Believe it or not, Week 4 began with our heaviest rains yet! Torrential downpours that might typically halt excavations didn’t stop us. By this point, rain was the norm. Besides, our excitement about the finds at the end of Week 3 encouraged us to work hard through the unpleasant weather. As long as our tents fended off the rain and protected the units from getting wet we continued excavating.

Unlike previous weeks’ photos, some of the following images are accompanied by detailed descriptions about our interpretations of the site based on the synthesis of multiple sources of information recovered over the past four weeks. While these interpretations will undoubtedly be revised over the course of lab analysis, we have gathered a solid idea at this point, primarily based on the archaeology, of the site’s 17th century history.

During a rainy Monday and half of Tuesday, we concentrated our efforts on completing excavations of Trench 10 and Trench 9. We took a break from excavating Trench 8 during the heavy rain because we did not want to risk disturbing the wall’s stability. This image shows Trench 10, facing east, after the shell layer had been completely removed. Underneath, we found a sandy ash layer, with burned charcoal in it, and a trace of disintegrated brick in the NE corner of the unit (see top left here). In a 2005 1x1 two meters to the north, we found a large deposit of disintegrated brick similar to this. The brick disintegrated because of the high water table that regularly enters these soil deposits.

A view of the ash deposit underneath the shell and slate layers in the western half of Trench 10. Pieces of charcoal are visible in the ash.

On Tuesday we completed excavations of Trench 10. We dug until the water table flooded the unit. There were likely trace cultural deposits below, but we did not have the proper water removal equipment to remove it. This is an image of the north wall profile at the end of excavations (~60cmbd).

A view of Trench 10 facing west as the water began to enter the unit.

In Trench 9, the artifact-rich soil deposit GF1767/68 ended and transitioned into a black, greasy layer very rich with charcoal extending most of the way across the unit. This black deposit did not appear in either Trench 8 or 10. Trench 9 appears in the foreground in this image, and Trench 10 in the background (facing south).

A view of the top of GF1773 in Trench 9 – the black deposit. Notice that it is interspersed with ashy spots identical to those in Trench 10, and also that the deposit appears to transition to an orange-brown soil close to the wall feature and along the northern edge of the unit.

Elise works to define the edge of the black soil deposit. The contrasting orange soil on the other side of the wall feature is visible in the background, in Trench 8.

The black deposit in Trench 9 was not artifact-rich, although it did contain fragments of 17th century materials and other common finds (shell and bone). Therefore, we switched back to shovel shaving this deposit, as Al is doing here.

Working along the wall feature running through Trenches 8 and 9, Megan excavates a post mold feature dug into the orange soil of Trench 8 (left), and 1 meter away, Elise locates the edge of the black soil deposit. The wall feature sits atop the orange-black soil transition, as visible towards the right extent of the wall in this image. This relationship tells us that the wall was built after whatever caused this black layer (a Hearth? Burn pit? Burned structure? Stay tuned…)

On the west side of the wall feature in Trench 8 we exposed two post mold or other features filled with the same clay that anchors the stone wall architecture in place. (Facing north)

A view of Trench 8 facing south shows the excavated post mold on the west side of the wall (right), and another feature next to the east side of the wall along the unit’s southern wall. The large stones next to the wall on the west are wall fall. The contrast between the orange soil in Trench 8 and the black soil of Trench 9 here is strong.

A closer look at the rubble-fill architecture of the wall feature in Trench 8.

The two features excavated adjacent to the east of the wall along the southern edge of Trench 8. The feature in the SE corner was not deep and did not yield materials – it was probably a soil stain. The feature adjacent to the wall was, however, very deep and contained 17th century diagnostic materials, including a Dutch pipe stem.

Excavations of the soil around the wall feature in Trench 8 proceeded quickly once the rain stopped. Similar to the other stone architectural features across the site, this wall was anchored by a thin layer of clay and dug into the orange glacial sand characteristic of the farm’s stratigraphy.

Trench 9 became increasingly saturated by water from below. Fortunately, the remaining black soil proved to be artifact-free. Elise and Christina cored in several locations across the Trench to determine the depth of the deposit and what, if anything was beneath. They found a thin gray clay layer under the black soil, which transitioned very quickly to water.

A view of Trench 9 at the end of excavations. The transition points between black and orange soil is clear here. Coring revealed that orange soil is not located under the black deposit, and black soil is not under the visible orange soil.

The eastern wall profile of Trench 9, the artifact-rich deposits and black burn layer are clearly visible in the wall’s stratigraphy.

With Trenches 8, 9, and 10 finished (mostly), we moved on to our next task of the week – cleaning the entire site for site-wide documentation, mapping, and photographs. The crew carefully removes remaining wall fall and cleans the floors of the units here (most of which we’d kept covered with tarps and plywood for protection while we worked over the past few weeks).

We carefully screened the soil from each Trench’s cleanup. Some areas of wall fall contained a bit of architectural and domestic materials, as Erika proudly displays here.

Amanda, Caroline, and Meredith clean up the walls first in Trench 2 before moving onto the floor surface. This area had been badly flooded during the rains – we were very lucky that they stopped in time for our cleanup.

We also cleaned up our largest prior excavation unit, Trench 6, in which the curved wall fall feature was uncovered in 2008. This unit was very deep, over a meter, and fared badly during the heavy snows last winter. The result was a good bit of erosion – which, in our case proved informative because it exposed what appears to be an extension of the feature wall in Trench 8 and a possible 90 degree turn of this wall westward. This image shows the westward turn of the wall here protruding from the profile wall.

Despite the shadow, it is possible to see the wall extending out of the southern edge of the unit (bottom center in this image), and the turn westward (left-center) here. The westward turn of this wall is certainly a point of interest for us in the future. We probed the area outside of the unit along this wall’s trajectory and discovered that this turn also lines up at 90 degrees to the rubble wall feature we excavated in the 2x2 in 2006. Finally, we have a clear idea of where house structure’s dimensions and foundation walls!!! It is probable then, that the curvature of large stones was wall fall that was robbed and disarticulated over time.

We concluded after mapping and measuring that the wall orientations that connect between Trenches 8, 9, and now Trench 6 (see the wall fall coming into the southern wall profile in T6 here) do not connect with or are oriented reasonably with the wall feature in Trench 7, which remains at an obtuse angle relative to the other structural features. It is also disconnected from the stone architecture remains in Trench 6, and shows no sings of turning. Trench 7 is in the left center of this image. Furthermore, the soils into which the other stone features are deposited contain a greater quantity of artifacts, more diverse stratigraphy, and evidence of burning episodes. This isn’t the case for the wall feature in Trench 7. The solid architecture of the Trench 7 wall mislead us into assuming that this would’ve been a central or important component of the house architecture – while it may now prove (with lots more research) to be part of an outbuilding (a byre?), a field wall, or other landscape feature. This was an important realization for our knowledge about the structure. One more important find came from the Trench 6 cleanup. We were again plagued by flooding in the NE corner of Trench 6 during cleanup (wetness visible here, bottom left). As we dug out the wall fall we noticed a feature that we hadn’t been able to see clearly last year…

A stone-lined well!!! A few large sherds of 17th century tin-glazed/delftware ceramics were uncovered in the stones.

This new-found well explains a lot, including the interruption in the north wall’s profile by the feature’s stratigraphy. It also points to an exterior area of the structure.

We also explored the possibility of excavating the well and realized that large stones, likely from the upper portion of the well were pushed into it at some point. The water table is also immediate. This will be an area of future exploration.

Following the site-wide cleanup we thoroughly photo-documented the site. This southeastward facing view shows Trench 7 in the foreground. Note how this feature is interrupted in relation to the Trench 6 wall fall, and how the stratigraphy (as visible in the wall profiles) is rather straightforward. The elevation of this architectural feature is relative to the other architectural features, but the angle of this wall, the stratigraphy, and the associated artifact deposits suggest that this was not a central part of the Old House structure(s).

This view facing southward includes Trench 8 (foreground), Trench 4 (middle), Trench 2 (adjacent southwards to Trench 4), and Trench 9 (black soil-unit on the left). The identity and relationships of three features are particularly important for understanding the sequence of site deposition and the progression of living and building activities at the Old House site.

The earliest deposit is the architectural trench (#1), which is a clay and rubble-filled trench, 1 meter deep, running E-W for approx 10 meters and with three northerly turns. The first turn (visible here in Trench 4) extends for 1.5 meters (though it likely once continued and possibly turned near the feature that is excavated along Trench 4’s west wall). There is a second northerly turn running for less than 50cm under the stone wall feature, and a third northerly turn to the west (beyond this picture), which runs along similar lines to the architectural feature excavated in the 2006 2x2m unit. Based on the sequence of this feature, it represents a structural feature that pre-dates the building that contained the stone walls above. This could be remains of the very structure built on the property in 1658. If there were large stones in this builder’s trench, they were robbed historically. Another possibility is that that the first structure was built of wood planking or was earthfast, and therefore would not involve much, if any, stone (recall, large stones are not native to the property). This might explain why such a thick layer of clay was used.

The second important feature is the black soil deposit largely centered in Trench 9. The deposit is on top of the clay architectural trench, but underneath the stone wall feature. At first we suspected that this was the remains of a hearth because of the black soil and accompanying ash and charcoal deposits. Missing, however, were reddish-orange soil colorations that might indicate high heat, and any sort of brick or stone base, back or floor for a hearth. Also puzzling was the depth of the deposit (30cm) and its fairly isolated extent. If the structure was burned during King Philip’s War in 1676 (as local folklore recounts), then we would likely see evidence of structural burning across the site – or at least in association with architectural remains. The isolation, thickness of this deposit, and darkness of this deposit runs contrary to this idea and suggests instead that this was an area of prolonged, low temperature heating activities – and that the feature was a pit dug into the ground rather. What purpose might a burn pit have served? Possibilities include that this represents an area were materials were produced or processed (brick, shell, charcoal) that might have been used in the building or rebuilding of the subsequent stone structure. This might account for the very crude mortar and bricks that were used in the second iteration of the structure. Micromorphology should help us determine the function of this deposit more accurately.

The third important feature is the stone wall. The terminus of the wall is cornered with large stones, while the remainder is basically a rubble / fill composition consisting of slate, small stones, mortar, shell and a huge amount of animal bones set in a thin layer of gray clay. The large stone that suggests a turn in the wall at the southern end of the wall is probably wall-fall rather than a turn. Finds from this wall were very useful in understanding the sequences and dates of the features of the Old House. For example, a pipe stem with an 8/64” bore diameter was found in the clay lining of the stone wall. Another informative find was the rim of a yellow-glazed redware vessel rim underneath the wall. This rim cross-mends with a rim sherd from the midden soil that we excavated two levels above the wall. This relationship supports our earlier theory that the midden soil downslope partly relates to the first iteration of the Old House structure, and was used in the (re)building of the stone structure in the 17th century, and the remainder was used later to cover over the site in the 19th century. If the midden soil was used in the structural base of the Old House’s stone architecture, then this would explain why such a large quantity of large animal bones were used as architectural material.

A view of the stone wall extending in to Trench 6 (forerground) and turning westward.

A view of the Old House features facing north. A stone-lined posthole is visible in the center of Trench 4.

The eastward facing view of the Old House features, including the extension of the clay-filled architectural trench (in Trench 5), and two additional stone-lined postholes (bottom right).

The central area of Old House excavations. The NW corner of Trench 10 is barely visible in the bottom right corner.

After site photos were complete, we selected two transects of the wall features to excavate with the hope that we would recover either diagnostic artifacts or stratigraphy, and other information that could inform us about the date and process of the walls’ construction. In the Trench 6 transect, removal of this transect did not reveal any sort of alignment or intact portions of wall. What remains is a pile of large stone rubble, few are mortared, and no diagnostic artifacts were found.

The wall transect along the Feature 7 stone wall (in Trenches 4 and 9 here) gave us information about the construction materials.

The wall transect also uncovered the junction between the black and orange soil deposits along in the N-S direction.

With such a large scale cleanup, most of the crew spent lots of time carefully wet-screening the soil.

The soils did not disappoint, and finds included this brass mouth harp – a popular 17th century musical instrument. This is the second mouth harp we’ve uncovered from the Old House excavations.

When the excavations were complete, Krysta created a digital map of the site using the total station, which records both distance and elevation.

While mapping on the last day, several colleagues came to visit the excavations.

Noah, a veteran of the 2008 field crew returned to dig with us – and, of course, to find a cool copper alloy artifact in the process.

The final parts of the artifact processing involved counting, weighing, and sampling the architectural materials we recovered and separated context-by-context.

In the field lab, the crew completed the washing and in-processing of the artifacts, one context at a time.

Being Friday, only about half of the crew was present for our group picture! Thanks to the crew for their hard work and perseverance through our wettest but most exciting season of discoveries yet! (Missing from this picture: Kaitlin, Zach, Jonathan, Randi, Ericka, Sarah).

Away we go to the lab to study our finds and write up our results. More soon…

See you next season!

Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | and beyond (analyses, labwork, findings, etc.)