Page 24 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

England it was not an unusual house but on the frontier of early Maryland, where skilled carpen- ters were scarce and labor prices exorbitant, this was a very expensive building. In the context of Maryland during its first decade, this was one of the finest homes in the entire colony. Preliminary findings about the excavations were first reported in a 1974 article.9
Archaeology reveals that the colonists soon learned that other types of architecture were better
suited to these frontier conditions.The first of these was uncovered in 1974 when two large postholes were found. Others were soon uncovered and con- necting their dark brown postmolds formed a rect- angle measuring 20 by 30 feet. This was the first post-in-the-ground or earth-fast house identified in Maryland. Subsequent work at St. Mary’s and at other sites in Maryland and in Virginia demon- strated that this was actually the most common form of construction used by the colonists.
Earthfast Construction And Its Archaeological Footprints
figure A
Illustration of a posthole and postmold.
Most modern buildings are built atop strong masonry or poured concrete foundations. But in
the 17th-century Chesapeake colonies, poured concrete was not yet an option and skilled laborers like masons were rarely available and quite expensive. Most buildings were small, vernacular structures built using earthfast construction techniques. “Earthfast” construction refers to a number of building traditions in which the lower framing members of the structure are not supported by a foundation, but lie directly on or in the ground.1
These common Anglo-Saxon and medieval methods of construction
were transferred to the New World by the English settlers who were familiar with such techniques from their
native land.2 The various methods of earthfast construction leave clues on the landscape in the form of archaeological
features (non-portable evidence of human activity such as soil stains, postholes, trenches, etc.) that reveal the presence and form of the lost structure.
There are five primary forms of earthfast construction used for 17th century buildings in the Chesapeake:
1) trench-laid walls with interrupted sills, 2) puncheon-walled buildings, 3) sill-on- trench or sill-on-ground construction,
4) sill-on-block construction, and
5) post-in-the ground with interrupted sill.3 Trench-laid walls with interrupted sills appear to have been a rather short- lived phenomenon in the Chesapeake. There are a few examples from the
early days of the colony of Virginia, but this method of construction rapidly gave way to other forms of earthfast construction due to its susceptibility to rot. The structures were framed using upright posts with sills fitted between the posts (or “interrupted” by them). These sills and the lower sections of the framing studs they carried would be embedded in a trench. Archaeologically, one would expect to find soil stains representing holes dug for the installation of posts with associated molds: dark circular or rectangular stains from the decayed wooden post. Between these postholes and postmolds would be remnants of the trench within which the sill was laid. While embedding the sill in a trench provided added stability to the structure, it exposed the walls to fungi, bacteria, and (something
the colonists were unfamiliar with), the wood-boring termite.4 Colonists spent the next several decades experimenting with the alternative forms of earthfast construction to stay one step ahead of these pests. They usually failed.
Another early form is the puncheon building. The walls of these structures were constructed by driving upright poles known as “punches” into the ground to which horizontal members could then be attached.
The archaeological fingerprint of a puncheon building is the presence of tightly-spaced postmolds without the accompanying holes in a rectangular arrangement to form the four walls of a former structure. Though there are exceptions, such as some dwellings at the 1620s Maine Plantation in Virginia5
figure B
The archaeological footprint of sill-on- ground construction.
22