Letter: Bullard Farm Damage Would be Permanent

I am writing again regarding the proposed development of the planting fields on Bullard Memorial Farm Association property. 

Phase 1 Intensive archaeological testing for a Cultural Resource Survey of the Bullard Farm was done in 1989 in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 in order to prove to the Algonquin Pipeline project that the route through the Bullard farm would do irreparable damage to the land.

Mr. John Worrell former Director of Research at Old Sturbridge Village, wrote of the Bullard farm; “The Bullard complement of historical resources is unique … In order to understand the life-ways of the past … an integrated investigation of a broad spectrum of documentary and material remains is essential …it is rare to find a well preserved complement of physical resources (undisturbed archaeological site, documented artifacts, and architecture) together with intact public records and extensive private documents. The Bullard resources not only provide such an unusual set but the individual components are extraordinarily complete and diverse. That, from a research perspective in invaluable and unreproducible."

The 1989 survey found intact hearth sites and other evidence of aboriginal habitation and use of the property in the area directly adjacent to the planting fields. The text of the Preliminary Status Memorandum was published in the Bullard Bulletin in 1992. The final report (including the artifacts) is in the files at 7 Bullard Lane, Holliston MA.

The entire Bullard Memorial Farm is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including the historic planting fields which are currently the proposed site for development. The area described below is the area directly adjacent to the planting fields. 

The preliminary testing of the Bullard farm, done in 1989, included 297 shovel test pits. Of those, “246 of the test pits were sterile, 17 contained historic cultural material and 42 contained prehistoric material.”

Site names were given to the areas of testing; the five prehistoric sites were named the Holliston 1 and 2 sites, Dirty Meadow Brook 1 and 2 sites and the Bullard Street site. Recovered cultural material included, “stone tools or debit-age resulting from tool construction or maintenance. One hundred and forty-seven artifacts were found in this area. … Four bi-face tools or fragments were found as well as a non-diagnostic quartzite projectile point and a quartzite Neville projectile point … suggesting a temporal affiliation with the Middle Archaic Period (7500-5000 B.P.).”

Recovered from the Dirty Meadow Brook site were 121 prehistoric artifacts including; “felsite, quartz, quartzite, rhyolite and argillite chipping debris, a felsite scraper, an ovate-shaped multipurpose biface, and eight small fragments of aboriginal pottery. Three of the excavated test pits in this area located portions of intact features, suggesting that the site or a portion of it is relatively intact. The pottery fragments place the site in the Woodland Period (3000-450 B.P.) and possibly middle to late Woodland due to the thinness and quality of the samples (1650-450 B.P.). Analysis is currently ongoing. Several of the test pits contained fragments of charcoal…The Bullard Street site also contained evidence for intact features, including one possible hearth.” The above quoted material from the Preliminary Status Report; State Archeologist; Brona Simon.

In addition, the possession by the BMFA of Human Remains found on the property, perhaps when Bullard Street was constructed in the 1850’s, make the future discovery of further human remains likely.

The above information was the reason that the Algonquin Pipeline was never put through the Bullard Farm. The mere possibility of discovering human remains convinced the company to withdraw their proposal to route the pipeline through the farm.

Additionally, in 1991, the Holliston Historical Society, the Holliston Historical Commission as well as those in Sherborn were firmly supportive of protecting the Bullard farm land. They recognized the land itself was an irreplaceable archaeological resource due to the presence of some 300 prehistoric artifacts and was the possible site of future archaeological research. Holliston was well known for the Indian population living and farming the area. Their village at Lake Winthrop is largely gone now, lost to development. The only other documented place of indigenous habitation in Holliston is at the Bullard farm. To allow the development of the planting fields would seriously diminish the integrity of both the potential information complement and of the unusually well preserved historic landscape. It might very well also permanently eradicate unique and significant archaeological resources.

This time around, the Historical Societies have been reticent to either support or discourage the proposed project. Perhaps it is because in the intervening twenty years the BMFA board of directors has changed and the new BMFA board has been less active in encouraging collaboration with the local Historical Societies as had been done in the 1990’s. The entire direction of the BMFA has since changed.

Twenty years ago, the board of directors running the BMFA understood the importance of the land so they sought recognition from the National Historic Register for the entire property. Indeed the National Register status includes not just the collections and the buildings but also the cow tunnel under Bullard Street, all of the land and all of the stonewalls. Undisturbed land in eastern Massachusetts is so rare that the BMFA board planned that in the future, when they had achieved 501(c)3 status, they would be able to attract grants and a university to conduct an archaeological dig (and had, in fact, approached several archeology departments) on the property as well as preserve and display the collections.

There has long been a struggle within the Association over how to maintain the property. To that end, the remnants of the old board of directors tried to further protect the land in 2009 by moving to donate a large portion of the farm to the town under a conservation restriction. Unfortunately, the current board never followed through with the paperwork for the Legislature after approval of the proposal at Town Meeting.

The current BMFA administration continues to struggle with managing the farm and the Association’s finances because not one of them has any experience with either farming or managing a historic property. The Association was left in a self-sustaining position, financially, when this board of directors took over leadership of the BMFA. There is plenty of money to run the farm. If they were farmers they would recognize the land they propose to develop as the most fertile piece of land on the property. If they knew their own history they would know that the land in question was their great-grandfather’s favorite and most productive field. They would have been aware of the Cultural Survey of the property and they would have pursued an archaeological dig of the Native American site on the property. They would be aware of their own extraordinary collection at Old Sturbridge Village Research Library. If the current BMFA administration were doing its job, the town of Holliston would already be aware of the importance of the Bullard farm property and collections not only locally but nationally as well. It is an incredible place.

The current board of directors has missed countless opportunities to fulfill their mission as both an educational facility and a farm. The land in question, until recently was rented as a hayfield to a local farmer. This board of directors has since turned down offers from a beekeeper, organic farmers and university archaeologists to utilize the land. The board turned down a million dollar donation because they have not had a financial audit for at least a decade and the parties involved would not agree to the donation without the financial audit. The current BMFA administration is quite frankly, incompetent. The Bullard farm land is far too important to the Town of Holliston to let a transient group of people destroy potential archaeological resources which are important both locally and nationally.

There are far better ways to finance their operations and better places for this project. In fact, there is quite suitable land, for this very project (in spite of what the developers and the BMFA claim) directly behind the BMFA buildings, away from wetlands, scenic road, neighbors or prehistoric artifacts.

I would like to reiterate that the preliminary testing done by the state archaeologist in 1989 did not include the planting fields and (understanding the temporary and capricious nature of this BMFA board of directors), it would be seen as wise and responsible to ask for another cultural survey of the land, specifically the land proposed for development, given the preponderance of evidence that the area is quite likely to be an extraordinarily rich archaeological resource.

I urge you to consider the uniqueness of this property and the irreversibility of the site damage as you deliberate in the discharge of your responsibility to your town, to the Commonwealth and to posterity.