Only One Generation
Cellar Hole Survey Report #15
History
To begin with a deep look at the history of this lot, we note that generations of the original settlers occupied this land for 11,500 or so years. Because this land was not much favored for growing crops or settling in villages, we believe that while the hunting may have been very productive here, little other activity took place. Thus for the first hundred years of European settlement here in the Western World, little changed in these hills for the indigenous people. However, through disease, warfare, and treaties the area became “open” to the new settlers as the British royal owners began laying out towns further and further from the Atlantic Coast.
The early history of this site is documented on page 1 in “History of the Town of Canterbury” by James Otis Lyford, 1912. So here we go, back to Lyford’s rendering of the original 20 May 1727 Charter given by the representative of King George I, when Royal Lieutenant Governor John Wentworth signed the Charter for a frontier town of 121 square miles the he named Canterbury, and later would include Loudon and Northfield. That day Paul Gerrish, Paul Wentworth, and John Smith were appointed to be the first selectmen. But not much else was accomplished that day.
The next critical step in the creation of Canterbury occurred four years later, 27 May 1731 when 199 men gathered at the meeting house at Oyster River Falls in the town of Durham. By the end of that meeting these men, known as the Proprietors, learned which of the 199 Home Lots of about 40 acres each would belong to them when they “drew lots”.
That meant that the numbers 1 thru 199 were placed in a container and each man drew a number, which became his home lot. The record shows that by then (1731) the survey and division of the prime land of the town had been completed. While the team that surveyed and marked out the lots on the ground were charged with making the lots to be 40 acres each, when we look at a modern map we can see that sometimes the acreage was not actually 40. That is because the survey crew chief had the discretion of making the lots larger when he encountered poor quality land, such as stony, with ledge rock outcrops, or swampy. So while we do know who the first Proprietors were for this tract of land, we can state with only some certainty the actual size of the lot.
The Basics
Today volunteers Bill Adams and Alan Stone began clearing and documenting the foundation on Hackleboro Road near address 92. Attributed by Lyford to have been built by Captain Joseph Moore. The 1858 Walling Map indicates that “H. & S. Moore” were the occupants. The 1892 Hurd Atlas gives the name “Miss H. Moore”, (we know Sally died in 1866) and in 1912 Lyford (p.438 history) reports the “buildings gone”. And (p.244 genealogy) that the “unmarried daughters lived in retirement on the old place, being buried with their parents in a private graveyard there”.
Let’s stop here for a minute and state the information we transcribed from the gravestones there. We found the grave stones perfectly located and intact, yet we have no information about who has maintained them. Reading the stones from left to right. Betsey d. 1857 ae 69 [b. 1788], Sukey d. 1825 ae 30 [b. 1795], Joseph the father d. 1836 ae 81 [b. 1755], Elizabeth the mother d. 1847 ae 84 [b. 1763], Judith d. 1857 ae 48 [b. 1809], and Sally d. 1866 ae 81 [b. 1785].
But who were the “unmarried daughters” cited in the genealogy of Lyford? He names 7 daughters: Sukey, Betsey, Polly, Nancy, Hannah, Sally, and Judith. and reports that Polly married in 1826, and Nancy in 1825. We can safely assume they were buried in their husband’s graveyards. That leaves 5 unmarried and presumably at home. Our exploration of the family graveyard found no stone for Hannah. Therefore, the “H & S” of the 1858 map would be Hannah and Sally because Sukey died in 1825, Judith and Betsey in 1857. We easily conclude that the “Miss H. Moore” of the 1892 Hurd Atlas map to be Hannah, who as we have noted has no grave marker here in the Elizabeth and Joseph Moore graveyard, and who Lyford states was born in 1804, making her 88 years old in 1892. For the sake of this narrative we assume that the records are correct. It is further reported that the last three daughters were loyal caretakers of the family cemetery, and at some point in time replaced the simple, original tombstones with the identical white marble stones now found there.
We gain a further understanding of the family by examining the book “Descendants of Ensign John Moor of Canterbury Born 1696 -Died 1786”, by Howard B. Moore 1918. Please note that these dates in the title are of the life of John Moor.
Therein we learn the names and dates of the three sons of Joseph and Elizabeth, all who died young. Joseph 1790-1797, Asa 1792-1797, and Son 1801-1801. And were buried without the benefit of their resting places being marked by stones. Here we also learn that Hannah died in 1895, having outlived her sister Sally by 29 years, and last living sister Nancy by 8 years.
The site rests on property that includes lots # 95 and # 47 in the 80 acre lot 2nd division, but we note that on the ground each lot was laid out to be 73 acres. Lot #95 to the north went to Nath’l Lummaks and in the south #47 to Sam’l Hill, (Lyford p. 5). We believe the foundation is on lot #95.
We were unable to find information about the layout of the abutting segment of Foster Road, but one nearby segment of that road was laid out in June 1773.
The subject tract is a 106 acre part of the original 146 acres cited above and which appear in the records of Canterbury on Tax Map 230, Lot 20.
We have not researched the chain of ownership.
An Original Proprietor Arrives!
One of the original 199 Proprietors of the town was John Moor(e) who drew #177 in the 40 acre Home Division, which was on what is now the town line with Loudon. He was born in 1696, and became a Canterbury landowner in 1727. He was one of the few Proprietors who made a home here, and accordingly, by 1739 was the highway surveyor for the town. He did some land dealing and sometime around 1741 made his home on lot #106 near Scales Road. Throughout the years he bought land for his 4 sons who made a success of life in Canterbury. Son William (known as Lient. Moore) was born in 1720 back at the homestead near the sea coast, and by 1748 was settled on the same lot #55 his dad bought 8 years earlier. And by 1764 was at lot #67, on Center Road near Southwest Road. At least 3, and maybe 5, of William’s children died young. However, number 6, son Joseph, the builder of this house, was born in 1754 (and lived until 1836) and as a young man of 22 appeared several times in the Lyford history as a participant in the Revolutionary War. His first enlistment was under the command of Captains Jeremiah Clough and Joshua Abbot, and he served between 8 and 14 months in 1776 and 1777. The following year he appears in Lyford (p.74) in the “mark book”, which is where the identity of the owners of livestock recorded the unique identification marks on their animals. Thus we surmise that by age 24 he was engaged in some farming activity. Later, following in his grandfather’s footsteps (literally!), he appears in the town records in 1786 as the highway surveyor for the town.
It is likely that by 1783 he must have been on lot #95, the site of the current documentation, as his first child by his wife Elisabeth Whidden, who he married in 1783, was born in 1784. There were 10 children born there, as enumerated above. Further confirming his status as a homeowner, Joseph was listed as a taxpayer in 1790. Interestingly, his aunt Hannah seems to be the one listed as one of the few females on the taxpayer list in 1780. Grandfather John died in 1786, at the age of 90 years, having lived on lot #106 for over 40 winters. Joseph’s father William died in 1804. Four of Joseph’s younger brother William Junior’s 7 children born there of his wife Mary Moore (his first cousin, Lyford genealogy p. 244) died young. As for Joseph himself, as we learned about above, four of his children died young or at birth.
More details and observations are found in the 1918 Moore family history cited above. As we already learned, Betsey and Judith died in 1857, probably victims of an epidemic. As were Joseph and Asa who died in 1797. Polly was out of the house early and married into the Buzzell family of Gilmanton, as she is buried there. Nancy figures more prominently in the later history of her remaining 2 sisters, Sally and Hannah, who were the last of the family living in the homestead. According to the 1918 history, the old house became dilapidated and condemned but the sisters insisted that it be allowed to settle into history at its own pace. Reportedly, they built a smaller house “within a few rods of the old house”. After Sally died in 1866 it seems likely that Hannah remained alone in the small house for several more years, finally moving into the home of her sister Nancy. After Hannah’s departure the house fell into disrepair and disappeared between 1892 and 1912, the year of the Lyford publication.
Nancy also predeceased her sister Hannah, dying in 1887, and her husband cared for Hannah until she died in 1895. He inherited the place, selling it to John Beck. The remains of Hannah are described in 1918 as being buried without a tombstone under “a mound of gravel at the end of the row of white marble stones fallen into disarray. The old barn blew down and even the new house has now fallen”.
What we Found, First View, First Assumptions
The site is very close to Foster Road.
Beyond the middle tree of these three large trees that are outside of the foundation, we can see the north mound further described directly below. The foundation is situated parallel to the road. Many lower branches of the nearby trees bend down into the foundation and there are several small ( 1-3”) saplings on or in the foundation. There is slight evidence of gravel being moved near the N-E corner but does not intrude into the site. However the east wall has not escaped disruption and some of the overturned sill stones described below may have been moved during modern road maintenance. And in the vicinity of the well there is considerable new material that has been pushed into the foundation, covering at least one flat foundation stone. And remember what we described above: the daughters allowed the house to gently fall down.
Of the two mounds, the northerly one has dozens, perhaps over a hundred bricks exposed at the surface. They are in a variety of conditions. Some show the black stains of decades of use. Compared with other sites we have documented, a large percentage of them have not been broken. They not only protrude from the mound top and sides, but also spill down into a shallow depression. And in one location on the west wall they are “splashed” up almost to the top of the foundation mound. Furthermore, this brick mound is situated inside this north part of the foundation, like an island. This is the view looking east.
This low angle view to the south illustrates the mound of bricks still remaining of what might have been a two, or even more, fireplace array.
A prominent feature here on this mound is the existence of several, large, thin, flat rocks that we suppose are hearth stones, and/or the foundation stones of the chimney and fireplace stack. So far we have seen no bricks with molded 45° angle ends that would normally be found as an indication of fireplace construction. Our assumption is that a large percentage of the bricks were removed.
The bare area in this view to the north just above the stones in the foreground is the top of the southerly mound which has almost no bricks exposed. And only one flat rock is visible. Some bricks have cascaded into the root cellar, but probably moved there from several locations, including the north mound. This south mound is a “peninsula” that extends away from the east side, which is on the right. There may have been some brick structure there that has been completely scavenged but we assume it was probably only crawl space.
Foundation Details
As in most other sites in Canterbury, both in the root cellar and much of the area around the foundation is strewn with many fragments of window and bottle glass. We dug an exploratory 9” diameter hole near the center of the south mound. Only 3 inches down we found what appears to be undisturbed soil similar to that discovered in the test pit near the west wall of the root cellar. And no artifacts. The glass is modern trash. Later we determined that this was part of the crawl space.
The largest of two cut stones covering the well are mere feet from the road. The evidence of this stone being cut is visible as a series of 5 inch long vertical grooves drilled into the bottom edge of the stone.
The well is situated near the foundation, or possibly even inside the foundation. As described above, there appears to be disturbed soil near the well and extending a few feet northerly. Apparently at about the time the house was being torn down, or had collapsed, two of the cut granite sill stones were placed over the well to prevent any lifeform from falling into it. These two stones are about 6 feet long, 18” at the wide end, and 9” thick. The well appears to be in very sound condition. No other cut sill stones have been found anywhere else on the site.
The small 15’ by 8’ root cellar field stone walls are in various states of preservation. As it is situated mostly inside the overall foundation footprint, here we see the south wall is in a good to excellent condition, with the adjoining east and west walls equally intact here in the corners. It would have been over 6 feet tall to the top of the cut granite sill stones if any were present. One small (1 foot square) excavation was made near the center of this chamber, which produced many pounds of metal and glass trash. A pit to determine the original depth of the chamber was dug near the S-W corner and arrived at mineral earth 8” down.
However, the north wall of the root cellar is in poor condition. Here we view it with the intact east wall to the right.
Continuing clockwise, the root cellar shares its west wall with the west wall of the entire house foundation and here is still fairly well intact, but in this location, a segment has collapsed, losing about half its height over a span of 6 feet.
A second collapse spans 7 feet with most of the stones having fallen into the cellar.
The last intact section is decrepit both on the left and at the junction with the north wall on the right.
The north wall extends only a couple of feet above the existing depression floor and runs about 2/3rds of the way toward the east wall, becoming lower and more decrepit as it peters out.
There are a few scattered stones visible all the way to where we expected to find a corner, but in our opinion they are too small to be considered foundation stones. The slim tree on the right is the White Birch noted on the plan of the site is not far from the corner. Also, here we can see how close to Foster Road the foundation is.
The east wall is both decrepit in many of its 56 feet length, and is missing many stones. In fact, the first 10 feet or so contain no stones suitable for a foundation. It is not illustrated in this report.
The next section contains several long “sill quality” native stones somewhat disorderly and tipped over into the cellar. This segment extends to the north wall of the south mound, behind the camera.
Thereafter, few stones are found that appear to be foundation stones until several typical flat sill stones which are only slightly out of position, are found beginning near the south end of the stones covering the well.
Then a short gap and two flat stones amongst a cluster of three hemlocks that is probably the S-E corner of the foundation. In the upper left corner is one of the large sill stones covering the well.
Here are our tentative designations of the foundation. The southerly portion we labeled “cellar hole” in the plan accompanying this report is clearly a root cellar. The depressed surface just between the two mounds appears to have been delineated by stacked stones but may not be deep enough to be a secondary root cellar. Much of the most northerly 1/3 of the depression is so shallow it could only be a crawl space.
Some Considerations
On the accompanying site sketch we note existing trees to help orient the viewer to the photos of the site. We further illustrate a fairly wide mound around the south, west, and most of the north sides that are flush with the top of the foundation stones.
While we have found several large hearth stones illustrated above, and a possible lentil stone, as yet there is no obvious point of entry into the house, or cut sill stones except the two found covering the well. The surface all over the foundation perimeter mounds and the interior mounds is strewn with fragments of broken window glass, and some bottle glass. Many iron artifacts have turned up, again scattered everywhere up to 75 feet from the foundation with no discernable pattern.
It could be that some treasure hunters or bottle diggers have disrupted some of this foundation. But we surmise that over 125 years of exposure to the elements has caused most of the collapse. As noted above, the cut, granite sill stones have been removed. These we assume were hauled away just after the building disappeared, along with many bricks.
Our metal detectorist associate Shaun Searah easily found nails and other iron related to the construction of barrels, and farm equipment in a wide search throughout the site, which along with the many pounds of iron objects and glass we found in and adjacent to the foundation are probably post house disappearance trash. Certainly of an earlier vintage, he also recovered a Crotal (sleigh) bell 1 ½” in diameter, and an average sized ox shoe with all the nails still attached.
Our estimate is that the building upon this foundation was 26 feet by 56 feet.
Outbuilding
A foundation we believe was the location of a barn resides 78 feet north-west of the house cellar. It is highly disrupted, including having a roadway built across the north-eastern side. Thus the original size cannot be determined. What remains indicates a building of possibly 28 feet square. Here we have marked the approximate corners with white stakes topped with red ribbon.
Both on the west, and more so on the east end of the structure is a pile of smaller, rounded rocks resting against the foundation walls, which are constructed with much larger stones. What may be a doorway is near the center of the south wall. Due to the dispersed condition of the stones within the exterior no interior post foundation stones could be positively identified.
If there was a barnyard, we found no stone evidence of it. Of course livestock could have been constrained by stump or wooden fencing. We know from town records that in later years Hannah kept sheep. Someone had oxen on the land at some time. While an east-west wall marking the location of the north boundary of Lot #95 is present within 120 feet of the site, no other stonewalls exist within hundreds of feet of the two foundations. The soil in the barn foundation is loaded with iron artifacts.
Finally, while we read about a second, smaller house to replace the main building being constructed nearby at a later date, we remain puzzled as we found no evidence of such a structure.
The Big Picture
Taken as a whole, we note that many of the descendants of John Moor became well to do, or even wealthy. He appears to have been willing to move on to higher quality land as he became better acquainted with the area. Yet this site appears to have not been suitable for the development of a successful homestead for his grandson Joseph. Much of the 146 acres is hummocky, rocky, and swampy, and that may be the reason we found no stone walls typical of a prosperous farmstead. The high quality of the two cut granite stones covering the well which we consider to probably have been sill foundation stones indicates to us the Moore’s had financial backing. We draw the same conclusion regarding the generously created perimeter mound and its well-built retaining walls. The root cellar is small for such a house, so maybe they had the finances to acquire their winter food elsewhere. And we note the excellent quality of the graveyard walls and tombstones. Finally, if it is true, the remaining 2 or 3 sisters had the resources to build a new house and allow the big house to fall into disrepair.
Only one generation resided there, albeit for over 90 years. The male offspring died young, two of the daughters moved on to marriage. Those who remained had some way to keep house, but probably not by farming. The story is lost in time.
Artifacts
This appears to be where a person steps to climb on to a carriage or sleigh.
Obviously this has been in the ground for many years. We dug it out of the barn foundation.
Also from the barn foundation. This shovel has been reused by drilling holes in it and nailing it to something. What do you think?
A very highly decorated bowl of a white clay pipe, long a fixture in any tavern, and homestead.
This is what a similar, less decorated but intact pipe would look like.
Something very special to us because of its use by a four-legged mammal. A shoe for one-half of an ox’s two part hoof. With the head of the attaching nails still in place. Found with a metal detector not far south-west of the barn.
A close-up with the heavily corroded nails sticking out.
Our favorite: a brass Crotal bell, commonly called a sleigh bell. Attached to the sleigh, or could be attached to the harness of a horse pulling a wagon. Also discovered by using a metal detector. Buried under what may have been an abandoned section of road about 75 feet south of the house foundation.
A view looking straight down onto the top. As is the usual design, there are two holes, one on each side of the attaching ring.
Although we were unable to photograph it, this tiny one inch bell still has the little bits of iron or stone in it so it rings beautifully.
This report is unusual because of the extensive detail we have from the records, and from the site itself. We welcome additional information about the site, and invite any response be sent to cellarholesurveys@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: It is possible that other, as yet undiscovered evidence may exist that would amend or completely contradict our findings.
This work you are doing is so wonderful and exciting. Thank you for taking the time to publish your results for all of us. It makes living here in Canterbury all the more interesting!
What a (tortuous) joy to spend so much time uncovering this foundation, both physically and with research. And what a gift to historians everywhere to have it digitally available! What sort of background do you have in this? How did you come to go about it the way that you did? Would you consider teaching others your process?
I know where a lot of foundations are in our little town of Mont Vernon!