Porte-cochere on the William Whitley house (Historic American Buildings Survey 1934).

Introduction 
Archaeological investigations were conducted at the William Whitley House (Site 15LI55) in Lincoln County, Kentucky, from August 30 to September 7, 1999, to identify and evaluate archaeological resources associated with the Whitley House as part of a preservation planning process related to upcoming renovations to the building. Systematic shovel testing (n = 45) was conducted in the yard area surrounding the house to gather data on site stratigraphy, artifact distributions, possible yard features, and general site context. Test unit excavation (n = 7 @ 2.5 x 2.5 ft.) focused on areas immediately adjacent to the house foundation that may require ground disturbance during the renovation project. 

Preliminary Results 
The shovel testing identified a typical soil profile consisting of a surface zone of dark brown (10YR3/3) to dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silt loam extending approximately 1-1.06 ft. below the surface. Historic and prehistoric artifacts were usually recovered from this zone. Below this silt loam was found typically a strong brown (7.5YR5/6) clay, generally devoid of artifacts. Several possible outbuilding locations were documented during the shovel test investigations, including a stone foundation in the west side yard that probably corresponds to a barn shown in a pre-restoration photograph, a vegetational anomaly in the rear yard with a brick pathway leading from the house to the anomaly, and an area of high artifact density in the front yard downslope from the house. None of these possible outbuilding locations are likely to be affected by any planned restoration; with the exception of the brick pathway running along part of the rear wall of the house and leading to the possible outbuilding in the rear yard. 

Rear frame porch and frame shed addition on the west wall of the William Whitley house (Historic American Buildings Survey 1934).

Shovel test profiles of the ground immediately adjacent to the house foundation exhibit the effects of restoration activities conducted in the 1940s and 1950s. Brick fragments, nails, window glass and other architectural debris were deposited around the house foundation during the course of restoration to such an extent that the current ground surface elevation is significantly higher than the pre-restoration ground level. Features such as the brick surface drain along the front wall of the house and a brick patio covering the area on the west side of the house where it joins the gift shop addition also appear to have impacted the original ground surface. The soil profile on the east side of the house contains a .8-ft. thick zone of construction debris that covers the earlier, pre-restoration ground surface. The pre-restoration ground surface is at least 1.35 ft. below the present surface along the rear wall of the house. 

Test unit excavation revealed the nature of the archaeological deposits around the house foundation in greater detail. Test Unit 1 (2.5 x 2.5 ft.) was placed at the southwest corner of the main house block where it joins the addition containing the gift shop. The brick patio mentioned above covered this unit. Excavation revealed that the brick patio consisted mostly of a single layer of brick mortared on top of a concrete slab. The concrete slab extended to within 1.15 ft. of the stone foundation of the main house block. The gap between the foundation and the concrete slab was excavated and exhibited a profile consisting of two layers of brick overlaying a zone of brick and limestone rubble contained within a very dark gray (7.5YR3/1) sandy loam. Both of these zones date from the period of house restoration. Beneath these layers at a depth of .8 ft. is a zone of reddish brown (7.5YR3/3) clay loam that yielded historic artifacts and appears to be an intact, earlier ground surface. This zone terminated at a depth of 1.7 ft below the brick where a culturally sterile red clay was encountered. The gap between the concrete slab and the west wall of the house appears to have inadvertently funneled water to the foundation wall and is almost certainly contributing to water entering the basement of the house. 

Test Unit 2 (2.5 x 5 ft.) was placed along the west edge of the front porch at its intersection with the front wall; it encompassed a portion of the brick surface drain running along the front wall. The brick drain was apparently intended to collect and divert rainwater dripping off the roof and direct it into the front yard. Owing to the failure of the mortar in some sections, the drain no longer functions properly and is also contributing to the water problems in the basement. The drain itself consists of one layer of mortared brick that has a slightly curved cross-section. The brick is laid on top of an irregular layer of cement. The drain stops .35 ft. from the front porch foundation; a section of cement extends from the north edge of the drain and abuts the porch foundation. The gap is filled with a mixture of gravel and dirt that was used to fill the footer trench for the porch foundation. A zone of very plastic dark brown clay was encountered beneath this gravelly fill. This clay zone was nearly devoid of artifacts and is unlike any other soil encountered on the site; it appears to have been imported fill. 

Test Unit 3 (2.5 x 5 ft.) was placed along the rear wall of the brick addition to the house beneath a former door location that has been bricked in and replaced with a window. This rear addition apparently was completely rebuilt during the restoration at which time a stone foundation was added that does not appear on the Historic American Buildings Survey (1934) drawings of the house. An entry to the crawl space beneath the addition is observable in the wall at this location. Excavation of Test Unit 3 revealed a small buried limestone foundation at a depth of .5 ft. The foundation measures 4 x 4.5 ft. and abuts the wall of the rear addition but does not tie into it. The top of the small foundation is at the same elevation as the base of the foundation of the brick addition. The construction of the small foundation appears to have preceded the restoration of the rear addition. As this foundation is not centered on the former doorway, it does not appear to have been a support for steps. However, it was centered on the entry to the crawlspace and may have served as a foundation for an earlier entrance to the area beneath the rear addition. The narrow crawlspace beneath the addition was filled with debris which restricted access, precluding a thorough examination of the nature of the deposits that may be covered by the addition. 

Pre-restoration photographs of the house from the early twentieth century illustrate a frame, rear porch that ran the length of the rear addition. The stone foundation found in Test Unit 3 would have been covered by this porch, and thus, may date to an earlier period. The inside of the foundation was filled with a strong brown (7.5YR4/6) silty clay that was heavily mixed with brick rubble; this zone appears to have been deposited as a result of the restoration. Beneath this zone at a depth of 1.2 ft. was a compact dark yellowish brown (7.5YR4/6) silty clay that represents the pre-restoration ground surface. Historic artifacts were only encountered in the first .4 ft. of this compacted, earlier surface; prehistoric artifacts were recovered at slightly greater depths. 

Test Unit 4 (2.5 x 5 ft.) was placed at the northwest corner of the main house block, so that it ran along part of the west house wall and partly along the edge of the brick drain running along the front wall. Pre-restoration photographs indicate that a shed addition once ran along the west wall of the main house block. The juncture of this frame addition with the west wall of the house is still visible as a pair of linear stains on the brick. Two large stacked slabs of limestone were exposed in Test Unit 4 that may have been part of a foundation pier for the shed addition. No builders‘ trench was observed in association with the main house wall, suggesting that the foundation was laid up from inside the basement. The only other feature of note in this unit was a water pipe trench running diagonally to the west wall of the house and passing beneath the corner of the brick drain. The trench contained a metal pipe measuring 1 in. in diameter and laid at a depth of 1.5 ft. The pipe may have conveyed water between the cistern and a pump house located downslope from the house. Debris associated with the restoration was mixed in with cultural midden that accumulated along the side of the house. However, historic artifact density was fairly low, and most of the artifacts date to the mid- to late nineteenth century.
 

Selected ceramic artifacts from the William Whitley House excavations (a - Rockingham glazed yellowware rim; b - Cobalt decorated saltglazed stoneware; c - Handpainted pearlware; d - Collared redware rim).

Artifacts collected during the investigations include large quantities of nails, windowpane glass, and other architectural items. Kitchen and other classes of domestic artifacts occurred in smaller quantities and were dominated by categories manufactured in the mid- to late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The only recovered artifacts that could date to the late eighteenth century included a few hand wrought nails and very low frequencies of lead-glazed redware and English pearlware. The very low frequency of late eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century artifacts, particularly the very low frequencies of refined ceramics dating to this time period, is quite surprising given the house‘s reported construction date between 1786 and 1794. Excavations at other late eighteenth-century residential sites such as Daniel Boone‘s Station in Fayette County, established in 1779 and also containing a house built around 1795, yielded abundant artifacts relating to the entire occupation, including the earliest period. While early historic archaeological deposits may be obscured by restoration-related fill and later additions to the building, their virtual absence is puzzling and may suggest a slightly later construction date for the house. 

Selected glass artifacts from the William Whitley House excavations (a - Patinated ribbed green glass bottle fragment; b - Hand applied Packer finish on bottle rim).

Archaeological investigations at the William Whitley House revealed that the restoration of the 1940s and 1950s resulted in the burial of earlier ground surfaces by construction rubble fill, a brick drain, a brick patio and by the construction of the additions housing the curator‘s office, kitchen and bath, and the gift shop. Despite these impacts, artifacts dating largely to the mid- to late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were recovered from buried and apparently intact cultural midden; the potential for intact features in or below this midden is good to excellent. Therefore, depending on the nature and extent of the proposed restoration activities, it appears likely that intact cultural midden or features could be impacted, particularly if any ground disturbing activities take place along the house foundation walls. 

A full report is available as Technical Report No. 427.