DRAFT REPORT *

Archaeological Survey of the First Town Meeting Site - Chelmsford, Massachusetts,  Sponsored by the Chelmsford Historical Commission

Robert W. Drinkwater, project archaeologist July 1980

* Scanned From Typewritten Text

Preface and Acknowledgements

As project archaeologist, I assume responsibility for the manner in which this investigation was conducted. As author of this report, I assume responsibility for the contents. However, I will not accept more than a share of the credit for what we have accomplished. The Chelmsford Historical Commission did a good deal more than simply sponsor and finance this project. Members of the Commission were active participants. It was thanks to their efforts that I was able to focus most of my attention on archaeological problems. Mr. John P. Richardson, chairman of the Commission, handled many of the local arrangements. He volunteered to help us clear the site of brush and brambles. Just about every day that we were in the field, he stopped by to see how we were progressing. Knowing that he would be stopping by to see how we were doing helped me maintain perspective on the progress of the investigation. Other members of the Commission also played an active role. Mr. Richard Lahue served as guide on our first visit to the site. Mrs. Jane Drury assumed responsibility for the crew schedule. Mrs. Drury did much of the background research and stopped by several times while the survey was in progress. Mrs. Martha Sanders visited the site a number of times and provided some details of the recent history of the area.

Other local residents shared their recollections. Mr. Ed Watt told us about Chicken coops which once stood just east of the great rock. The late Mr. Percy Greenwood provided information on a piggery which once stood to the east of the site. Mr. and Mrs. Greenwood allowed us to use their garage for overnight storage. Members of the Social Studies Department at Chelmsford High School also played a prominent role. Mrs. Sally Madison, Social Studies Coordinator, assumed the task of recruiting and screening volunteers for the field crew. Ms. Alice LaChance, a social studies teacher, served as a crewmember during the final days of the field investigation. Months before fieldwork began, I had some apprehensions about working with a volunteer crew of high school students. Fortunately, as June 23 approached I became pre-occupied with other matters --the problems I imagined never materialized. Much of the credit for what we were able to accomplish belongs to the crewmembers:

Throughout the course of this investigation I have benefited from the contributions of colleagues and associates. John Wilson, though not a member of the survey team accompanied me on my first visit to the site, reviewed the survey proposal and stopped by to appraise the results of our efforts. Alan McArdle served as field assistant during the first week of the survey and John Belding served as field assistant during the second week. Ms. Meredith W. Belding did a preliminary analysis of the ceramics and bottle glass we recovered. Ellen Savulis provided information on red wares and pipe stems and offered perspective on 17th century domes- tic sites. Mitch Mulholland offered advice on how we might adapt his data recording system, ARDVARC, to a survey of an historic period site. Carol Piacentini entered data on computer punch cards. Joe Robinson and Lisa Anderson proofread the computer printout. Finally, I would like to join members of the Historical Commission in thanking the current property owners, Delta Realty Trust, for allowing us to conduct this investigation.

Contents

• List of Figures

• Introduction                        

• Derivation of Survey Strategy

• Background Data                   

• Assumptions and Strategy            

• The Field Survey *

• Summary and Discussion of Results

• Concluding Remarks

• Notes

• References *   

Appendices

1. William Fletcher and his Direct Descendants (A synthesis of historical data compiled to date) * 

2. Technical Data *  

3. Field Catalogue (edited) * 

4. Guide to Photographs (Included with Slides 1-15)

List of Figures

1. Overview of the Study Area

2. Diagram of the Half-Acre Lot

3. Generalized Site Plan

4. Details 1: Locus 3 and Adjoining Area

5. Stratigraphic Sections, Locus 3

6. Detai1 2: Locus 2 and Adjoining Area

7. Detai1 3: Well and Adjoining Features

8. Distribution of Hand wrought Nails *

9. Distribution of Machine-cut Nails *

10. Distribution of Wiredrawn Nails  *

11. Distribution of Window Glass  *

12. Distribution of Bricks and Brick Fragments  *

13. Distribution of Red wares  *

14. Distribution of White wares  *

15. Distribution of Cream-colored Ware and Other Ceramics * 

16. Distribution of Bottle Glass  *

17. Distribution of Faunal Remains  *

18. ARDVARC Data Entry Forms (reduced)  *

19. Bottom Depths of Test Pits  *

 * Not included in this Feature for brevity

Introduction

In June of 1630 the first wave of a great migration of English colonists reached the shores of Massachusetts Bay. Historians have estimated that by 1640 as many as 20,000 colonists had arrived. The first settlements were along the coast, but with the steady increase in population, settlers soon began to move inland. Concord, founded in 1635, was the first of several inland settlements to be established in the 1630's and 1640's. Woburn, 10 miles to the east, was founded soon afterward.

Chelmsford was an offspring or Concord and Woburn. In 1652 20 residents of Concord and Woburn petitioned the Massachusetts General Court for permission to view lands situated between the Concord and Merrimack rivers. They were in search of a site for a new settlement. Their petition was granted. The following year they sought and obtained a grant to a 6 by 6 mile tract on the south s1de of the Merr1mack. Before the year was out, the first settlers had arrived. On November 22, 1654 the founders of the new settlement held the first public meeting. This meeting marked the formation of local government in Chelmsford¹. 

The meeting was held at William Fletcher's house. Over the course of the next 3 centuries, this house would become a symbol of the founding of Chelmsford. By the first quarter of the 19th century the house was no 1onger standing, but the s1te had become a local landmark (Allen, 1820:11). As 1ate as the 1840's traces of the house were still visible -- according to one source, the cellar of this house was not filled until 1847. However, from that time onward the actual location of the house faded from memory. Through crop cultivation and other agricultural activities, the site of the William Fletcher house became indistinguishable from the surrounding landscape.

The area remained in agricultural use well into the present century. Much of the area is still open field, a patch of rural landscape in a modern suburban environment, but a reminder of the not-too-distant past when Chelmsford was, primarily, an agricultural town. In the near future this patch of open space will probably be developed. For the site of the first town meeting to be preserved, it would be necessary to re-establish the actual location.

Although traces or the Fletcher house might not be visible at the surface, it was possible that vestiges of the house were to be found just below the surface. Archaeological survey might be a means of re-establishing the location. Thus, the Chelmsford Historical Commission sponsored this investigation.

Among current approaches to historical research, archaeology is the most labor-intensive, thus archaeological investigations can be quite expensive. For this survey to be feasible it was necessary to find means of minimizing costs. First, it was necessary to confine the investigation to as small an area as possible. On the basis of historical research conducted by members of the Historical Commission, we decided to confine our efforts to an area a little less than an acre in extent.

Next, it was necessary to limit the scope of the investigation. The primary objective was to locate physical remains of the William Fletcher house. In practical terms, this meant that we must: (1) locate physical remains of building and (2) attempt to establish whether the building was indeed the William Fletcher house. To accomplish this by the most efficient means possible, it was necessary that we first learn as much about the house as possible. As noted below, we were able to learn very little. Thus, it was necessary to develop survey strategy from inferences and assumptions rather than from historical evidence.

Even after we had reduced the size of the area to be investigated and trimmed the scope of the investigation, the survey would be quite costly if we hired a field crew to do the work. One solution was to recruit a volunteer crew. Thanks to the efforts of the Historical Commission, the efforts of members of the Social Studies Department at Chelmsford High School, and particularly, thanks to the efforts of volunteer crewmembers, this proved to be an exemplary solution.

Derivation of Survey Strategy - Background Data

Location

From the outset we could assume that the site of the William Fletcher house lay within the bounds of an 8 acre lot; that it was to the south of Route 495, to the west of a shopping plaza and to the north and east of residential lots. From published sources, we were soon able to gain a closer approximation of where the house actually stood:

... a few rods to the east of the house now occupied by Mr. William Fletcher and his brother Capt. Josiah Fletcher (i.e., the Crosby house)

(Allen, 1820:11)

... a few rods east of the house of the late Ephraim Crosby ...

(Perham, 1890:242)

... a few rods northeast of what is now known as the Crosby house...

(Perham, in Waters, 1917:12)

... about fifty or sixty rods east of the Bates house in What is now a field for cultivation and on the left (north) of a cart path (a continuation of Crosby Lane) leading eastward from the Crosby house...

(Josiah R. Fletcher, in Waters, 1917:394-395)

Interpreted literally, these accounts could refer to 2, even 3 different locations (see Figure 1). However, all of the locations suggested were within area no more than an acre in extent, east or northeast of the Crosby house, and apparently north of the road or cart way.

A deed to a half-acre lot, dated May 19, 1842, provided one other possible clue to the location of the house. Although we did not know the precise location of this lot, we did know that it was near the house of Josiah Fletcher (i.e., the Crosby house). In the description of the lot boundaries was a reference to an old cellar hole, north of a road and south of a great rock (see Figure 2). Since according to Josiah R. Fletcher, the cellar of the William Fletcher house was not filled until 1847, it was possible that the cellar mentioned in the deed was the cellar of the house were the first town meeting was held.

On the north side of the road, 12-13 rods east-north-east of the Crosby house, and 48-49 rods east-northeast of the Bates house, we found a rock which seemed to qualify as a great rock. Since this rock was situated more or less in the middle of the area suggested by other sources, it seemed worthwhile to begin our investigation there.

Site Chronology

The William Fletcher house was built in 1653 or 1654. It was the first of at least 3 Fletcher houses to be built on the north side of Crosby Lane². We were unable to determine how long the original house remained standing, though from Allen's (1820:11) account we may infer that by about 1820 it was no longer standing.

According to Josiah R. Fletcher, the cellar of this house was filled in 1847, thus at least 27 years elapsed between the time the superstructure was dismantled and the time the cellar was filled. Sometime after 1847 the site was adapted to crop cultivation. After we had begun fieldwork we learned that from time to time the area had been used as a dump and that in the not too distant past chicken coops had stood to the east or the great rock.

Physical Characteristics

According to tradition, the William Fletcher house was the first framed house to be built in Chelmsford (Perham, 1890:242). We were able to learn nothing more about the superstructure. Since it was a framed house we can presume that it had some sort of masonry foundation. It is possible that the cellar, noted by Josiah R. Fletcher, was an original feature³. We did not know the dimensions of the house or the cellar. We assumed the cellar, even if it were not a full cellar, would have measured no less than 10 feet on it shortest side. The results of Cummings' (1979) study of 17th century house construction in the Boston area lend some support to this assumption⁴.

Soils and Surficial Geology

Within the study area soils have developed from stratified drift -- sorted sand and gravel deposited by glacial melt-water⁵. On our first visit to the site, in 1979, we made a prelim1nary assessment of local soils. In open areas surrounding the area we were about to investigate we had found 6-12 inches of topsoil above clean, sorted sand -- a plow zone in direct contact with glaciofluvia1 sediment. 

Assumptions and Strategy

Given the above, what kinds of physical evidence might we expect to find and how might we expect to find it? Since the William Fletcher house was built and occupied in the mid-17th century, we might expect to find mid-17th century artifacts in the immediate vicinity of the house⁶. We did not know how long the house was actually occupied. Duration of occupation would have direct bearing upon the quantity, distribution and time range of the artifacts we might presume to be associated with the house. We had inferred that the house was no longer standing by 1820, thus we could at least assume that artifacts which dated from c. 1820 onward were not associated with this house.

Since we found no evidence to suggest other wise, we assumed that the superstructure was dismantled -- that it had not burned down and that it had not been abandoned and left to decay. If so, any re-usable building materials may have been salvaged for use elsewhere. If this was indeed the case, we would expect to find few vestiges of the superstructure in the archaeological record.

We could presume that the cellar had remained open for at least a quarter-century after the superstructure was removed {1.e., from some time prior to 1820, until 1847). During that time, the cellar walls could have collapsed or stone could have been removed for use elsewhere. Even if still more or less intact, the cellar walls could have been pushed into the cellar at the time it was tilled. And even if the walls were left more or less intact when the cellar was filled, at least the uppermost courses of masonry could have been cast askew in the process of crop cultivation. In view of these possibilities, it appeared that we might have a better chance of detecting the cellar fill than the cellar walls.

Since the area had been under cultivation, we expected that artifacts associated with the William Fletcher house would occur in a plow zone, together with items of more recent origin. We expected that the cellar fill and whatever remained of the cellar walls would lie below the plow zone. In the cellar fill we would expect to find artifacts dating from the time the house was dismantled through the time the cellar was filled.

From what we had already learned about local soils and subsequent site use, it appeared that we might be able to locate the cellar fill with a soil corer. Even if we failed to locate the cellar by this means, we would gain a clearer sense or local soil conditions. If we did soil cores at 10-foot intervals, we could minimize the risk that we had failed to detect the cellar fill purely by chance. In the event that we failed to detect the cellar fill in soil cores, we proposed to dig test pits at 30-foot intervals. By sampling at 30-foot intervals we might fail to locate the cellar purely by chance. If and when we found evidence suggesting that we had found the site of a structure, we would begin limited test excavation to attempt to determine whether the structure might be the house where the first town meeting was held.

Summary and Discussion of Results

In the process of attempting to locate 1 structure, the William Fletcher house, we found traces of at least 2 and perhaps, as many as 5 structures. However, we found very little evidence that the area we investigated was occupied prior to the late 18th or early 19th century. We recovered only 1 item -- a piece of kaolin tobacco pipe stem -- certain to be of 17th century origin. In the table that follows, we have noted the quantity and distribution of other categories of cultural material. Caution: the quantities of items recovered from each area were to some extent a function of the number, size and depths of the test pits we dug in each area. The actual distributions of nails, window glass, brick, ceramics, bottle glass and faunal remains are plotted on Figures 8-17.

The machine-cut nails, wire-drawn nails, plate glass, white ware, all of the bottle glass and presumably, coal, post-date the original Fletcher house. Machine-cut nails, cream-colored ware and some of the white ware and other ceramics would have been in use between the time the house was dismantled and the time the cellar was tilled. Hand-wrought nails and red ware were in use from before the time the house was built through the time that we know the house was no longer standing. Thus, the hand-wrought nails and red ware we recovered need not have been associated with the original Fletcher house.

We did find indirect evidence that 1 of the structures we located might be the original Fletcher house. At locus 3, approximately 20-50 feet south of the great rock, 12-13 rods east-northeast of the Crosby house and 48-49 rods east-northeast of the Bates house, we found what might be the cellar hole mentioned in the 1842 deed. Below the surface of a mound of earth and rocks, we found the soil to be of a more or less distinctive color and texture. On the east side of the mound, 7-19 inches below the surface, we found a pile of rocks which might be vestiges of stone masonry. On the north side of the mound we found large, flat rocks at the edge of the till. During the final hours of the field investigation, we intercepted a feature which could be a builder's trench.

On Figure 4 we have projected the limits of the fill. The projection is based upon test pit profiles and soil core data presented in Figure 5. We assumed that wherever we found orange-brown or light brown sandy soil below the top-soil, we were beyond the limits of the cellar and that wherever we found medium brown and light-orange brown sandy soil below the topsoil, we were within the limits of the cellar. The limits projected on Figure 4 may exceed the actual limits of the cellar.

Our argument that this feature may be the cellar of the original Fletcher house is based solely upon the date ranges of the artifacts we recovered from the fill. Here, as elsewhere, tilled topsoil contained relatively early artifacts (e.g., hand-wrought nails, red ware) along with items of relatively recent "origin {e.g., clear bottle glass, wire-drawn nails). However, in the medium brown sandy soil below the topsoil all but 1 of the artifacts were of late 18th or 19th century origin. All of the artifacts we recovered from the light orange-brown sandy soil were of late 18^th or 19^th century origin. Virtually all of the artifacts recovered from below the topsoil would have been in use at the time that the cellar of the Fletcher house was filled. Unfortunately, the only evidence of 17th century occupation, "the pipe-stem" fragment, turned up nearly 60 feet to the east -- hardly within the immediate vicinity of this feature.

At locus 2, 20-30 feet west of the great rock, 14-15 rods east-northeast of the Crosby house and about 51 rods east-northeast of the Bates house, we found 2 dry-laid stone walls (see Figure 6) .It appeared that both walls were foundation walls. We did not attempt to establish whether both walls were part of the same foundation. On "the south side of the southernmost wall we found a buried topsoil below the top of the wall. In this buried topsoil we found artifacts post-dating the time that the cellar of the Fletcher house was filled. South of the midline of the other wall we also round buried topsoil below the top of the wall. Within this buried topsoil we found a wire staple -- another item of late 19^th or 20^th century origin. Thus, it appeared that both walls might be of relatively recent origin. According to local resident, Mr. Ed Watt, there had been chicken coops in this area in the not too distant past.

North of the great rock, just east of the well, we found vestiges of a dry-laid stone retaining wall, stone steps (?) and possibly, a building foundation (see Figure 7). It seemed unlikely that a house would have stood so close to the great rock. At S9:W51, 10 feet south of the great rock, we found 1 of the 7 hand-wrought nails we recovered as well as possible vestiges of stone masonry (see Figure 4). We did not have time to investigate these features.

During the initial phase of the field investigation we began to realize, much to our dismay, that we had under-estimated the scope and intensity of recent site use. As the survey progressed, we found further indications of relatively recent landscape alteration. Most notable were a road cut and the buried topsoils. Curiously, in all but 1 instance, buried topsoil occurred only within a narrow area, extending from S30:W80, northeastward, toward N10:W0 (see Figure 3). One possible explanation is that the buried topsoil marks the extent of some sort of linear feature - perhaps, a natural feature (e.g., a break in slope) or perhaps a man-made feature (an old roadbed?). At the moment, we will not speculate further. As expected, we found relatively early as well as relatively recent artifacts in the topsoil. However, only at the northern edge of the study area, east of the great rock, did we find a well-defined plow zone in direct contact with natural sediment. Elsewhere, we found the soil to be considerably deeper. In relatively undisturbed areas, we found an orange-brown subsoil between the topsoil and natural sediments. In some areas we found artifacts in the subsoil. Notably, the 1 item certain to be of 17th century origin occurred in the subsoi1⁷.

Summary and Discussion of Results

In the process of attempting to locate 1 structure, the William Fletcher house, we found traces of at least 2 and perhaps, as many as 5 structures. However, we found very little evidence that the area we investigated was occupied prior to the late 18th or early 19th century. We recovered only 1 item -- a piece of kaolin tobacco pipe stem -- certain to be of 17th century origin. In the table that follows, we have noted the quantity and distribution of other categories of cultural material. Caution: the quantities of items recovered from each area were to some extent a function of the number, size and depths of the test pits we dug in each area. The actual distributions of nails, window glass, brick, ceramics, bottle glass and faunal remains are plotted on Figures 8-17.

The machine-cut nails, wire-drawn nails, plate glass, white ware, all of the bottle glass and presumably, coal, post-date the original Fletcher house. Machine-cut nails, cream-colored ware and some of the white ware and other ceramics would have been in use between the time the house was dismantled and the time the cellar was tilled. Hand-wrought nails and red ware were in use from before the time the house was built through the time that we know the house was no longer standing. Thus, the hand-wrought nails and red ware we recovered need not have been associated with the original Fletcher house.

We did find indirect evidence that 1 of the structures we located might be the original Fletcher house. At locus 3, approximately 20-50 feet south of the great rock, 12-13 rods east-northeast of the Crosby house and 48-49 rods east-northeast of the Bates house, we found what might be the cellar hole mentioned in the 1842 deed. Below the surface of a mound of earth and rocks, we found the soil to be of a more or less distinctive color and texture. On the east side of the mound, 7-19 inches below the surface, we found a pile of rocks which might be vestiges of stone masonry. On the north side of the mound we found large, flat rocks at the edge of the till. During the final hours of the field investigation, we intercepted a feature which could be a builder's trench.

On Figure 4 we have projected the limits of the fill. The projection is based upon test pit profiles and soil core data presented in Figure 5. We assumed that wherever we found orange-brown or light brown sandy soil below the top-soil, we were beyond the limits of the cellar and that wherever we found medium brown and light-orange brown sandy soil below the topsoil, we were within the limits of the cellar. The limits projected on Figure 4 may exceed the actual limits of the cellar.

Our argument that this feature may be the cellar of the original Fletcher house is based solely upon the date ranges of the artifacts we recovered from the fill. Here, as elsewhere, tilled topsoil contained relatively early artifacts (e.g., hand-wrought nails, red ware) along with items of relatively recent "origin {e.g., clear bottle glass, wire-drawn nails). However, in the medium brown sandy soil below the topsoil all but 1 of the artifacts were of late 18th or 19th century origin. All of the artifacts we recovered from the light orange-brown sandy soil were of late 18^th or 19^th century origin. Virtually all of the artifacts recovered from below the topsoil would have been in use at the time that the cellar of the Fletcher house was filled. Unfortunately, the only evidence of 17th century occupation, "the pipe-stem" fragment, turned up nearly 60 feet to the east -- hardly within the immediate vicinity of this feature.

At locus 2, 20-30 feet west of the great rock, 14-15 rods east-northeast of the Crosby house and about 51 rods east-northeast of the Bates house, we found 2 dry-laid stone walls (see Figure 6) .It appeared that both walls were foundation walls. We did not attempt to establish whether both walls were part of the same foundation. On "the south side of the southernmost wall we found a buried topsoil below the top of the wall. In this buried topsoil we found artifacts post-dating the time that the cellar of the Fletcher house was filled. South of the midline of the other wall we also round buried topsoil below the top of the wall. Within this buried topsoil we found a wire staple -- another item of late 19^th or 20^th century origin. Thus, it appeared that both walls might be of relatively recent origin. According to local resident, Mr. Ed Watt, there had been chicken coops in this area in the not too distant past.

North of the great rock, just east of the well, we found vestiges of a dry-laid stone retaining wall, stone steps (?) and possibly, a building foundation (see Figure 7). It seemed unlikely that a house would have stood so close to the great rock. At S9:W51, 10 feet south of the great rock, we found 1 of the 7 hand-wrought nails we recovered as well as possible vestiges of stone masonry (see Figure 4). We did not have time to investigate these features.

During the initial phase of the field investigation we began to realize, much to our dismay, that we had under-estimated the scope and intensity of recent site use. As the survey progressed, we found further indications of relatively recent landscape alteration. Most notable were a road cut and the buried topsoils. Curiously, in all but 1 instance, buried topsoil occurred only within a narrow area, extending from S30:W80, northeastward, toward N10:W0 (see Figure 3). One possible explanation is that the buried topsoil marks the extent of some sort of linear feature - perhaps, a natural feature (e.g., a break in slope) or perhaps a man-made feature (an old roadbed?). At the moment, we will not speculate further. As expected, we found relatively early as well as relatively recent artifacts in the topsoil. However, only at the northern edge of the study area, east of the great rock, did we find a well-defined plow zone in direct contact with natural sediment. Elsewhere, we found the soil to be considerably deeper. In relatively undisturbed areas, we found an orange-brown subsoil between the topsoil and natural sediments. In some areas we found artifacts in the subsoil. Notably, the 1 item certain to be of 17th century origin occurred in the subsoi1⁷.

Concluding Remarks

During this 9-day field investigation we were able to test approximately 30% of the area we had originally proposed to investigate, and approximately 15% of the area within which, according published sources, we might expect to find remains of the William Fletcher house. No doubt, we might have obtained different results 1f we had applied our efforts to a larger area. However, we elected to focus our attention on the area around the great rock. Within most of that area we tested at sufficiently close intervals that it seems unlikely that we could have failed to detect the remains of a structure purely by chance.

Thus far, our attempts to locate the site of the first town meeting have achieved results comparable to those of most attempts to locate 17th century structures. For example, Deetz (1974:15) has noted that in the Plymouth area, 10 of 11 attempts to locate remains of 17th century houses yielded: "...a muddled maze of disturbed stones, brick bats and partially preserved cellars". In most instances, very few 17th century artifacts were recovered.

More recently, a team of archaeologists from Boston University investigated areas adjoining 3 17th century houses: the Robert Pierce house in Dorchester, built c. 1650; the Cooper-Frost-Austin house in Cambridge, built c. 1689; the Peter Tufts house in Medford, built c. 1680 (see Starbuck, 1980). Even though these 3 properties were continuously occupied from as early as mid-17th century, on-ward, very few 17th century artifacts were recovered; relatively few early 18th century artifacts were recovered. The results of our investigation suggest that someone smoking a clay pipe passed through the area sometime between 1620 and 1680. Beyond this, the results lend weak support to our assumption that the cellar mentioned in the 1842 deed could be the cellar of the house where the first town meeting was held. The next logical step might be to test this assumption through historical research.

Notes

¹ Through the years this meeting has come to be known as the first town meeting. Although it was the first public meeting, technically speaking, it was not the first town meeting -- the town of Chelmsford was not incorporated until May 29, 1655 (Perham, 1890:243). For additional details concerning the early history of Chelmsford, see: Allen (1820), Hill (1880), Perham (1890) and/or Waters (1917). 

² Until about 1900, direct descendants of William Fletcher retained title to some portion of the original family holdings including the site of the original Fletcher homestead {Fletcher, 1871; Perham, 1890:242; Waters, 1917:394). We have not yet determined how the property passed from 1 generation to the next. In Appendix 1, we have traced one line of descendants. As a result we were able to determine that inventories of the estates of 2 descendants pertained to other Fletcher houses -- not to the house where the first town meeting was held. 

³ Deetz (1974,1977:94-95) has suggested that the archaeological remains of the earliest houses in Plymouth Colony have been difficult to detect because many of these houses were built without cellars. He has found examples of 2 such construction techniques. However, Cummings (1979:29) has suggested that most of the earliest houses or Massachusetts Bay Colony were built with cellars under them: "...fully one half of the houses in the inventories between 1630 and 1660 include cellars, While among the structures themselves there is scarcely a survivor from the 17th century without an underground cellar". 

⁴ Presumably, a half cellar would have extended the full length of the short side (width) of the house and half the length of the long side. Of the 44 houses built in the Boston area between 1637 and 1706, for which both length and width are known, all but 2 were 15-20 feet in Width. One was only 12 feet in width, the other, 27 feet. There was considerable variability in the length of these houses: 30 (68%) were at least 20 feet in length; 14 (32%) were less than 20 feet in length, but of these only 2 were less than 16 feet in length. See Cummings, 1979:212-215). 

⁵ Information on surficial geology was provided by Dr. Joseph Hartshorn, Professor of Geology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

⁶ On most of the 17th and early 18th century sites which archaeologists have investigated, household refuse (e.g., ceramics food remains) occur in a thin scatter around the house. Archaeologists have begun to refer to this phenomenon as sheet refuse (e.g., see Kenyon, in Starbuck 1980:391). 

⁷ The soil layers or "strata" which we have described are the result of the interplay of natural soil formation processes and human activity. They are transient phenomena. For convenience, we have treated them as discrete entities. However, in many instances the depths at which items were recovered may be more meaningful than "stratigraphic" context.