Limited Archaeological Testing within the U. S. Grant’s Birthplace

and Grant Commemorative Sites Historic District

in Point Pleasant, Monroe Township, Clermont County,

for the Proposed Repair and Replacement of Gutters and Sidewalk

along SR 232 and Back Street (CLE-SR 232-0.01 PID 87711)

by

Bruce W. Aument, PhD., Staff Archaeologist

Ohio Department of Transportation

Office of Environmental Services

Cultural Resources Section

Columbus, Ohio

with archival assistant from

Nancy H. Campbell, MA., History/Architecture Transportation Reviews Manager

Ohio State Historic Preservation Office

Department of Resource Protection and Review

Columbus, Ohio

November 2011

i

ABSTRACT

During the summer and fall of 2010 staff from the Ohio Department of Transportation and the

Ohio State Historic Preservation Office conducted archival reviews and limited archaeological

testing for the proposed repair and replacement of stone lined gutters and the installation of an

ADA compliant sidewalk ramp at the U. S. Grant’s Birthplace and Grant Commemorative Sites

Historic District in Point Pleasant, Clermont County. Archaeological investigations uncovered

two corners and wall segments of a stone foundation, which archival research indicates represent

a residence built circa 1815 by Thomas Page, one of the initial founders of Point Pleasant. The

exposed and intact foundation corners and wall sections were recorded, as 33CT688, and then

reburied.

Thomas Page and his tannery play an integral part in the narrative of Ulysses S. Grant’s birth.

Page hired Jesse Grant and brought him to Point Pleasant to operate his tannery and shortly

thereafter he introduced Jesse to Hannah Simpson. Page’s home in Lot 37 fortuitously occurs

within the historic district and archival information suggests the home and any related

outbuildings were not used long after Page moved to Cincinnati in 1836. Historical accounts

further link Lot 37, as a waster dump with the tannery which was converted into a clay smoking

pipe factory in the late 19th

and early 20th

centuries. Consequently, Lot 37 should be viewed as a

contributing element to the historic district. Construction limits for the sidewalk were reduced to

avoid the structure remnants as well as the overall impact to the lot.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF GRANT’S BIRTHPLACE AND PARK ...................................... 2

The Grants and Early Point Pleasant .......................................................................................... 3

Grant’s Birthplace Home ............................................................................................................ 5

Page’s Tannery and the Point Pleasant Clay Pipe Factories ....................................................... 7

Grant Memorial Park Improvements by the Works Progress Administration .......................... 11

Expectations for Lot 37 ............................................................................................................. 12

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK ................................................................................ 13

1984 Replacement of Original Grant Memorial Bridge ........................................................... 13

2005 Kiosk Installation ............................................................................................................. 15

2010 LIMITED TESTING STRATEGY AND RESULTS.......................................................... 16

Testing Strategy for Lot 37 ....................................................................................................... 17

33CT688 Stone Foundation Remnant (Page’s Residence) ....................................................... 18

33CT688 Clay Smoking Pipes .................................................................................................. 20

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 26

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 28

FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... 31

1

INTRODUCTION

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) county work crews routinely use state funds to

repair and maintain the state highways, including road side drainage structures. Usually this

work occurs within the existing highway right-of-way but, at times, can involve minor strips of

right-of-way from adjacent private or public property to accommodate temporary work limits.

The vast majority of these highway projects involves repair or in-kind replacement of existing

road structures (ie. bridges, guardrail) and features (ie. drainage ditches, traffic signs) and do not

impact any historic or archaeological site. However, in few instances historic or archaeological

sites (and in the current case, an historic district) overlap with highway right-of-way or occur

immediately adjacent to it where temporary right-of-way is required. In such cases, ODOT must

comply with Ohio Revised Code 149.53 and cooperate with the Ohio Historical Society (OHS)

in preserving such sites and/or salvage scientific information prior to the repair or maintenance

construction activities.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The one block of SR 232 (Indian Street) through the Village of Point Pleasant, Monroe

Township, Clermont County reflects an earlier and narrower standard road width (10 foot lane

widths), which cannot adequately accommodate today’s larger and broader vehicles, particularly

trucks (Figure 1). Low stone retaining walls fronting the residences on the south side of SR 232

allow for only two to three foot of berm (Figure 2). While the open stone lined gutters on the

north side vary from partially under the road pavement to as much as four feet from the edge of

pavement with a grassy berm (Figure 3). The most constricted section of roadway and gutter

occurs at the Back Street intersection, where half of the gutter is covered and the depth from the

road to the bottom of the gutter approaches two feet (Figure 4). The drop off for the rest of the

gutter along SR 232 and Back Street varies between one and 1 ½ feet. A separate SR 232

repaving project constructed during spring 2011 slightly widened the lanes and increased the

asphalt thickness thus further covering the gutter and deepening the drop from the edge of

pavement (Figure 5).

West bound vehicles, primarily trucks, on SR 232 frequently overshoot the edge of the pavement

at the Back Street intersection. The large wheeled trucks rarely drop into the gutter but their

weights tend to crush the overhanging pavement edge. Automobiles and light trucks and vans

infrequently overshoot the pavement edge. But, those that do, invariably drop into the gutter and

bottom out the vehicle on the pavement edge. No injuries have been reported, but considerable

property damage usually results.

2

The stone lined gutters are contributing landscape/park elements to the U.S. Grant’s Birthplace

and Grant Commemorative Sites Historic District, a National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) district, owned by OHS and currently operated as a park and museum by Historic New

Richmond, Inc. (HNR), a local non-profit historical society. The local site operator, as well as

local residents expressed concerns to the ODOT, District 09 office over the worsening condition

and safety of the open gutters at the Back Street intersection. Since repair and/or replacement of

the stone lined gutters impacted an important state owned historic site, ODOT provided OHS,

HNR, and the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (OSHPO) with four alternative solutions

and ODOT’s preferred remedy for their considerations. Although the stone line gutters and the

sidewalk lay within the SR 232 right-of-way, all parties sought a solution which would retain the

integrity and maximum exposure of the gutters to reflect the original park setting.

The consensus option calls for the replacement of the stone lined gutter with a buried drainage

pipe from the entrance to Grant’s birthplace home (midway in the block) east and up SR 232 to

the Back Street intersection, then north along Back Street for approximately 80 feet (Figure 6).

Shoulder grading allows for a slightly wider lane with a one foot paved shoulder, while two

cache basins along the shoulder collect and divert surface runoff into the drainage pipe. The new

pipe ties into the existing 8” drain pipe under the main entrance to Grant’s Birthplace. Loose

stones from the buried gutter sections will be used in the rehabilitation of the lower portion of the

stone gutter from the main entrance west and down to US 52. The Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) requires the installation of an ADA compliant curb ramp at the Back Street

intersection, which entails the removal of the existing concrete steps and a grade change for

approximately 20 foot of the sidewalk approach to the corner.

Work limits for the stone gutters along SR 232 and Back Street coincide with existing highway

right-of-way. The work limits for the sidewalk and ramp extend approximately 15 feet north of

existing SR 232 highway right-of-way beginning at the Back Street intersection and extending

approximately 90 feet west. This narrow swathe includes all of the southern frontage of Lot 37

and a small portion of the southeast corner of Lot 36, where the frontage of each lot measures 4

rods or 66 feet. None of the proposed construction occurs in Lot 29 which contains Grant’s

Birthplace Home

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF GRANT’S BIRTHPLACE AND PARK

Even though Ulysses. S. Grant spent only his first year of life in Point Pleasant, his family and

his birthplace became intricately intertwined with historical developments of the village which

resulted in the establishment of the Grant Memorial Park in 1926 and the National Register

Historic District in 1998. The boundaries of the memorial park and historic district enclose

different space, but overlap in focusing the principal narrative of the place on Grant and his birth

(Figure 7). The memorial park provides an open vista of Grant’s home looking north from the

road side rest (also part of the park) on the opposite side of US 52, as well as from the former,

3

highly decorated Grant Memorial Bridge, which carries US 52 over the Big Indian Creek (Figure

8. The Parker through truss bridge with its memorial plaque and decorative pylons announced

the location of Grant’s home to the approaching motorist (Figure 9), while the road side rest

afforded the visitors a brief period of reflection on the greatness of the general and former

president as they approached the diminutive home of his birth. In contrast, the home serves as

the central point of the National Register Historic District with the ancillary and commemorative

structures and landscape elements added over the years, including the current and less impressive

Grant Memorial Bridge (Figure 10), radiating out from the home. The road side rest area no

longer physically and functionally figures into the park layout for Grant’s birthplace with the

current rest area signage linking it with the former and current Grant Memorial Bridges (Figure

11). US 52 (Short Street) separates the rest area from the western park boundary, where park

signage set back from the road draws attention to the opposite side of the street from the rest area

(Figure 12). However, most of the park signage occurs on SR 232 (Indian Steet), well out of

view from the US 52 intersection and directed towards the small parking lot on the opposite side

of Indian Street, which now serves as the principal parking area for the park (Figure 13).

The Grants and Early Point Pleasant

The narrative of Grant’s parents’ marriage and his birth intricately entwines their lives with

Thomas Page and Lee Thompson during the initial founding of the village of Point Pleasant

between 1815 and 1823. Other founding players include John Thompson, Berry (Benny?)

Thompson, Wilson L. Thompson (probably the same person as Lee Thompson), and Doughty

Stockton.

Following the 1813 platting of Point Pleasant into 100 in-lots and 13 out-lots, Thomas Page

acquired six lots (15, 21, 37, 38, 59, and 104) in the fall of 1814 and then four lots (5, 10, 12, and

33) in the spring of 1815 from Henry Ludlam (Ludlow). The distribution of these lots

demonstrates Page’s business plan for divesting of his farm in Tate Township, moving to Point

Pleasant, and investing in commercial and retail interests (Figure 14). The wooded out-lot (Lot

104) at the east end of the village served as the site of Page’s tannery. The lots along Short,

Water, Locust, and Indian Streets, all within the first block of the Ohio River and the bridge

crossing the Big Indian Creek represent prime retail and commercial spaces for wholesale and

retail distribution of river trade and local products. Lots 37 and 38 are optimally positioned to

serve as his residence midway between the tannery and his commercial interests in the center of

the village. Lot 37 seems the best location for Page’s residence being immediately across Back

Street from the tannery and the first home encountered coming west into the village on Indian

Street, the main east-west road.

Initial this road was referred to as Page’s Road (Lane) because in 1812 while living on Sugartree

Run two miles west of Bethel in Tate Township, as part of the Jersey’s/Collins’ settlement, Page

petitioned for the building of a public road beginning at the existing public road (now SR 125)

near his farm extending southwest to cross Round Bottom Road at what would become Laurel

4

and then continuing to the mouth of Big Indian Creek, the site of the newly platted village of

Point Pleasant (Rockey and Bancroft 1880:387). The building of this early unimproved road

involved cutting a narrow swathe through the forest and leaving the stumps as low to the ground

as possible. In 1817 his son John Page, along with W. L. Thompson, Joseph Clenney, and Isaac

Armacost of Point Pleasant became members of a Clermont County corporation which proposed

improving this road as the Union Turnpike Road with set toll rates to offset construction and

maintenance costs between Point Pleasant and Bethel.

Historical accounts credit Page with building the third house in Point Pleasant, preceded by

Henry Ludlam (Ludlow) and John Thompson, a blacksmith, who resided on Lot 36 and adjacent

to Page’s Lots 37 and 38. Thompson acquired his lot from Ludlam (Ludlow) in 1815 and either

occupied it quickly or already occupied the lot prior to buying (Clermont County auditor’s

website lists the brick house was built in 1812). As the third reported residence Page presumably

built quickly after purchasing, since in 1814 Ludlam (Ludlow) previously sold most of the other

lots in the block formed by Indian Street on the south, Locust Street on the north, Back Street on

the east, and Short Street on the west.

In 1814 Wilson L. Thompson purchased Lot 27 fronting Locust Street, John Salt purchased Lot

28 fronting Indian Street, Berry (Benny?) Thompson purchased Lot 29, also fronting Indian

Street and the location of the cottage rented by the Grants, and Ephraim Eastridge (Estridge)

purchased Lot 30 fronting Locust Street. Wilson L. Thompson eventually purchased Lot 29 in

1836 from Berry (Benny?) Thompson. Presumably, Wilson Thompson’s middle initial stands

for Lee and he managed Lot 29 for Berry (Benny) when the Grants’ rented the cottage from 1820

to 1823. Doughty Stockton purchased Lot 22 on the corner of Locust and Short Streets in 1815,

but sold it to Thomas Page in 1816. Consequently Page eventually owned all four corners of the

block.

Stockton apparently competed with Page for the early control of the business core of Point

Pleasant (Figure 14). His 1815 lot purchases included most of Short Street between Indian and

Main Streets (Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23), as well as along Indian and Locust Streets south

of Short Street (Lots 11 and 13). However, Stockton appears to be a real estate investor, since

the late nineteenth century county history makes no mention of him operating any businesses. In

contrast, Page appears to be an entrepreneur who started a tannery, opened the first general store,

and operated a warehouse. Lee Thompson matched Page’s enterprises by also operating a store

and warehouse, along with a pork packing operation (Rockey and Bancroft 1880:390). Both of

their establishments supported a developing trade network on the Ohio River.

As Thomas Page entered his middle years he began to divest his interests. He granted Lot 5

overlooking the Ohio River on the corner of Water and Locust Streets to Joseph Clenney, a retail

merchant, in 1823. Page’s general store went through several proprietors and eventually John

Molyneaux acquired the business, as well as Lot 12 from Page in 1826. He served as the

postmaster until 1835 and ran the post office out of the store. Eventually, John Molyneaux and

5

his brother, Samuel bought and enlarged the operation of Page’s tannery in the 1830s. Historical

accounts credit George Gregg operating the tannery at least into the 1870s in connection with his

other facility at Washington, Ohio (Rockey and Bancroft 1880:390).

Thomas Page moved to Cincinnati probably in 1836, the year he sold Lots 37 and 38 to Larkin

R. Day. Also, he does not appear in the 1837 list of Point Pleasant home owners; although

William Page, presumably his son or grandson, does. Thomas Page appears in the 1840

Cincinnati city directory and dies in the same city in 1855 (Wolfe 2011).

Lots 37 and 38 become embroiled in a real estate dispute and a court ordered sheriff’s sale of 19

lots in Point Pleasant between John M. Thompson and his relatives: Caroline, Benjamin, Anna,

Williams, Charlotte, Sarah, Thomas and Nancy with John gaining control of nearly all of them

(Figure 15). Nancy Thompson acquires Lots 36, 37 and 38 and then sells them in 1858 to James

A. Morgan. The three lots change ownership several times until 1860, ending with Danforth

Barlow’s acquisition. Thompson Mickel acquires the lots in 1880 and his heirs sell to Charles

Allison in 1934, who grants a ninety-nine years lease on Lots 36 and 37 in 1937 and

subsequently sells the lots in 1953 to the OHS. Through all the land transfers two issues remain

unanswered: Who razed the structure (Page’s residence) on Lot 37 and when?

The tannery initially links the lives of Thomas Page and Jesse Grant in 1820. That year Grant

came to Point Pleasant to operate Page’s tannery and earn enough money to start his own

business. Grant began as apprentice tanner with his half-brother, Peter, in Maysville in 1810 and

worked in several Ohio tanneries before coming to Point Pleasant. At 26 years old, Jesse wanted

to establish a family as much as a business. Thomas Page introduced him to the John and Sarah

Simpson, who purchased Page’s farm on Sugartree Run along with the large first brick house in

Tate Township which Page built in 1807 and added onto in 1811 (Simpson 2000). The couple

had a daughter, Hannah, of eligible age and in that the first year Jesse frequently made the ten

mile, one-way trip to visit the family. Jessie quickly saved enough money that the couple

married in June 1821 in the brick farm house and then moved to the rented small frame house on

Lot 29, in the middle of the block and a couple of lots west of the tannery. In April of the next

year, Ulysses Grant arrived and within another year Jesse’s saved earnings allowed him to start

his own tannery and move the family to a larger brick home in Georgetown.

Grant’s Birthplace Home

Jesse and Hannah Grant rented the small one story, three bay, and one room frame cottage built

on a limestone foundation measuring 16 feet by 19.5 feet, which fronted Indian Street

overlooking Big Indian Creek to the south (Rockey and Bancroft 1880:389). The chimney was

centrally placed on the exterior of the east end, which mostly likely served as the kitchen/living

area (on the right when entering) with sleeping arrangements in the west half of the room (on the

left when entering). Sometime after the Grants moved to Georgetown, the construction of a

6

formal partition separated the two areas providing privacy for the bedroom, and a lean-to shed

added on the north side served as a kitchen (Harper and Gordon 1998:58).

Over the years inconsistencies began to accumulate in the home’s description due to changing

narratives and the accumulating physical degradation of the original materials from weathering

and the moving of the structure for various expositions (Harper and Gordon 1998). Beginning in

1885 the home went on display at two Ohio centennial expositions, then relocation to Goodale

Park in Columbus and finally a national tour lasting several years starting in 1890. Upon the

home’s return to Columbus in 1896, it resided in a protective pavilion at the state fairgrounds

until it’s final dismantling in 1936 and reconstruction on it’s original stone foundation in the

recently established Grant Memorial State Park in Point Pleasant (Harper and Gordon 1998:65).

Early written and oral accounts of Grant’s birthplace home claim it was a log cabin, but no

records from the numerous house dismantlings cite the presence of logs. Likewise, several

sawmills operated in the immediate vicinity of Point Pleasant during its founding. The growing

national identity during the 19th

century equated the log cabins with the qualities great

Americans (principally men) developed from their humble beginnings. Still, the more authentic

description of an austere, one-room, frame cottage provides only a slightly more genteel version

of a humble beginning and, besides Grant’s childhood development took place in the larger brick

home in Georgetown.

A sketch in an 1880 county history seems a fairly accurate external portrayal of the home just

before it went on exhibit around the state and nation (Rockey and Bancroft 1880:388)[Figure

16]. Appropriately, a chimney for the lean-to kitchen addition is portrayed on the north end

accompanying the chimney for the original structure. Likewise, the closeness of the adjacent

home of John Thompson (the park’s caretaker’s home) to the east and the sidewalk in front of

both accurately depicts the narrowness of the village lots. In contrast a sketch from an 1896

history of Ohio presents the more romantic view with an open, rural setting and a person

working a garden (Howe 1896:420) [Figure 17). This later sketch does not include the second

chimney for the lean-to kitchen addition. The current structure at the Grant Memorial State Park

lacks the lean-to addition chimney (Figure 18), because the addition serves as a reception and

exhibit room rather than a reconstructed kitchen and the park’s intent to accurately depict

internally the one room arrangement of the original cottage.

Another 1880 source describes the frame cottage as containing two nice rooms with a cellar

(Harper and Gordon 1998:58). No other description mentions a cellar, only a limestone

foundation. Although somewhat naturally elevated, Point Pleasant sets on a narrow floodplain at

the confluence of Big Indian Creek and the Ohio River and it seems reasonable few buildings in

the village would contain basements. However, the county auditor’s website lists an unfinished

basement for the original portion of John Thompson’s home (the park’s caretaker’s home),

which supposedly built in 1812 predates the cottage. Regardless, no published record during the

7

1936 return of Grant’s birthplace home describes how the original foundation was identified and

what condition it was in.

A larger two-story frame house, attributed to Thomas Peterson, occupied Lot 29 during the tour

of Grant’s birthplace home between 1880 and 1936; and likewise, no account describes whether

its foundation incorporated or disturbed the original cottage foundation either during

construction or removal. A 1910-1920 postcard and a 1922 photograph suggest the two story

house occupied a more central position on the Lot 29 frontage being situated either immediately

west or partially overlapping the original cottage foundation (Figures 19 and 20).

Providing the brick portion of the house on Lot 36, actually represents John Thompson’s house,

then it’s possible to compare the austerity of a tannery foreman’s house to that of a skilled

blacksmith’s home. Both are one story and at 396 square feet, the blacksmith’s house is larger

by 84 square feet, which equates to only a few feet broader and wider in the overall size. The

brick construction and interior chimneys at both ends reflect the true physical and status

differences from Grant’s home. House position within the lot is also distinctly different and

would have been more prominent before the additions to both structures (Figure 21). The back

of the brick house rests centrally on the long west line of Lot 36. The house faces the high bluff

rather than Indian Street to the south or the Ohio River to the west. In contrast, Grant’s home

sets in the southeast corner of Lot 29 closely facing Indian Street. The house placement appears

somewhat practical, since it corresponds to the highest elevation of the lot. The placement of the

blacksmith’s house appears more personal than practical and reflective of it being one of the first

two homes constructed.

Page’s Tannery and the Point Pleasant Clay Pipe Factories

Besides the reason for Jesse Grant coming to Point Pleasant, the tannery also figures into the

narrative about the Point Pleasant potteries which produced clay smoking pipes during the late

nineteenth century. Oral tradition and historical accounts claim three different potteries

operating in Point Pleasant produced a wide variety of clay smoking pipes. The longest

operating pottery and referred to by a list of its owners as the Lakin-Kirkpatrick-Davis-Peterson

(LKDP) Pottery occupied the south bank of Big Indian Creek between the precursor to the Grant

Memorial Bridge and the Ohio River (Thomas and Burnett 1972). The second pottery referred to

by the original owner, Thomas Peterson (TP), occupied the narrow strip of land between Indian

Street and Big Indian Creek in fractional Lot 28 (Murphy 1985).

The 1870 county atlas (Lake 1870) contains a plat map of Point Pleasant with both potteries

indicated; although it’s not clear if the TP Pottery is one long building in fractional Lot 21, a

smaller building in fractional Lot 28, or both buildings (Figure 22). An 1877 plat of Point

Pleasant (Hayes 1877) continues to show the LKDP pottery but not the TP pottery, and on a

separate map identifies the LKDP Pottery as the Peterson & Brothers Pottery (Figures 23 and

24). Neither pottery occurs on the 1891 county atlas (Lake 1891)[Figure 25]. No map shows the

8

location of the third pottery, known as the Bainum and Peterson Pottery (BP) or the Clermont

Pottery, which oral tradition and conflicting photographs place at the current site of the Grant

Memorial United Methodist Church on the northeast corner of the SR 232 (Indian Street) and

Back Street intersection.

A Monroe Township history produced in 2003 by the Monroe Township Bicentennial Board

reproduces an undated photograph of the tannery with two distinctively different captions

(Figure 26). The white printed caption identifies the building as “The Oldest Clay Pipe Factory

in U. S.” followed by the black cursive caption “and Grant’s Tannery”. The denuded bluff in the

background indicates the original woodlot on Page’s Lot 104 was exhausted and the photograph

possibly postdates the building’s use as a tannery. The late nineteenth century county history

(Rockey and Bancroft 1880:390) indicates the continuous operation of the tannery through

subsequent owners at least until the publication of the history. It further indicates the tannery in

the photograph is an enlarged structure from the original tannery Grant operated for Page. The

photograph shows a partially opened lean-to structure on the corner of the intersection, which

apparently relates to one aspect of whatever manufacturing endeavor occurs at the site. Reusing

the tannery, which the photograph suggests, as a pottery seems reasonable, but not as the oldest

clay pipe factory in the U. S. or even in Point Pleasant. The photograph shows no evidence of a

kiln, although it could be behind the structure or further to the east and out of view from the

camera. Either location would place the kiln at the bluff base or built into the bluff slope.

Another undated photograph in the New Richmond Historical Society archives shows the lot

cleaned up and apparently vacant (Figures 27). If the caption, which notes “The Old Grant

Tannery Near Grant Memorial State Park”, is not a later addition to the picture, then the

photograph dates to the late 1920s or early 1930s at the earliest, since parkland acquisition began

in 1926 and establishment of the state park occurred in 1932 (Hopper and Gordon 1998:63).

Further evidence for the tannery’s presence on the same corner into the early twentieth century

comes from the panoramic photograph of the centennial celebration of Grant’s birthday on April

27, 1922, which shows the upper story of the tannery in the background (Figure 20). A close-up

view shows a similar external appearance of the tannery to the one in the New Richmond

Historical Society archival photograph (Figure 28).

The panoramic photograph lends credence to the historical account of the Grant Memorial

United Methodist Church in a church pamphlet, which states that during 1930 and 1931 the

church members constructed the church on the original foundation of the tannery incorporating

much of the stone with additional stone from nearby creeks (Grant Memorial Church nd:3). A

copy of a 1931 photograph of the recently or nearly completed church in the archives at Grant’s

Birthplace Home provides a similar scene as the early tannery photograph and shows the same

spacing of the church and the tannery location to the corner and to the two story building to the

north (Figures 26 and 29). A recent comparative photograph of the church’s foundation to the

tannery foundation in the New Richmond Historical society photograph shows two buildings of

9

similar width and positioning to the road, but with the church foundation lengthened one bay to

the rear and with considerable modification and rebuilding of the tannery foundation for window

and door placements (Figures 27 and 30).

The church pamphlet, which postdates 1954, further states the tannery became a clay pipe

factory well known for its products for many years after the Civil War and still remembered by

older residents of the community as functioning in that capacity (Grant Memorial Church nd:3).

Unfortunately, the account provides no more precise date for the switch from a tannery to a clay

pipe factory. But, as previously mentioned, the switch in operations occurred sometime after

George Gregg’s tannery operation, the last reported owner of the building at the writing of the

county history in the 1870s (Rockey and Bancroft 1880:390).

A recently acquired printed photograph, divided back postcard with a cancellation date of April

15 1908 or 1909 provides the same view of the tannery as the one in Monroe Township history

(Figure 31). However, this new photograph, labeled Grant’s Tannery, crops out the neighboring

house to the north and the schoolhouse on the bluff to the northeast, but provides the first view of

a frame barn with a lean-to addition behind the tannery. Barely visible in the open doorway of

the lean-to addition sets a stack of saggers with another one on the ground in front of the door,

thus providing the first conclusive evidence of the conversion of the tannery into a pottery

(Figure 32). However, clear evidence for an associated kiln still remains allusive.

Whether the BP Pottery (Clermont Pottery) occupied the tannery is not as important as the fact

that the tannery stood well into the 1920s and after clay pipe production ceased at all three of the

known Point Pleasant potteries. Based on a photograph in the Cincinnati Historical Society

archives and originally published in the November 1900 The Illustrated Clermonter, the BP

Pottery was a long, two and one half story stone building (Figure 33). The republished

photograph carries the following information in the caption,

The factory stood on the present site of the Grant Memorial Church, which was

erected after the old Point Church was destroyed by the 1913 flood. Older area

residents recall that this pipe factory was operated for many years by John

Bainum and Thomas Peterson (Sudbury 1976, Figure 1).

Besides the tannery being present, the length of the stone building and its setting argue against its

reported location coinciding with the church. The denuded bluff is missing in the background of

the photograph so the picture cannot be facing east. Additionally, the kiln occupies the corner

with the stone building set back, which makes it impossible for the two intersecting dirt roads to

be Indian and Back Streets, since the church and tannery were set that close to the corner.

Finally, the burning of the earlier Methodist Church in 1929 was the impetus for building the

new church in 1931, nearly two decades after the devastating 1913 flood.

The photograph actually depicts the LKDP pottery on the south bank of Big Indian Creek and the

west side of the road adjacent to the Grant Memorial Bridge. A pre 1927 real photo postcard of

10

the bowstring arch bridge (precursor to the Grant Memorial Bridge) over Big Indian Creek

confirms the location of the stone pottery (Figure 34). The characteristic elements that

distinguish the building include its length, the elongated height of the second story windows, the

wide spacing/gap between the second and third windows and the step gabled front façade. The

appearance of the building and no evidence of the kiln in the picture suggest abandonment of the

pottery operation, presumably post 1900. The published photograph represents a period of

increased activity with six individuals (two of which are women) portrayed (Figure 33). If the

published photograph truly dates to 1900, then it extends the know operation of the LKDP

pottery by 16 years, since other sources indicate it ceased operations by 1884 (Thomas and

Burnett 1972:7; Murphy 1985:62).

Tenuous photographic evidence for the TP Pottery occurs on the 1922 Grant’s birth centennial

panorama (Figure 35). An elongated one story frame warehouse (?) occupies fractional Lot 28

while a two story frame barn (?) occupies fractional lot 29, which agree with the general sizes

and shapes but not the lot locations of the two structures labeled pottery on the 1870 Point

Pleasant plat map (Figure 22). The 1877 plat shows only the two story barn on fractional Lot 29

and labels it BSH (blacksmith shop?) [Figure 23].

Deed and tax records, as well as census data provide conflicting information on the founding,

termination, and continuous operations of the three different pottery firms and their periods of

operation between 1870 and 1910 (Murphy 1985; Sudbury 1986). Some of the confusion relates

to three generations of Petersons and their relatives by marriage, whom own and transfer

ownership of three different potteries, as well as the family’s lot holdings. Available information

suggests fluidity between the potteries under a broader, somewhat amorphous and informal,

family business interest, which allowed for switching employees, as well as operation locations

and durations. Likewise, over the generations the diversity of ceramic products apparently

dwindles until the potteries solely produce clay smoking pipes, which presumably reflects

changing markets, as well as the generational loss of skilled potters (although this may reflect

bias sampling and reporting skewed towards smoking pipes over other ceramic products in the

waster dumps). In other words, the three closely spaced potteries seem to cooperatively operate

as several small cottage industries rather than a growing developing single industrial ceramic

facility.

The current narrative argues for sequential and overlapping operations beginning with the LKDP

Pottery as early as the mid 1840s and extending until the mid 1880s or early 1890s at the latest

(Thomas and Burnett 1972:4-5). This means the photograph of the pottery in operation was 10

to 20 years old when published in 1900 (Figure 33). Otherwise, the pottery continued in

operation, presumably by the same business owners, while the real estate exchanged ownership.

The TP Pottery overlaps with the LKDP Pottery beginning in 1870 and extending through 1895

or possibly into the early 1900s when it overlaps with the BP Pottery (Murphy 1985:62). The BP

Pottery is assumed to operate until the 1913 flood (Sudbury 1986:37). An 1898 factory

inspection report lists eight employees at the BP Pottery, while the 1910 census lists Thomas B.

11

Peterson as the proprietor of a pipe factory, and John L. Bainum and Charles Bushman as

workers at a pipe factory (Murphy 1985:62). Eight workers suggests a fairly large operation,

similar to the photograph of the LKDP Pottery, but since the factory produced only clay smoking

pipes it could easily be accommodated in the tannery.

Archaeological evidence to support this chronology rests on the Diamond Stamped Elbow clay

pipe, which occurs in waster dumps at the TP Pottery (parking lot for Grant’s birthplace,

fractional Lots 21, 28 and 29) and the BP Pottery (behind the church and across Back Street, Lot

37), but not at the LKDP Pottery (Rist 1983; Murphy 1985). Also the mold for one variety of

this pipe style and attributed to the BP Pottery exists in a private collection (Rist 1983:51).

Conflicting information makes the chronology somewhat suspect and open to further research.

Based on labor statistics, Stout (1923:54) identified only one clay pipe factory operating in Point

Pleasant from 1895 to 1909. The Akron Smoking Pipe Company acquired this plant or all of its

output in 1896 to offset the lost production from the closing of its Mogadore, Ohio facility and to

supply their customers during the conversion of their Pamplin, Virginia facility from redware to

stoneware pipe production (Sudbury 1986:37). How long the Point Pleasant pipe factory

operated under Akron Smoking Pipe Company is currently undetermined. However, attributing

its demise to the 1913 flood is unsubstantiated. The tannery and site of the BP Pottery sets above

the highwater level and operations would be unaffected. Likewise, the 1922 panoramic photo

indicates all of the principal buildings along Indian Street and Short Street survived the flood, but

that doesn’t mean the businesses in them also survived. Conceivably, the TP Pottery relocated to

the BP Pottery after the 1913 flood and survived in a limited capacity for a short duration until

the Pamplin facility became fully operational.

Grant Memorial Park Improvements by the Works Progress Administration

The severe 1937 flood nearly covered the newly returned and reconstructed Grant’s Birthplace

Home necessitating OHS to undertake extensive repairs the following year (Figure 36) [Harper

and Gordon 1998:65]. OHS also enlarged the caretaker’s home with additions to the north end

and northern half of the east side as well as building a new caretaker’s garage at the rear of Lot

37. Work Progress Administration funds and labor provided for these improvements along with

additional park amenities that included limestone retaining walls demarcating the limits of

Grant’s Memorial Park, open limestone lined road side gutters, flagstone sidewalks and smaller

retaining walls in front of Grant’s and the caretaker’s homes, and a patio, sundial and wooden

wishing well between and behind the two houses (Figure 7) [NRHP 1998]. The reported low

limestone wall (NHRP 1998) fronting US 52 (Short Street) no longer exists, being replaced

presumably sometime in the last 13 years by a wooden fence (Figure 12).

Another low and narrower limestone wall remains intact and provides a visual physical

separation of the caretaker’s home from the open expanse of the corner lot (Figure 37). The wall

partitions Lot 36 into narrow and elongated eastern and western halves. The corner lot consists

12

of Lot 37 and fractional Lot 36 with the caretaker’s garage and driveway constructed along the

northern lot edge and completely within Lot 37. The same unbroken elevation on either side of

the wall suggests it doesn’t function as a retaining wall and any substantial cuts or fills and

grading of either lot did not occur during its construction. Likewise the current broad, level and

open expanse of the corner appears unchanged from the 1931 photograph of the newly

completed Grant Memorial Church, which predates the WPA wall (Figure 29).

Expectations for Lot 37

Thomas Page and his tannery figure prominently in the nineteenth century history of Point

Pleasant, first with the birth of Ulysses S. Grant early during the century, then with the clay

tobacco pipe industry at the close of the century. Accommodating an on-site caretaker for Grant

Memorial Park fortuitously provided for Lot 37’s acquisition and inclusion within the U. S.

Grant’s Birthplace and Grant Commemorative Sites Historic District. The same holds true for

the TP Pottery under the parking lot in fractional Lots 21, 28 and 29. Lot 37 potentially contains

buried remnants of Page’s residence and associated outbuildings, as well as a reported waster

dump from the BP Pottery (the reused Page’s tannery).

Establishing the presence of Page’s residence increases the park’s physical elements which

directly contribute to the commemoration of Ulysses S. Grant’s birth while providing a richer

and more robust narrative of how this single event fits within the broader establishment of Point

Pleasant as an important trading town on the Ohio River.

Although the records provide no clear and definitive evidence for the date of the removal of

Page’s house, it appears subsequent owners beginning with John Thompson and his extended

family did not use the house as a residence. Lots 36 and 37 are continuously linked in all

subsequent land transfers and Thompson’s original home in Lot 36 appears to be the residence

with Lot 37 serving as expanded residential yard. Little disturbance to the corner lot except for

the removal of the home’s superstructure apparently occurred until the construction of the

caretaker’s garage in 1937/1938. No record exists of whether the garage construction

encountered any deposits or features associated with Page’s house.

Evidence for the use and disturbance of Lot 37 as a waster dump for the BP pottery late in the

nineteenth century and into the first decade of the twentieth century is tenuous. Details of when,

where and how the numerous pipe fragments were recovered from Lot 37 are not provided and

the OHS files contain no account of any excavation on this portion of their property (Murphy

1985). Possibly the misidentified LKDP Pottery photograph provided some justification, since

the scene depicts an individual with some machinery and/or debris on the opposite street corner

from the kiln and brick building (Figure 33). The 1931 photograph of the newly built church

provides the only clear overview of the vacant corner Lot 37 and documents no disturbance to it

from the church construction since it remains open and grass covered while piles of stone cover

adjacent lots in the background (Figure 29). It also demonstrates the elevation of the lot and the

13

deep cut for Indian Street (SR 32) remain relatively unchanged from that time expect for the

WPA installation of the stone lined gutters and the loss of a couple of trees.

During the first half of the 20th

century Ohio River flooding periodically inundated Point

Pleasant but apparently the force of the floodwaters was sufficiently slow to not physically

remove the standing buildings nor scour the residential lots. However, the deep floodwaters,

most likely suspended and relocated small objects throughout the village from the exposed

pottery waster piles.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK

Architecture, landscape, actual and period clothing and furniture comprise the main elements and

attractions of Grant’s Birthplace and Grant Commemorative Sites Historic District. A nearly

total lack of archaeological work has occurred within the historic district since the 1926

establishment of the state park and no archaeological preservation plan exists, which is

understandable given the limited focus of the historic district in terms of time and topic. The

limited archaeological work, both professional and collector, primarily concentrates on waster

piles from the clay smoking pipe potteries, which occur within and immediately adjacent to the

historic district. Published accounts focus on smoking pipe classification and seriation with little

discussion of the collection strategies for the pipe samples. Archival research provides the

chronology for the potteries and pipe seriation.

1984 Replacement of Original Grant Memorial Bridge

During the 1984 replacement of the original Grant Memorial Bridge with the current bridge, an

ODOT archaeologist monitored the bulldozer excavations through a portion of the LKDP Pottery

(CT256) on the south bank of Big Indian Creek (Figure 38). No known written account of this

work survives and the present report summarizes the available information from the field bag

notes and describes the collected artifacts.

On 20 February 1984 an ODOT staff archaeologist monitoring the impact of the bridge

construction on the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) waster dump collected a small grab sample of 377

clay smoking pipe fragments from nine noted localities within the temporary work limits, along

with a collapsed sagger fragment, two pieces of kiln furniture, two bottle glass sherds, five

redware sherds and seven stoneware sherds. These localities encompass an area of roughly 0.1

acre extending 60 feet south of the existing road pavement and 70 feet from the water’s edge up

the steep bank and onto the high bank edge (Figure 38).

None of the collection localities specifically mention the intersection of the gravel access drive

and US 52, where the temporary road merged back with the existing highway right-of-way.

Either this portion of the temporary construction limits contained no exposed pipe fragments,

received shallow excavation and minor surface disturbance, or was excluded from monitoring.

14

During the monitoring of the bridge replacement no recorded observation was made of the kiln

being located on the northwest corner of this intersection. Only the earlier observation of

Thomas and Burnett (1972:4) of a few heavily glazed bricks and foundation stones on the

surface provides the only physical evidence of the former kiln’s location. However, they made

no excavation into this surface concentration of bricks and stone to confirm an intact kiln

remnant; yet their schematic cross section of the waster dump speculates the remnant kiln

foundation could extend approximately 3 feet deep (Thomas and Burnett 1972:Map 2).

Murphy (1995:31) states the ODOT temporary bridge thoroughly destroyed the pottery site, kiln,

and the stratified waster dump. His inaccurate conclusion was based on the lack of knowledge of

the size of the pottery and its placement in relationship to the kiln and the road. However, he

included pictures of both Page’s tannery (subsequently BP Pottery) [Figure 26] and the long

brick LKDP Pottery and kiln (33CT256) originally misidentified in the newspaper caption as the

BP Pottery (Figure 33). Although Murphy first questioned the identification of the brick

building as the BP Pottery, he provisionally accepted that the brick pottery and kiln replaced

Page’s tannery as the BP Pottery and was subsequently replaced by the Grant Memorial Church

in 1913 (Murphy 1995:32).

The available pictures of the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) indicate it set well back from the US 52

roadway when the bowstring bridge was present and extended a considerable distance west

occupying much of the area between the dirt lane to the river landing (current gravel access

drive) and bank of Indian Creek. Waste piles surround the building and kiln and apparently spill

over to the south side of the dirt lane along the west side of US 52. The 1924 construction plan

for the original Grant Memorial Bridge indicates an enlargement of the abutments but no

increase in roadway width (Figure 39). Furthermore, the 1924 temporary bridge could not

impact the LKPD Pottery (33CT256), but possibly the TP Pottery (33CT390), since it occurred

within 100 feet of the east side of the bowstring bridge. Consequently, any buried remnants of

the LKPD Pottery (33CT256) building should also occur outside of the 1984 temporary

construction limits and potentially detectable by remote sensing. The kiln appears to be of

sufficient diameter (approximately 20 feet) and placement from the road to partially extend

outside of the 1984 temporary construction limits.

The provenience information on the 1984 field bags indicates a trench cut of unknown

dimensions and pilings for the temporary bridge exposed the pipe fragments. They also occurred

in the backdirt piles from these excavations, as well as eroded down the steep creek bank slope.

Considering the vast numbers of previously reported whole and fragmentary pipes from this site,

the grab sample appears small in number, highly fragmentary, but minimally representative of

the known types. The poor quality and small number of pipe fragments suggests the collection

strategy was not selective but fortuitous and complete for all diminutive fragments observed.

Therefore this collection provides little support for the presence of a deep stratified midden on

the creek bank within 50 feet of the bridge.

15

Conflicting accounts of excavations exposing stratified or unstratified midden within the pottery

site present little stratigraphic information to support either conclusion (Heimlich 1979; Thomas

and Burnett 1972, Murphy 1995). No account provides the locations of these excavations,

although they appear to be west of 1984 trench cut for the temporary bridge. No previous

account considers the level of disturbance associated with the removal and cleanup of the pottery

site, nor its use as a commercial campground at the time of the 1984 bridge replacement.

From October 1984 through March 1985, roughly coinciding and possibly resulting from the

bridge replacement project, collectors vandalized the TP Pottery (33CT390). Representatives

from OHS, OSHPO and ODOT, as well as a local collector accessed the site damage, recovered

pipe fragments and kiln furniture from a looter’s backdirt pile, and repaired damage to the

parking lot and creek bank slope.

The OHS’s consulting archaeologist published an account of the recovered artifacts and archival

information on the TP Pottery (33CT390) [Murphy 1985]. This same report provides a brief

statement and the only account of numerous pipe fragments associated with the BP Pottery

occurring within Lot 37, but does not establish how many, whether they came from the surface

or excavations, and whether they are associated with kiln furniture. Two pipe styles, Point

Pleasant Stamped Diamond and Point Pleasant Ribbed Elbow, Variety E, first identified at the

TP Pottery predominate amongst the fragments from Lot 37 and because of their closer

proximity are attributed to the BP Pottery (Murphy 1985:70).

Since the pottery factory owners are not the same individuals as the Lot 37 property owners,

attributing the pipe fragments to a formal waster pile for the BP Pottery rather than resulting

from incidental loss or secondary deposition remains an open question to be addressed by future

archaeological exploration. The limited and insufficient pipe fragment distribution information

for the BP Pottery apparently prevented a site designation in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory,

at the same time the TP Pottery was inventoried as 33CT390.

2005 Kiosk Installation

The only record of OHS conducting archaeological work within the Grant’s Birthplace and Grant

Commemorative Sites Historic District documents the monitoring of new kiosk installations at

the birthplace site, boyhood home site, and school house site on September 20, 2005 (Pansing

and Pickard 2005). Four mechanically augered holes measuring 25 cm (10 in) in diameter

reached depths between 90 and 96 cm (35 and 38 in) and were placed 1.5 m (5 ft) from the edge

of the sidewalk beginning approximately 6 m (20 ft) from the southeast corner of Lot 28 (Figures

6 and 13). Homogeneous dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) silt (loam) alluvium accounted for

the entire depth with a strong brown (7.5YR5/6) clay (loam) encountered at the bottom of the

deepest auger hole. The thick dark alluvium in the residential front yard was devoid of historic

artifacts with one prehistoric flake recovered from each of two auger holes. The recovery depths

of the two flakes are not recorded.

16

The soil description roughly conforms to the surface and upper subsoil horizons of a natural

Lindside silt loam (Lerch et al 1975:69, Map Sheet 33). The 8 in thick dark brown (10YR3/3)

silt loam on the surface overlies a series of silty clay loam subsoil horizons which differ slightly

from dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) to brown (7.5YR 4/4), and from moderate to coarse

subangular blocky structure with varying amounts of dark clay films. Between 35 and 45 inches

below the surface, the subsoil changes to a brown (7.5YR4/4) coarse subangular blocky clay

loam with distinct grayish brown (10YR5/2) and yellowish brown (10YR5/6) mottling. The

mechanical augering of the postholes disturbed and masked the slight differences in soil color,

texture and structure between the surface and various upper subsoil horizons. The lack of

historic artifacts in the auger holes apparently results from several factors: 1) the limited

excavation for the four postholes, 2) the frontage of residential lots did not serve as a domestic

waste disposal area during the period of use, and 3) the removal of the house during the park

creation in the late 1920s occurred in a manner that spread little debris to the edge of the lot.

2010 LIMITED TESTING STRATEGY AND RESULTS

ODOT consulted with the New Richmond Historical Society (the site caretaker), the Ohio

Historical Society (the site owner), and the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office on the best

alternative to correct the safety issues while minimizing impacts or harm to any known or

potential contributing element of the historic district. Part of the consultation involved a walking

tour of the historic district to view the proposed construction limits of the preferred alternative,

as discussed in the Project Description section (Figure 6). During the tour several individuals

pointed out a slight rectangular depression in the lawn of the corner lot. The southern end of the

depression overlapped the construction limits while the bulk of it extended north into the center

of Lot 37. Archival records at the Grant’s birthplace museum and local oral tradition contain no

account of a building being present on the corner lot. Consequently, identifying the nature or

origin of the depression became a principal objective.

The limited excavations associated with the kiosk installation suggested portions of the

residential lots contain undisturbed alluvial soils with potentially buried prehistoric deposits. So,

testing away from the depression and by arbitrary levels to check for stratified deposits became a

second important objective.

Observations, as well as archival photographs of the narrow grassy strip between the sidewalk

and the stone lined gutters indicate considerable disturbance from a line of large trees and their

subsequent removal, as well as previous road cut, possibly by the 1938 WPA stone line gutter

installation, to lessen the slope (Figures 2 through 5). Consequently, archaeological testing

focuses efforts on the construction work limits within the residential lot and excludes the grassy

strip (Figure 40).

17

Testing Strategy for Lot 37

Being within a historic district, ODOT intended to limit archaeological testing from the

beginning to the minimum necessary to identify and evaluate any buried deposits, strata, or

features, either historic or prehistoric. If any were encountered NRHS, OHS, and OSHPO would

be notified and additional consultation would determine the appropriate type and amount of

additional archaeological investigation providing the identified resources could not be avoided.

The testing of the rectangular depression partially uncovered a cut stone foundation while the

yard testing encountered mixed historic and prehistoric artifacts from the surface to a depth of

1.0 feet. Fortunately, the construction work limits could be adjusted back to the existing SR 232

right-of-way along the south side of Lot 37 thus avoiding the buried foundation by roughly five

feet (Figure 41). Although additional investigations are avoided at this time, ODOT’s limited

testing identified an important resource of the historic district and provided OHS and NRHS new

information to supplement existing displays and to design future research endeavors.

A reference base line extended 80 feet west along the north side of the existing sidewalk

beginning at the point of intersection (00N00W) for the sidewalk and the west edge of road

pavement on Back Street (Figure 40). The coordinates of the southwest corner designated each

test unit. Initially, two test units measuring 3 ft (N-S) by 5 ft (E-W) straddled the eastern and

western edges of the rectangular depression along the construction work limits. The depression

edges roughly coincided with N-S lines at 30 ft west and 55 ft west, resulting in test units

designated as 12N32.5W and 12N57.5W. A third test unit of similar size (12N82.5W) occurred

near the western edge of Lot 37 where no building was expected (Figures 42 and 43).

Excavations in all three test units proceeded by arbitrary 3 in (0.25 ft) levels to a depth of 12 ins

(1.0 ft). Recovery of a Late Archaic, Big Sandy point base and prehistoric lithic flakes along

with whiteware sherds, flat glass, and bricks beginning in the second level of Unit 12N32.5W

argues against stratified deposits in and around the depression. Mixture of prehistoric and

historic artifacts began in the third level of Unit 12N57.5W with few items other than brick and

mortar fragments in the fourth level. With the initial exposure of the west stone wall and

builder’s trench, the artifacts recovered from over and amongst the stones were separately

bagged as Unit 12N55W. Except for the lack of brick fragments, there proved to be little

difference in the amount and diversity of fragmentary domestic and architectural pieces between

the two halves of the trench. Artifacts from the eastern extension of this trench were collected as

Unit 12N52.5W and showed a pronounced increase in brick fragments with a reduction in the

amount and diversity other artifact types to principally whiteware and flat glass fragments.

In Unit 12N82.5 W, well away from the rectangular depression fewer items, both historic and

prehistoric, occurred throughout all levels with a 1940 penny occurring in the fourth or lowest

level. In all three test units only historic artifacts occurred in the first level or the sod layer.

18

Nearly all historic artifacts, regardless of material type, were relatively small, non-crossmendable

fragments.

The exposure of foundation wall remnants prompted the southern expansion of Unit 12N32.5W

to locate the southeast corner and the eastern expansion of 12N57.5W to find the width of the

wall and expose the interior of the depression immediately adjacent to the wall (Figures 44 and

45). The southern extension of Unit 12N32.5W involved a 5 ft by 2.5 ft trench designated

07N32.5W; while the 1.5 ft by 3 ft eastern extension of Unit 12N57.5W was designated as

12N52.5W. With the uncovering of the southeast corner in Unit 07N32.5W, the placement of a

fourth test unit (06N55W) to find the southwest corner was estimated by projecting intersecting

lines along the southern and western foundation walls and probing with a metal rod (Figure 45).

A smaller unit measuring 2 ft north-south by 4 ft east-west sufficed to expose the southwest

corner and a short segment of the south wall.

Unit 12N82.5W encountered no feature with a basically culturally sterile fifth level (occasional

brick fragment and possible prehistoric fire cracked rock with no other artifact types), 15 ins

(1.25 ft) below surface (Figure 46). Definite coarse subangular blocky soil structure began

occurring in the fifth level, while soil color and texture remained relatively unchanged from the

overlying dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silty clay loam. The presence of distinct dark brown

(10YR4/3) and a few small yellowish brown (10YR5/6) clayey mottles further distinguish this

subsoil from the overlying loose surface soil. Soil probes in the floor of the test unit indicate this

subsoil horizon extends to 19 ins (1.6 ft) below surface where it changes to a yellowish brown

(10YR5/6) clay loam with brown (10YR4/3) mottles, which extends to the end of the probe at

least 26 ins (2.2 ft) below surface.

33CT688 Stone Foundation Remnant (Page’s Residence)

Exposure of the western and eastern foundation wall remnants occurred simultaneously and

provided distinctly different results beginning in levels 3 and 4. Small brick, stone and mortar

fragments occurred in the western half of Unit 12N32.5W. At the bottom of level 4 a distinct

north-south line of loose brown soil mixed with crushed mortar and small stone fragments

appeared near the center of the unit and was distinctly different from the intact subsoil in the

eastern portion of the unit (Figure 44). The line was roughly 1.0 ft wide with additional loose

soil to the west but without the concentration of crushed mortar. Historic artifacts occurred

throughout the soil above this level but at level 4 occurred predominately in the loose soil of the

west side of the unit. To the east the top two inches of subsoil contained mostly staining from

charcoal flecks with only an occasional artifact.

Initially, the distinct line appeared to represent a cut for a buried utility but while following it

south the corner of a structure occurred approximately 7.0 ft north of the sidewalk, as indicted by

an intersecting east-west line of rough cut and natural stone slabs roughly 1.0 to 1.5 ft wide

(Figure 44). It appears at some point in time the stone slabs of the east wall were salvaged.

19

In contrast, the foundation remnant in Unit 12N57.5W contained a pile of rough cut and natural

slabs and fragments that spread 2.0 to 2.5 ft wide and were initially encountered 6 inches (0.5 ft)

below surface (Figure 45). The distribution of the large slabs suggests they were pushed or

collapsed into the structure rather than representing the width of the foundation wall. The line of

loose brown (10YR4/3) soil mixed with crushed mortar and small stones appeared more distinct

and slightly wider than in Unit 12N32.5W and clearly abutted the west side of the stone pile

suggesting it represents a builder’s trench on the exterior of the structure. Eastern expansion of

the test unit continued until an approximately 1.0 ft wide exposure of loose artifact-laden soil

without large stone slabs appeared. A soil probe could only penetrate about 4.0 ins (0.3 ft) into

the fill due to the density of small rock and brick fragments.

Superimposed or stacked stone slabs only occur at the house’s southwest corner exposed in Unit

06N55W and first encountered in level 2 approximately 4.0 ins (0.3 ft) below surface. However,

most of the wall extending east from the corner is missing and presumed salvaged. The exterior

builder’s trench (loose soil and crushed mortar) is missing from this corner, as well as from the

southeast corner; although the slabs clearly set within a loose dark soil, which forms a narrow

band around the outside perimeter of the slabs. The dark soil contained a considerable amount of

small crushed brick and stone fragments but few pieces of mortar, which distinguishes it from

the surrounding artifact laden fill.

Based on the two exposed corners, the south side of the building measured 23 ft in length. Soil

probing to north along the east and west walls beyond the proposed construction limits

established the northwest and northeast corners and estimated the east and west wall lengths at

approximately 21.5 ft (Figure 47). Continued probing further established the north wall to be

fully intact. Buried stone and brick rubble on the interior of the structure prevented probing to

determine the thickness of fill and the depth to undisturbed subsoil.

Given some inaccuracy in exactly locating the corners by probing, the building can be

considered nearly square and roughly the same size and shape, but not the same orientation, as

John Thompson’s house on the adjacent lot, which measured 18 ft on the north and south by 22

ft on the east and west.. Page’s home placed close to the southeast corner of the lot with the

slightly longer side paralleling Indian Street resembles more the placement and orientation of

Grant’s slightly smaller home in Lot 29 and suggests it fronted Indian Street (SR 232).

However, the superstructure of Page’s home most likelihood compared to Thompson’s one story

brick home with chimneys placed flush at both gable ends rather than Grant’s one story frame.

When accounting for differences in trench volumes, a fairly uniform distribution of relatively

low density architectural fragments surrounding the foundation wall emerges (see Table 1). The

diversity of domestic artifact types also occurs uniformly around the foundation, but the quantity

of all the different types is greater on the east side, except for redware and possibly stoneware

sherds. The artifact diversity and quantity around the foundation greatly exceeds that from the

12N82.5W unit near the southwest corner of Lot 37. This corner of the residential yard fronts

20

Indian Street and would be less likely to serve as a refuse disposal area than the rear of the

property. Although the amount of brick and mortar compares well with the amounts around the

foundation, the negligible numbers of square nails and flat glass sherds indicates the brick and

mortar fragments from the original walls and chimney spread away from the house while the

window panes and wooden frame and flooring were lost or discarded within or immediately

outside of the house. The limited sampling within the interior of the structure suggests the fill of

the shallow depression contains denser but equally fragmentary architectural debris than the fill

covering and immediately surrounding the foundation wall remnant. The nature of the

architectural debris further supports the contention that the house was salvaged, as first suggested

by the lack of in situ stone along the east wall.

Table 1 Summary of artifacts recovered from test units

Artifact Type 12N82.5W 12N57.5W 12N55W 12N52.5W 06N55W 12N32.5 W 07N32.5W Total

Stoneware

4 7

1 2 5 19

Redware

30 23

3 22 11 89

Yelloware 1

1 2 2 6

Whiteware 18 4 10 9 14 30 14 99

WW decorated 5 1 5 4 1 15 10 41

Container Glass

3 5 9 5 6 12 40

Bone 16 4 9

5 14 5 53

Shell

1

3 1 1 6

Pipe

3 5

2 13 4 27

Marble

1

1

2

Gunflint

1

1

Coin 1

1

Flat Glass 3 78 26 26 29 53 34 249

Nail/bolt 1 20 35

16 23 27 122

Unid Metal

4

2 1 7

Brick 26 35

57 102 58 23 301

Mortar 6 5

3 4 19 13 50

Historic Total 77 188 131 108 186 261 161 1110

Prehistoric

Lithic 3 25 2 11 2 20 18 81

33CT688 Clay Smoking Pipes

Of all the domestic artifacts, the 27 clay smoking pipe fragments are the most problematical,

since they represent production rejects rather than items lost or discarded during or after use.

Seventeen or 62% of the fragments occur in the fill associated with the east foundation wall with

ten or 38% of the fragments from the west wall, and none from the residential yard along the

western lot line. From the limited testing of Lot 37, the pipe distribution decreases away from

Back Street with a clustering around the house. The few production failure pipe fragments

amongst the domestic and architectural debris do not conclusively support the idea that the

21

former residence was converted into a clay smoking pipe factory at the end of 19th

century.

Evidence for the use of the lot as a waster dump for the BP Pottery necessitates further

exploration of the residential backyard north of the foundation remnant and possibly the shallow

depression of the filled basement/crawl space.

The pipe fragments around the foundation in Lot 37 reflect varieties from a limited range of

types including Tom Peterson Plain, Ribbed Elbow, and Diamond Stamped (Figure 48). From

all of the Point Pleasant potteries, eighteen types represented by 82 varieties are currently

identified (Table 2 below). The types fall within three categories: Anthropomorphic (6 types, 23

varieties); Geometric (9 types, 42 varieties); and Plain (3 types, 17 varieties). Varieties are

nearly synonymous with different or individual pipe molds. For certain types two or more

varieties appear to represent a particular mold as it becomes retooled or worn out with use, while

more commonly linked varieties exhibit minor differences in one or two specific details (cf

Murphy 1976 and 1985) [Table 2 below].

Table 2 Point Pleasant clay smoking pipe classification system

POINT PLEASANT PIPE TYPES & VARIETIES

Murphy’s Named T/Vs, Thomas & Burnett’s Numbered T/Vs & Rist’s Diamond Stamp

GEOMETRIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC PLAIN

Point Pleasant Chevron Point Pleasant Turban Point Pleasant Plain

Variety A GD 21 Variety A & B AN 01 Variety A PL 09

Variety B GD 22 L

I

N

K

Variety C AN 03 L

I

N

K

Variety B PL 01

Variety C GD 20 Variety D AN 02 Variety C PL 11

Variety D GD 23 Point Pleasant Belle Tom Peterson Plain

Variety E GD 24 Variety A AN 13 Variety A PL 06

Point Pleasant Criss-Cross Variety B AN 15 Variety B & C PL 07

Variety A GD 29 Variety C AN 14 Variety D, E & F PL 08

Variety B GD 28 Variety D AN 22 Variety G

Point Pleasant Zig-Zag Point Pleasant Granny Point Pleasant Ringed

GD 30 Variety A AN 09 L

I

N

K

Variety A PL 04

Point Pleasant Wheat Variety B & D AN 18 Variety B PL10

Variety A GD 26 Variety C AN 12 Variety C PL 05

Variety B GD 25 Point Pleasant Gramp Variety D1 SP 02

Variety C GD 27 Variety A AN 07 Variety D2 SP 03

SP01 Variety B AN 21 Variety E PL 02

Point Pleasant Star/Leaf Variety C AN 16 Variety F PL 03

GD 31 Variety D AN 20

Point Pleasant Punctate Point Pleasant Indian

Variety A AN 06 & 17

Variety A L

I

N

K

Variety B AN 04

L

I

N

K

Variety B GD 08 Variety E AN 05

Variety H GD 02 Variety C AN 19

Variety J GD 07 L

I

N

K

Variety D AN 10

L

I

N

K

Variety C GD 15 Variety F AN 11

Variety D GD 09 Point Pleasant Male

Variety I GD 06 AN 08

22

All of the pipe types with the exception of a few varieties of Diamond Stamped and Tom

Peterson Plain occur at the LKPD Pottery (33CT256). To date, anthropomorphic pipes

exclusively occur at this site. Plain pipes predominate at the TP pottery (33CT390) [Figure 49],

almost to the exclusion of the geometric types; with minimal examples reported for Ribbed

Elbow Variety E, Diamond Stamped Varieties Point Pleasant 1 and Clermont 3, and Punctate

Variety O from the site’s periphery (Murphy 1985:69). The Ribbed Elbow Variety E example

contains 14 narrow undivided ridges (presumably 7 per side) and is not known from the LKPD

Pottery (33CT390) [Murphy 1976:23].

The 27 pipe fragments from the house foundation more closely resemble the pipe assemblage

from the TP pottery (33CT390) [Figure 48]. However, the geometric pipe fragments (17 Ribbed

Elbow and 3 Diamond Stamped) are more numerous than the plain ones (7 Tom Peterson), and

are consistent with their reported relatively high frequencies from previous digging in Lot 37

(Murphy 1985:70). Four plain fragments represent Tom Peterson Plain varieties A, D and G,

with three untyped plain fragments. Two relatively thick plain bowl rim fragments are

warped/flattened forming a rectangular bowl. Three Diamond Stamped pipe fragments include

nearly complete Point Pleasant 1 and Clermont 4 pipes, as well as one untyped bowl rim

fragment.

The Ribbed Elbow fragments include five wide ribbed stems, two stems missing their ends and

exhibiting 10 narrow parallel ribs per side, and one stem with 8 narrow parallel ribs per side and

a double ridge stem end. The last two varieties appear to be new examples somewhat similar to

Variety E from the TP Pottery (33CT390). The five stem fragments with wider ribs are too

incomplete to determine how they bifurcate and which varieties they represent. Two bowl

fragments exhibit a bowl ridge, a narrow smooth (plain) band, and a thin ring at the rim, while

Variety E GD 01

Variety F & G GD 03

Variety K GD 13

L

I

N

K

Variety L GD 10

Variety M GD 11

L

I

N

K

Variety N GD 04

Variety O GD 14

Variety P GD 12

Point Pleasant Ribbed

Variety A1 GD 17

Variety A2 GD 18

Variety D GD 16 GEOMETRIC

Variety B Diamond Stamped

Variety C Point Pleasant 1

Variety E Clermont 1

Variety F Clermont 2

Diagonal GD 19 Clermont 3

Point Pleasant Milled Chesterfield Clermont 4

GD 15

23

two bowl fragments exhibit the wide ribs continuing over the bowl ridge across a narrow band to

the rim. Based on the 1984 collection, these rim treatments would represent Ribbed Elbow

Varieties A1 and A2, respectively. Three bowl fragments exhibit wide ribs that extend onto the

bowl ridge but do not continue over a narrow band to the bowl rim, which appears to be a

previously unreported bowl rim treatment. Two small bowl fragments do not include the rim and

only exhibit a couple of wide ribs.

The 377 pipe fragments recovered from the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) during the 1984 bridge

replacement include examples of all pipe types except for the Star/Leaf and Diamond Stamped

geometric types (Table 3 and Figures 50 through 59). All of the anthropomorphic pipe types, for

which this pottery is exclusively noted, are minimally represented and account for only 9%

(n=35) of the collection. Sixty-five percent (n=245) of the collection consists of geometric types,

although Ribbed Elbow varieties account for 75% (n=182) of the geometric pipe fragments.

Examples are lacking for most of the Punctate varieties and the remaining geometric varieties

occur at similar low counts as the anthropomorphic varieties. The plain types account for 26%

(n=97) of the collection with the Tom Peterson varieties limited to 7% (n=7) of the plain pipe

fragments and the Point Pleasant varieties to 4% (n=4). However, untypeable bowl and stem

fragments account for 42% (n=41) of the plain pipe pieces. The remaining 47% (n=45) plain

pipe fragments are Ringed Elbow varieties.

Table 3 Distribution of clay smoking pipe fragments s at the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) during

the 1984 ODOT monitoring of the U.S. Grant Bridge replacement

PIPE TYPE/VARIETY BANK

WEST

BANK

US 52

& CL

BACKDIRT

LOWEST

CUT

TREE

STUMP

WEST

TOP

OF

BANK

TRENCH

WALL

TEMP

CL

BRIDGE

WEST TOTAL

GEOMETRIC 20 7 23 73 40 6 65 11 245

Chevron A 1 1 1 3

Chevron B 2 1 1 1 5

Chevron C 1 1 2

Chevron D 1 1

Chevron E 1 1

Criss-Cross A 1 1 1 3

Criss-Cross B 1 1 2

Zig-Zag 1 1 2

Wheat A 2 1 3

Wheat B 1 2 2 5

Wheat C 1 1

Star/Leaf 0

Punctate A 0

Punctate B, H, J 1 1 5 2 9

Punctate C, D, I 2 1 5 1 1 10

Punctate E 0

Punctate F, G 0

Punctate K 3 3

Punctate L, M 0

Punctate N, O, P 0

Ribbed A1 2 3 8 2 1 5 21

Ribbed A2 4 1 26 11 19 4 65

Ribbed D 4 3 19 2 2 21 1 52

Ribbed untyped 7 16 3 18 44

Ribbed B 0

Ribbed C 0

24

PIPE TYPE/VARIETY BANK

WEST

BANK

US 52

& CL

BACKDIRT

LOWEST

CUT

TREE

STUMP

WEST

TOP

OF

BANK

TRENCH

WALL

TEMP

CL

BRIDGE

WEST TOTAL

Ribbed E 0

Ribbed F 0

Ribbed Diagonal 1 2 3

Milled Chesterfield 1 4 4 1 10

ANTHROPOMORPHIC 14 4 4 0 6 1 1 5 35

Untyped facial fragment 1 1 1

Turban A, B 0

Turban C 1 1 1 3

Turban D 1 1

Belle A 1 1 1 3

Belle B 1 1

Belle C 1 1

Belle D 0

Granny A 0

Granny B, D 1 1

Granny C 0

Gramp A 1 1 2

Gramp B 1 1

Gramp C 1 1

Gramp D 0

Indian A 1 1 2

Indian B, E 5 2 2 2 11

Indian C 1 1 1 3

Indian D, F 0

Male 1 2 3

PLAIN 39 2 6 0 13 1 1 35 97

Untyped 20 2 19 41

Pt Pleasant A 1 1

Pt Pleasant B, C 1 2 3

T. Peterson A 0

T. Peterson B, C 2 1 1 4

T. Peterson D, E, F 2 1 3

T. Peterson G 0

Ringed A, B, C, D1, D2 15 1 4 7 1 9 37

Ringed E 1 1 4 6

Ringed F 2 2

TOTAL 73 13 33 73 59 8 67 51 377

In 1984 the variety (type) identification for the Ribbed Elbow bowl fragments relied on the

individual photographic examples for GD-16 (Variety D), GD-17 (Variety A1), and GD-18

(Variety A-2) from Thomas and Burnett (1972:24-25). GD-17 (Variety A1) exhibits a narrow

smooth (plain) band between the bowl ridge and rim with the rim usually exhibiting a thin ring

(ridge) that can be discontinuous. GD-18 (Variety A2) exhibits the same narrow band, but the

vertical ribs on the bowl continue on the bowl ridge and extend to the rim. GD-16 (Variety D)

also exhibits the continuation of the vertical ribs on the bowl ridge and extending to the rim but

differs in having a much broader band between the bowl ridge and rim.

Murphy (1976:23) discusses the difference in the band width and continuation of the ribs to the

rim for GD-16 (Variety D) in comparison to both GD-17 (Variety A1) and GD-18 (Variety A2);

but makes no distinction in bowl rim treatments between GD-17(Variety A1) and GD-18

(Variety A2). However, his illustrations for GD-17(Variety A1) and GD-18 (Variety A2) clearly

depict the differences (Murphy 1976:Figure 6d through 6k). Bowl rim treatments for Ribbed

25

Elbow Varieties B, C and F are not described with identification resting primarily on differing

patterns of rib bifurcation at the juncture of the stem and bowl. However, the illustration of

Variety C shows a bowl ridge, a narrow smooth band, and a thin ring at the rim similar to the

GD-17 (Variety A1) [Murphy 1976:Figure 7a-b). Consequently, some of the GD-17 (Variety

A1) bowl fragments from the 1984 collection maybe misidentified; although no stem and bowl

fragments exhibiting the rib patterns for Varieties B, C and F are present.

The previously reported lack of Ribbed Elbow Variety E pipes at the LKDP Pottery (33CT256)

continues with their absence in the 1984 ODOT collection, even though Ribbed Elbow pipe

fragments were the most common and ubiquitous throughout the temporary work limits.

The 1984 collection locales basically involve three swathes of varying width from the edge of

Indian Creek up the steep slope to the top of the bank (Figure 38). The first swathe between the

existing Grant Bridge and the cut for the temporary bridge included the US 52 riverbank and the

west bridge abutment locales, as well as the narrow strip of unexcavated river bank for the

temporary centerline. The middle swathe involves the greatest ground disturbance and includes

the locales for the cut along the temporary centerline, the trench wall, and the backdirt from the

lowest cut. The third swathe involves the western edge of the temporary right-of-way and

includes the locales for the river bank at the west edge of the right-of-way, the tree stump area on

the slope, and top of the bank locales.

Two locales, the cut for the temporary centerline and the tree stump area, contain some of the

highest pipe fragment counts (37% of the total) and are almost exclusively Ribbed Elbow

varieties (73%, n=140 of the fragments for this pipe type). The next dense cluster (10%, n=18)

of Ribbed Elbow pipe fragments occurs in the top of the bank locale with 5% (n=10) of the

fragments from the river bank west right-of-way edge locale. The Ribbed Elbow varieties

apparently clustered along the top of the bank in the western half of the temporary work limits

and spilled down the bank. This would place them in proximity to the northeast corner of the

former LKPD brick pottery.

All of the other pipe types and their varieties appear to be evenly and lightly distributed over the

temporary right-of-way and outside of the actual excavation for the centerline. Of the remaining

pipe types, the Plain Ringed Elbow varieties appear to be the numerous. However, the entire

1984 collection predominately consists of small fragments which contrasts with the hundreds of

whole and nearly whole pipes in the Ohio Historical Society’s collection recovered in 1985 from

looter’s backdirt in the pottery waster dump at the TP Pottery (33CT 390). Few pipe fragments

reportedly occurred around the periphery of the waster dump and a similar argument can be

made for the temporary work limits north of the kiln and corner of the LKDP Pottery (33CT256).

26

CONCLUSIONS

The limited archaeological testing of Lot 37 in Point Pleasant, Clermont County identified the

foundation remnant of Thomas Page’s residence (33CT688), a somewhat important although

tangential person in the early life of Ulysses S. Grant. As one of the founding individuals of

Point Pleasant at the beginning of the 19th

century, Thomas Page built a tannery and employed

Jesse Grant to operate it. He also introduced Jesse Grant to Hannah Simpson, who became his

wife and subsequently the following year Ulysses’ mother. The next year the Grant’s moved to

Georgetown in Brown County to establish their own tannery. That three year period beginning

in 1820 which entwined the lives of Thomas Page and the Grant’s is now memorialized in the U.

S. Grant’s Birthplace and Grant Commemorative Sites Historic District. The identification of

Page’s residence provides an additional important element to the historic district and enriches the

historical narrative.

Page’s tannery (also referred to as Grant’s tannery) figures into the historical narrative of the

economic growth and decline of Point Pleasant, specifically the clay smoking pipe industry,

during the latter part of the 19th

century and the early 20th

century. The traditional account of the

conversion of the tannery into a pottery suffers from a lack of factual evidence and a number of

unanswered questions. One of the questions is whether Lot 37 was part of the pottery either as a

site for the actual production of clay smoking pipes or as a waster dump for disposing of

production failures and rejects. Whether a direct link exists between Jesse Grant and the tannery

present at the beginning of the 20th century is another question. A third question revolves

around a circa 1900 photograph of a large brick pottery reportedly on the site of the Grant’s

tannery.

The highly fragmented domestic and architectural artifacts surrounding the southwest and

southeast corners of the foundation wall argue for a residential building, as do its estimated

dimensions. Of relatively the same size and shape as John Thompson’s neighboring house on

Lot 36, Thomas Page occupied the home he built until the mid 1830s. Lot 37 changed

ownership several times and eventually became the possession of Nancy Thompson, a relative of

John Thompson, and was linked with Lots 36 and 38. Since John Thompson’s home survived, it

seems unlikely that Thomas Page’s home continued to be used as a residence. When it was

removed and whether it served another function until it was removed remains unanswered. The

few clay smoking pipes associated with the foundation and yard do not convincingly argue for its

subsequent use as a pottery.

Oral tradition and early photographs consistently argue for the conversion of the large frame

tannery on the opposite (east) side of Back Street into the clay smoking pipe factory owned by

Banium and Peterson (Clermont Pottery) at the end of the 19th

century and into the first two

decades of the twentieth century. Although it is consistently referred to as Grant’s tannery; Page

divested his interest in the tannery prior to his move to Cincinnati during the 1830s. The

subsequent owners expanded the tanning business and replaced the original tannery with the

27

larger framed structure documented in the photographs and which operated as a tannery at least

into the 1870s. The historical accounts make no mention of Page’s residence as part of the

pottery and the photographs consistently avoid picturing Lot 37 in its entirety.

Since the tannery stood until being replaced by the Grant Memorial Church in 1931, the

photograph of the large brick pottery published in 1900 is misidentified as the BP Pottery and

actually represents the LKDP Pottery (33CT256). The photograph of the bowstring arch bridge

over Indian Creek shows the abandoned brick pottery minus the kiln. Since the original Grant

Memorial Bridge replaced the bowstring arch in 1927, the abandonment of the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) occurred sometime during the first two decades of the 20th

century.

The limited archaeological testing of Lot 37 allowed for the identification of the foundation

remnant and the reduction of the work limits for the sidewalk and gutter replacement, thus

preserving the majority of the lot for future investigations by the Ohio Historical Society. Such

work could focus on identifying the well and privy associated with Thomas Page’s residence, as

well as exploring the rest of the yard for any definitive evidence associating the lot’s subsequent

use as a potter waster for the BP Pottery.

28

REFERENCES

Harper, G. A. and S. Gordon

1998 Have Shrine Will Travel: The Long and Wandering Road of the Ulysses S. Grant

Birthplace. Pioneer America Society Transactions 21:57-69.

Hayes, E. L.

1877 Illustrated Atlas of the Upper Ohio River and Valley from Pittsburgh, Pa. to Cincinnati,

Ohio. From United States Official and Special Surveys Compiled and Drawn for the

Publishers by E. L. Hayes, Assisted by E. F. Hayes, C. M. Bereford, Assisted by S. A.

Charpiot, F. L. Sanford, J. H. Sherman. Titus, Simmons and Titus, Philadelphia.

Heimlich, J.

1979 Parker Melvin’s Pipes of Clay. Americana 4:69-71.

Howe, H.

1896 Howe’s Historical Collections of Ohio, Volume 1. Lansing Publishing Company,

Norwalk, Ohio.

Lake, D.J.

1870 Atlas of Clermont County, Ohio. C. O. Titus, Philadelphia.

1891 Atlas of Clermont County, Ohio. Lake and Gordon, Philadelphia.

Lerch, N. K., W. F. Hale, and E. L. Milliron

1975 Soil Survey of Clermont County, Ohio. United States Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Murphy, J. L.

1975 Another Pamplin Pipe Variety. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of

Virginia. 30(1):26-29.

1976 Reed Stem Tobacoo Pipes from Point Pleasant, Clermont County, Ohio. Northeast

Historical Archaeology 5(1-2):12-27.

1985 Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Tom Peterson Site (33CT390), Clermont County, Ohio.

Proceedings of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology. 3:61-

71.

1995 Another Perspective on Point Pleasant Pottery Pipes. Ohio Archaeologist 45(1):31-34.

29

Murphy, J. L. and K. Reich

1974 Nineteenth Century Reed-Stem Tobacco Pipes from the Mogadore, Ohio Dump.

Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(4):52-60.

Pansing, L. and B. Pickard

2005 Notes on the Grant Kiosk Installations September 20, 2005. Manuscript on file

Department of Archaeology, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Rist, D. E.

1983 Identification of Diamond Stamped Elbow Clay Smoking Pipes. Historic Clay Tobacco

Pipe Studies 2:49-58.

Rockey, J. L. and R. J. Bancroft

1880 History of Clermont County, Ohio, and Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Its

Prominent Men and Pioneers. L.H. Everts, publisher, Philadelphia, J. P. Lippincott and

Company, printers, Philadelphia.

Shriver, P. R.

1986 A perspective on Point Pleasant pottery pipes. Ohio Archaeologist 36(4):30-32.

Simpson, B. D.

2000 Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Stout, W.

1923 History of the Clay Industry in Ohio. In Coal Formation Clays of Ohio. Fourth Series,

Bulletin 26:7-102, Geological Survey of Ohio, Kelly-Springfield Printing Company,

Springfield.

Sudbury, B.

1976 An Update on the Status of Pipe Manufacturing Sites at Point Pleasant, Ohio. Historic

Clay Tobacco Pipe Studies. 3:60-62.

1979 Historic Clay Tobacco Pipemakers in the United States of America. In The

Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe 2: The United States of America. Edited by P.

Davey, pp. 151-341. British Archaeological Reports, International Series No. 60.

1986 An Illustrated 1895 Catalogue of the Akron Smoking Pipe Co. Historic Clay Tobacco

Pipe Studies. 3:1-42.

Thomas, B. B. and R. M. Burnett

30

1972 A Study of Clay Smoking Pipes Produced at a Nineteenth Century Kiln at Point

Pleasant, Ohio. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1971. 6:1-31.

Wolfe, J. and R.

2011 Thomas Page: Notes from Janet and Robert Wolfe Genealogy 2011/02/03. Electronic

document, http://www.personal.umich.edu/`bobwolfe/gen/pn/p2770.htm, accessed

April 04,2011.

31

FIGURES

Figure 1 ODOT county road map showing general location of U. S. Grant Birthplace and

Grant Commemorative Sites Historic District in Point Pleasant

32

Figure 2 Overview of sidewalk and deteriorated stone lined gutter along north side (left) of SR

232 with vacant lawn covered Lot 37 at left center and stone retaining walls south side

(right), Looking east from in front of Grant’s Birthplace Home

Figure 3 Overview of sidewalk and stone lined gutter along north side of SR 32, Looking west

from in front of Grant’s Birthplace Home towards US 52 intersection

33

Figure 4 Overview of sidewalk and deteriorated stone lined gutter at the intersection of Back

Street and SR 232, Looking west with Grant’s Birthplace Home in center background

Figure 5 Overview of recent paving of SR 232 overlapping partially deteriorated stone lined

gutter along north side of road, Looking east from Grant’s Birthplace Home

34

Figure 6 Construction plan sheet showing work limits for sidewalk and stone lined gutter

replacement and repair

Figure 7 Boundary of U.S. Grant Birthplace and Commemorative Sites Historic District adapted

from National Register Nomination Form

35

Figure 8 Overview of Historic District, Looking northeast from intersection

of US 52 and SR 232

Figure 9 Overview of original Grant Memorial Bridge (circa 1950), Looking southwest from

intersection of US 52 and SR 232

36

Figure 10 Overview of new Grant Memorial Bridge (built 1985). Looking southeast from

intersection of US 52 and SR 232

Figure 11 Historical marker for new Grant Memorial Bridge on high bank of Indian Creek in

roadside rest and parking lot for Grant Historic District on northwest corner of the

bridge, Looking south

37

Figure 12 Overview of recent rail fence, park signage, and sidewalk remnant of Grant Historic

District along east side of US 52, Looking north from intersection with SR 232

Figure 13 Overview of Historic District signage along SR 232, Looking east

from intersection with US 52

38

Figure 14 Lot ownership in 1815 adapted from county histories and using Point Pleasant plat

from 1870 county atlas as base map

39

Figure 15 Thompson family lot ownership following 1853 court order real estate sales,

adapted from county history and deeds with Point Pleasant plat from 1870 county atlas

as base map

40

Figure 16 Illustration of Grant’s Birthplace Home from 1880 Clermont County history

Figure 17 Illustration of Grant’s Birthplace Home from 1896 Clermont County history

41

Figure 18 Grant’s Birthplace Home in spring 2010

Figure 19 Souvenir postcard (circa 1920) of two story frame house that occupied Lot 29 while

original Grant’s Birthplace Home was on display at Ohio State Fairgrounds

(original color postcard in Grant’s Birthplace Museum archives)

42

Figure 20 Section of 1922 Panoramic Photographic of Centennial Celebration of Grant’s birth,

showing “Grant’s” Tannery in background and two story frame house occupying Lot

29 while original Grant Birthplace Home on display at Ohio State Fairgrounds

Figure 21 Grant’s Birthplace Home (left) on Lot 29 and Caretaker’s (originally John

Thompson’s) Home on Lot 36 in the spring 2010, Looking northwest from intersection

of Back Street and SR 232

43

Figure 22 Point Pleasant plat from 1870 Clermont County atlas showing locations of two

potteries, the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) to the southwest of the bridge over Indian

Creek and the TP Pottery (33CT390) on the southeast corner of the Indian Street (SR

232) and Short Street (US 52) intersection

44

Figure 23 Point Pleasant plat (redrawn and relabeled) from 1877 Upper Ohio River Valley atlas,

showing the location of the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) southwest of the bridge over

Indian Creek and absence of the TP Pottery(33CT390) of the southeast corner of Indian

Street (SR232) and Short Street (US 52) intersection, building labeled BSH might

indicate a blacksmith shop

45

Figure 24 Section from 1877 Upper Ohio River Valley atlas at river mile 441+26 identifying

the pottery on southwest side of the bridge over Indian Creek as the Peterson & Brothers Pottery

Figure 25 Point Pleasant plat from 1891 Clermont County atlas showing no potteries,

although Olive Peterson (wife of one of the Peterson brothers) owns Fractional Lot 28,

which is the site of the TP Pottery (33CT256)

46

Figure 26 Late 19th

or early 20th

century photograph of “Grant’s” tannery, also labeled earliest

clay pipe factory in U.S. reproduced from the 2003 Monroe Township, Clermont

County Bicentennial history, (Grant Birthplace Museum archives)

Figure 27 Undated photograph (circa mid-1920s) of “Grant’s” tannery near Grant Memorial

State Park, showing the lot cleaned up (New Richmond Historical Society archives)

47

Figure 28 Close up of “Grant’s” tannery from 1922 panoramic photograph of the centennial

celebration of Grant’s birth (see Figure 20)

Figure 29 Grant Memorial Church nearing completion on the site of “Grant’s” tannery in 1931,

vacant Lot 37 in center of picture

48

Figure 30 Grant Memorial Church in spring 2010, Looking northeast from intersection

of Back Street and SR 232

Figure 31 Real photo postcard (cancelled 1908) showing “Grant’s” tannery and associated

outbuilding at the rear of the lot

49

Figure 32 Close up of outbuilding associated

with “Grant’s” tannery showing stack of

saggers in doorway

Figure 33 The LKDP Pottery (33CT256) originally published 1900 The Illustrated Clermonter”,

reproduced Sudbury (1976:60) and misidentified as the John Bainum and Thomas

Peterson pipe factory on the site of the Grant Memorial Church

50

Figure 34 Undated photograph (circa 1910-1920) of the bowstring arch bridge over Indian Creek

with the abandoned LKDP Pottery (33CT256) in the background

(New Richmond Historical Society archives)

Figure 35 One story frame building [possibly TP Pottery (33CT 256)] on fractional Lot 28 from

1922 panoramic photograph of the centennial celebration of Grant’s birth

51

Figure 36 Grant’s Birthplace Home during 1937 flood

(Ohio Historical Society Photo Archive Collection)

Figure 37 Overview of WPA stone retaining walls and sidewalk at Grant’s Birthplace Home and

Caretaker’s home in spring 2010

52

Figure 38 Construction plan for the 1984 replacement of original Grant Memorial Bridge with

the archaeological monitored area of the LKPD Pottery (33CT256) within the

temporary bridge right-of-way highlighted

Figure 39 Construction plan for the 1924 Grant Memorial Bridge, note the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) note indicated on the property at the southwest corner of the bridge

53

Figure 40 Construction plans for sidewalk and stone lined gutter replacement and repair,

showing lot boundaries, test excavation units and identified foundation

of Thomas Page’s home (33CT688)

Figure 41 Revised construction limits to avoid foundation of Thomas Page’s home (33CT688)

54

Figure 42 Overview of test

excavation units in Lot 37,

Looking east from the

Caretaker’s Home in Lot 36

Figure 43 Overview of test excavation units in Lot 37, Looking west from steps and porch of the

Grant Memorial Church

55

Figure 44 Overview of exposed southeast corner

and salvaged east wall of Thomas Page’s home

(33CT688), Looking south

Figure 45 Overview of exposed southwest

corner and west wall of Thomas Page’s home

(33CT688) with northwest corner established

by soil probing, Looking north

56

Figure 46 Planview of excavation unit at the base of the topsoil (1.25 ft below surface) in the

southwest corner of Thomas Page’s residential yard, Looking obliquely north

Figure 47 Overview of Thomas Page’s house (33CT688) in Lot 37 based on exposed and soil

probed corners and walls, Looking obliquely southwest

57

Figure 48 Clay smoking pipe fragments recovered from fill/topsoil in and around southeast

and southwest foundation wall of Thomas Page’s home (33CT688) in Lot 37,

grouped by excavation unit

58

Figure 49 Examples of the clay smoking pipe types (Ohio Historical Society Collection)

recovered in 1985 from a looter’s backdirt pile at the TP Pottery (33CT390) in the

parking lot opposite Grant’s Birthplace Home

59

Figure 50 Examples of anthropomorphic type/variety clay smoking pipes recovered from the

LKDP Pottery (33CT256) during the 1984 construction of the temporary bridge for the

replacement of the Grant Memorial Bridge

Figure 51 Examples of Indian type/variety clay smoking pipes recovered from the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) during the 1984 construction of the temporary bridge for the replacement

of the Grant Memorial Bridge

60

Figure 52 Examples of geometric

type/variety clay smoking pipes

recovered from the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) during the 1984

construction of the temporary bridge

for the replacement

of the Grant Memorial Bridge

Figure 53 Examples of Punctate and Chevron

type/variety clay smoking pipes recovered

from the LKDP Pottery (33CT256)

during the 1984 construction of the

temporary bridge for the replacement

of the Grant Memorial Bridge

61

Figure 54 Examples of Milled

Chesterfield and Diagonally Ribbed

type/variety clay smoking pipes

recovered from the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) during the 1984

construction of the temporary bridge

for the replacement of the Grant

Memorial Bridge

Figure 55 Examples of Ribbed Elbow

type/variety clay smoking pipe bowls

recovered from the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) during the 1984

construction of the temporary bridge

for the replacement of the Grant

Memorial Bridge

62

Figure 56 Examples of Ribbed Elbow

type/variety clay smoking pipe stems

recovered from the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) during the 1984 construction

of the temporary bridge for the

replacement of the Grant Memorial

Bridge

Figure 57 Examples of Ribbed Elbow

type/variety clay smoking pipe stems

recovered from the LKDP Pottery

(33CT256) during the 1984 construction of

the temporary bridge for the replacement

of the Grant Memorial Bridge

63

Figure 58 Examples of Plain Elbow type/variety clay smoking pipe stems and bowls recovered

from the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) during the 1984 construction of the temporary bridge

for the replacement of the Grant Memorial Bridge

Figure 59 Examples of Ringed Elbow type/variety clay smoking pipe stems and bowls recovered

from the LKDP Pottery (33CT256) during the 1984 construction of the temporary bridge

for the replacement of the Grant Memorial Bridge