Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  • Phase 1
     ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
  • Phase 2
     ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
  • Phase 3
     ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery

Archaeology Menu:

Get Full Report
Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  •  ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
    Photomosaic of Feature 6 as exposed prior to demolition monitoring. Feature 6 is thought to be the foundation for the earliest structure on the property. The foundation was roughly shaped local limestone only several courses thick and held together with lime mortar.Continental/Flurküchenhaus house plan, first floor. In the case of the Brumbaugh structure north would have been on the right side of the plan. This floorplan is from Henry Glassie’s study "A Central Chimney Continental Log House" presented in Pennsylvania Folklife in 1969. The foundation of the Brumbaugh house (Feature 6), shown in gray, overlaid on a Flurkuchenhaus/Continental floor plan. Based on the room proportions derived from the uncovered portions of Feature 6 we find that the southeastern room was the largest (4.26 x 4.26 m or 14 × 14 ft.) and was adjoined by a smaller room to the west (2.74 x 4.26 m or 9 × 14 ft.). The northernmost chamber was long and thin (3.05 x 7.31 m or 10 × 24 ft.) and likely contained a hearth. Artist rendering of the mid-eighteenth-century Brumbaugh house based on the configuration of the Feature 6 foundation. This view shows the east (front) and south sides of the building.
  •  ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
    Artist rendering of the dwelling after the early nineteenth-century addition, also showing the cobbled pathways that were introduced around this time. The southern half (left) of the house was the original Feature 6 Flurküchenhaus, while the northern part of the house was the early nineteenth-century addition.
  •  ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery
    A view of the c. 1895 brick farmhouse built by Samuel M. Kendle which constitutes the Phase 3 incarnation of the farmhouse.
Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  •  ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
    Photomosaic of Feature 6 as exposed prior to demolition monitoring. Feature 6 is thought to be the foundation for the earliest structure on the property. The foundation was roughly shaped local limestone only several courses thick and held together with lime mortar.Continental/Flurküchenhaus house plan, first floor. In the case of the Brumbaugh structure north would have been on the right side of the plan. This floorplan is from Henry Glassie’s study "A Central Chimney Continental Log House" presented in Pennsylvania Folklife in 1969. The foundation of the Brumbaugh house (Feature 6), shown in gray, overlaid on a Flurkuchenhaus/Continental floor plan. Based on the room proportions derived from the uncovered portions of Feature 6 we find that the southeastern room was the largest (4.26 x 4.26 m or 14 × 14 ft.) and was adjoined by a smaller room to the west (2.74 x 4.26 m or 9 × 14 ft.). The northernmost chamber was long and thin (3.05 x 7.31 m or 10 × 24 ft.) and likely contained a hearth. Artist rendering of the mid-eighteenth-century Brumbaugh house based on the configuration of the Feature 6 foundation. This view shows the east (front) and south sides of the building.
  •  ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
    Artist rendering of the dwelling after the early nineteenth-century addition, also showing the cobbled pathways that were introduced around this time. The southern half (left) of the house was the original Feature 6 Flurküchenhaus, while the northern part of the house was the early nineteenth-century addition.
  •  ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery
    A view of the c. 1895 brick farmhouse built by Samuel M. Kendle which constitutes the Phase 3 incarnation of the farmhouse.
Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  •  ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
    Photomosaic of Feature 6 as exposed prior to demolition monitoring. Feature 6 is thought to be the foundation for the earliest structure on the property. The foundation was roughly shaped local limestone only several courses thick and held together with lime mortar.Continental/Flurküchenhaus house plan, first floor. In the case of the Brumbaugh structure north would have been on the right side of the plan. This floorplan is from Henry Glassie’s study "A Central Chimney Continental Log House" presented in Pennsylvania Folklife in 1969. The foundation of the Brumbaugh house (Feature 6), shown in gray, overlaid on a Flurkuchenhaus/Continental floor plan. Based on the room proportions derived from the uncovered portions of Feature 6 we find that the southeastern room was the largest (4.26 x 4.26 m or 14 × 14 ft.) and was adjoined by a smaller room to the west (2.74 x 4.26 m or 9 × 14 ft.). The northernmost chamber was long and thin (3.05 x 7.31 m or 10 × 24 ft.) and likely contained a hearth. Artist rendering of the mid-eighteenth-century Brumbaugh house based on the configuration of the Feature 6 foundation. This view shows the east (front) and south sides of the building.
  •  ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
    Artist rendering of the dwelling after the early nineteenth-century addition, also showing the cobbled pathways that were introduced around this time. The southern half (left) of the house was the original Feature 6 Flurküchenhaus, while the northern part of the house was the early nineteenth-century addition.
  •  ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery
    A view of the c. 1895 brick farmhouse built by Samuel M. Kendle which constitutes the Phase 3 incarnation of the farmhouse.
Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  •  ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
    Photomosaic of Feature 6 as exposed prior to demolition monitoring. Feature 6 is thought to be the foundation for the earliest structure on the property. The foundation was roughly shaped local limestone only several courses thick and held together with lime mortar.Continental/Flurküchenhaus house plan, first floor. In the case of the Brumbaugh structure north would have been on the right side of the plan. This floorplan is from Henry Glassie’s study "A Central Chimney Continental Log House" presented in Pennsylvania Folklife in 1969. The foundation of the Brumbaugh house (Feature 6), shown in gray, overlaid on a Flurkuchenhaus/Continental floor plan. Based on the room proportions derived from the uncovered portions of Feature 6 we find that the southeastern room was the largest (4.26 x 4.26 m or 14 × 14 ft.) and was adjoined by a smaller room to the west (2.74 x 4.26 m or 9 × 14 ft.). The northernmost chamber was long and thin (3.05 x 7.31 m or 10 × 24 ft.) and likely contained a hearth. Artist rendering of the mid-eighteenth-century Brumbaugh house based on the configuration of the Feature 6 foundation. This view shows the east (front) and south sides of the building.
  •  ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
    Artist rendering of the dwelling after the early nineteenth-century addition, also showing the cobbled pathways that were introduced around this time. The southern half (left) of the house was the original Feature 6 Flurküchenhaus, while the northern part of the house was the early nineteenth-century addition.
  •  ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery
    A view of the c. 1895 brick farmhouse built by Samuel M. Kendle which constitutes the Phase 3 incarnation of the farmhouse.
Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  •  ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
    Photomosaic of Feature 6 as exposed prior to demolition monitoring. Feature 6 is thought to be the foundation for the earliest structure on the property. The foundation was roughly shaped local limestone only several courses thick and held together with lime mortar.Continental/Flurküchenhaus house plan, first floor. In the case of the Brumbaugh structure north would have been on the right side of the plan. This floorplan is from Henry Glassie’s study "A Central Chimney Continental Log House" presented in Pennsylvania Folklife in 1969. The foundation of the Brumbaugh house (Feature 6), shown in gray, overlaid on a Flurkuchenhaus/Continental floor plan. Based on the room proportions derived from the uncovered portions of Feature 6 we find that the southeastern room was the largest (4.26 x 4.26 m or 14 × 14 ft.) and was adjoined by a smaller room to the west (2.74 x 4.26 m or 9 × 14 ft.). The northernmost chamber was long and thin (3.05 x 7.31 m or 10 × 24 ft.) and likely contained a hearth. Artist rendering of the mid-eighteenth-century Brumbaugh house based on the configuration of the Feature 6 foundation. This view shows the east (front) and south sides of the building.
  •  ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
    Artist rendering of the dwelling after the early nineteenth-century addition, also showing the cobbled pathways that were introduced around this time. The southern half (left) of the house was the original Feature 6 Flurküchenhaus, while the northern part of the house was the early nineteenth-century addition.
  •  ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery
    A view of the c. 1895 brick farmhouse built by Samuel M. Kendle which constitutes the Phase 3 incarnation of the farmhouse.
Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  •  ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
    Photomosaic of Feature 6 as exposed prior to demolition monitoring. Feature 6 is thought to be the foundation for the earliest structure on the property. The foundation was roughly shaped local limestone only several courses thick and held together with lime mortar.Continental/Flurküchenhaus house plan, first floor. In the case of the Brumbaugh structure north would have been on the right side of the plan. This floorplan is from Henry Glassie’s study "A Central Chimney Continental Log House" presented in Pennsylvania Folklife in 1969. The foundation of the Brumbaugh house (Feature 6), shown in gray, overlaid on a Flurkuchenhaus/Continental floor plan. Based on the room proportions derived from the uncovered portions of Feature 6 we find that the southeastern room was the largest (4.26 x 4.26 m or 14 × 14 ft.) and was adjoined by a smaller room to the west (2.74 x 4.26 m or 9 × 14 ft.). The northernmost chamber was long and thin (3.05 x 7.31 m or 10 × 24 ft.) and likely contained a hearth. Artist rendering of the mid-eighteenth-century Brumbaugh house based on the configuration of the Feature 6 foundation. This view shows the east (front) and south sides of the building.
  •  ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
    Artist rendering of the dwelling after the early nineteenth-century addition, also showing the cobbled pathways that were introduced around this time. The southern half (left) of the house was the original Feature 6 Flurküchenhaus, while the northern part of the house was the early nineteenth-century addition.
  •  ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery
    A view of the c. 1895 brick farmhouse built by Samuel M. Kendle which constitutes the Phase 3 incarnation of the farmhouse.
Site Development
Excavations around the core of the farmstead revealed a long occupation history spanning at least three phases of building beginning in the mid-eighteenth century with Jacob Brumbaugh and terminating in 1895 with the latest incarnation of the farmhouse being built by Samuel M. Kendle. Click on a Phase below to learn more.
  •  ﷯ Based on the archaeological and architectural evidence it would seem that the foundation on the south side of the farmhouse (Feature 6 ) represents the earliest phase of European American settlement within the study area, likely dating to the mid-eighteenth century when Jacob Brumbaugh first took up residence on this parcel in his first purchase of Cleland’s Contrivance. The Feature 6 foundation was situated on largely flat ground or a gentle slope overlooking a landscape of undulating terrain. It was placed only a short distance from a natural spring, a seep in the natural bedrock (the site of a later well). A total of 7 coins with dates ranging from 1731 to 1755 were recovered from within the Feature 6 structure, suggesting a mid-eighteenth-century construction date, which was consistent with the ceramics found in the area. Jacob Brumbaugh’s mid-eighteenth-century house measured approximately 28 × 28 ft. (8.53 × 8.53 m) and appeared to have had three chambers, with a central chimney and hearth. Although there was no cellar beneath the house, the presence of a possible root cellar immediately north of the foundation was initially indicated by an off-alignment wall remnant noted in the basement floor of the standing farmhouse, along its western wall. A structure was identified in this location during demolition monitoring, as was a stairway leading from Feature 6 down toward this structure. The most diagnostic feature of the structure was its central chimney, which was common to houses constructed by German settlers in the New World. A central chimney within a structure is typically indicative of a Continental Plan house plan, a derivation of the German Flurküchenhaus plan. A Continental house was roughly square, had two or three chambers, a side-gabled roof, and offset central chimney (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004; Henry Glassie, "Central Chimney Continental Log House," in Pennsylvania Folklife, 1969). A Continental house layout typically included a kitchen, kütche, a hall, stube, and often a kammer or sleeping chamber set off to the side of the stube. In the Continental/Flurküchenhaus plan, each room had a specific function and the rooms were typically arranged in a specific way. The kütche was not just where cooking was done but was also typically the primary entrance to the structure. The layout of the kütche typically featured a large fireplace offset toward the entryway (Gerald Foster, American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home, 2004). In other versions of the Continental plan, there were two doors, one at either end of the kitchen. The superstructure of Feature 6 seems most likely to have been a log structure that was plastered or at least had plaster chinking between its timbers. According to Foster, houses of the Continental type were often constructed of stone or brick, but versions constructed of log and wood frame, roughcast plastered, or sheathed in weatherboards were also common. German settlers in Washington County, Maryland, like those in southern Pennsylvania just a few miles north, had a long tradition of timber construction, which typically featured the V-notch joining method (Lauren Sickels-Taves and Philip D. Allsopp, "Making a Mark in America: The Architectural Ingenuity of Germanic Settlers," in Material Culture, 2005). The V-notch joining system used timber that had been hand-hewn with an axe and the end of each log was fitted with a joint that had a broad V-shape. The space between the logs was then packed with a mixture of lime-mortar and earth to seal the wall and help keep out the weather. In the eighteenth century, such structures were relatively common as they were quick and easy to build, and suitable timber was plentiful. A timber structure with plaster chinking or coated in plaster would account for the high volume of pulverized mortar found in demolition deposits, which capped Feature 6. Photo Gallery
    Photomosaic of Feature 6 as exposed prior to demolition monitoring. Feature 6 is thought to be the foundation for the earliest structure on the property. The foundation was roughly shaped local limestone only several courses thick and held together with lime mortar.Continental/Flurküchenhaus house plan, first floor. In the case of the Brumbaugh structure north would have been on the right side of the plan. This floorplan is from Henry Glassie’s study "A Central Chimney Continental Log House" presented in Pennsylvania Folklife in 1969. The foundation of the Brumbaugh house (Feature 6), shown in gray, overlaid on a Flurkuchenhaus/Continental floor plan. Based on the room proportions derived from the uncovered portions of Feature 6 we find that the southeastern room was the largest (4.26 x 4.26 m or 14 × 14 ft.) and was adjoined by a smaller room to the west (2.74 x 4.26 m or 9 × 14 ft.). The northernmost chamber was long and thin (3.05 x 7.31 m or 10 × 24 ft.) and likely contained a hearth. Artist rendering of the mid-eighteenth-century Brumbaugh house based on the configuration of the Feature 6 foundation. This view shows the east (front) and south sides of the building.
  •  ﷯ Archaeological evidence suggests that the second phase of building within the project area was undertaken by Henry Brumbaugh who set out to expand the Feature 6 house built by his father. Thanks to records we have a description of the footprint of the dwelling-house as it was at the time of the death of Andrew, Henry’s son (who died just after this father). At that time the dwelling house is listed as being 50 × 28 ft. (15.24 x 8.5 m): Containing two hundred and seventy five acres, about forty acres in woods, about two hundred and thirty acres of cleared land laid off into nine fields and two small lots, the fencing in good repair, a garden in order and fencing in good repair, an apple orchard with about three hundred & sixty trees,there is on the said farm a dwelling house 50 by 28 feet and back building 18 by 30 feet in good repair, two other outhouses in good repair, a barn 101 by 50 feet and over shoot 101 by 9 ft. in good repair, and a stable 16 by 18 feet in good order, also a cider press under cover 30 by 16 ft., wagon shed 28 by 44 ft., a chicken house 18 by 20 ft., a hog pen, carriage house & corn crib under one roof 28 by 30 ft., smoke house 12 by 24 ft., apple house 24 by 15 ft., all in good repair. (Valuation of Estate of Andrew Brumbaugh, Washington County Probate Records, 1777-1971, Annual Valuations, 1854-1871, dated March 25, 1859) Feature 6 plus the basement of the rear ell to the later brick house match these dimensions almost exactly. Further, the ell basement has an abandoned chimney base, suggesting an earlier origin. Excavation along the western wall of the later brick house revealed two foundations, the deeper (and older) of which directly abutted Feature 6 and continued down into the basement of the rear of the brick building. The builder’s trench of the foundation for the brick house’s rear ell had a TPQ of 1795. Henry took possession of the property in 1803, making it likely that the expansion was done under his tenure. As visible in its basement, the ell had hand-hewn floor joists in addition to the abandoned chimney base. It also had, in its southern wall, a filled-in door that would have presumably led into the kitchen of the Feature 6 structure. Based on the archaeological, structural, and documentary evidence it would seem that the second phase of the dwelling house comprised the Feature 6 house with a northerly extension that sat atop the basement of what became the rear ell to the later Kendle-period brick house. The floorplan of this new structure would have, externally at least, made the structure more symmetrical. In this expanded Henry Brumbaugh period dwelling house the kitchen, which was the main entrance to Jacob’s (Feature 6) house, was now in the middle of the building, flanked to the north and south by two largely symmetrical wings, each approximately 5.1-5.5 m (17–18 ft.) wide north-south. This expanded dwelling would have now roughly conformed to the Germanic 4 over 4 style, representing a conception of space more readily defined by ideas of symmetry and balance. Feature 6 and its northern extension would have been connected at grade, but there would also have been access to the new cellar from the exterior in the northern wall of the new addition as well as from the original house. The material used for the addition’s superstructure is not definitively known, but it was likely log or frame. The absence of significant quantities of brick and stone in the demolition layers encountered during excavation seems to support the log or frame interpretation. Instead, crushed plaster is the primary inclusion in the demolition deposits, a material used in both the chinking and coating of log structures. Documentary accounts of the property also seem to corroborate the interpretation of the post 1800 Brumbaugh farmhouse as a log structure. An 1884 description of the property in the Chancery Record describes the house as a log and roughcast structure: … being the house and farm of Andrew Brumbaugh, deceased, and containing 162 ¾ acres of land more or less. The improvements thereon being a two-story log and roughcast dwelling house, a large brick Swisser barn and a good well of water, 1 Two-story tenant house with stabling, a good wagon shed, carriage house, hog pen and all other necessary outbuildings with an excellent orchard of apples and peach trees. Upon the land is sufficient timber the uses of the Farm. The land is all of the highest quality of Limestone and is especially adapted for the growing of wheat and Corn … (Washington County, Chancery Record No. 25:458–461) There is no archaeological or documentary evidence suggesting that the structure changed throughout the remainder of the Brumbaugh period, through the late nineteenth century. Henry’s son Andrew died shortly after him, in 1859, after which the property (Andrew’s estate) was in guardianship. During this period, major changes to the property would have left a paper trail in the courts—a paper trail that does not appear to exist. Further, the description of the property in 1884 matches the archaeological record of the original house plus Henry’s early nineteenth-century northern addition. Given these observations, it is likely that that the dwelling remained largely unaltered during the brief tenures of Ulysses S. Brumbaugh and the Schindels, ultimately being replaced by the Kendle period brick farmhouse. Photo Gallery
    Artist rendering of the dwelling after the early nineteenth-century addition, also showing the cobbled pathways that were introduced around this time. The southern half (left) of the house was the original Feature 6 Flurküchenhaus, while the northern part of the house was the early nineteenth-century addition.
  •  ﷯ When Samuel Milford Kendle took ownership of the property from the Schindel’s in 1895 he set about making the farm his own. A History of Washington County, Maryland, written by Thomas J.C. Williams in 1906, described Kendle’s tenure on the property as follows: In 1895 they bought 160 acres in Hagerstown District, known as the Andrew Brumbaugh farm, where they have lived ever since, engaging in farming with excellent success. Mr. Kendle has built a new home on the same spot [emphasis added] where an old log building, rough cast, had stood for more than 100 years; this building he tore down; the mortar in it was mixed with weeds or straw. The improvements have cost him about $4,000. The land, which he purchased at $50 per acre, is now one of the most valuable farms in the district. The little fortune which Mr. Kendle possess is principally the result of this own efforts and of his honest dealings. When he began married life, he had only ten dollars. The 1906 Williams account seems to be borne out in the archaeology. If Williams’s account of the property is to be believed, Kendle built the brick house on top of the earlier eighteenth-century structure. The description of the former structure as an old log building, roughcast, having stood for more than 100 years, with mortar mixed with weeds or straw seems to be in keeping with the archaeologically indicated construction practices suggested for Feature 6 and for the northern extension added by Henry Brumbaugh. If this house had stood for more than 100 years in 1895 it would encompass, at the very least, the second construction phase when a northern addition was added to the original building. Evidence that Kendle built on top of the earlier foundation is well demonstrated at the southwest corner of the house where the foundation wall profiles show the brick house foundation sitting on top of part of the Feature 6 foundation as well as the foundation of Henry’s addition (which became the basement foundation of the brick house’s rear ell). The Kendle foundation upon which the brick house sits is built of nicely faced stone that overlies the earlier unfaced stone foundation. Photo Gallery
    A view of the c. 1895 brick farmhouse built by Samuel M. Kendle which constitutes the Phase 3 incarnation of the farmhouse.