchen Group ........................................................................................................ 48 4.2.3 Clothing Group ...................................................................................................... 49 4.2.4 Personal Group ....................................................................................................... 50 4.2.5 Transportation Group ............................................................................................. 50

4.2.6 Unknown Group ..................................................................................................... 50 4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 51

5.0 CRAIG CEMETERY ........................................................................................................ 52

5.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 59 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 60 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX A: KENTUCKY GRAVE MARKER FORMS ................................................. 68

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. General Location of the Craig-Ewalt House Project in Boone County, Kentucky. .. 2

Figure 2. Plat of 20,440-Acre on the Ohio River Granted to John Hawkins Craig, September 6, 1785 (Virginia Grants, Survey No. 1954, Book 7:157-158). ................................................ 3

Figure 3. 1883 Boone County Atlas, showing the Carlton Precinct and Research Area (Lake 1883). ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 4. Detail of 1883 Boone County Atlas, showing the Research Area (Lake 1883). ....... 6

Figure 5. Plan View of Craig-Ewalt House, Locus 16, in Boone County, Kentucky............. 36

Figure 6. Plan View of Craig-Ewalt House, Locus 2, in Boone County, Kentucky............... 44

Figure 7. GPR Data Showing the Presence of Extensive Tree Roots in the Craig Cemetery. 57

Figure 8. GPR Data Showing the Location of Potential Extant Burials Within the Craig Cemetery. ................................................................................................................................ 58

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. The 1883 Flood “On the Ohio, Below Cincinnati” (Harper’s Weekly, 24 February 1883). ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Plate 2. The Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) ca. 1994, looking southwest (Warminski 1994). .................................................................................................................. 17

Plate 3. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be315), looking south. ................. 19

Plate 4. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking north. ............... 19

Plate 5. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking southeast. ......... 20

Plate 6. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking southwest. ........ 20

Plate 7. View of the interior of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking east.................................................................................................................................................. 21

Plate 8. View of the interior of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking west.................................................................................................................................................. 21

Plate 9. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking northeast. ......... 23

Plate 10. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking northwest. ...... 23

Plate 11. View of house and cellar foundations showing interlocking foundation stones. .... 24

Plate 12. Cut limestone stairway at the exterior entrance to the cellar. .................................. 25

Plate 13. View of the front entrance of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315). .... 26

Plate 14. Exterior view of central first floor window of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315). .................................................................................................................................. 27

Plate 15. Interior view of central first floor window of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315). .................................................................................................................................. 28

Plate 16. Coding tags on logs indicating previous disassembly. ............................................ 29

Plate 17. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking northwest. ..................................................................... 30

Plate 18. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking west. .............................................................................. 31

Plate 19. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking northeast........................................................................ 31

Plate 20. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking southeast. ...................................................................... 32

Plate 21. Interior od Stock/Dairy Barn, showing hewn timbers. ............................................ 32

Plate 23. View of Locus 1, showing the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking southwest................................................................................................................................. 37

Plate 24. View of Locus 1, showing ground disturbance in the rear yard, looking northeast. 37

Plate 25. View of old roadbed, looking southwest. ................................................................ 38

Plate 26. View of Trench 1, looking southeast. ...................................................................... 38

Plate 27. Selected artifacts recovered from Locus 1: (a) late machine-cut nail; (b) key opener; (c) blue edged whiteware; (d) tooled applied bottle lip; (e) and (f) salt glazed stoneware; (g) yellowware; (h) Albany slipped stoneware. ............................................................................ 40

Plate 28. Partial profile of rear ell cellar, looking southwest. ................................................. 41

Plate 29. 1879 cent recovered within the rear ell foundation. ................................................ 42

Plate 31. View of Locus 2, looking northeast toward Locus 1. .............................................. 45

Plate 32. Scott Clark and Morgan Wampler conducting a metal detector reconnaissance at Locus 2. ................................................................................................................................... 45

Plate 33. View of Locus 2, looking southwest toward the Ohio River. .................................. 46

Plate 34. View of the possible river landing, looking southeast. ............................................ 46

Plate 35. Selected artifacts recovered from Locus 2: (a) and (b) solarized amethyst glass; (c) milk glass lid liner; (d) stoneware pipe bowl; (e) unidentified brass; (f) harness ring; (g) late machine-cut nail; (h) and (i) salt glazed stoneware; (j) Rockingham glazed yellowware; (k) Albany glazed stoneware; (l) underglaze painted whiteware; (m) purple transferprint whiteware; (n) Bristol slipped stoneware; (o) through (q) porcelain Prosser buttons. ........... 48

Plate 36. Flat brass coat button (photo by Scott Clark). ......................................................... 50

Plate 37. View of the Craig Cemetery, looking east. .............................................................. 53

Plate 38. View of the Craig Cemetery, looking northeast. ..................................................... 53

Plate 39. Undated photograph of Oliver Hazard “Bob” Craig and second wife Mattie D. Wood (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=86748291&PIpi=56965938) . 55

Plate 40. Donald Handshoe conducting a GPR survey of the Craig Cemetery, while Kaitlin Barber documents grave markers. ........................................................................................... 56

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Selected Diagnostic Materials Collected from Locus 1............................................ 39

Table 2. Selected Diagnostic Materials Collected from Locus 2............................................ 47

Table 3. Window Glass Analysis* .......................................................................................... 47

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In cooperation with the Boone County Public Library, the Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board, and the Rabbit Hash Historical Society, Gray & Pape, Inc. (Gray & Pape), conducted an archaeological and architectural assessment of the Craig-Ewalt farmstead and cemetery in Boone County, Kentucky. These investigations were focused on documenting the log Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) prior to disassembly; identifying any intact subsurface archaeological deposits; and delineating the boundaries of the Craig Cemetery. Because the Craig-Ewalt farmstead is located on private property, this research was conducted with the consent and cooperation of the current landowner, Mr. George Budig.

1.1 Project Overview

The Craig-Ewalt farmstead is located on the south side of Beaver Road (KY 338), approximately 1.25 kilometers (km) (0.78 miles [mi.]) west of its intersection with Riddles Run Road, in the East Bend area of Boone County, Kentucky (Figure 1). This research was conducted as a “rescue archaeology” effort to document the site prior to removal of the log house and subsequent grading of the landscape. Field investigations were conducted from April 17-21, 2015. Only a small sample of diagnostic artifacts were collected and will be returned to Mr. Budig. The log house (KHC Resource Be-315) associated with the Craig-Ewalt farmstead was disassembled in late April 2015, and reconstructed on the farm of Butch and Mary Ann Wainscott in Petersburg, Kentucky.

1.2 Historical Background

Christopher Gist, John Finley, and Robert Smith were among the earliest Euro-American explorers of what is now Boone County, Kentucky. The first permanent settlement in the area was established in 1785, by a group of pioneers from Pennsylvania, and a blockhouse was constructed on approximately 40 acres of land owned by John Tanner at the current location of Petersburg (Yealey 1960; Kleber 1992). Kentucky remained a part of the State of Virginia until it was formally admitted to the Union on February 4, 1792. Prior to statehood, Kentucky County was formed in 1776 from a portion of Fincastle County, Virginia, and in 1780, was divided into three parts: Jefferson, Lincoln, and Fayette counties. What is now Boone County, Kentucky, continued as part of Fayette County, Virginia, until the formation of Bourbon County in 1785. In 1788, Bourbon and Fayette counties were further divided to form Mason and Woodford counties, and in 1792, a section of Woodford County was allocated for the formation of Scott County. Both Scott and Woodford counties were then divided to form Harrison County in 1793. During the following year, 1794, Campbell County was organized from segments of Harrison, Scott, and Mason counties. It wasn’t until December 13, 1798, that Boone County, Kentucky, the thirteenth county in order of formation, was created from a portion of Campbell County (Yealey 1960; Kleber 1992). The newly organized county was named in honor of frontiersman Daniel Boone, and in 1799, Burlington (originally known as Craig’s Camp) was established as the county seat on 74 acres of land donated by John Hawkins Craig and Robert Johnson (Kleber 1992).

3/31/2

5\Prop

Location of Project inBoone County, Kentucky

µLocus 1Locus 2

General Location of the Craig-Ewalt House Project

in Boone County, Kentucky

GRAY PAPE, INC.ARCHAEOLOGY - HISTORY - HISTORIC PRESERVATION

& 0 500 1,000250 Meters

0 1,500 3,000750 Feet

Locus 2

Locus 1

LEGEND

Cemetery

Kentucky entered the Union as a “state-land” state, meaning the state government appropriated all land within its borders. Several types of land grants were issued in Kentucky. Warrants authorizing land surveys were issued for military service (military warrants) or cash payments (treasury warrants). The earliest form of land warrant in what is now Kentucky was the Virginia Grants, which were issued from 1773 to 1792, to veterans of the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War. Many of the earliest landholders in the county, including John Hawkins Craig, received this type of grant. The current project area lies entirely within a 20,440-acre parcel granted to John Hawkins Craig on September 6, 1785 (Virginia Land Grants, Survey No. 1954, Book 7:157-158; Figure 2). In 1800, the population of the Boone County numbered approximately 1,500, which had doubled by 1810 and doubled again by 1820. By 1880, the population had grown to approximately 12,000 residents (Kleber 1992; Warminski 1996). While commerce and industry played a significant role in the county’s development, agriculture formed the basis of the county’s economy throughout much of its history (Warminski 1996). River trade supported the growth of the county, and steamboats began to ply the Ohio River in ever increasing numbers by the 1830s and 1840s (Kleber 1992). During this period, the communities of Petersburg, Belleview, McVille, and Hamilton became the commercial hubs of the county. However, the construction of rail lines during the late nineteenth century led to the decline of river traffic and diminished the economic importance of these towns (Warminski 1996).

Figure 2. Plat of 20,440-Acre on the Ohio River Granted to John Hawkins Craig, September 6, 1785

(Virginia Grants, Survey No. 1954, Book 7:157-158).

Historical Background of the Research Area

The land upon which the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) was built was originally part of the aforementioned 20,440-ac. tract granted to Capt. John Hawkins Craig on September 6, 1785 (Virginia Grants, Survey No. 1954, Book 7:157-158). Local folklore states that Samuel J. Ewalt and his wife, Polly (a freed African American slave), resided in the house on the property until flooding forced them to higher ground further east. The earliest map of the area that depicts structures and landowner information dates to 1883, and shows the property belonging to either Oliver H. Craig or Charles C. Craig; both of whom are sons of Franklin Volney Craig and great-grandsons of Capt. John Hawkins Craig (Figure 3 and 4) (Lake 1883). Capt. John Hawkins Craig was born in 1730, in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, and moved to Kentucky, along with his family, in 1781; where he was commander at Bryan Station during the August 15-17 siege by British-led Shawnee and Delaware (Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). In 1796, prior to the formation of Boone County, he represented Campbell County in the Kentucky Legislature, and was the first representative sent by Kentucky to the Virginia Assembly. John and his wife, Sallie Page Hawkins, had 10 children; including a son who was also named John Hawkins Craig (born March 14, 1763 [referred to in this report as John Hawkins Craig, II]). John Hawkins Craig, II, also served in the United States military during the American Revolution; joining in 1780 as Assistant Deputy Quartermaster General in Spotsylvania, Virginia, and later volunteering in Kentucky as a private from 1781-1783, under Capt. Robert Johnson and Gen. George Rogers Clark (Southern Campaign American Revolution Pension Statements & Rosters, Pension Application W6759). In August 1802, John Hawkins Craig sold 139-ac. of land “on the dividing ridge between Sand Lick Creek and Stony Creek” to his son, John Hawkins Craig, II (Boone County Public Library Deed Book A:168-170). However, this property appears to be located in the North Bend area. The elder John Hawkins Craig died on August 15, 1815, in Boone County, Kentucky, and was buried in the community of Francisville (Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). According to his will, probated in December 1815, Capt. Craig stipulated that his “real estate shall be the funds out of which all debts be paid” (Boone County Public Library Will Book A:243). He also bequeathed one shilling each to his sons: Elijah, Benjamin, Francis, and Phillip; and sons-in-law: Cave Johnson, John Cave, and John Bush. After all debts had been recompensed, Capt. Craig provided that “all land and tenements and hereditaments may be divided into seven equal parts and distributed” to: his wife Sallie Craig (one part); his son-in-law Thomas M. Prentiss (one part); and sons John Hawkins Craig, II, and Lewis Craig (balance of parts divided equally) (Boone County Public Library Will Book A:243). It is most likely that the land upon which the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) was built was passed to John Hawkins Craig, II, at this time. John Hawkins Craig, II was born on March 14, 1763, in Spotsylvania, Virginia, and moved with his family to Kentucky in 1781 (Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). He married Sallie Snelling (born 1764; died 1856) on March 17, 1802, in Woodford County, Kentucky. John and Sallie Snelling Craig had one daughter: Delish Delilah Craig (born ca. 1800; died unknown); and three sons: Franklin Volney Craig (born ca. 1802 or 1808; died 1871); John P. Craig (born 1806; died 1868); and William Craig (born 1808; died unknown). The 1810 U.S. Census indicates that John Hawkins Craig, II, resided in Boone County,

Figure 3. 1883 Boone County Atlas, showing the Carlton Precinct and Research Area (Lake 1883).

Figure 4. Detail of 1883 Boone County Atlas, showing the Research Area (Lake 1883).

Kentucky, and his household consisted of seven persons, including: John, Sallie, their three sons, and two slaves. By 1820, the Craig household consisted of six persons. He no longer owned slaves, and it appears that his youngest son, William, likely died during early childhood as no person matching his age is listed in the census record. In 1840, the Craig household consisted of five persons, and by 1850, included; John H. Craig, II; his wife Sallie (Sally) Craig; their daughter Delilah (Craig) Maybury; and an unidentified Franklin Craig (U.S. Census Bureau 1810, 1820, 1840, 1850). However, the Franklin Craig residing in the John H. Craig, II, household in 1850 does not appear to be their son, Franklin Volney Craig. In 1850, Franklin Volney Craig and his wife, Elvira Ann Anderson Craig (born 1818) resided in District 1, Boone County, Kentucky, with their six children (U.S. Census Bureau 1850). Although John Hawkins Craig, II, owned the land upon which the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) was built, census records indicate that he resided in the community of Burlington. Therefore, it is unlikely that he settled on the tract and/or constructed the house documented as KHC Resource Be-315.

John Hawkins Craig, II, died on April 8, 1852, in Boone County, Kentucky, and was buried in the small family cemetery located in the northeastern corner of the current research area, just south of Beaver Road (KY 338). The property that is the focus of this research changed ownership several times, and appears to have been acquired by William Ewalt, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from Phillip Bush, of Covington, Kentucky, in 1844 (Boone County Public

Library Deed Book O:248-249). William Ewalt moved to Boone County, Kentucky, shortly after purchasing this land, and it is likely that the house listed as KHC Resource Be-315 was built around this time. Phillip Bush was the son of John Bush and Sarah “Sally” Craig. Sally Craig was a daughter of Capt. John Hawkins Craig and the younger sister of Capt. John Hawkins Craig, II (Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). Although it isn’t exactly clear when Phillip Bush acquired the property, he may have gotten it from his father, John Bush, or one of his brothers. Deed records indicate that Philip Bush and his brothers were engaged in a lot of purchasing, dividing, and trading of property in Boone County during the early/mid-nineteenth century. The elder John Hawkins Craig was their grandfather, so the property in question likely came to them through family; some through deeds and others through wills (Hillary Delaney, pers. comm. 2016). William Ewalt continued to expand his land holdings in Boone County between 1848 and 1859 (Boone County Public Library Deed Book Q:78; Deed Book S:79, 126, 325; Deed Book U:566). William died intestate in 1860, and in October of that year his son, Samuel J. Ewalt, was named executor of his estate (Boone County Public Library Deed Book 21:467-470). On March 10, 1861, William’s sons, Henry, Richard, and Samuel J., jointly inherited “the homestead farm on which [William] resided at the time of his death […] on which Henry and Samuel now reside, situated on the Ohio River in Boone County, Kentucky, consisting of about 240 acres at $45 per acre and also the following slaves: Julia and her children, Polly, Jennie, David, Martha, Mary, Eliza, Shadrach, John, and George” (Boone County Public Library Deed Book 21:467). The homestead mentioned in the will of William Ewalt appears to be the house listed as KHC Resource Be-315. Samuel J. Ewalt appears to have remained in the house until at least 1863, when he and his brothers sold the property to Henry Goss and Charles Geiser (Boone County Public Library Deed Book 22:383-384). In June/July of 1863, Samuel J. Ewalt registered for the draft in Boone County, Kentucky; however, it is not clear if he actually served in the United States military during the American Civil War (U.S. Civil War Draft Registration Records 1863-1865). By 1870, Samuel J. Ewalt was no longer living on his father’s old homestead, and had entered into a domestic partnership with William’s former slave, Polly, who was mentioned his will. According to the 1870 U.S. Census, Samuel J. and Polly Ewalt had parented three children, ranging in age from 8 ½ months to 5 years (U.S. Census Bureau 1870). Samuel J. Ewalt last appears in the census records in 1900, and is listed as head of the household, while Polly and their seven children are listed as boarders. Interestingly, Polly’s occupation is given as “servant” (U.S. Census Bureau 1900). According to U.S. Census records, Samuel and Polly never officially married, but continued to reside, together with their children, in the community of Big Bone until Samuel’s death sometime after 1900, and Polly’s death in 1922 (Boone County Public Library Ewalt Family File). The property purchased by Henry Goss and Charles Geiser from Samuel J. Ewalt and his brothers in October 1863, was later sold to Oliver H. Craig (a grandson of John Hawkins Craig, II) by Henry Goss’ widow, Annie E. Goss, on November 26, 1878 (Boone County Public Library Deed Book 22:383-384; Deed Book 30:607-608). On October 17, 1879, Oliver H. Craig sold the tract to his younger brother, Charles Clifford Craig, who is depicted as residing there on the 1883 atlas (Boone County Public Library Deed Book 22:606; Lake 1883).

According to the 1883 atlas, Charles Craig resided in a house at the southern end of the property near the Ohio River, while Oliver’s residence was on the neighboring property to the east (Figures 3 and 4). A small family cemetery is also depicted at the northern end of the parcel near the road. However, most of the original grave markers are either displaced, broken, or missing. The remaining inscribed grave markers indicate that John Hawkins Craig, II, and his sons Franklin V. Craig and John P. Craig are interred here. Previous documentation suggests that Sallie Snelling Craig is also buried in this cemetery; however, her grave marker has since been removed (Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board 1988). Franklin V. Craig was Oliver H. and Charles C. Craig’s father. The house depicted as the residence of Charles C. Craig on the 1883 Boone County Atlas appears to be the homestead constructed by William Ewalt in ca. 1844. Following William’s death in 1860, it was likely occupied by Samuel J. and Polly Ewalt until 1863, when the property was sold to Henry Goss and Charles Geiser. Neither Goss nor Geiser appear to have resided on the property, and it is possible that it either sat vacant or was occupied by renters during their brief ownership. In 1878, the tract returned to the Craig family, when Oliver H. Craig purchased it from Henry Goss’ widow. The following year, 1879, Oliver sold the property to his younger brother Charles C. Craig. Although it is unclear how long Charles Craig resided in the house, he died on November 25, 1929, in Boone County, Kentucky, and is buried nearby with his wife, Sarah Elizabeth Ryle Craig (born 1860, died 1894), at East Bend Methodist Church Cemetery in Rabbit Hash. It appears that sometime after 1883, the house was most likely dismantled and moved approximately 2,674 ft. (0.53 mi.) northeast to the location on the south side of Beaver Road, (KY 338), where it sat until April 2015. The impetus for moving the structure was likely two major flooding episodes during the 1880s. Before the flood of 1937, the most devastating flood to strike the Northern Kentucky region took place in 1884, when the Ohio River reached 71.1 ft. at Cincinnati, 26.1 ft. above flood stage. The worst recorded flood before 1884 was in 1883, when the river rose to 66.3 ft. (Plate 1) (Tenkotte and Claypool 2009:345).

Plate 1. The 1883 Flood “On the Ohio, Below Cincinnati” (Harper’s Weekly, 24 February 1883).

1.3 Previous Site Documentation

In 1986, the Craig Cemetery was recorded by Dr. Carl Bogardus, Sue M. Bogardus, and Kathy Salyers. The cemetery was added to the Boone County Family Cemetery Register in 1988 (Bogardus et al. 1988; Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board 1988). In total, four individual interments were recorded; consisting of John Hawkins Craig (born 1763, died 1852), his wife Sally (née Snelling) Craig (born 1767, died 1859), and two of their children, Franklin Craig (died 1871) and John P. Craig (died 1868). Although the survey form indicates that neither Franklin nor John P. were children of John Hawkins and Sally Craig, further genealogical research revealed that both were their sons. When the cemetery was initially documented, Bogardus et al. (1988) noted that the headstone marking Sally Craig’s grave had been removed, but was later returned. However, no headstone associated with Sally Craig was located during the present research. In total, grave markers associated with five interments were documented during the current project, and at least nine potential interments were identified. The dwelling associated with the Craig-Ewalt farmstead was initially inventoried as an architectural resource, KHC Resource Be-315, in 1994 by Margo Warminski (1994, 1996). At the time of Warminski’s survey, the exterior of the dwelling was covered with vinyl siding and the frame of structure could not be assessed. The Craig-Ewalt House was one of the earliest extant examples of a side-passage house in Boone County. Although the construction date was not known, the proportions suggest it was constructed during the 1840s or 1850s (Warminski 1994). Side-passage homes were one of the most common plan types in Boone County during the second and third quarters of the nineteenth century. Warminski (1994) noted that the long slope of the rear ell’s roof gave the house a saltbox-like appearance; however, due to the presence of the vinyl siding it was not possible to determine if the ell was integral to the house or was added later. The window treatments featured a nearly square sash with small panes arranged in a 6/6 configuration. With the exception of the application of vinyl siding and soffits, the Craig-Ewalt House had experienced few structural alterations (Warminski 1994). In addition to the main dwelling, Warminski (1994) also documented a number of associated outbuildings; including a dairy barn, a tobacco barn, two sheds, a milk house, and a corncrib. With the exception of the dairy barn, all of these buildings were constructed during the twentieth century. Although the dairy barn exhibits a frame constructed from hewn timbers fastened with late machine-cut nails, which indicate it was constructed during the mid- to late-nineteenth century, it has experienced significant structural alterations during the twentieth century. At the time of the present research, all of these outbuildings except the dairy barn and tobacco barn have been demolished.

2.0 PROJECT METHODS

2.1 Archaeological Field Methods

The field methods were employed during the archaeological evaluation consisted of limited trench excavation, soil coring, metal detection, and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey.

2.1.1 Trench Excavation

One exploratory trench measuring 50 cm (1.6 ft.) wide by 1-m (3.3 ft.) long was excavated along the exterior foundation wall at the western side of the house in an attempt to locate evidence of a builder’s trench. Analysis of diagnostic artifacts recovered from a builder’s trench could provide a terminus post quem (or date after which) for the construction of the log house. This trench was excavated to subsoil (approximately 45 cm [1.5 ft.] below surface), and no evidence of a builder’s trench was present.

2.1.2 Soil Coring

A series of auger tests were excavated at 5 m (16.4 ft.) intervals across the landform in the rear of the house at Locus 1 in an attempt to identify potential shaft features, such as privies, wells, etc. Auger probes measured 10 cm (3.9 in.) in diameter and were excavated to sterile subsoil. No evidence of shaft features was present in any of the excavated auger tests. This portion of the site has been heavily impacted by prior earth-moving activities. According to the previous landowner and current farm manager, Dickie Boh, a significant portion of the yard was bulldozed to fill-in a pond and level the area (Dickie Boh, pers. comm. 2015). Additionally, the installation of septic tanks, construction and demolition of various outbuildings, and ground contouring have disturbed the remaining portion of the back and side yards.

2.1.3 Metal Detector Survey

A metal detector survey was conducted within the front, rear, and side yards of the log house (KHC Resource Be-315) near Beaver Road (Locus 1), as well as at the southern end of the property where the 1883 Lake atlas depicts the residence of Charles Craig (Locus 2). Mr. Boh also reported encountering foundation stones and historical artifacts in this area. Metal detection has proven to be a reliable and efficient method to identify and define historic-period domestic archaeological sites (Connor and Scott 1998; Joseph et al. 2004; Wettstead 2012). The goal of the metal detector survey was to determine the date range of the domestic occupation at each locus, and to define their boundaries. The metal detector survey was conducted using a Minelab E-Trac and an XP Deus devices. Metal detection at each locus was conducted along linear transects spaced at 5-m (16.4 ft.) intervals. Each “hit” was flagged and excavated, and the boundaries of each locus was mapped using a handheld GPS unit.

2.1.4 Ground-Penetrating Radar

GPR was conducted at the Craig Cemetery in order to identify potential burial shafts and fully delineate its boundaries. GPR is an efficient and non-destructive technique for detecting subsurface archaeological features (Clark 1996; Conyers 2004; Smekalova et al. 2005). GPR

utilizes radar waves to measure the differential reflective properties of subsurface soil strata (Conyers and Goodman 1997). Radar waves (a type of electromagnetic radiation) are transmitted into the ground and reflect off buried discontinuities (e.g., rocks, architecture, shafts, and pits). Measuring the rate of reflection allows a GPR user to search for anomalies within the area of interest (Conyers 2004). The instrument used to conduct the GPR survey was a RAMAC GPR CU II Geo-System equipped with a 500 MHz shielded antenna. This instrument is capable of discriminating softball-sized objects (~0.04 meter) and has an optimal depth penetration of approximately 1 to 5-m (3.3 to 16.4 ft.) below the ground surface and a maximum penetration depth of approximately 3 to 10 m (9.8 to 32.8 ft.) below surface. The CU II unit has a pulse repetition frequency of 100 kHz and the 500 MHz antenna emits broadband pulses for at least 500 MHz (250 MHz – 750 MHz). GPR technology is well suited for the detection of historical deposits and the archaeologist employed for this phase of the survey has more than eight years of practical technical experience and great familiarity with the methods and techniques of geophysical archaeological survey. A grid measuring 15 by 15 m (49.2 by 49.2 ft.) was established around the cluster of trees and displaced grave markers. GPR data was collected along transects spaced at 50-cm (19.7-in.) intervals on either the X or Y axis (depending on each grid’s orientation) using a 500 MHz antenna. Once the data collection was complete, all survey data was downloaded into GPR-Slice software where it was standardized, refined, amplified, filtered, and manipulated (sliced) to produce a series of multiple-depth maps of each surveyed area. The depth, size, shape, and spatial distribution of the higher-amplitude reflections were analyzed for likelihood of being potential grave shafts. A handheld global positioning systems (GPS) unit was used to accurately record the locations of the investigations and their results. Subsurface anomalies identified during the GPR survey were georeferenced to historical mapping of the area using ArcGIS® global information systems (GIS) software. 2.2 Laboratory Methods

2.2.1 Historical Artifact Classification and Analysis

Only a small representative sample of diagnostic artifacts was collected. Historical artifacts were sorted into major materials categories; consisting of glass, metal, and ceramic. These items were then cataloged according to the system of artifact-function association modified from South (1977). All historical materials were assigned to functional groups (e.g., kitchen, architectural, etc.); then to a form (e.g., refined ceramic, coarse ceramic, nail, container glass, etc.); then to a type (e.g., whiteware, stoneware, late machine-cut nail, etc.); and then to an element (e.g., base of a bottle, rim of a plate, etc.). Container glass was further categorized by color and method of manufacture. Ceramics were further classified by decoration (e.g., transferprint, molded, salt glazed, undecorated, etc.). In total, five functional groups are present in the current assemblage, including: Architectural, Kitchen, Clothing, Personal, Transportation, and Unknown.

2.2.1.1 Architectural Group

Artifacts in this category are materials commonly used in the construction and enhancement of buildings and structures. Nails: Hand-wrought nails are the earliest form of nails and were manufactured by hand (Nelson 1968). Wrought nails taper on all four sides to a point and have irregularly shaped heads. Generally, hand-wrought nails date prior to 1830 (Nelson 1968). Machine-cut nails are square nails cut from a sheet of metal that taper on two sides rather than on all four sides like hand-wrought nails. The earliest machine-cut nails were headed by hand and exhibit a pinch below the head, as well as irregularly shaped heads. Early machine-cut nails were manufactured between the late 1700s and the late 1830s (Smith 1975; Cleland 1983:61). Late machine-cut nails were completely manufactured by machine, and lack the pinching and irregular heads of the early machine-cut nails. Late machine-cut nails were largely manufactured from the late 1830s until about 1900, and are still used in masonry construction. Galvanized roofing nails were introduced in 1901 (Fontana 1965). Window Glass: At the turn of the nineteenth century, flat (window) glass was produced by one of three methods: crown, cylinder, or casting (Deiss 1981). The crown technique involved spinning a blob of glass attached to the end of a metal rod (or pontil). The flat glass was allowed to cool and was then cut into the desired shape for window panes. Crown glass manufacture generally dates prior to about 1820 (Deiss 1981). The cylinder method of flat glass production was used from about 1820 to 1920. A blob of hot glass was formed into a cylinder by swinging the glass, which was then cut along its long axis and reheated, forming a flat piece of glass (Deiss 1981). Straight distortion lines are characteristic of the cylinder method. Pane glass refers to flat glass typically less than 3 mm thick produced by the crown or cylinder methods. The production of flat glass by casting, resulting in a plate of glass, was achieved by rolling out the hot glass on a flat surface of sand, after which the flat glass was ground or polished. Typically, plate glass measures over 3 mm thick. The 1903 invention of the cylinder glass machine made flat window glass more affordable (Deiss 1981:85). This machine was superseded by the continuous sheet process in 1917 (Deiss 1981:85). The coloration and thickness of window glass can be temporally informative, but a large sample is needed to produce an accurate date (Ball 1982; Moir 1987). Other artifact classes represented in the current assemblage that are assigned to the Architectural group consists of window came and door handle fragments.

2.2.1.2 Kitchen Group

The artifacts in this category consist of those that functioned in activities related to the preparation, service, or consumption of foods and liquids. This group includes both glass containers and vessels, as well as ceramic containers and vessels. Almost all ceramic artifacts recovered from historical sites in the region can be classified as earthenwares. Generally, earthenwares are characterized by a clay body that is not totally vitrified in firing. Most earthenwares are porous and require a glaze, typically a lead-based

glaze, to become impermeable to moisture. Many commonly available clays can be utilized to produce earthenwares, but earthenware bodies can be white, red, buff, or gray depending on the iron content of the clay and its source (Miller 1980, 1991). Major categories of earthenwares consist of refined or coarse ceramics, depending mainly on the graininess and porosity of the paste, thickness of the vessel, and the firing temperature. Refined Earthenware: Creamware, pearlware, whiteware, ironstone, and porcelain are subclasses of refined earthenwares. White-bodied, refined earthenwares constitute the most common category of ceramics recovered from historical sites occupied during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Creamware is a non-vitreous white-paste earthenware that has a cream-colored glaze. Creamware initially was produced in England ca. 1762, and first exported to the United States in 1769 (Noël-Hume 1968:125). No examples of creamware were recovered during the present research Pearlware is a non-vitreous and semi-vitreous, white-paste earthenware that has a light blue-green tint created by the addition of cobalt to a clear lead glaze. Pearlware was initially developed in England ca. 1780 and had become the most common tableware in the United States by ca. 1810. Although pearlware may have been manufactured until the mid-1800s, its popularity had declined by 1840 (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:118–119; Noël-Hume 1968; Price 1982:10–11). Pearlware was usually decorated in some way, and undecorated sherds are most likely undecorated fragments of a decorated vessel. Decorative treatments on pearlware typically include hand-painting, mocha, cables, transferprinting, annular, and shell-edged. Pearlware remained popular throughout the early 1800s, but it was quickly supplanted by whiteware by the 1830s (Samford 1997). Whiteware is a non-vitreous and semi-vitreous, white-paste earthenware usually having a clear, colorless glaze. Whitewares were first manufactured in England ca. 1805, but they did not become common in America until after 1820 (des Fontaines 1990:4). Whiteware remained common throughout the 1800s, reaching its greatest popularity in the decades from 1830 through 1890 (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:119–125; Miller 1980:16–17; Noël-Hume 1968; Price 1982). Whiteware occurs in virtually every decorative type that was available during the nineteenth century. Ironstone refers to a semi-vitreous white-paste ware that contains china stone (petuntse). Charles Mason began producing “Mason’s Ironstone China” in England in 1813. Mason claimed his ware contained iron slag. English ironstone began appearing on American sites during the 1840s, and remained in production from 1842 to 1930 (Miller 1991:10). After 1850, ironstone was predominantly undecorated, or was decorated with molded geometric, floral, or foliate motifs. American manufacturers began producing refined, white-paste wares, including ironstone, during the Civil War. Two varieties of ironstone from the mid- to late-nineteenth century are now recognized: blue-bodied and white-bodied. Blue-bodied ironstone was manufactured by British, and perhaps by American firms. White-bodied ironstone was manufactured by both British and American, firms, but primarily by British firms.

Examples of porcelain recovered during the present research consist of hard-paste porcelain. Hard-paste porcelain is made from kaolin (china clay) and petuntse (china stone), which are clays formed from decomposing granite. These clays, when fired, fuse and become highly vitrified, have glass-like qualities, and are impervious to water. After firing, the glaze on hard-paste porcelain fuses tightly to the clay body creating a durable, smooth and easily cleanable surface. Coarse Earthenwares: Coarse earthenwares recovered during the present survey consist of redwares and stonewares. Both of these ceramic types are common on nineteenth century historical sites in the region, with stoneware occurring into the twentieth century. Redwares are non-vitreous wares with red, buff, or brown paste. Although redwares can occur unglazed (such as flower pots), the vessels may have a clear or mottled lead glaze, or a black or brown glaze resulting from iron additions to the lead. Redware was manufactured in Kentucky during the early 1800s, and continued to be commonly used until about the mid-1800s (Andrews and Sandefur 2002). Stonewares are semi-vitreous wares that are usually glazed, and were produced in a wide variety of thick, utilitarian forms. Stoneware paste ranges in color from red to buff to brown, and can turn gray during firing. Stoneware is primarily categorized by exterior surface treatment, with the most common category being salt glazed. Stonewares were manufactured in Europe by the seventeenth century, in England by the eighteenth century, and were in abundance in the United States (including Kentucky) by the mid-nineteenth century. Stoneware effectively replaced redware as the utilitarian vessel type of choice. Consequently, the proportion of redware as compared to stoneware may be useful as a general temporal indicator (Andrews and Sandefur 2002). Although American salt glazed stoneware generally dates from 1705 to 1930 (Mountford 1971; Ketchum 1991:86), due to the abundance of domestic stoneware manufacturers and the difficulty in attributing vessels to a particular potter, stoneware is considered a poor chronological indicator on nineteenth century sites. However, two common slips used as glazes, Bristol and Albany, are useful for dating purposes. Albany slip ranges in color from light brown to black, and was ubiquitous in the Midwest from 1830 to 1900 (Phillippe 1990:80). Generally, Albany slipped stoneware dates from 1805 to 1920 (Ramsay 1939:21-22, 59). Bristol slipped stoneware is a white glaze that was frequently used in combination with Albany slip until about 1920. Although originally developed in Bristol, England, potters from Ohio introduced a form of this glaze into the United States at the New Orleans Exposition of 1884. Bristol slips generally date from 1835 to the present day (Oswald et al. 1982:19). However, after 1920, Bristol slips generally occurred alone (Lebo 1987:132). Yellowwares are semi-vitreous or non-vitreous wares of yellow- or cream-colored paste, which usually have a clear or mottled (Rockingham) lead glaze. The Ohio River Valley is well known for its yellowware potteries (Gates and Omerod 1982). Yellowware vessels include utilitarian forms similar to stonewares and redwares, as well as specialty items such as inkwells, footwarmers, etc. Yellowwares were popular from about 1830 until the 1920s (Herskovitz 1978:97).

2.2.1.3 Clothing Group

This functional category includes articles designed to be worn as either functional or decorative attire, including clothes and footwear; and component parts of apparel such as shoe grommets, buttons, and buckles.

2.2.1.4 Personal Group

This functional group consists of various items generally held or used by a single person, as well as various items associated with personal hygiene or health.

2.2.1.5 Transportation Group

This functional group contains items, and their component parts, associated with the conveyance of people and/or goods, including wagon and automobile parts, horse tack, horseshoes, railroad spikes, etc.

2.2.1.6 Unknown Group

The Unknown group consists of items that could not be clearly identified as to function, or were simply unidentifiable (e.g., corroded metal artifacts).

2.3 Curation

All materials associated with this research, along with a copy of this report, will be conveyed to the Boone County Public Library in Burlington, Kentucky. All artifacts removed from the site will be returned to Mr. George Budig. Materials that were collected but were not removed from the property for further analysis were conveyed to Mr. Dickie Boh at the conclusion of field investigations. The 1879 cent found within the cellar foundation was retained by Mr. Terry Sawyer.

3.0 ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS

The Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) was originally documented in 1994, by Margo Warminski as part of a comprehensive architectural survey of Boone County (Warminski 1996). Warminski recorded the house, along with several outbuildings and the Craig Cemetery. In 1994, the farmstead included six outbuildings; consisting of a mid- to late-twentieth century wood frame tobacco barn, two mid-twentieth century wood frame sheds, a mid-twentieth century concrete-block milk house, an early-twentieth century vertical board corn crib, and an altered early-twentieth century timber frame stock/dairy barn (Warminski 1994). At the time of the current research, only the stock/dairy barn (Barn 1) and tobacco barn (Barn 2) were extant, and the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) was in the process of being dismantled and moved. Because the tobacco barn (Barn 2) is of relatively recent construction, the following architectural analysis focuses only on the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) and associated stock/dairy barn (Barn 1).

3.1 Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-135)

According to Warminski, the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) was built on a side-passage plan and features elements of the Greek Revival style with long saltbox rear ell (Plate 2). At the time of Warminski’s survey (1994), the log structure was covered with vinyl siding,

Plate 2. The Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) ca. 1994, looking southwest (Warminski 1994).

which prohibited a comprehensive architectural evaluation. The side-passage was one of the most common plan types in Boone County during the second and third quarters of the nineteenth century, and the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) is one of the earliest examples of this type remaining in the county (Warminski 1994). Although Warminski (1994) could not determine its exact date of construction, its proportions suggest that it was built sometime during the 1840s or 1850s. The long slope of the rear ell’s roof lends the house a saltbox-like appearance; however, with the vinyl siding in place it was not possible to determine whether or not the ell was integral to the house or was a later addition (Warminski 1994, 1996).

During the current research, the vinyl siding and soffits had been removed, exposing the timber frame of the structure. The Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) had been constructed of hand-hewn horizontal timbers stacked 11 courses tall. The house is two stories, which is rare in the region (Warminski 1996; McAlester and McAlester 2004). The timbers had been hewn on all four sides, and were joined at the corners with a square notch (Plates 3 through 6). Square notching is also rare in Boone County, and the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) is the only documented example in the county. Previously, only two types of notching had been observed in the Boone County: V-notching and half-dovetail notching, with the V-notch being the most common (Warminski 1996:10). The house also exhibited half- and full-lapped corners, which was a common construction method during the mid-nineteenth century (Montell and Morse 1976; Noble 1984; Hutslar 1992:100, 201).

A brick chimney was originally present on the west gable wall, but had been removed sometime prior to installation of the vinyl siding. A small window was located next to the chimney stack. Although the fireplace was constructed of brick, it is not known whether the chimney was manufactured from brick or stone. With any type of log construction, the spaces between the logs were usually filled with chinking of some sort; most often a combination of wood billets or stone wedged between the logs and covered with a mud and/or mortar mixture – often with an inclusion of straw and lime mortar (Birbeck 1818:30; Mansberger 2009:91). The spaces between the logs at the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) were likely originally filled with limestone chinking; however, intact, limestone chinking stones were only found in the lower four courses at the eastern gable end of the house. These stones were wedged diagonally into the spaces between the logs, possibly to provide backing for mud or mortar.

The Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) is of three-bay, single-pen construction, and exhibits a linear rectangular plan. Single-pen log dwellings with a rectangular form are common in Kentucky; and nearly all of the documented examples in Boone County are rectangular (Warminski 1996:9). According to Warminski (1996:9), the most common manifestation of the single-pen log house in Boone County is the hall-parlor, and the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) is no exception. The Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) consisted of a single-pen that was divided by a board wall, with a hall on

Plate 3. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be315), looking south.

Plate 4. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking north.

Plate 5. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking southeast.

Plate 6. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking southwest.

Plate 7. View of the interior of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking east.

Plate 8. View of the interior of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking west.

the eastern side of the first floor beside the staircase and a parlor room on the western end (Plates 7and 8). The roof had been replaced during the late twentieth century, and consisted of particle board covered with asphalt roofing shingles. The exterior of the house was originally covered with clapboard weatherboarding that was fastened with late machine-cut nails. Late machine-cut nails were in common use from ca. 1840 to roughly 1900 (Nelson 1968). The rear ell was not integral to house, and was of frame construction rather than hand-hewn logs (Plates 9 and 10). However, its foundation was interlocked, or “toothed-in,” with the house foundation, which suggests that both structures were built at the same time (Plate 11). Because the rear ell had already been dismantled before archaeologists could visit the site, it isn’t clear whether it was of post-and-girt, braced-frame, balloon-frame, or platform-frame construction. Based on the remaining elements of the frame, it was most likely a balloon-frame structure.

The balloon-frame system was developed during the 1830s, and had become the dominant method of frame construction by the time of the American Civil War. This system eliminated the tedious hewn joints and massive timbers of braced-frame and post-and-girt construction, as balloon-frame houses are supported entirely by closely spaced two-inch boards of varying widths joined only by nails. The frame of the rear ell was fastened with late machine-cut nails, which are consistent with a mid- to late-nineteenth century construction date. Corner posts and principal horizontal members of balloon-frame structures were made of two or more two-inch boards nailed together. As in braced-frame houses, the principal supporting members are the closely spaced two-by-four or two-by-six vertical studs of both the exterior and key interior walls. This system allowed both cheaper and more rapid construction by eliminating the need for skilled hand-hewing of the principal wall timbers. With slight modification it remains the dominant method of American house construction today (McAlester and McAlester 2004:37-38). Although the sill was manufactured from hand-hewn timbers, it also was not integral to the sill of the log pen. These logs were smaller, and did not contain coding tags like those found on the structural elements of log pen (Plate 16).

Construction of the ell resulted in a rearward continuation of the main roof slope, which gave it a saltbox shape. This shape is most common in two-story houses, and limits the rearward extension to the relatively shallow depth covered by the downward projection of the steeply pitched roof line. It also truncates the rearward extension at the second-floor level, which could be used only for storage rather than as living space. Although roof construction of this type was most common from about 1700-1750, it persisted throughout the nineteenth century in rural and folk construction (McAlester and McAlester 2004:28-29).

The ell was accessed from a doorway through the hall end of the house, as well as through an exterior doorway at the eastern side of the house. A large cellar extended across the length of the rear ell, which could be accessed by an exterior stairway that was constructed of large cut limestone blocks (Plate 12). A backfilled cistern manufactured from handmade brick, with a concrete cap, was located just to the east of the rear ell.

Plate 9. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking northeast.

Plate 10. View of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking northwest.

Plate 11. View of house and cellar foundations showing interlocking foundation stones.

Plate 12. Cut limestone stairway at the exterior entrance to the cellar.

The front entrance of the house consisted of a recessed doorway that was framed by four-pane sidelights (Plate 13). The door frame was fastened with late machine-cut nails and appears to be original to the house. The window treatments across the façade consisted of a nearly square sash that featured small panes arranged in a 6/6 configuration. Although the house had been little altered on the exterior apart from the application of vinyl siding and soffits, the construction of the central bay window on the first floor suggests that it may have originally been of central-passage construction. The bottom two courses of timbers beneath the window had been patched, suggesting an earlier, central-passage, doorway (Plates 14 and 15). Further, as previously mentioned, all of the logs of the main pen of the house exhibited coding tags carved into the wood (Plate 16). This suggests that the house has been disassembled and moved in the past. Although the architectural elements indicate a mid-nineteenth century construction date, no building is depicted at the location of the of the house on the 1883 Boone County Atlas (Lake 1883). However, the residence of Charles C. Craig (associated with the site identified as Locus 2) is shown on the tract, approximately one-half mile to the southwest (Figure 4).

Plate 13. View of the front entrance of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315).

Plate 14. Exterior view of central first floor window of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315).

Plate 15. Interior view of central first floor window of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315).

Plate 16. Coding tags on logs indicating previous disassembly.

3.2 Stock/Dairy Barn (Barn 1)

The stock/dairy barn is a three-portal barn with a lean-to addition on the southern side (Plates 17 through 20). It exhibits a nineteenth century hand-hewn sill; however, everything above the sill has been rebuilt/replaced during the twentieth century (Plate 21). The 1883 Boone County Atlas depicts a structure at this location (Figures 3 and 4). Three portal barns are common throughout the Midwest, and have three aisles that extend through the barn, parallel to the roof ridge. Large hay hoods are typical features of the three-portal barns which are used for hay storage and for feeding livestock (Halstead 1881; Noble 1986).

Plate 17. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking northwest.

Plate 18. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking west.

Plate 19. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking northeast.

Plate 20. Stock/Dairy Barn, looking southeast.

Plate 21. Interior od Stock/Dairy Barn, showing hewn timbers.

3.3 Discussion

Log construction was not a typical building technique employed by the majority of early American settlers who arrived in the New World (Mercer 1924; Shurtleff 1939; Mansberger 2009). Scholarly literature provides a range of theories regarding the development of American log architecture. The more popular theories are that horizontal log construction was first introduced by either Swedish or German immigrants settling in the Mid-Atlantic region of the country. By the eighteenth century, horizontal log construction was being transplanted by American pioneers (many of Scots-Irish descent) along the Allegheny and Appalachian frontiers and eventually into the trans-Appalachian west (Mansberger 2009).

Horizontal log construction was a simple technology that required few tools (basically an ax, hand saw and auger supplemented with an adze and froe, if available), and was well adapted to the forested environment where all necessary building materials were readily available. This method of construction quickly became the ideal building technique for the young frontier community. With the increased availability of sawn lumber and industrially manufactured products (such as window glass and hardware), log houses became considerably more sophisticated. Not only was horizontal log construction well suited for the initial housing of the first settlers, but it also was well adapted for more permanent housing (Mansberger 2009).

Throughout the nineteenth century, and even into early twentieth century, log construction persisted in timber rich environments (Elbert and Sculle 1982; Hutslar 1992:13). During the nineteenth century there existed a distinction between log “cabins” and log “houses” (Harris 1805; Woods 1904; Hutslar 1992). A log “cabin” generally referred to a structure with unhewn round logs, a crude bark or clapboard covered roof, either a simple smoke hole or large, crude “stick and cat” chimney, dirt floors, and windows with no glass panes (often covered with stretched parchment) (McCorvie 1991:320; Hustlar 1972:214; Mansberger 2009:95).

In contrast, a log “house” generally referred to a hewn log structure with a shingle roof, brick or stone chimney, glassed windows (usually consisting of double hung sash), weatherboard siding, a wooden floor, and often with finished (plastered and/or whitewashed) interior walls. As late as the 1840s, the landscape of the Midwest was dotted with a variety of primitive log cabins as well as more substantial houses. The Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) would be classified as a log “house” rather than a log “cabin.”

The more formal log houses were often embellished with the stylistic elements currently in popular fashion at the time of construction, which is seen in the mid-nineteenth century Greek Revival elements of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315). Although the rear ell is a balloon-frame addition to the original two-story log pen, it was added contemporaneously with the construction of the house at the location south of Beaver Road (Locus 1). Interestingly, all of the hand-hewn timbers of the log pen exhibit coding tags carved into the wood, which strongly suggests the house has been dismantled, moved, and reconstructed in the past.

Although the architectural features of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) indicate that is was built in the 1840s or 1850s, this structure is not depicted on the 1883 Boone County Atlas (Lake 1883). Interestingly, the residence of Charles C. Craig is depicted on this tract approximately one-half mile to the southeast. Deed research indicates that William Ewalt resided on the property until his death in 1860, at which time the property passed to his sons, Samuel J. and Henry Ewalt. Samuel J. Ewalt appears to have resided in the house until at 1863, when he sold the property. Charles C. Craig acquired the tract in 1879, and is shown as the occupant on the 1883 Boone County Atlas (Lake 1883).

It is plausible that the house constructed by William Ewalt during the mid-1840s, and occupied by Charles C. Craig in 1883, was moved to the location just south of Beaver Road (Locus 1) sometime after 1883; most likely after the disastrous 1884 flood. The presence of coding tags that were found to be carved into the hand-hewn timbers supports the assertion that the house had been dismantled and moved in the past. Based on the architectural elements of the log pen, the house may have originally been a central-passage plan that probably faced the river. Because all of the hand-hewn timbers, including those on the second floor, exhibit coding tags, the house appears to have always been a two-story design. It is likely that the rear ell addition and cellar was added when the structure was reassembled in the late-nineteenth century.

The exclusive use of late machine-cut nails in the construction of the house and ell, as well as archaeological materials (discussed in Chapter 4) found within the cellar foundation, are consistent with a late-nineteenth century construction date for the house at this location (Locus 1). Archaeological investigations also support the assertion that the house depicted as Charles C. Craig’s residence on the 1883 Boone County Atlas (Locus 2) was no longer being occupied by the late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century; which is consistent with the earliest occupation of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) at the location south of Beaver Road (Locus 1), where it stood until April 2015.

4.0 RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Archaeological investigations at the Craig-Ewalt farmstead revealed two distinct historical-period occupation areas: one just south of Beaver Road (KY 338) where the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) stood until it was dismantled in April 2015 (Locus 1), and a second, earlier occupation (Locus 2), situated approximately 815 m (2,674 ft.) directly to the southwest of Locus 1 at the northern bank of the Ohio River (Figure 5). Remnants of an old roadbed connect both loci. This road, as well as the residence associated with Locus 2, is depicted on the 1883 Boone County Atlas (Lake 1883; Figure 4). Remnants of the old roadbed are currently visible as a shallow depression on the ground surface (Plate 24).

4.1 Locus 1

Site Type: Farm/Residence UTM Coordinates: NAD83 Zone 16; E 689688.8, N 4308659.7 Dimensions: 14,635 m2 (3.62 ac.) Elevation: 149 m (490 ft.) Proximity to Water: 845 m (2,772 ft.); historically 105 m (345 ft.) to filled-in pond Topographic Setting: Floodplain Site Description: Locus 1 is situated on the southern side of Beaver Road, approximately 1.25 km (0.78 mi.) west of its intersection with Riddles Run Road. This site includes of the location of the log house and associated outbuildings, as well as the Craig Cemetery. The house was situated on a small knob with the entrance facing Beaver Road (Plate 22). When the property was initially recorded in 1994, the farmstead consisted of the house and six outbuildings (Warminski 1994). However, only two outbuildings remained extant at the time of the present research; consisting of a stock/dairy barn (Barn 1) and a tobacco barn (Barn 2). All other structures had been razed and the house was in the process of being disassembled. The Craig Cemetery, a small family burial ground is also located approximately 40 m (131 ft.) east of the house. The house lot has experienced extensive ground disturbance from the installation of septic tanks, construction and demolition of various outbuildings, as well as landscaping and contouring (Plate 23). A significant portion of the rear yard had been bulldozed to fill a pond and level the area (Dickie Boh, pers. comm. 2015). If present, archaeological features, such as privy vaults, would have most likely been located in this portion of the house lot. Archaeological testing at Locus 1 focused on determining when the house was constructed at this location and identifying subsurface features associated with the early occupation of the property. Field methods consisted of limited trenching, systematic auger testing, and metal detection. The ground surface in the recently plowed fields to the east, west, and south of the house also was visually inspected. A small trench was excavated along the outer foundation at the western side of the house in an attempt to locate a builder’s trench (Plate 25). No evidence of a builder’s trench was present at the foundation of the main log pen. It is most likely that that a pit was excavated and the foundation stones were laid against the edges.

GFGFGFGF

!C!C!C!C

!C!C!C

3/31/2

5\Prop

Trench 1

Plan View of Craig-Ewalt House Locus 1

LEGEND

!C Auger Locations

GFHistoricHeadstones

$+ModernMonumentTrench 1Barn 1

Barn 2CisternCraig CemeteryCraig-Ewalt House(KHC Resource Be-315)Locus 1Old Roadbed

0 25 5012.5 Meters

0 75 15037.5 Feet

Plate 22. View of Locus 1, showing the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), looking southwest.

Plate 23. View of Locus 1, showing ground disturbance in the rear yard, looking northeast.

Plate 24. View of old roadbed, looking southwest.

Plate 25. View of Trench 1, looking southeast.

Auger testing was conducted at 5-m (16.4 ft.) intervals across the remaining portion of the rear yard. In total, 24 auger tests were hand excavated across the landform. Unfortunately, due to extensive prior ground disturbance, no subsurface archaeological features or intact cultural deposits were located. Features such as privy shafts were likely removed when the area was leveled and the pond was filled. Likewise, metal detection did not locate any cultural materials dating prior to the mid-twentieth century. A light scatter of late nineteenth to mid-twentieth century materials was noted southeast of the house within the plowed field, which suggests that this area may have been used for refuse disposal or may have simply been scattered during ground contouring and removal of the rear yard. A small sample of the earliest diagnostic items was collected (Table 1). Most importantly, two items (an 1879 penny and a key opener for a tin can) found within of rear ell foundation fill provide insight into its date of construction at this location.

Table 1. Selected Diagnostic Materials Collected from Locus 1.

Functional Group Material Count

Architectural Nail, late machine‐cut 1

Total 1

Kitchen

Whiteware, blue shell‐edge 1

Yellowware, undecorated 1

Stoneware, salt glazed exterior/Albany slipped interior 2

Stoneware, salt glazed 1

Container Glass, tooled applied lip 1

Key Opener 1

Total 7

Personal Coin, 1879 cent 1

Total 1

Grand Total 9

4.1.1 Architectural Group

The house was constructed using late machine-cut nails, which is consistent with a mid- to late nineteenth century construction date (Plate 26). Late machine-cut nails were common from the late 1830s until about 1900, but were replaced by wire drawn nails for most functions between 1880 and 1890 (Nelson 1968). The presence of wire drawn nails indicates alterations and improvements to the structure throughout the twentieth century.

4.1.2 Kitchen Group

A small sample of ceramic and container glass items were collected at Locus 1. These items represent the earliest manufactured kitchen-related objects present at this location and were collected from the plowed field to the southeast of the house. Refined ceramics include blue

Plate 26. Selected artifacts recovered from Locus 1: (a) late machine-cut nail; (b) key opener; (c) blue

edged whiteware; (d) tooled applied bottle lip; (e) and (f) salt glazed stoneware; (g) yellowware; (h) Albany slipped stoneware.

shell-edge whiteware, while coarse ceramics consist of yellowware, and slat glazed and Albany slipped stoneware. Although American salt glazed stoneware generally dates from 1705 to 1930 (Mountford 1971; Ketchum 1991:86), due to the abundance domestic stoneware manufacturers and the difficulty of attributing vessels to a particular potter, salt glazed stoneware is generally considered to be a poor chronological indicator on nineteenth century sites. Albany slip ranges in color from light brown to black and generally dates from around 1805 to 1920 (Ramsay 1939:21-22). It was ubiquitous in the Midwest from approximately 1830 to 1900 (Phillippe 1990:80). Yellowware vessels include utilitarian forms similar to stonewares and redwares, and were popular from about 1830 until the 1920s (Herskovitz 1978:97). Container glass includes an applied finish bottle lip that dates from 1850 to 1870 (Newman 1970:73). Additionally, a key opener for a tin can was found within the foundation fill of the rear ell cellar (Plates 26 and 27). Although the first can opener was patented in 1858, the key opener was invented in 1866, and combined the opener and the can in one piece. Specifically, it was a tin can that came with its own key opener and is similar to the type still used on sardine cans today (Bellis 2016).

Plate 27. Partial profile of rear ell cellar, looking southwest.

Plate 28. 1879 cent recovered within the rear ell foundation.

4.1.3 Personal Group

An 1879 penny was present within the foundation fill of the rear ell cellar during demolition of the house (Plate 28). Because the cellar is integrated (or “toothed-in”) with the house foundation (see Chapter 4), the rear ell and the main house were constructed at the same time. The presence of this coin within the foundation provides an excellent terminus post quem (date after which) of 1879 for the construction of the house.

4.1.3.1 Locus 1 Summary

Locus 1 represents the site of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) from approximately 1884 until April 2015. The surrounding yard has experienced significant ground disturbance, which makes it unlikely that any subsurface archaeological features (such as privies or middens) associated with the late nineteenth century occupation have survived. Artifacts recovered from Locus 1 span the occupation of the house. However, the presence of a key opener and an 1879 penny within the fill surrounding the cellar foundation of the rear ell indicates that it was constructed no earlier than 1879. No structure is depicted at this location on the 1883 atlas (Lake 1883); however, the dairy barn and cemetery, as well as the home of Charles C. Craig at Locus 2, are shown (Figures 3 and 4).

4.2 Locus 2

Site Type: Farm/Residence UTM Coordinates: NAD83 Zone 16; E 689465.2, N 4307877.5 Dimensions: 1,950 m2 (0.5 ac.) Elevation: 146 m (479 ft.) Proximity to Water: 45 m (148 ft.) Topographic Setting: Floodplain Site Description: Locus 2 is situated within a plowed agricultural field above the northern bank of the Ohio River, approximately 1.35 km (0.84 mi.) northwest of the mouth of Gunpowder Creek and 0.85 km (0.53 mi.) southwest of Locus 1 (Figure 6). This site consists of a dense scatter of mid- to late nineteenth century materials, covering an area of approximately 1,962 m2 (0.49 ac.). Several cut limestone blocks that appear to be displaced foundation stones also were present, and the remains of a possible river landing was identified at the base of the terrace (Plates 29 through 32).

Based on this survey, Locus 2 is a mid- to late-nineteenth century farm/residence, and is likely the original location of the log house (KHC Resource Be-315) associated with Locus 1. The area was surveyed via surface inspection and metal detection in order to determine the temporal range of occupation at the site, and to delineate its boundaries. The ground surface between Locus 1 and the Ohio River had been recently plowed and surface visibility was excellent. No subsurface testing was conducted within Locus 2, with the exception of metal detector “hits,” and it is likely that intact subsurface archaeological deposits, such as shaft features, pits, etc., may be present beneath the plow zone.

The artifact assemblage consisted of architectural, clothing, personal, and kitchen-related items. A small sample of temporally sensitive materials, including nails, ceramics, glass, and buttons, was collected (Table 2). Diagnostic artifacts include late machine-cut nails, whiteware, ironstone, Bristol and Albany slipped stoneware, Rockingham glazed yellowware, solarized amethyst glass, milk glass lid liner fragments, and porcelain Prosser buttons. Additionally, a flat brass or copper coat button bearing the backmark: “ORANGE GILT COLOUR” was noted.

4.2.1 Architectural Group

Architectural items recovered from Locus 2 include late machine-cut nails and window glass. Late machine-cut nails were largely manufactured from the late 1830s until about 1900. Changes in the manufacturing process of window glass generally resulted in the production of larger and thicker panes through time (Moir 1987). Several methods have been developed to relate window glass thickness with its date of manufacture (Ball 1983; Moir 1987; Roenke 1978), and examination of the distribution of window glass thickness can assist in determining the presence of one or more building episodes. Although the sample window glass collected from Locus 2 is too small to make any statistically significant interpretations, preliminary analysis suggests a mid-nineteenth century date of construction (Table 3). The presence of late

3/29/2

5\Prop

LEGEND

Name"S Displaced Foundation Stone

ÚÛPossible RiverLandingLocus 2Old Roadbed

Plan View of Craig-Ewalt House Locus 2

& 0 15 307.5 Meters

0 45 9022.5 Feet

Plate 29. View of Locus 2, looking northeast toward Locus 1.

Plate 30. Scott Clark and Morgan Wampler conducting a metal detector reconnaissance at Locus 2.

Plate 31. View of Locus 2, looking southwest toward the Ohio River.

Plate 32. View of the possible river landing, looking southeast.

Table 2. Selected Diagnostic Materials Collected from Locus 2.

Functional Group Material Count

Architectural

Nail, late machine‐cut 2

Window Glass, aqua 2

Window Came, iron 1

Total 6

Clothing Button, Prosser molded 3

Total 3

Kitchen

Whiteware, undecorated 1

Whiteware, underglaze painted 2

Whiteware, purple transferprint 1

Ironstone, undecorated 5

Ironstone, molded 1

Porcelain, undecorated 1

Stoneware, salt glazed 1

Stoneware, salt glazed exterior/Albany slipped interior 2

Stoneware, Bristol slipped exterior/Albany slipped interior 2

Yellowware, Rockingham glazed 2

Canning Jar Lid Liner, opaque white milk glass 1

Container Glass, solarized amethyst 1

Pressed Glass, solarized amethyst 1

Total 21

Personal Smoking Pipe Bowl, molded stoneware 1

Total 1

Transportation Harness Ring, iron 1

Total 1

Unknown Unidentified brass or copper 1

Total 1

Grand Total 33

machine-cut nails, in conjunction with the preliminary window glass, provides a date of construction that is consistent with William Ewalt’s acquisition of the property in 1844.

Table 3. Window Glass Analysis*

Research Area N= Min(mm)

Max (mm)

Mean(mm)

Regression Date (+/‐ 7 years)

Locus 2 2 1.59 1.79 1.69 1855.0318

*Glass Manufacture Date = 84.22 x (Glass Thickness in Millimeters) + 1712.7

Plate 33. Selected artifacts recovered from Locus 2: (a) and (b) solarized amethyst glass; (c) milk glass lid liner; (d) stoneware pipe bowl; (e) unidentified brass; (f) harness ring; (g) late machine-cut nail; (h)

and (i) salt glazed stoneware; (j) Rockingham glazed yellowware; (k) Albany glazed stoneware; (l) underglaze painted whiteware; (m) purple transferprint whiteware; (n) Bristol slipped stoneware; (o)

through (q) porcelain Prosser buttons.

4.2.2 Kitchen Group

A sample of diagnostic ceramics and container glass items was collected at Locus 2 (Plate 33). Refined ceramics include whiteware, ironstone, and porcelain; while coarse ceramics consist of Rockingham, Albamy, and Bristol slipped stoneware. Whitewares were first manufactured in England ca. 1805, but they did not become common in the United States until after 1820. Generally, whiteware dates from ca. 1820 to the present, although it is most common between about 1840 and 1920 (des Fontaines 1990:4; Majewski and O’Brien 1987:119-125; Miller 1980:16-17; Noël-Hume 1968; Price 1982). Ironstone refers to a semi-vitreous white-paste ware that contains china stone (petunse). Charles Mason began producing “Mason’s Ironstone China” in England in 1813. Mason claimed his ware contained iron slag. English ironstone began appearing on American sites during the 1840s and remained in production from roughly 1842 to 1930 (Miller 1991:10). After 1850, ironstone was predominately undecorated, or was decorated with molded geometric, floral, or foliate motifs.

Coarse ceramics in this assemblage consist of stoneware (n=4) and yellowware (n=2). Stonewares are semi-vitreous wares that are usually glazed and were produced in a wide variety of thick, utilitarian forms. Albany slip generally dates from around 1805 to 1920 (Ramsay 1939:21-22). It was ubiquitous in the Midwest from approximately 1830 to 1900 (Phillippe 1990:80). Bristol slipped stoneware is a white glaze that was frequently used in combination with Albany slip until about 1920. Although originally developed in Bristol, England, potters from Ohio introduced a form of this glaze into the United States at the New Orleans Exposition of 1884. Bristol slips generally date from 1835 to the present day (Oswald et al. 1982:19). However, after 1920, Bristol slips generally occurred alone (Lebo 1987:132). One fragment of Rockingham glazed yellowware was collected. Yellowwares were popular from about 1830 until the 1920s (Herskovitz 1978:97). Two examples of solarized amethyst glass, which dates from roughly 1880 to 1925, was recovered at Locus 2 (Newman 1970:74). The amethyst color is derived from manganese oxide used in the manufacturing process to overcome the yellow or light green tint of iron oxide in the glass; however, glass with manganese turns purplish after extended exposure to the ultraviolet rays of the sun (Jones and Sullivan 1989:13). The end of amethyst glass is associated with the change to selenium, which began by 1915 and was almost exclusively used as a decolorizing agent after German imports of manganese were suspended in 1918 (Deiss 1981:82-83). Lastly, fragments of opaque white “milk glass” canning jar lid liners also were present at Locus 2. Glass lid liners were patented by Lewis R. Boyd in 1869, and were manufactured by several glass companies. Although most of them are found in an opaque, or semi-translucent white milk glass, some are seen in “off” shades of milky or “foggy” aqua, green or blue. It is virtually impossible to assign a specific age to any of these lids. However, the very earliest versions are reported to have been made of transparent glass, with milk glass versions introduced approximately 1871, and were produced in large quantities well into the 1950s or later (Toulouse 1971).

4.2.3 Clothing Group

The Clothing group consists of articles designed to be worn as either functional or decorative attire or the component parts of garments. The only items classified within this group are three porcelain Prosser molded and one flat brass coat button. Porcelain buttons have been in use since the eighteenth century, but it was not until Richard Prosser patented machinery in 1840 that they were machine made (Epstein and Safro 2001:74; Sprague 2002:111). The regularity of the buttonholes and uniform shape indicate the porcelain buttons recovered from Locus 2 are machine-made Prosser buttons. Porcelain buttons were fashionable between 1850 and 1920 (Luscomb 1967:156). The flat brass button features a wire eye set in metal, and a backmark with “ORANGE GILT COLOUR” and floral patterning (Plate 34). This button likely dates to the early/mid-nineteenth century, and was manufactured in Britain (Marcel 1994; White 2005:52).

Plate 34. Flat brass coat button (photo by Scott Clark).

4.2.4 Personal Group

This category includes objects typically reserved for one person’s exclusive use, which often could be carried in a pocket or purse. Items in this category consist of a single tobacco pipe bowl fragment that is manufactured from This item is manufactured from molded, unglazed stoneware. Although this type of smoking pipe is not particularly temporally diagnostic, it was common throughout the mid- to late-nineteenth century.

4.2.5 Transportation Group

Artifacts in this category include items associated with any form of wheeled transport, as well as items associated with horse, mule, or ox shoeing. The only transportation-related item recovered from Locus 2 was an iron harness ring. This item is not particularly temporally sensitive, and was in common use throughout the nineteenth century.

4.2.6 Unknown Group

This category consists of objects that could not be clearly identified as to function, could serve multiple functions, or were simply unidentifiable. The only item placed within this group is a small unidentifiable brass or copper item that be a fragment door latch or handle.

4.2.6.1 Locus 2 Summary

Locus 2 is an historical homestead site that appears to date from the mid- to late-nineteenth century. Preliminary window glass analysis suggests a construction date of approximately 1855. Diagnostic materials, such as whiteware, ironstone, Albany/Bristol slipped stoneware, yellowware, and late machine-cut nails, are consistent with a mid-nineteenth century construction date. Likewise, the presence of white milk glass lid liners and solarized amethyst glass indicate an occupation into the late-nineteenth century. The 1883 Boone County Atlas depicts the residence of Charles Craig at this location (Figure 4). Several cut limestone blocks are present that are likely foundation stones; however, many have been displaced. These stones suggest that the house was either set on a solid foundation or supported by piers, and, ostensibly, did not have a dirt floor. The presence of non-silvered flat glass indicates the structure contained glassed windows. A possible river landing was also noted, which suggests the house was most likely oriented toward the river. The artifact assemblage at Locus 2 indicates a terminal occupation of this location that is contemporaneous with the construction of the dwelling at Locus 1. It is likely that Locus 2 represents the original location of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315), which was constructed shortly after the property was acquired by William Ewalt in 1844 (Boone County Public Library Deed Book O:248-249). It is likely that the house was dismantled after either the 1883 or 1884 flood, was moved to Locus 1 where it remained until April 2015. Although the foundation stones have been displaced and the site has been plowed, it is likely that significant cultural features are present beneath the plow zone at Locus 2.

4.3 Discussion

Based on these archaeological and historical investigations, the house depicted on the 1883 Boone County Atlas at Locus 2 is likely the original location of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315). It appears that the house was moved to its setting at Locus 1 shortly after the February 1883 or February 1884 floods that devastated the Northern Kentucky region. Based on diagnostic materials collected from Locus 2, the house was likely built by William Ewalt during the mid-nineteenth century, not long after he purchased the property in 1844. Archival research and local history indicate that following William’s death in 1860, his son, Samuel J. Ewalt, continued to occupy the house until he sold the property in 1863. The parcel returned to the Craig family in 1878, when it was acquired by Oliver H. Craig; a grandson of John Hawkins Craig, II. In 1879, Oliver sold the property to his younger brother, Charles C. Craig, who is depicted as the occupant on the 1883 Boone County Atlas. However, Charles Craig’s tenure on the property after the house was moved to Locus 1 is unclear. The property changed ownership several times and has been continually occupied throughout most of its history. The surrounding houselot at Locus 1 has experienced significant ground disturbance that would make the presence of intact, historical subsurface features unlikely, However, Locus 2 appears to be relatively undisturbed. It is possible that intact, mid- to late-nineteenth century cultural features (such as privies, trash pits, middens, etc.) are present beneath the plow zone at this location.

5.0 CRAIG CEMETERY

Site Type: Historical Cemetery UTM Coordinates: NAD83 Zone 16; E 169438.1, N 4313087.3 Dimensions: approximately 15 by 15 m (49.2 by 49.2 ft.) Elevation: 149 m (490 ft.) Proximity to Water: 845 m (2,772 ft.); historically 140 m (459 ft.) to filled-in pond Topographic Setting: Floodplain Site Description: The Craig Cemetery measures approximately 15 by 15 m (49.2 by 49.2 ft.) and is situated approximately 40 m (131 ft.) east of the Craig-Ewalt House (KHC Resource Be-315) on a small rise south of Beaver Road. The area is characterized by a small grove of trees, and the southern edge of the cemetery is currently utilized as a plowed agricultural field (Plates 35 and 36). Although grave markers of at least five individuals are present, all but one of these stones have been displaced (see Appendix A for detailed information regarding the headstones). According to a letter from Anne W. Fitzgerald to Carl R. Bogardus, dated 30 March 1986, former Boone County Surveyor, Noel Walton, “grew up at a Walton place near [the Craig farm and cemetery on 1883 atlas] and remembered about 15 stones in the graveyard and was sure of an Elijah Craig stone” (Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). The earliest recorded documentation of internments was submitted by Mrs. Myra Craig Rouse (granddaughter of Franklin Volney Craig) of Cincinnati, Ohio, to the Daughters of the American Revolution (D.A.R.) in 1940 (Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). She noted two inscriptions “from stones in Old Craig Graveyard at Rabbit Hash, Boone County, KY”:

1) John H. Craig – A Soldier of the Revolution – Died April 8, 1852. Aged 83 yrs 21 days. 2) Sallie S. Craig – wife of John H. Craig – Died Nov. 30th, 1859. Aged 92 years.

The Craig Cemetery is a family cemetery. Generally, a small plot of land within the homestead owned by the family was set aside for the burial of family members (Barber 1994:193). Although the cemetery boundaries are not currently marked, former landowner, Dickie Boh, recalled that the graveyard was once enclosed within a wooden fence (Dickie Boh, pers. comm. 2015). A modern monument commemorating Capt. John Hawkins Craig (died 8 April 1852) (Burial 1a: Appendix A; Figure 5) has been placed at the northern edge of the cemetery along the south side of Beaver Road; however, this stone does not mark a burial shaft. Capt. John Hawkins Craig’s original grave marker (Appendix A, Burial 1b; Figure 5) is still present within the cemetery, but has been moved. The exact location his grave is no longer marked. There are grave markers for five separate burials remaining within the Craig Cemetery; four of which have been moved and no longer identify a grave shaft. All remaining headstones are commercially-manufactured from marble. Three of these markers are identifiable by individual: Capt. John Hawkins Craig (died 8 April 1852) (Burial 1b: Appendix A; Figure 5); Franklin Craig (died 30 July 1871) (Burial 2: Appendix A; Figure 5); and John P. Craig (died 1868) (Burial 3: Appendix A; Figure 5). Although it is assumed that the Franklin Craig buried in this cemetery is Franklin Volney Craig, there is some confusion as to whether or not John

Plate 35. View of the Craig Cemetery, looking east.

Plate 36. View of the Craig Cemetery, looking northeast.

Hawkins and Sallie Snelling Craig had two sons named “Franklin.” As noted in Chapter 1, the 1850 U.S. Census lists two persons by the name of “Franklin Craig” (U.S. Census Bureau 1850). The first Franklin Craig (age: 42 years) was residing in District 1, Boone County, Kentucky, with his wife Elvira A. Craig (age: 32 years) and their six children; including Oliver H. Craig (age: 1 year). This “Franklin Craig” is Franklin Volney Craig, a son of John Hawkins and Sallie Snelling Craig. The second Franklin Craig listed in the 1850 census was 46 years old, and was residing in the home of John Hawkins and Sallie Snelling Craig, along with their daughter Delilah Maybury; also in District 1, Boone County, Kentucky (U.S. Census Bureau 1850). Although no birth records of a second “Franklin Craig” could be located, a document in the Craig Family File housed at the Boone County Public Library mentions a “Franklin Craig,” who married a Cherokee woman, as well as “Frank Volney Craig,” who married Elvira Ann Anderson (Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). Interestingly, both Franklin Craig and Franklin Volney Craig appear to have died in 1871 (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSvcid=639307&GRid=143711648&; http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSvcid=639307&GRid=86736520&). With the absence of a birth date on the headstone, it is not possible to identify which Franklin Craig this stone belonged to. However, Franklin Volney Craig was the father of both Oliver H. Craig and Charles C. Craig; both of whom are depicted as residing adjacent to the cemetery on the 1883 Boone County Atlas (Lake 1883). Although both Oliver H. Craig (Plate 43) and Charles C. Craig are buried in the East Bend Methodist Church Cemetery in Rabbit Hash, Kentucky, it is likely that the family cemetery was located on their property. A fourth grave marker that consists of only a stone base with the lower portion of a marble headstone is also present (Burial 4: Appendix A; Figure 5). This headstone also has been moved. Because the size, as well as the shape of the fracture, differs from the three aforementioned grave markers, this stone is counted as a separate burial. The only headstone that still marks its original plot is embedded within a tree and the top portion of the stone that would contain the name of the deceased is missing. A rough fieldstone marks the foot of the grave shaft (Burial 5: Appendix A; Figure 5). Although the name is missing, the remaining portion of the headstone and epitaph indicates that the deceased was “89 years and 21 days” old at the time of death. Although archival documents indicate that a headstone marking the grave of Sallie Snelling Craig, wife of Capt. John Hawkins Craig and mother of Franklin Volney Craig and John P. Craig, was once in this cemetery, this stone is now gone (Bogardus et al. 1988; Boone County Public Library Craig Family File). Based on the age at death, as well as the fragmentary inscription, this broken headstone does not belong to Sallie Snelling Craig. It is possible that this broken headstone may represent the grave of either Elvira Ann Anderson Craig, wife of Franklin Volney Craig, or perhaps Delish Delilah (Maybury) Craig, daughter of John Hawkins Craig and Sarah Snelling Craig; who was residing in their home at the time of the 1850 census.

Plate 37. Undated photograph of Oliver Hazard “Bob” Craig and second wife Mattie D. Wood

(http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=86748291&PIpi=56965938)

5.1 Ground-Penetrating-Radar Survey

GPR data was collected along transects spaced at 50-cm (19.7-in.) intervals on the Y axis using a 500 MHz antenna (Plate 37). Once the data collection was complete, all survey data was downloaded into GPR-Slice software where it was standardized, refined, amplified, filtered, and manipulated (sliced) to produce a series of multiple-depth maps of the surveyed area. The depth, size, shape, and spatial distribution of the higher-amplitude reflections were analyzed to identify potential shaft features (i.e., burial vaults). A grid measuring 15 by 15 m (49.2 by 49.2 ft.) that encompassed the small elevated landform. However, this cemetery may extend beyond the GPR grid.

The GPR survey indicates that most of the cemetery has been heavily impacted by tree roots (Figure 7). However, at least nine potential interments were identified (Figure 8). Additional burials may be present beneath the trees, as well as, to the east and west of the GPR grid. Since all of the remaining headstones that contain names have been moved, it is not possible to associate any of these potential grave shafts with a known individual.

Plate 38. Donald Handshoe conducting a GPR survey of the Craig Cemetery, while Kaitlin Barber

documents grave markers.

GPR Data Showing the Presence of Extensive Tree Roots in the Craig Cemetery

3/29/2

5\Prop

LEGEND

Boundaries of TreeRoot System ®

GPR Survey Grid

GPR Data Showing the Location of Potential Extant Burials Within the Craig Cemetery

3/29/2

5\Prop

LEGEND

®Possible Burials

GPR Survey Grid

5.2 Discussion

The Craig Cemetery appears to have been established in 1852, with the death of John Hawkins Craig (previously referred to in this report as John Hawkins Craig, II). However, earlier interments may be present. Although the GPR survey identified nine potential interments, additional burials may be present beneath the trees, as well as, to the east and west of the GPR grid. Based on the positioning of the footstone and partial headstone at Burial 5, the interments appear to be oriented along an east-west axis, with the head to the west and feet to the east, which is a common Christian burial tradition. GPR results suggest the burials are organized along five rows. Known burials consist of Capt. John Hawkins Craig and his sons, Franklin Craig and John P. Craig. Documentary research indicates that Sallie Snelling Craig (wife of Capt. John Hawkins Craig and mother of Franklin and John P. Craig) is also buried in this cemetery. The remaining five burials identified during the GPR survey are most likely other members of the Craig family. Although the residences of both Oliver H. Craig and Charles C. Craig are depicted adjacent to the cemetery on the 1883 Boone County Atlas (Lake 1883), they are buried in the East Bend Methodist Church Cemetery in Rabbit Hash, Kentucky, along with their wives. Based on the available information, the cemetery remained active until at least 1871, with the death of Franklin Craig.

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In cooperation with the Boone County Public Library, the Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board, and the Rabbit Hash Historical Society, Gray & Pape, Inc. conducted an archaeological and architectural assessment of the Craig-Ewalt farmstead and cemetery in Boone County, Kentucky. These investigations were focused on documenting the log house (KHC Resource Be-315) prior to disassembly, identifying any intact subsurface archaeological deposits, and delineating the boundaries of the Craig cemetery. The Craig-Ewalt farmstead is located on the south side of Beaver Road (KY 338), approximately 1.25 kilometers (0.78 miles) west of its intersection with Riddles Run Road, in the East Bend area of Boone County. This research was conducted as a “rescue archaeology” effort to document the site prior to removal of the log house and subsequent grading of the landscape. The log house (KHC Resource Be-315) associated with the Craig-Ewalt farmstead was disassembled in late April 2015, and moved to the farm of Butch and Mary Ann Wainscott in Petersburg, Kentucky. Based on the survey results, it appears that the log house was moved to its location adjacent to Beaver Road (Locus 1) sometime after 1883. Although architectural elements suggest that the house was constructed during the mid-nineteenth century, artifacts found within the fill surrounding the foundation indicate that it was constructed adjacent to Beaver Road (Locus 1) during the late-nineteenth century. It appears that the log house was originally constructed approximately one-half mile to the south (Locus 2), shortly after William Ewalt acquired the property in 1844. Based on the results of this research, it is likely that the log house was moved from Locus 2 to Locus 1 sometime after publication of D. J. Lake’s (1883) Boone County Atlas. It is most likely that the house was moved to higher ground after the area was devastated by major flooding episodes in 1883 and 1884. Interestingly, coding tags had been carved into the hewn timbers, which indicates that the house has been dismantled and reconstructed in the past. The layout and appearance of the house appears to have been modified following this previous reconstruction; changing from a central-passage plan that likely faced the Ohio River to a side-passage plan that faced Beaver Road. Archaeological investigations revealed that the house yard at Locus 1 has been significantly disturbed, making it unlikely that any intact historical features are present. However, the probable original location of the house at Locus 2 is very much intact and it is possible that intact historical features are present beneath the plow zone. A GPR survey of the Craig Cemetery identified nine potential interments; however more may be present to the east and to the south of the GPR grid. The Craig Cemetery appears to have been established in 1852, with the death of Revolutionary War veteran John Hawkins Craig; however, earlier graves may be present. Known burials consist of Capt. John Hawkins Craig and his sons, Franklin Craig and John P. Craig. Documentary research indicates that Sallie Snelling Craig (wife of Capt. John Hawkins Craig and mother of Franklin and John P. Craig) is also buried in this cemetery. The remaining five burials identified during the GPR survey are most likely other members of the Craig family.

7.0 REFERENCES CITED

Andrews, Susan C. and Tracy A. Sandefur 2002 Climbing the Social Ladder: Archaeology at the Enos Hardin Farmstead, Owen

County, 1825-1870. Wilbur Smith Associates, Lexington, Kentucky. Ball, Donald B.

1982 Approaches Toward the Dating of 19th Century Ohio Valley Flat Glass. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology Volume I, ed. by Donald B. Ball and Phillip J. DiBlasi, pp. 129-137. Archaeological Survey, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.

Barber, Russell J.

1994 Glossary of Terms Used to Describe Cemeteries and Grave Markers. In Doing Historical Archaeology, by Russell J. Barber, pp. 239-248. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Bellis, Mary

2016 History of the Can – And the Can Opener. http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/tin_can.htm. Accessed 24 March 2016.

Birbeck, Morris

1818 Letters from Illinois. Philadelphia. Bogardus Carl, Sue M. Bogardus, and Kathy Salyers

1988 John Hawkins Craig Cemetery. Boone County Public Library, Burlington, Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board

1988 John Hawkins Craig, in Boone County Family Cemetery Register, Volume 1. Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board, Burlington, Kentucky.

Boone County Public Library Craig Family File. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington. Deed Book O:248-246. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington. Deed Book Q:78. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington. Deed Book S:79, 126, 325. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington. Deed Book U:566. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington. Deed Book 21:467-470. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington. Deed Book 22:383-384, 206. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington.

Will Book A:243. On file, Boone County Public Library, Burlington. Clark, Anthony

1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil. Routledge Publishing, New York, New York. Cleland, Charles E.

1983 Tombigbee Historic Townsites Project Code Book. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Connor, Melissa and Douglas D. Scott

1998 Metal Detector Use in Archaeology: An Introduction. Historical Archaeology 32(4):76-85.

Conyers, L.B.

2004 Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Alta Mira Press, New York.

Conyers, Larry B. and Dean Goodman 1997 Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists. Alta Mira

Press, New York. Deiss, Ronald William

1981 The Development and Application of a Chronology for American Glass. Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, Illinois State University, Normal.

des Fontaines, John

1990 Wedgewood Whiteware. Proceeding of the Wedgewood Society13:1-8. Elbert, E. Duane and Keith A. Sculle

1982 Log Buildings in Illinois: Their Interpretation and Preservation. Illinois Preservation Series, Number 3. Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Historic Sites, Springfield.

Epstein, D. and M. Safro

2001 Buttons. Harry N. Abrams, New York. Fontana, Bernard L.

1965 The Tale of a Nail: On the Ethnological Interpretation of Historic Artifacts. Florida Anthropologist 18(3).

Halstead, Byron D.

1881 Barns, Plans, and Outbuildings. O. Judd, New York. Harris, Thaddeus

1805 Journal of a Tour into the Territory Northeast of the Allegheny Mountains; Made in the Spring of the Year 1803.

Herskovitz, Robert M. 1978 Fort Bowie Material Culture. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Hutslar, Donald A.

1992 Log Construction in the Ohio Country, 1750-1850. Ohio University Press, Athens. Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan

1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. Revised Edition with contributions by G. L. Miller, E. A. Smith, J. E. Harris and K. Lunn. National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service Environment, Canada.

Joseph, J. W., Theresa M. Hamby, and Catherine S. Long

2004 Historical Archaeology in Georgia. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report No. 39, Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 14.

Ketchum, William C., Jr.

1991 American Stoneware. Henry Holt and Company, New York. Kleber, John E. (editor)

1992 The Kentucky Encyclopedia. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Lake, D. J.

1883 An Atlas of Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties, Kentucky. D. J. Lake and Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Lebo, Susan A.

1987 Local Utilitarian Stonewares: A Diminishing Artifact Category. In Historic Buildings, Material, Culture, and People of the Prairie Margin, ed. David H. Jurney and Randall W. Moir, pp. 121-142. Richland Creek Technical Series Volume V. Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Luscomb, Sally C.

1967 The Collector’s Encyclopedia of Buttons. Crown Publications, New York. Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O’Brien

1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:97-209.

Mansberger, Floyd

2009 An Archaeological and Architectural Assessment of the Lincoln Log Cabin, Rural Macon County, Illinois. Prepared by Fever River Research, Springfield, Illinois.

Marcel, Sarah Elizabeth 1994 Buttoning Down the Past: A Look at Buttons as Indicators of Chronology and

Material Culture. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects, Knoxville. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester

2004 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Mercer, Henry C.

1924 The Origin of Log Houses in the United States. Bucks County Historical Society, Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

Miller, George L.

1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1-40.

1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for English Ceramics. Historical Archaeology

25(1):1-25. Moir, Randall W.

1987 Socioeconomic and Chronometric Patterning of Window Glass. In Historic Buildings, Material Culture, and People of the Prairie Margin. Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Archaeology Research Program, Richland Creek Technical Series Vol. 5, ed. by David H. Jurney and Randall W. Moir, pp. 83-96. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

Montell, William Lynwood and Michael Lynn Morse

1976 Kentucky Folk Architecture. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Mountford, Arnold R.

1971 The Illustrated Guide to Staffordshire Salt-Glazed Stoneware. Praeger Publications, New York.

Nelson, Lee H.

1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet 48. History News 24(11).

Newman, T. Stell

1970 A Dating Guide for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology 4.

Noble, Allen G. 1984 Wood, Brick, and Stone, The North American Landscape Volume 1: Houses. The

University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 1986 Wood, Brick, and Stone, The North American Landscape Volume 2: Barns and

Farm Structures. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

Noël-Hume, Ivor 1968 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Oswald, Adrian, R. J. C. Hilyard, and R. G. Hughes

1982 English Brown Stoneware 1670-1900. Faber & Faber, London. Phillippe, Joseph S.

1990 The Drake Site: Subsistence and Status at a Rural Illinois Farmstead. Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, Illinois State University, Normal.

Price, Cynthia R.

1982 19th Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Border Region. Southwest Missouri State University, Center for Archaeological Research, Monograph Series No. 1. Springfield, Missouri.

Ramsay, John

1939 American Pottery & Porcelain. Hall, Cushman & Flint, Boston. Roenke, Karl G.

1978 Flat Glass: Its Uses as a Dating Tool for Nineteenth Century Archaeological Sites in the Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes Memoir 4, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Samford, Patricia M. 1997 Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-printed Wares.

Historical Archaeology 31(2):1-30. Shurtleff, H. R.

1939 The Log Cabin Myth: A Study of the Early Dwellings of the English Colonists in North America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Smekalova, Tatyana N, Olfert Voss, and Sergey L. Smekalov

2005 Magnetic Survey in Archaeology. Publishing House of Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia.

Smith, H. R. Bradley 1975 Chronological Development of Nails Supplement to Blacksmiths’ and Farriers’

Tools at Shelburne Museum. Museum Pamphlet Series No. 7:1-10. Shelburne, Vermont.

South, Stanley

1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Southern Campaign American Revolution Pension Statements & Rosters 1833 Pension Application of John Hawkins Craig W6759. http://www.revwarapps.org/

Accessed 28 March 2016. Sprague, Roderick

2002 China or Prosser Button Identification. Historical Archaeology 36(2):111-127. Tenkotte, Paul A. and James C. Claypool

2009 The Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Toulouse, Julian Harrison

1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson & Sons, Camden, New Jersey. U.S. Census Bureau

1810 Population Census Schedules for Boone County, Kentucky. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.

1820 Population Census Schedules for Boone County, Kentucky. Bureau of the

Census, Washington, D.C. 1840 Population Census Schedules for Boone County, Kentucky. Bureau of the

Census, Washington, D.C. U.S. Civil War Draft Registration Records

1863-1865 Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registrations, 1863-1865. NM-65, entry 172, 620 volumes. NAI: 4213514. Records of the Provost Marshal General’s Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110. National Archives at Washington D.C.

Virginia Land Grants

1785 John Hawkins Craig, Survey No. 1954, Book 7:157-158.

Warminski, Margo 1994 Kentucky Historic Resources Individual Survey Form (KHC 91-1), Resource #

Be-315. On file, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort. 1996 Comprehensive Architectural Survey of Boone County, Kentucky. Boone

County Historic Preservation Review Board, Burlington, Kentucky. Wettstead, James R.

2012 The Utility of Metal Detectors in Delineating and Defining Archaeological Sites. Proceedings of the Advanced Metal Detecting for the Archaeologist Conference, edited by Terry G. Powis. pp. 55-67. Advanced Metal Detcting for the Archaeologist, Helen, Georgia.

White, Carolyn L.

2005 American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680-1820: A Guide to Identification and Interpretation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., London.

Woods, John

1904 Two Years in the Settlement on the English Prairie. In Early Western Travels, 1748-1846. Edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. Cleveland. [Originally published in 1822).

Yealey, A. M.

1960 History of Boone County, Kentucky. William Fitzgerald Printing, Holmes High School, Covington, Kentucky.

APPENDIX A

KENTUCKY GRAVE MARKER FORMS

Kentucky Grave Marker Form

Cemetery: Craig Cemetery________ County: Boone__________ Site No.: ______________

Burial 1a_ Name: John Hawkins Craig________ DOB 3/17/1763 DOD 4/8/1852 Material Granite Inscription VA TRP Revolutionary War________ ________________________________________ Comments This marker is a commemorative marker placed at the northern edge of the cemetery on the south side of Beaver Road (KY 338). It does not mark the actual burial shaft and was placed relatively recently, likely by the DAR.________ Photos: 1 digital_ Burial 1b_ Name: John H. Craig_________________ DOB N/A____ DOD 4/8/1852 Material Marble______ Inscription A soldier in the revolution of 1776_______ Died April 8, 1852____________________________ ___________________________________________ Comments The bottom of the headstone is broken.____ This marker has been displaced from its original location and is presently leaning against one of four___ large trees within the graveyard. This stone was leaning against the southwestern-most tree at the time of this__ documentation. Although John Hawkins Craig is buried in this cemetery, the actual grave location is unknown____________________________________ Photos: 2 digital__

Burial 2__ Name: Franklin Craig________________ DOB N/A_____ DOD 7/30/1871__ Material Marble_ Inscription Died July 30, 1871 in the 68, year of his age ________________________________________________

Comments Franklin Volney Craig (b. 1803 d. 1871) is a son of John Hawkins Craig and Sally (Snelling) Craig. The bottom of the headstone is broken. This marker has been displaced from its original location and is presently leaning against one of four large trees within the graveyard. This stone was leaning against the southeastern-most tree at the time of this__ documentation. The base of the grave marker was found lying just to the east (see photo at bottom of page). The base has also been displaced from its original location. Although Franklin Craig is buried in this cemetery, the actual grave location is unknown__________________ Photos: 3 digital__

Burial 3__ Name: John P. Creig (sic)___________ DOB N/A_____ DOD N/A_____ Material Marble_ Inscription Died in the 62 year of his age_________ __________________________________________ Comments John P. Craig is a son of John Hawkins Craig and Sally (Snelling) Craig. This headstone is broken and the bottom is missing. This marker has been displaced from its original location, and was found in the western portion of the cemetery. Although this marker was found lying beside a broken base, the two do not appear to be associated as the break does not re-fit. Although John P. Craig is interred within this cemetery, the actual burial location is not known.____ Photos 3 digital___ Burial 4__ Name Unknown_____________________ DOB N/A_____ DOD N/A_____ Material Marble___ Inscription N/A – headstone is broken_____________ ___________________________________________ Comments The headstone has been broken off, this base does not appear to have been moved. Although the broken headstone of John P. Craig is located beside this base, the two do not appear to be associated. The headstone remnant attached to this base is smaller in width than that of John P. Craig’s headstone and the break does not re-fit. Although this base has shifted slightly due to tree roots, it is one of only two headstones that do not appear to have been displaced and still mark a grave shaft. When this cemetery was initially recorded in 1988 by Dr. Carl Bogardus, a headstone belonging to Sally (Snelling) Craig, wife of John Hawkins Craig was recorded. It was noted at the time that this stone had been removed but later returned. It is possible that this base marks the grave of Sally Craig, born 1767; died 11/30/1859.___________ Photos 1 digital__

Burial 5__ Name Unknown____________________ DOB N/A_____ DOD N/A_____ Material Marble___ Inscription [missing or embedded in tree] Aged 89 years, 21 days________________________________ ___________________________________________ Comments The top of this headstone has been broken and could not be located. This grave marker is embedded in a large tree. Although its position has shifted due to growth of the tree, it is one of only two headstones in this cemetery that has not been displaced and still marks a burial shaft. Small sandstone field stones were noted a few feet to the east of this headstone that are most likely footstones marking the burial plot. Based on the position of this burial, as well as the base associated with Burial 4, the Craig Cemetery was laid out on an east-west orientation.____ Photos 4 digital__

Archaeological and Architectural Documentation of the Craig-Ewalt Farmstead and Craig Cemetery in...

Documents

What is Easiteach - Boone County Schools

Craig Bryant, Mayor - Town of Buchanan

Kennedy-Chapter 01 - Boone County Schools

1-12 SPREADS - West Bend News

city of craig

Craig Calhoun The Class Consciousness of Frequent Travelers

Jessica Craig-Martin Standard Excess - Galerie Andres

Des Moines Area Community College | Boone Campus

President's Message - Big Bend Community College

Around the Bend - Woodson Bend Resort

Bend it! Stretch it! - Primary Connections

N. Craig Smith - INSEAD

Course Description - South Bend Community School

BL Quarterly Report.imr - City of Bend

Craig dissertacao

Western Boone Title IX Training for Investigators and Decision

Reply to Boone and Smith: Is it Evolution Yet?

Product Submittal - City of Great Bend

New Haven Elementary - Boone County Schools

SIENNA RADHA CRAIG | Dartmouth Faculty Directory