CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The Circumferential TranspOliation Improvements in the Urban Ring Conidor (Urban Ring) project is
a multiphase initiative of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to improve the
regional transpOliation system in the greater Boston area (Figure 1-1). The project study area extends
tlu'ough seven communities: Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford, and Somerville
(Figure 1-2).
Project Description
Phase I consisted of the implementation of new and improved crosstown (CT) and express commuter
(EC) routes to provide more direct service between neighborhoods, employment, and other activity
centers along the conidor. Phase 2 consists of multiple overlapping bus rapid transit (BRT) routes and
new and improved commuter rail stations that will provide numerous intermodal connections making
it possible to transfer between bus, rapid transit, and/or commuter rail lines without having to travel
into downtown Boston. During Phase 3, rail transit service would be added to the most heavily traveled
portion of the cOlTidor between Assembly Square in Somerville and Dudley Square in Roxbury, and
where expanded CT bus and BRT transit services are not adequate to serve long-telm demand.
At the time of the 2004 reconnaissance survey Phase 2 of the Urban Ring was laid out to encircle
approximately 15 miles of the Boston metropolitan area (see Figure 1-1). The 2004 reconnaissance
survey divided the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) into eight segments as summarized in Table
1-1. At that time most of the proposed new conidor represented only additional bus routes on existing
streets. Approximately 25 percent of the conidor included new construction. Urban residential,
educational, commercial, and industrial segments characterized the affected areas. It also included 44
new commuter stations, some single modal, and some intermodal.
Since the 2004 DEIR, the Executive Office of Transportation (EaT) project team has developed four
preliminary build alternatives for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. These alternatives respond to input
and feedback on the 2004 Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact RepOli (DEIR) from the Citizens AdvisOlY
Committee (CAC) and other stakeholders. They will be presented in a Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Review/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/DEIS), cUlTently being prepared by
the EaT project team.
The four preliminary build alternatives consist of:
• Alternative 1 - Surface routing as identified in the 2004 DEIR (presently identified as the Local
Prefened Alternative [LPA]) (Figure 1-3).
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Chapter One
0 ••••••••
L... "."
".
SCALE 1:60000
2 MILES
1000
6·
2000
3000
4000 YARDS
4 KILOMETER
J
Figure 1-1. Location of the Urban Ring Corridor Study Area on the USGS Lynn, Boston North, Boston
South, Hull, Lexington, and Newton, MA topographic quadrangles, 7.5 minute series.
2
PAL Report No. 1396.01
M<lSS;'lChusclts Bay
Urban Ring
Corridor Study Area
Nantucket
~
Sound
t--<
~
~
Cl
....
~
~
.......
v."
'0
?>
C)
.......
<)
.~~
Figure 1-2. Map of Massachusetts showing the communities of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford, and Somerville,
Massachusetts.
5"'
q
o
0­
-o·
s:::
()
w
::::l
.j::>.
()
::r
PJ
"0
.....
~
~
t--<
~
....
Table 1-1. Segments Comprising the Urban Ring Corridor Study Area, 2004 Reconnaissance Survey.
~
o
Segment
"­
.....,
1
2
'"'
.J
....""
~
\Q
~
<:::>
"­
4
5
6
7
8
Description
Town/City
East Boston/Airport
Chelsea/Everett
Medford/Somerville
Somerville/Charlestown
Cambridge
Brookline/Fenway/LMA/Ruggles
Boston Medical/Dudley/Uphams Corner/UMASS
South Boston
Boston (East Boston)
Chelsea/Everett
Medford/Somerville
Somerville/Cambridge/Boston (Charlestown)
Cambridge
Brookline/Boston (Fenway, Roxbury)
Boston (South End, Roxbury, Dorchester)
Boston (South Boston)
o
::l
(l)
Introduction
Urban Ring Phase 2
\
-~.
I
\
\\
.
,
""_-,
RDEIR/DEIS
//"---------------~/
./
.--_.---_._-'
Mcdford
i
Evcrctt
f
~'!J
..,.
- ....
"
­-
B'"ooklinc
=
MASSACHUSETTS
EXEC.UTIVE OFFICE
/
,
!,
",
"
\
'l
.~
/
Oor hestcr
/
•
m
;
Boslon
Proposed Alignment
Mixed Traffic
• Buslane
~ Busway (Surface)
a:::IC:O Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Slop
......." Tunnel Portal
I
,I
,.
(
Alternative 1
OF TRANSPORTATION
May 14, 2007
Figure 1-3. Alternative 1 Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
5
Chapter One
• Alternative 2 - Surface routing with increase in busways/buslanes, including variations (2A)
(Figures 1-4 and 1-5).
• Alternative 3 - Tunnels in some sections; shOlier tunnels, less overall tunnel length; including
variations (3A, 3B, and 3C) (Figures 1-6 through 1-9).
• Alternative 4 - Tunnels in some sections: longer tunnel, more overall tunnel length; including
variations (4A) (Figures 1-10 and 1-11).
Each ofthe alternatives would provide Urban Ring service with BRT and new and improved connections
with other bus, BRT, rail transit, and commuter rail lines. Each alternative has been divided into three
Segments (A, B, C) based on geographic area (see Appendix A). Segment A extends from Logan
Airport in East Boston to Lechmere Station in Somerville. Segment B extends from Lechmere Station
to Ruggles Station through the communities of Cambridge, Allston, and Brookline. Segment C extends
from Ruggles Station in Roxbury to JFKJUMASS in Dorcester to the World Trade Center in South
Boston. Alternatives 3 and 4 include tunnel sections, portals and stations: Alternative 3 would have
1.5-2.7 miles of tunnel, three to five pOlials, and 2-3 stations; and Alternative 4 would have 2.5-3.8
miles of tunnel, three portals, and 5-7 stations.
Project Background
In 2001 a Major Investment Study (MIS) was completed for the Circumferential Transportation
Improvements in the Urban Ring. The MIS entailed the examination of a wide range of potential routes
and technologies to improve the regional transportation system of Greater Boston. Through an extensive
public involvement program of workshops, outreach briefings, and general public meetings, the range
of alternatives was reduced from 15 to three: Transportation System Management (TSM) measures,
BRT, and supporting elements such as new commuter rail stops. The project consists of three phases:
Phase 1:New and improved crosstown and express buses (2001-2005)
Phase 2:Bus Rapid Transit with new and improved commuter rail connections (2006-2010)
Phase 3:Light and Heavy Rail between Assembly Square and Dudley Square (2011-2015)
In 2001 Earth Tech, Inc., prime consultant to the MBTA, prepared and submitted an Expanded
Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for review by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) under the Massachusetts Enviromnental Policy Act (MEPA). Phase 1 required no land transfer
or major capital improvements. The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) reviewed the
proposed project plans for Phase 2 and determined that the planned locations of single modal and
intermodal commuter stations, specifically those on areas that have experienced fewer building episodes
in the last century and that currently are near existing or filled in estuarine areas, may contain potentially
important pre- and post-contact cultural resources.
In 2002 Earth Tech, Inc. retained PAL to conduct an archaeological reconnaissance survey for the
Urban Ring project. The purpose of the reconnaissance survey was to identify areas within the Urban
Ring that would warrant subsurface testing as part of an intensive (locational) archaeological survey
(950 CMR 70/71). PAL prepared a technical proposal and permit application in June 2002 for the
6
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Introduction
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
\\
\
\
""--.,
"Icdford
/
i
i
".- .... ­
South Boston
.I
Proposed Alignment
=
[) 0
r
Mixed Traffic
•
• Buslane
-==-::::m Busway (Surface)
~ Busway (Tunnel)
aJ Proposed Stop
' - " Tunnel Portal
-"..
1:".
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Alternative 2
OF TRANSPORTATION
May 14, 2007
Figure 1-4. Alternative 2 Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
7
Chapter One
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
i
/
!
L.._
South Boston
Proposed Alignment
=
Mixed Traffic
• Buslane
~ Busway (Surface)
~::::U::::D) Busway (Tunnel)
<D Proposed Stop
' - ' Tunnel Portal
•
I
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
OF TRANSPORTATION
(-­
Alternative 2A
Figure 1-5. Alternative 2A Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
8
PAL Report No. 1396.01
May 14, 2007
Introduction
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
/,-,,--,-"--'-"-'7
/
,//
,/
./
...-.._.-.."
I,
Everett
;
!
,/
//
,/
'.
\.
t,
.:>-v-.?_../
/
.- .........
......
--
,
--"
j
Brookli II C
/)
-
" /./ ­
/
I
\
.....,..("':­
y::,
:
./
Proposed Alignment
=
Mixed Traffic
,
• Buslane
~ Busway (Surface)
a::::z:I:D) Busway (Tunnel)
('!)
Proposed Stop
' - " Tunnel Portal
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OPFICE
/
Soulh Boslon
I
/
Roxbury
(
Alternative 3
OF TRANSPORTATION
May 14, 2007
Figure 1-6. Alternative 3 Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
9
Chapter One
Urban Ring Phase 2
\
/·_··_··-··_··.. .··-·7
,I
"1
~
!
/'
I
•
~
.....j
..._..
1I
'--'-'f ;'
I
/
I
./
,'!cdford
it
'~
\,
'\.
\
I
/
r,
,I
Eve/'ell
.."\..-.....,
I
i
."..
<....
) t.,
I,,
)
,,--'..
RDEIR/DEIS
",
"
\
-,
,
/ /
":'''''''.1'-)<'
...
/"
'.
. /'~\\
,
\
\/\
'\
(\
(
..
,.\,
.
_­
',.. _.._..-­..
'\.
.
i
_,~
I
i
-/ .. ­
J
J
"
.­
Soulh l3oslo11
Proposed Alignment
=
Mixed Traffic
«
• Buslane
~ Busway (Surface)
CLLLlD Busway (Tunnel)
C!> Proposed Stop
' - " Tunnel Portal
/
I
/
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIV.E: OFFICE
;
Alternative 3A
OF TRANSPORTATION
Figure 1-7. Alternative 3A Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
10
PAL Report No. 1396.01
.
Dol' hesler
May 14, 2007
Introduction
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
/
I
j
~
13 roo Iii i II C
-"---
,
\!':::~v~rT\\
~.//-.
l
/
/'
.",',.r'
'1\
/'
Proposed Alignment
=
Mixed Traffic
• Buslane
~ Busway (Surface)
e:t::::rJ:::ID Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Slop
' - " Tunnel Portal
•
m
..
~,..
"VI
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
I
/
South
130Stllll
I
/
Dor hester
(
Alternative 38
OF TRANIiPORTATIOH
May 14, 2007
Figure 1-8. Alternative 3B Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
11
Chapter One
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
/-_.----------_._--/
"./
/
._;./
..._.
/1i
r,
i",
Evcl'elt
/
(
.I
//
./
'.
\,
i.
.::>-v-_?-, / ,
/
.
...........
,....
,I
i
l
-/ .. ­
--
-
Brookline
')
I
South Bostoll
""b"-,)'
I
Proposed Alignment
=
Mixed Traffic
• Buslane
~ Busway(Surrace)
c:c::c:::l:) Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
' - " Tunnel Portal
,
I
Dol' hester
/
m
r,,"
. . VI
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
,.
(
Alternative 3C
OF TRANSPORTATION
Figure 1-9. Alternative 3C Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
12
PAL Report No. 1396.01
May 14, 2007
Introduction
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
./··_---------------'7
,/
/
_..
- ... _----",
~
:'Ilcdford
'(
,.r......._
/'
Evcrctt
J
"
I
/
/
./
i
/'
.r,,
! ,
/
\
i~~/~_.
­
'.
........Jo'
,­
j
I
/
-,I
j
:
Brookline
/~
/
.. ­
South Boston
i"
/'
I
I
I
I
\
I'
/"";"_J..­
./
'
y,:..
.
Proposed Alignment
=
,
i
~
~
m
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
Tunnel Portal
..
1:".
'-'
-,..
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
!
/
Dnr
(
Alternative 4
OF TRANSPORTATION
May 14, 2007
Figure 1-10. Alternative 4 Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
PAL Report No, 1396.01
13
Chapter One
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
\
\/\
,;
,.i
L._
-
!
IJ ." 0
0
I - "Q:~'i"P'"'~...r,.~
k I i II C
/~
South Boslon
(
/"
.r
I' \
['
.".~" •.J.._I
v:..,
./ .
Proposed Alignment
=
Mixed Traffic
• Buslane
~ Busway(Surrace)
c:c:c::D Busway (Tunnel)
('!)
Proposed Stop
'--I'
Tunnel Portal
/
/
/
h es Ie I'
•
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
(
Alternative 4A
OF TRANSPORTATION
Figure 1-11. Alternative 4A Map, Urban Ring Phase 2, RDEIR/DEIS.
14
PAL Report No. 1396.01
May 14, 2007
Introduction
reconnaissance survey. The MHC commented that an APE had to be defined before a permit could be
issued. PAL prepared a memorandum defining and justifying an APE for the archaeological
reconnaissance survey. In 2003 the MBTA submitted the formal APE document to the MHC for review
(January 13,2003) and permit number 2339 was issued February 5, 2003.
PAL completed the reconnaissance survey for archaeological resources within the project's APE and
the results and recommendations were presented in a separate stand-alone report (Mair and Ford 2004).
The MHC commented on the report in a letter to the MBTA and PAL dated July 9, 2004 and in a letter
to the Secretary of the EOEA, dated March 18, 2005. This revised repOli addresses comments about
the draft reconnaissance report provided in these correspondences.
In 2006/07 the EOT project team requested that PAL conduct supplemental archaeological assessment
of changes to the LPA (now designated Alternative 1) and new build Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 (and their
variations designated 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4A). Taken together the new alternate routes being
considered under Alternatives 2,3, and 4 total approximately 20 miles of new cOlTidor, including several
tunnel sections (Alternatives 3 and 4) and new routes and land takings (or cross country sections) in
several ofthe project communities. The 2007 archaeological assessment relied on conceptual project
plans of the preliminary build alternatives drafted by the EOT project team between February and May
2007. Additional MHC site file search information for these new alternatives is included in the updated
pre- and post-contact contexts presented in Chapters 4 and 5. The results and recommendations of the
sensitivity assessment for these new alternatives are included in Chapters 6 and 7 of this repOli.
Project Authority
The 2004 archaeological reconnaissance survey and 2007 supplemental sensitivity assessment were
conducted in compliance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended
(36 CFR 800), Section 4(f) ofthe Department ofTransportation Act of1966 (49 USC 303), and MEPA,
GL. c.30, ss.61-62H, together with its implementing regulation 301 CMR 11.00 et. seq.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, was enacted by Congress in 1966 to
preserve and protect the nation's historic buildings, neighborhoods, landscapes, and archaeological
sites. The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and created the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The NHPA fostered the system by which federal agencies
identify and evaluate impacts on cultural resources. This infOlmation is used to plan projects that,
where possible, preserve and protect designated cultural resources. The Urban Ring project is an
undertaking proposed by the MBTA with the Federal TranspOliation Agency (FTA) as the lead federal
agency, and thus falls within the purview of this statute.
Under Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies are responsible for identifying National Register
listed or eligible resources and assessing the effects of the their actions on them. The procedures
prescribed in Section 106 are referred to as the "Section 106 process" and are set forth in regulations
issued by the ACHP, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR 800). The ACHP does not have the
authority to halt or abandon projects that will affect historic properties; rather, its regulations emphasize
consultation among the responsible federal agency (in this case the FTA, with assistance from MBTA),
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and other interested parties.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
15
Chapter One
Section 4(f) of Department of TranspOltation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) and implementing regulations
(23 CFR 772), Section 4(f) as it is commonly known, provides that the Secretary ofTransportation may
not approve a project that involves use ofland from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area,
wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless: (1) there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of the land; and (2) the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to the property from such use.
Under MEPA, all agencies of the commonwealth are required to determine the impact on the natural
enviromnent of all works, projects, or activities conducted by them and use all practicable means and
measures to avoid or minimize the environmental harm that has been identified. It also provides the
procedure - the Environmental Impact Report - by which that obligation will be satisfied and authorizes
the Secretary ofEnviromnental Affairs to oversee the review process. MEPA applies to projects directly
undertaken by state agencies and to private projects for which state permits are sought or in which state
funding or land transfer is involved. MEPA does not apply to projects needingjust local approvals. The
selection of the preferred alternative for the Urban Ring project is based in part on the consultations
carried out through the MEPA review process.
Area of Potential Effect
An APE is defined as " ... the geographic area within which the undeltaking may cause changes in the
character of or use of historic properties, if any such propelties exist" [36 CFR 800.16 (d)]. A historic
property is defined as " ... any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included
in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary ofthe Interior" [36 CFR 800.16(1)].
The establishment of a project APE is based on the potential for effect, which will differ for aboveground
historic properties (historic districts, buildings, objects, and structures) and belowground historic
properties (archaeological sites).
A 100-foor (ft) corridor (50 ft left and right of the centerline of the right-of-way) was proposed for the
APE for archaeological propelties (see Appendix A for relative correspondence, letter of June 7, 2002
from the MBTA to the MHC; MHC response dated February 5, 2003) for both the 2004 project alignment
and current Build alternatives. Within this corridor known sites were identified and archaeological
sensitivity assessed. Any required archaeological surveys will be restricted to areas of direct impact
resulting from construction activities associated with corridor improvements, including dedicated BRT
ways, station improvements and new stations.
Project Personnel
The 2004 reconnaissance survey was conducted under permit number 2239 issued by the state
archaeologist FebrualY 5, 2003. The 2007 supplemental sensitivity assessment of the four preliminary
Build alternatives was conducted under the same state archaeological permit. Project personnel include
A. Peter Mair, II (project manager), Suzanne Cherau (principal investigator), assisted by Ben Ford and
Jennifer Banister (project archaeologists).
16
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Introduction
Disposition of Project Materials
All project information (field forms, photographs, maps, etc.) is cunently on file at PAL, 210 Lonsdale
Avenue, Pawtucket, Rhode Island. PAL serves as a temporary curation facility until such time as the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts designates a permanent state repository.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
17
CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The goal of the reconnaissance survey and supplemental archaeological sensitivity assessment of the
Urban Ring Phase 2 Project was to identify known archaeological resources along the LPA and the new
preliminary build alternatives and to assess the potential (low, moderate, high) for unrecorded pre- and
post-contact resources to be present in direct project impact areas. The sensitivity rankings will be used
to assist in determining the need for and scope of additional archaeological investigations that may be
needed for the project alternatives. To accomplish this objective, two research strategies were used:
• archival research, including a review of literature and maps, and local informant interviews;
and
• fieldwork, consisting of a walkover/driveover survey (Note: no new walkoverldriveover was
conductedfor the four preliminary build alternatives).
The archival research and field review provided the information needed to stratify the project area into
zones of expected archaeological sensitivity. Archaeological sensitivity is defmed as the likelihood for
pre- and post-contact period resources to be present and is based on various categories of information.
These categories include:
• known locational, functional, and temporal characteristics of identified pre- and post-contact
sites in the project area or vicinity; and
• project-specific, local and regional environmental data in conjunction with project-area conditions
observed during the walkover.
This report section describes the methods used during each of the archival research and field activities.
The results of the research and field investigations are discussed and evaluated in Chapters 6, 7, and 8.
Archaeological Significance and Historic Contexts
The different phases ofarchaeological investigation (reconnaissance, intensive survey, site exan1ination,
and data recovery) reflect preservation-planning standards for the identification, evaluation, registration,
and treatment of cultural resources (National Park Service [NPS] 1983). This planning structure pivots
around the eligibility of cultural resources for inclusion in the NRHP. The National Register is the
official federal list of properties studied and found worthy of preservation. The results of an intensive
(locational) survey and site examination are used to make recommendations about the significance and
eligibility of any resource.
18
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Research Design and Methodology
The standards for determining the significance ofcultural resources, a task required of federal agencies,
are the guidelines provided by the NPS (36 CFR 60): the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The
following four criteria are given for determining if the "quality of significance in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association" (36 CFR 60):
A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Most archaeological sites listed in the NRHP have been determined eligible under criterion A or D. For
eligibility under these criteria, a number of issues must be addressed, including the kind of data contained
in the site, the relative importance of research topics suggested by the data, whether these data are
unique or redundant, and the current state of knowledge relating to the research topic(s) (McManamon
1990:14-15). A defensible argument must establish that a site "has important legitimate associations
and/or infOlmation value based upon existing knowledge and interpretations that have been made,
evaluated, and accepted" (McManamon 1990:15).
The criteria used to evaluate the significance of cultural resources are applied in relation to the historical
contexts of the resources. A historical context is defined as follows:
At minimum, a historical context is a body of infOlmation about past events and historic
processes organized by theme, place, and time. In.a broader sense, an historic context is a
unit of organized information about our prehistory and history according to the stages of
development occurring at various times and places (NPS 1985).
Historical contexts provide an organizational format that groups information about related historical
propeliies based on a theme, geographic limits, and chronological periods. A historical context may be
developed for Native American, historic, and/or modem cultural resources. Each historical context is
related to the developmental history of an area, region, or theme (e.g., agriculture, transportation,
waterpower), and identifies the significant patterns that particular resource can represent.
Historical contexts are developed by:
• identifying the concept, time period, and geographic limits for the context;
• collecting and assessing existing information about these limits;
PAL Report No. 1396.01
19
Chapter Two
• identifying locational patterns and current conditions of the associated propelty types;
• synthesizing the information in a written narrative; and
• identifying information needs.
"Property types" are groupings ofindividual sites or properties based on common physical and associative
characteristics. They serve to link the concepts presented in the historical contexts with properties
illustrating those ideas (NPS 1983:44719).
A summary of an area's history can be developed by a set of historical contexts. This formulation of
contexts is a logical first step in the design ofany archaeological survey. It is also crucial to the evaluation
of individual properties in the absence of a comprehensive survey of a region (NPS 1983 :9). The result
is an approach that structures information collection and analyses. This approach further ties work
tasks to the types and levels of information required to identify and evaluate potentially important
cultural resources.
The following research contexts have been developed to organize the data relating to the archaeological
resources identified within the Urban Ring 2004 DEIR project APE and new Build alternatives:
• Pre-contact and contact period land use and settlement in the Urban Ring Project vicinity, circa
(ca.) 12,500 to 300 years before present (B.P.); and
• Post-contact period land use and settlement patterns of the cities/towns within the Urban Ring
Project, ca. A.D. 1650 to present.
Historic contexts, along with expected property types and locational patterns, are discussed in detail in
Chapters 4 and 5. The potential research value of the known and expected archaeological resources
identified within the project area is evaluated in terms of these historic contexts. This evaluation, along
with management recommendations, is presented in Chapters 6 and 7.
Archival Research
The development of a historic context and a predictive model of expected property types and densities
within the project area began with archival research, consisting of an examination of primary and
secondary documentary sources. These sources include written and cartographic documents relating
both to past and present environmental conditions as well as documented/recorded sites in the general
project area. The information contained in archival sources formed the basis ofthe predictive models
developed for the project area, and were an integral Palt of the al'chaeological reconnaissance survey.
Specific sources reviewed as part of the al'chival research for the Urban Ring project area include:
20
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Research Design and Methodology
Public Planning Documents and Regional Cultural Resource Reports
The MHC has initiated or completed several documents intended to serve as research guidelines for
cultural resource management (CRM) studies. MHC publications used as general archaeological survey
guidelines include Cultural Resources in Massachusetts: A Modelfor Management (MHC 1979), Public
Planning and Environmental Review: Archaeology and Historic Preservation (MHC 1985), and Historic
Properties Survey Manual: Guidelinesfor the Identification ofHistoric and Archaeological Resources
in Massachusetts (MHC 1992). The archaeological survey work was also undertaken in accordance
with the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards and Guidelinesfor Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(48 FR 44716, September 29, 1983) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's handbook
Treatment ofArchaeological Properties (1980). This technical report follows the guidelines established
by the NPS in the Recovery ofScientific, Prehistoric, Historic, and Archaeological Data (36 CFR Part
66 Appendix A) and the MHC.
Other narratives on file at the MHC provided useful information about regional archaeological studies.
Sources consulted include: Historic andArchaeological Resources ofSoutheast Massachusetts. (MHC
1982a); Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Boston Area: A Framework for Preservation
Decisions (MHC 1982b); and Historic andArchaeological Resources ofthe Connecticut Valley (MHC
1984).
State Site Files, Artifact Collection Reports, and Town Reconnaissance Surveys
The state site files at the MHC were initially reviewed in 2003 and updated in March 2007 to locate any
recorded archaeological sites in or close to the LPA and the four preliminary build alternatives for the
Urban Ring Project. The MHC's inventories include archaeological resources listed or eligible for
listing in the NRHP. The MHC reconnaissance survey reports for Cambridge, East Boston, Dorchester,
Charlestown, Chelsea, Somerville, Brighton, Brookline, Boston Proper, Roxbury, Everett, and Medford
(MHC n.d., 1980a, 1980b, 1980c, 1980d, 1980e, 198Of, 1980g, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c, 1981d) and a
SunlllalY of a large artifact collection from the area provided general information about patterns of pre- .
contact settlement and land use, a chronology of post-contact development, and the archaeological
resource potential for the Urban Ring build alternatives.
Staff of the MHC have compiled computerized pre-contact profiles of towns in the Commonwealth.
The project area site profiles include a database of recorded archaeological sites and documented
avocational collections. InfOlmation is presented by site type and temporal period, artifact class, type,
and material, with locational and environmental variables. The pre-contact town profiles provided
important information about the existing record of pre-contact sites in the project area, and were also
helpful in the development of the archaeological sensitivity maps.
Post-contact period development and settlement patterns are documented through a series of acetate
transparencies and overlays on file at the MHC. The MHC's Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea,
Everett, Medford, and Somerville town files also contain copies of post-contact period maps housed at
the State Archives, State House Library, and other curatorial facilities. These resources were used to
develop predictive statements regarding the location and survival potential ofpost-contact archaeological
sites.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
21
Chapter Two
Cultural Resource Management Reports
Reports documenting CRM investigations conducted in the project vicinity were reviewed. The MHC
(2006) annually updates a comprehensive listing of all CRM reports conducted under their jurisdiction.
CRM reports reviewed include: 1) Boston: Report on the Archaeological Excavation at the Dogget
and Cunningham Houses, Roxbury, Massachusetts (Bower 1978); Archaeological Reconnaissance
Survey of the Southwest Corridor Project Area (Bower and Rushing 1979); Report on the Phase II
Archaeological Subsurface Testing of the Southwest Corridor Project Area, Roxbury, Massachusetts
(Bower et al. 1984); The "Stone Jail" Site (SWC-31), Roxbury, Massachusetts, Report on the Phase III
Excavation (Bower et al. 1986); The Tremont Street Housing Site, Roxbury, Massachusetts, Report on
the Phase IIIArchaeological Data RecovelY (Charles and Openo 1987); Archaeological Reconnaissance
Survey, Arnold Arboretum, Boston, Massachusetts (Cherau 2005); Cultural Resources Assessment,
MBTA Silver Line Phase III Project Build Alternatives, Boston, Massachusetts (Cherau et al. 2005);
Archaeological Resource Assessment, Harvard University-Allston Campus, Boston, Massachusetts
(Cherau in prep.); Archaeological Monitoring and Documentation, Muddy River Flood Damage
Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project (Cherau 2006); Intensive (Locational) Archaeological
Survey ofthe MWRA Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Project, North Dorchester Bay and Reserved
Channel Consolidation Conduits and Reserved Channel CSO Facility (Cook et al. 2000) A Preliminary
Report on the Charles River Archeological Survey (Dincauze 1968a); Intensive Archaeological Survey,
New Dudley Street, Roxbury, Massachusetts (Gallagher 1989); Archaeological Data Recovery Synthesis
Volume, Central Artery North Reconstruction Project, Charlestown, Massachusetts, Volume VIII
(Gallagher and Ritchie 1992); Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, MBTA Silver Line Phase III
Project for the Boston Common, Boston, Massachusetts (Heitert and Cherau 2004); Archaeological
Site Examination, New Education Center, First Church in Roxbury, Roxbury, Massachusetts (Herbster
and Ritchie 2003); Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey ofBoston University So Proposed School of
Management Building in Boston, Massachusetts (Jones 1993); Prehistoric Background Study, Olmsted
Parks Project (Loparto 1986); Archaeological Data Recovery, Town Dock Prehistoric Site, Central
Artery North Reconstruction Project, Charlestown, Massachusetts, Volume IVB (Ritchie 1994a);
Reconnaissance and Intensive Level Archaeological Survey ofthe Nawn Factory Site, Roxbury Heritage
State Park, Roxbury, Massachusetts (Ritchie and Miller 1990); Archaeological Investigations of the
Prehistoric and Historic Period Components ofthe Dillaway-Thomas House Site, Roxbury Heritage
State Park, Boston, Massachusetts (Ritchie and Miller 1994); The Water Street Site: A Study in Prehistoric
Adaptations to an Estuarine Environment (Shaw et al. 1984); Seventeenth Centwy Survey ofDorchester
(Starbuck et al. 1979); 2) Brookline: Archaeological Intensive Testing Program, Frederick Law Olmstead
National Historic Site, Brookline, MA (Heitert 2005); 3) Cambridge: Archaeological Investigations,
Northpoint Project Including the Lechmere Station Relocation Project Area of Potential Effect,
Cambridge/Somerville/Boston, Massachusetts (Cherau and Banister 2007); Archaeological
Reconnaissance Survey, Cottage Farm CSO Storage Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Deaton and
Mair 2003); Report on Excavations at Fort Washington, 1974-75 (Goodman 1975); Archaeological
Reconnaissance Survey, Kendall Station Electrical Interconnect, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Mair 2001);
Phase I Archaeological Study for the Proposed Lechmere Reconstruction Project, Cambridge,
Massachusetts (Moir 1978); 4) Medford: Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey, AGT Mystic
River Replacement Anomaly, Medford, Massachusetts (Waller 2001); and 5) Somerville: Middlesex
Canal Heritage Corridor, Assessor So Plan Map Book, June 8, 2007 (Middlesex Canal Commission
2005/07); Middlesex Canal Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Massachusetts (Russo and Kierstead
1999).
22
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Research Design and Methodology
Histories and Maps
Primary and secondary histories and historical maps and atlases were examined to assess changes in
land use, to locate any documented structures, and to trace the development oftransportation networks,
an important variable in the location of post-contact period archaeological sites. Town, county, state,
and regional histories (Barber 1839; Cook 1976; Fischer 2000; Guzzi 1975; Hengen 1983; KaIT 1995;
Maycock 1988; MDC 2002; Morrison 1923; Ruttman 1965; Winthrop 1996; Whitehill 1968) were
consulted to locate possible sites within and close to the project area. Citywide histories about landmaking
and laI1d use in Boston (Beaudry and Blosser 1981; Seasholes 2003; Zaitzevsky 1982) also were
consulted.
Historic caIlographic research was conducted using maps dating from 1775 to 1919 (Anon. 1848;
Beers 1872,1875; Bowen 1830; Bromley 1888, 1895; Colton 1856; Draper 1852; Hales 1830a, 1830b,
1832; Hastings 1896, 1919; Hopkins 1874; Mason 1849; Page 1775; Sparrelll830; Tufts 1794, 1818;
Walker 1884, 1889; Walling 1856, 1860, 1871; Warning 1886), Sanborn fire insurance maps dating
from 1887 to 1996 (Sanborn-Penis 1887-1903; Sanborn 1910-1996) were provided by Rizzo and
Associates. These maps were compared to the route locations based on the distance and angle from the
route location to identifiable landmarks such as street intersections.
Maps dating from 1775 to 1897 were accessed from the internet sites of the Boston Redevelopment
Authority (http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/maps.asp) and the David Rumsey Map Collection (http://
www.davidrumsey.com/GIS/boston.htm). Both websites contain georeferenced historic maps. A
georeferenced map is a map that has been "rubber-sheeted" using the spatial calculation abilities of a
geographic information system (GIS) to achieve the best fit between two geographic representations.
To georeference a historic map, identifiable landmarks are matched to a modem map or orthophotograph
(corrected aerial photograph) and the historical map is stretched or shrunk to achieve a good fit with the
modern map. Because of differing cartographic technology, methods, and standards in the past,
georeferenced historical maps do not provide a perfect cOlTelation with modem maps, but they are the
most accurate and efficient means cunently available to compaI'e the historic features ofmodem locations.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority internet site contains a modem street and rail map that can be
overlaid on the georeferenced historical map so that the routes could be identified on the historical
maps. The David Rumsey Map Collection internet site allows the outline of a route to be drawn on a
modern map and all of the historical maps to be displayed relative to the modem map. Finally, current
plan and profIle sheets for the Urban Ring were compaI'ed to aerial photographs generated by ESRI,
Inc. and downloaded from the Massachusetts GIS web site at http://www.mass.gov/mgis/.
Environmental Studies
Bedrock, surficial geology, and geomorphologic studies provide information about the region's physical
structure and about geological resources near the project area. Information was collected about the
physical structure, geological resources, climatic changes, and hydrology of the area (Bickford et a1.
1990; Billings 1976; CRWA 2007; Clapp 1902; Fenneman 1938; Kaye 1976; MRWA 2007; Rosen et
a1. 1993; Wendland and Bryson 1974; Zen et a1. 1983). These sources were consulted to help understand
the environmental settings that may have existed during the pre-contact period, and to reconstruct the
PAL Report No. 1396.01
23
Chapter Two
natural landscape. These references also provided important infOlmation about the processes that formed
the project area's cunent topographic landscape.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service soil survey of
Middlesex, and Norfolk and Suffolk Counties (1989a, 1989b) supplied information about soil types
and surficial deposits within the project area, and the general categories of flora and fauna that these
soil types support. Information about the physical characteristics of the Urban Ring project area was
also gathered from the Commonwealth's Geographic Information Systems (MassGIS) website. This
digital database includes topographic information, wetlands and soils mapping and political and assessor's
boundaries.
Informant Interviews
Avocational archaeologists, local historical associations, and local infOlmants were consulted during
the course of the survey. Notification letters were sent to each of the town historical societies/
commissions, as well as the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs, providing information about
the study and requesting information about unrecorded archaeological properties, artifact collecting
activity in the area, potential site locations, and local prehistory and history (see Appendix B).
Field Review
A walkover/driveover survey was conducted in 2004 for the LPA to collect environmental inforn1ation
and to examine the current physical condition of the project area. Environmental information noted the
presence, types, and extent of fresh water; drainage characteristics; presence of bedrock outcrops and
level terraces; and the steepness of slopes. The current physical condition of the project area is largely
defined by the presence, absence, and degree of previous disturbance to the natural landscape.
Another purpose of the walkover was to note surface indications of archaeological sites. While pre­
contact sites in New England are most often found belowground, artifact scatters are sometimes exposed
on the surface tlu'ough cultural and natural processes such as road use, gravel pitting, construction
activity, or erosion. Post-contact site types that might be visible include stone foundations, stone walls,
trash deposits, and dams. If a historic farmstead is present within the project area, it is possible a cellar
hole and associated landscape features such as stone walls, orchards, fields, and ornamental herbage
may be observed. However, given the higWy urbanized nature of the project area, typical surface
markers or indications of archaeological sites were generally absent.
No additional walkldriveover survey was conducted for the new preliminary build alternatives; however,
they are situated in similar and/or proximal geographic settings to the LPA. Existing conditions
information for the preliminary build alternatives was extrapolated from 2005 color ortho imagery
available through the MassGIS website and Google Ealth.
Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment
Information collected during the al'chival research al1d walkover survey was used to develop a predictive
model of potential site types and their cultural and temporal affiliation. The development of predictive
24
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Research Design and Methodology
models for locating archaeological resources has become an increasingly important aspect of CRM
planning.
The predictive model considers various criteria to rank the potential for the Urban Ring project area to
contain archaeological sites. The criteria include proximity of recorded and documented sites, local
land use history, environmental data, and existing conditions. The project area was stratified into zones
of expected archaeological sensitivity to detelmine which areas would require further testing.
The LPA was ranked according to the potential for the presence of archaeological resources based on
information collected during the archival research and walkJdriveover survey. Table 2-1 is a summary
of the different factors used to develop the archaeological rankings. The results of the 2004 sensitivity
assessment are discussed in Chapter 6, which includes project maps showing areas of high, moderate
and low archaeological sensitivity for this original aligmnent. The four preliminary build alternatives
to be presented in the RDEIRJDEIS were also reviewed for their potential to contain archaeological
Table 2-1. Archaeological Sensitivity Rankings Used for the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project.
Presence of
Sites
Known Unknown <150m
150-500 m
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Sensitivity
Ranking
>500m NonelMinimai Moderate Extensive
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Degree of Disturbance
Proximity to Favorable
CulturallEnvironmentai
Characteristics
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
High
·
·
·
Low
High
·
Low
High
·
High
·
Low
High
·
Moderate
·
Low
High
·
·
·
High
·
·
·
High
Moderate
·
Low
Moderate
·
Low
·
Low
PAL Report No. 1396.01
25
Chapter Two
resources. The 2007 sensitivity assessment was based on the previously collected information
supplemented by the results ofmore recent studies conducted in the Back Bay and Allston neighborhoods
of Boston (Adams et al. in prep.; Cherau 2006) and in Cambridge (Cherau and Banister 2007). The
results of the supplemental sensitivity assessment are discussed in Chapter 7, which includes project
maps (dated June 11, 2007) showing areas of high, moderate and low archaeological sensitivity for the
build alternatives.
Pre-Contact Period Archaeological Sensitivity
Archaeologists have documented 12,000 years ofpre-contact Native American occupation ofthe region,
and oral traditions of some contemporary tribes tell of a 50,000-year cultural legacy. Prior to 7,000
years ago, peoples focused primarily on inland-based resources, hunting and collecting along the
NOltheast's waterways. After 7,000 years ago, settlement became more concentrated within the region's
major river drainages. By 3,000 years ago, concurrent with a focus on coastal and riverine settlement,
large populations were living in nucleated settlements and developing complex social ties, with language,
kinship, ideology, and trade linking peoples across the NOltheast. During the centuries prior to European
contact, these groups began to coalesce into the peoples known as Pocumtucks, Nipmucks,
Massachusetts, Wampanoags, Pokanokets, Mohegans, Pequots, and Narragansetts. The chronology of
the pre-contact period is presented in detail in Chapter 4. Assessing the pre-contact archaeological
sensitivity of any given project area depends on a consideration of past and present geographical and
ecological characteristics, known site location databases, and knowledge of distinctive temporal and
cultural patterns.
The choices that pre-contact Native Americans made about where they settled, how they organized.
themselves, and their technologies were all results of the dynamic relationship between culture and
environment. Predictive modeling for larger-scale site location in southern New England has its roots
in academic research including Dincauze's (1974) study of reported sites in the Boston Basin and
Mullholland's (1984) dissertation research about regional patterns of change in pre-contact southern
New England. Peter Thorbahn applied ecological modeling and quantitative spatial analysis, synthesizing
data from several hundred sites in southeastern New England (Thorbahn et al. 1980), demonstrating
that the highest concentration ofpre-contact sites occurred within 300 meters (m) oflow-ranking streams
and large wetlands. The distribution of sites found along a 14-mile 1-495 highway corridor in the same
area reinforced the strong correlations between proximity to water and site locations (Thorbahn 1982).
These and other large-scale projects provided data toward developing models of Native American
locational and temporal land use (MHC 1982a, 1982b, 1984; RIHPC 1982) that became the foundation
for site predictive modeling employed during CRM surveys through the next two decades.
Today, assessment of archaeological sensitivity within a given project area, and the sampling strategy
applied to it, continues to take existing physiographic conditions into consideration but at multiple
scales, from bedrock geology, to river drainages, to rnicroenvironmental characteristics. These categories
of data are used to establish the diversity of possible resources through time, the land use patterns of
particular cultures, and the degree to which the landscape has been altered since being occupied (Leveillee
1999). Increasingly, social and cultural perspectives, as reflected in both the archaeological and historical
records (Johnson 1999), and as expressed by representatives of existing Native American communities
(Kerber 2006), are being taken into consideration when assessing archaeological sensitivity.
26
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Research Design and Methodology
Archaeological sampling strategies have also been evaluated and refined through applications of
quantitative analyses (Kintigh 1992).
Geologic data provide information about lithic resources and current and past environmental settings
and climates. Bedrock geology helps to identify where pre-contact Native Americans obtained raw
materials for stone tools and gives indications of how far from their origin lithic materials may have
been transported or traded. The variety and amount of available natural resources are dependent on soil
composition and drainage, which also playa significant role in determining wildlife habitats, and forest
and plant communities.
Geomorphology assists in reconstructing the paleoenvironment of an area and is particularly useful for
early Holocene (PaleoIndian and Early Archaic Period) sites in areas that are different physically from
10,000 years ago (Simon 1991). Recent landscape changes such as drainage impoundments for highways
and railroads, the creation of artificial wetlands to replace wetlands affected by construction, or wetlands
drained for agricultural use can make it difficult to assess an area's original configuration and current
archaeological potential (Hasenstab 1991).
Beyond predicting where sites are located, archaeologists attempt to associate cultural and temporal
groups with changes in the environmental settings of sites. Changes in the way pre-contact Native
Americans used the landscape can be investigated through formal multivariates such as site location,
intensity ofland use, and specificity ofland use (Nicholas 1991). However, distinguishing the difference
between repeated short-term, roughly contemporaneous occupations and long-term settlements is
difficult, and can make interpreting land use patterns and their evolution problematic (Nicholas 1991).
Contact Period Archaeological Sensitivity
The contact period in New England roughly dates from AD 1500 to 1650, and predates most of the
permanent Euro-American settlements in the region. This period encompasses a time when Native and
non-Native groups interacted with one another through trade, exploration of the coastal region, and
sometimes conflict. While contact period sites are usually associated with Native American activity
during this period, they can also include sites utilized by non-Native groups such as trading posts.
Native settlement patterns during the contact period are generally thought to follow Late Woodland
traditions, but with an increased tendency toward the fortification of village settlements. Larger village
settlements are frequently expected along coastal and riverine settings, often at confluences. Inland
villages are known to occur near swamp systems, which were exploited both as resource areas and as
places of refuge in the event of attack. Such sites would likely contain material remnants reflecting the
dynamics of daily life, trade, and preparedness for defense.
The identification of contact period deposits is most frequently tied to the types of artifacts located
within archaeological sites. Unfortunately, the majority of the archaeological data for this period in
southern New England comes from the analysis of grave goods within identified Native American
burial grounds, rather than from habitation sites and/or activity areas (Gibson 1980; Robinson et al.
1985; Simmons 1970). The available data suggest that sites dating to this period often contain traditionally
pre-contact features and artifacts (e.g., storage pits, chipped-stone tools) as well as non-Native trade
goods and objects (e.g., glass beads, iron kettles and hoes) (Bragdon 1996). The earliest contact period
PAL Report No. 1396.01
27
Chapter Two
sites are often located at or near the coast and estuarine margin, since European visits to New England
occurred via ship. Non-Native artifacts passed from the coastal region to the interior through trade and!
or seasonal travel.
Post-Contact Period Archaeological Sensitivity
The landscape of a project area is used to predict the types of post-contact period archaeological sites
likely to be present. Major locational attributes differ according to site type. Domestic and agrarian
sites (houses and farms) are characteristically located near water sources, arable lands, and transportation
networks. Industrial sites (e.g., mills, tanneries, forges, and blacksmith shops) established before the
late nineteenth century are typically located close to waterpower sources and transportation networks.
Commercial, public, and institutional sites (e.g., stores, taverns, inns, schools, and churches) are usually
situated near settlement concentrations with access to local and regional road systems (Ritchie et al.
1988).
Written and cartographic documents aid in determining post-contact period archaeological sensitivity.
Historical maps are particularly useful for locating sites in a given area, determining a period of
occupation, establishing the names of past owners, and providing indications of past use(s) of the
property. Town histories often provide information, including previous functions, ownership, local
socioeconomic conditions, and political evolution, which is used in the development ofa historic context
and to assess the relative significance of a post-contact period site.
The written historic record, however, tends to be biased toward the representation of Euro-American
cultural practices and resources, particularly those of prominent individuals and families. Archival
materials generally are less sensitive to the depiction of cultural resources and activities associated with
socioeconomically or politically "marginalized" communities (MacGuire and Paynter 1991; Scott 1994).
These communities may include, but are not limited to, Native Americans, African-Americans, and
"middling" farming or working-class Euro-Americans.
Several archaeological studies conducted throughout New England have demonstrated the
methodological pitfalls of relying exclusively on documentaty or cartographic materials as a means to
identify potential site locations associated with these types of communities. A large-scale at'chaeological
study by King (1988) showed that in rural areas only 63 percent ofthe sites discovered were identifiable
through documentary reseat·ch. This suggests that approximately one-third of New England's rural
Euro-American archaeological sites may not appear on historical maps or in town at1d regional histories.
More recent archaeological and ethnohistoric studies in the region have focused on the identification of
other historically "invisible" communities, notably post-contact Native American communities. Several
townwide surveys in southeastern Massachusetts have compiled archaeological and historical data
about eighteenth- and nineteenth-centwy Native and African-American communities that are poorly
represented or are altogether absent in written town histories (Herbster and Cox 2002; Herbster and
Heitert 2004). In central Massachusetts, active and influential Native Americans have been identified
through archival reseat'ch despite the recorded "disappearance" of this group in the early eighteenth
century (Doughton 1997, 1999). The cultural continuity of groups such as the Aquinnah Wampanoag is
more thorougWy documented in archival sources, but until recently archaeologists focused their attention
28
PAL Report No. 1396.01
Research Design and Methodology
on pre-contact archaeological deposits. Current studies include predictive models for distinctly Native
American post-contact sites, as well as interpretations of eighteenth- through twentieth-century
archaeological sites (Cherau 2001; Herbster and Cherau 2002).
Other archaeological investigations have focused on worker housing and landscape organization within
mixed-cultural mining communities in northem New England (Cherau et al. 2003); the social and
spatial organization of a mixed racial community in westem Connecticut (Feder 1994); and material
culture and architectural pattems among nineteenth-century mixed African-American and Native
American households in central Massachusetts (Baron et al. 1996).
Information about post-contact period land use within a project area can also be collected through
written and oral histories passed through family members and descendant communities. These types of
information sources can often fill in gaps in the documentary record and provide details that are not
available through more conventional archival sources. While informants and other oral sources are
subject to contradictory interpretations just like the documentary record, this type of information can
also provide important data for the identification and interpretation of archaeological sites. The sole
use of and reliance on the written and oral historical records during archival research, however, can
lead to an underestimation of the full range of post-contact period sites in any given region. Therefore,
walkover surveys and subsurface testing, in conjunction with the critical evaluation of available
documentary and cartographic resources, are required to locate and identify underdocumented post­
contact period sites.
PAL Report No. 1396.01
29