Roads, Rails, and Trails - Secretary of the Commonwealth

This plan shows foundations, stone fences, two wells, and
the places where the archaeologists dug.
50
historical narrative. What a difference from the Sampson’s
Tavern site, with its many building foundations, features, and
artifacts, and its abundantly documented existence.
This is an example of how archaeology is a science. It
is a way of testing hypotheses: ideas about what went on in the
past. In this case, the hypothesis, based on written history, was
that there was a tavern here. Archaeological digging is a kind
of science experiment—a way of getting independent evidence
to test that hypothesis—and in this case finding no evidence to
support it. At the same time, the lack of evidence did not
disprove the hypothesis. While it may be disappointing to find
no evidence to support a beloved local story, the upside is that
it suggests new questions. For example, was there a Kingsley
Tavern somewhere else in town or in a nearby area that was
mislocated by either Caswell or her sources? Was the tavern
located at a distance from the road so that it was outside the
area that was tested? This seems unlikely as it would be bad
business for a tavern to be too far from the road, especially in
the days when traffic was less noisy and dangerous. Perhaps
the Kingsley Tavern, which only existed for 26 years
(compared to the nearly 100-year lifespan of Sampson’s
Tavern) was a small, informal place, that did not leave a great
deal of material behind, and whose traces were obliterated by
later occupations. Were there any other taverns along Route 32,
or in other parts of town? Where did thirsty Royalston residents
go to get a drink in the early 1800s? In archaeology as in
science in general, an experiment often raises more questions
than it answers.