Last week I saw a notice in one of the local newsweeklies announcing a talk at the Brookfield Town Hall tonight which would focus on the discoveries made on a recent archaeological dig in the area.  I was only hazily aware of what this was all about (well actually, I knew nothing about this), but it sounded interesting, and I decided to attend.  About a hundred people crowded into one of the meeting rooms of the Brookfield Town Hall for the short presentation.

Selectman Clarence Snyder introduced the subject and the speaker, UMass professor Eric S Johnson.  About a year ago, Mr Snyder said, the town commissioned an archaeological survey of a piece of land owned by the town, the Tobin’s Beach property on the shore of Quaboag Pond.  Insofar as the town owned it, the town had to decide what to do with it.  Could the public use it in any way?  If for recreational purposes, could there be a picnic area, a walking path, an outdoor pavilion, a playground?  Was the area safe?  Could fire equipment access it?  Could the site be listed on the National Register of Historic Places?

To provide preliminary answers to these questions, the town hired University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services (UMAS) to complete an archaeological survey; fieldwork was done between May 1 and May 15, 2017.  The purpose was to “determine if the property still contained intact archaeological deposits,” in particular, additional graves.

It is believed that our region has been home to humans for thousands of years, even as far back as 12,000 years ago.  Their current day descendants in this area are members of the Nipmuc Nation, mostly likely the Chaubunagungamaug Nipmuc or Dudley Indians, with possible connections to the Grafton area Nipmuc community as well.  The first inhabitants of the area were hunter-gatherers who enjoyed the bounty of the land around Quaboag Pond.  North and South Ponds would have been filled with bass and pickerel as well as trout; there were ducks and waterfowl, shad and salmon in the Quaboag River.  The lowland soils were also fertile ground for growing beans, squash, corn, tobacco, and other crops.  Situated as it was on a tributary of the Chicopee River, which flows into the Connecticut, this area was also a crossroads for travelers.  Archaeological work that was done in Brookfield about a half-century ago discovered incontrovertible evidence of this.

In the 1960s, an amateur archaeologist named Barker Keith, who lived on the shore of Quaboag Pond, began a series of excavations in the area, after being contacted by a man from the Brookfield Health Department who had been working on installing a trench for sewage pipes.  When Keith began to dig, he immediately realized he had stumbled upon an amazing site:  he found an ancient cemetery, with red ochre and pieces of human bone; there were copper and shell beads, tubular tobacco pipes, and spear points.  These artifacts were identified as belonging to the Adena culture, which flourished in the Ohio Valley between about 1000 BCE and 100 CE.  This culture is the earliest of the so-called “mound builders”; these Native American peoples buried their dead in earthen mounds and also lived in villages with well-developed agriculture and a rich ceremonial life.  Clearly, the Adena peoples and our Massachusetts tribes were part of a far-flung trade network.  Barker Keith subsequently published a report of his findings in the Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society; he later donated his artifact collection to the Springfield Science Museum.

Between Keith’s day and today, there have been changes in the philosophy and practice of archaeology, particularly with respect to human remains: archaeologists began to consult with the descendants of the people they were studying and also to preserve sites rather than destroy them by complete excavation, and they began to return artifacts.  At the national level, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed by Congress in 1990; it required co-operation between Native Americans and museums, which was not always easy, but gradually, both parties accepted that this was the right way to work.

After doing their background research, which included extensive consultation with town citizens and reviews of Keith’s field notes, old photos, maps, local newspaper accounts, and other histories, the UMAS team began the dig.  At Tobin’s Beach, they dug shallow trenches which were excavated to remove topsoil and recent fill only (hence, they did not find a lot of artifacts).  Despite the limited scope of the investigation, it did yield these important insights:

• There are unmarked graves still on the property
• There are traces of material culture indicating activities of daily living took place here
• Parts of the site have been badly damaged; however, much remains intact
• The site deserves to be protected and will be nominated for listing in the National Register

Mr Johnson concluded with some recommendations: he believes that this site is important to the town and plans should be drawn up that protect it.  Providing access to the property for the general public would require a decision on improving the existing access road.  Going forward, the town should of course consult with the Nipmuc Nation and the Mass Historical Commission.  A second phase of an archaeological study, perhaps using Ground Penetrating Radar, could be useful, in that the entire site could be surveyed to determine more precise locations of intact deposits and features such as graves.

Today is Museum Day Live, sponsored in part by the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.  I had perused the list of participating museums and picked out a couple in Boston which I had never heard of, then settled on the William Hickling Prescott House Museum on Beacon Hill.  Around noon my niece met me at 55 Beacon Street, overlooking the Boston Common, and we were ushered inside.  We became a group of about 25 — quite a motley crew — for the first tour (I believe they planned to offer four hour-long tours today).

This Beacon Hill house has been home to three families: in 1808, it was built by James Smith Colburn, a wealthy Boston merchant, who also built an identical house next door (these are considered twin houses).  The second owner, American historian William Prescott, lived in the house from 1845-1859 and customized it to his taste.  After his death, his widow lived here for the next ten years until she sold it to her nephew, Franklin Gordon Dexter.  The Dexters also made extensive renovations to the house, and it remained a family home until 1939.  For the next five years, the property languished until the National Society of the Colonial Dames purchased it in 1944.  In 1964, after extensive restoration, the house was designated a National Historic Landmark and was opened to the public.

Our tour began on the first floor, in the oval room which was the original dining room.  The room’s bow-front windows are original, and are one of the distinguishing marks of the Federal style, popularized by the American architect Asher Benjamin, who designed the house.  At the risk of over-simplifying, the dates for the Federal period are 1780-1820; based on classical forms, the style is simple and symmetrical.  Federal architecture was a sign of urban prosperity, reflecting the growing wealth of the new nation.

This oval room includes period furniture, but the pieces are not original, which is not surprising, given that for generations, this was a home, not a museum, and the families who lived here renovated and decorated with abandon.  At the back of the room, three dresses from the extensive NSCDA costume collection are on display.  Again, they did not belong to the women who lived here but are representative clothing worn during the time periods of the three wives (following the periodization of British history, probably Georgian, Victorian, and Edwardian).

Next we trooped through the foyer.  The foyer, the docent told us, is the entrance to the house and therefore the place where you’d “put your best foot forward.”  The original foyer was plain, but was renovated over the years to become more ornate.  It now has a marble floor and a beautiful, wide staircase, which was installed so that a daughter could make a splash when she entered the house on her wedding day.  The overhead lamp in the foyer is original and would have burned whale oil when it was first installed (it is now electric).

On the third floor, we viewed the master bedroom.  Unlike our bedrooms today, this room was used extensively by the family.  They often ate their evening meals in the room (lunch was the main meal of the day, not dinner) and entertained close friends here. The plank floor, shutters, and fireplace mantel in the room are original, but the furniture is not.

The second owner, William Prescott, was born into an old Boston family (ever hear of the Battle of Bunker Hill? Prescott’s grandfather, also William Prescott, commanded troops there).  Our William Prescott entered Harvard at age 14, which was not unusual back in the day.  Though parts of this story may be apocryphal, it’s rather well-established that during a food fight in the dining commons, Prescott was hit in the eye with a roll.  He lost sight in that eye, and then started losing sight in other eye; today he would be considered legally blind.  However, he did graduate from Harvard, and shortly thereafter, during a period of recuperation, he embarked on the European Grand Tour.  A few years later, he decided to devote himself to literature and history, rather than law.  He became fascinated with Spain and soon published a study of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.  He continued his historical work with studies of Latin America; his two most well-known works are History of the Conquest of Mexico, published in 1843, and History of the Conquest of Peru, published in 1847.

As a scholar and writer, Prescott made extension additions to the house, adding both a study to the third floor and a library to the second.  In one sense, the study was customized to accommodate his failing eyesight, in that it has large windows at the back to let in the light.  At his writing desk, he used a noctograph, a device that holds paper in place and allows for legible writing in the dark. Prescott also made extensive use of secretarial help to prepare his manuscripts for publication; adjacent to his study was a small study for his assistant.

When the property passed to the Dexter family ten years after William Prescott died, another round of renovations was in order, as the new owners were young and wealthy.  Mr Dexter converted the second-floor library into a formal dining room.  The windows are an outstanding feature, as are the mirrors — not looking glasses, they were designed to reflect light and brighten the room.  Above one of the dining room doors hangs a plaque commemorating the joining of the Prescott-Linzee swords.  Therein lies a sweet story: one sword was carried by the American Colonel Prescott at the Battle of Bunker Hill; the other was carried by his opponent, the English Royal Navy Captain John Linzee.  William Hickling, grandson of that American colonel, married Susan Amory, niece of John Inman Linzee, Captain Linzee’s son.  William Thackeray, he of Vanity Fair fame, noticed the swords when he was a guest at the Prescott’s home and mentioned them in his novel The Virginians.  The swords themselves are now owned by the Massachusetts Historical Society.

The last room we visited was the parlor, which has one flat window and two bow windows.  The mantel in this room is original but most of the furniture are period pieces.  In addition to the spinet which would be found in most drawing rooms, the Prescott family owned a Babcock box piano, which is a fascinating musical instrument (Alpheus Babcock of Boston was one of the great innovators in the modern history of the piano).  Prescott descendants donated the instrument to the Society so that it could be displayed here.  While we looked around the room, the docent had us try to imagine what it would have been like to live in the house two hundred years ago.  The view from the parlor windows onto the Common would have been much the same, but most of the tall buildings surrounding the house now would not have been built yet.  In fact, in 1808, most of the Back Bay was mudflats and salt marshes which would be under water at high tide, and one would have been able to look out from this house, situated on what was the Shawmut Peninsula, onto the Charles River.