REPORT: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY LONG WHARF PIER STRUCTURE NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT

Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

March 2008

Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Author: Bruce Clouette 569 Middle Turnpike P.O. Box 543 Storrs, CT 06268 (860) 429-2142 voice (860) 429-9454 fax

[email protected] REPORT: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY LONG WHARF PIER STRUCTURE NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT

Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

March 2008

Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Author: Bruce Clouette 569 Middle Turnpike P.O. Box 543 Storrs, CT 06268 (860) 429-2142 voice (860) 429-9454 fax

[email protected] ABSTRACT/MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

In connection with environmental review studies of proposed I-95 improvements, the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in August 2007 requested “information regarding the historic use, development chronology, and archaeological integrity of the Long Wharf pier structure” in New Haven, Connecticut. Extending approximately 650 feet into New Haven harbor, the wharf is the home berth of the schooner Amistad. This report, prepared by Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. of Storrs, Connecticut, presents in detail the information about the structure that was requested by the SHPO. In its present form, Long Wharf is a concrete slab and riprap structure that was created in the early 1960s in connection with a massive urban renewal project. The base of the modern wharf, however, is a stone and earth-fill structure built in 1810 by William Lanson, a prominent and sometimes controversial member of New Haven’s African American community. That structure was a 1,500-foot extension of an 18th-century timber wharf, making the whole, at some 3,900 feet, the longest wharf in the country at the time. The 1810 wharf is clearly visible at low tide, especially on the east side, where modern riprap was placed on top of the historic masonry. On the west side, the 1810 masonry appears to have been partially displaced by the riprap. The 1810 wharf is also visible for about 100 feet beyond the south end of the modern structure. Begun in the first half of the 18th century by a consortium of New Haven merchants, Long Wharf was a key component of the city’s commercial prosperity. Inns, warehouses, stores, and shipping offices crowded the surface of the wharf, and New Haven’s custom house was at one time located at the north end of Long Wharf in what was then known as Custom House Square. Ships from around the world discharged and took on cargo at the wharf, sustaining New Haven as one of Connecticut’s leading ports. The wharf, formally known as Union Wharf but commonly called Long Wharf as far back as the early 1700s, addressed a timeless geological force that constantly threatened the usefulness of New Haven harbor: the deposit of silt from the Quinnipiac River and other large streams. New Haven merchants were repeatedly forced to build out the wharf to reach water of sufficient depth to handle shipping. Toward the end of the 19th century, only the tip of the wharf could be used. By that time, much of the north end of the wharf (the pre-1810 part) had been filled in for railroad and other industrial purposes. Other wharfs were more useful for steamships and rail-to-ship transfer of goods, and Long Wharf steadily became obsolete. In the early 1950s, the north end of the remains of Long Wharf were filled in to create a high embankment for the Route 1 Harborfront Relocation, a project that quickly became part of I- 95's predecessor, the Connecticut Turnpike. Project plans indicate that stone walls from 1810 such as those visible at low tide beneath the present wharf structure lie buried under the highway fill. It is recommended that the visible and likely buried remains of Long Wharf be considered an archeological resource that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The wharf played a significant role in New Haven’s economic history, and it has an important historical association with the city’s African American community. The wharf remains also have the potential to shed light on early marine-engineering technology. Current project plans call for improving I-95 and the parallel frontage roads using only the existing highway right-of-way. Although additional fill may be needed to create the slopes necessary for the expanded roadway, no disturbance to the depth of the 1810 wharf is anticipated by any of the alternatives. Therefore, it is recommended that the project be considered as having no adverse effect on the historic resource.

i LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of project and present-day Long Wharf, plotted on U.S.G.S. New Haven Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series, scale 1:24000.

Figure 2 Excerpt from plans for Alternative 2B, with outline of 1838 Long Wharf and shoreline added

Figure 3 Long Wharf as shown on the 1748 Wadsworth map

Figure 4 Long Wharf as shown on the 1775 Stiles map

Figure 5 Two advertisements typical of the mention of Long Wharf (Union Wharf) in 18th- century New Haven newspapers

Figure 6 Long Wharf as shown on the 1811 Warren and Gillet map

Figure 7 The portion of Long Wharf shown on the 1824 Doolittle map

Figure 8 Long Wharf as shown on the 1830 Buckingham map

Figure 9 Long Wharf as shown on the 1838 U.S. Coast Survey chart

Figure 10 Long Wharf as shown on the 1852 Whiteford county wall map

Figure 11 Buildings at the head of Long Wharf in 1864, ships’ masts in background

Figure 12 Long Wharf with lumber schooner, undated (ca.1875?), showing timber-pile fender system

Figure 13 Long Wharf as shown on the 1868 Beers atlas map

Figure 14 Long Wharf as shown on the 1877 Bogart and Andrews map, based upon the 1875 U.S. Coastal Survey chart

Figure 15 Buildings at the north end of Long Wharf, as shown on the 1879 Bailey and Hazen bird’s-eye view

Figure 16 Long Wharf as shown on a montage of maps from the 1888 Hopkins atlas

Figure 17 Undated photograph of the end of Long Wharf, looking south

Figure 18 Long Wharf as shown on the 1934 Fairchild Aerial Survey photograph

Figure 19 The Long Wharf area as shown on the 1947 U.S.G.S. New Haven Quadrangle

ii Figure 20 Hydraulic fill plan, State Project No, 92-60, March 27, 1951, Connecticut Department of Transportation File No. 162-12

Figure 21 Hydraulic fill profile, State Project No, 92-60, March 27, 1951, Connecticut Department of Transportation File No. 162-12

Figure 22 Long Wharf as shown on the 1951 U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial photograph

Figure 23 Long Wharf area during the construction of the Connecticut Turnpike, May 1956, aerial view looking north

Figure 24 Long Wharf area during the construction of the Connecticut Turnpike, May 1956, aerial view looking west

Figure 25 Remains of Long Wharf, ca. 1960, looking southeast

Figure 26 Long Wharf redevelopment area, 1963, showing present-day wharf completed

Figure 27 The Sperry & Barnes pork-packing plant, ca. 1960

Figure 28 Historical extent of Long Wharf and the shoreline of New Haven Harbor plotted at intervals on an enlargement of the current U.S.G.S. New Haven Quadrangle

iii LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1 Overview of Long Wharf, east side, camera facing southwest

Photograph 2 Detail of stone work underneath modern riprap, east side, camera facing southwest

Photograph 3 Detail of west side of wharf, showing modern riprap that has obscured and/or displaced the historic 1810 stonework, camera facing east

Photograph 4 Detail of displaced piece of cut stone from the 1810 masonry, west side, camera facing northeast

Photograph 5 Remains of 1810 stone walls and fill, visible at low tide from the end of the existing wharf structure, camera facing south

Photograph 6 Detail of the west wall of the portion that lies beyond the end of the existing wharf structure, showing 1810 stonework, camera facing northeast

Photograph 7 Remnants of timber piles on the west side of the wharf, camera facing north

Photograph 8 Remnants of timber piles on the east side of the portion of the wharf beyond the end of the existing wharf structure, camera facing southwest

Photograph 9 Piece of European flint ballast cobble lying in situ on the surface of the fill in the portion of the wharf that lies beyond the end of the existing wharf structure

Photograph 10 Lighted navigation marker located beyond the end of the existing wharf structure, camera facing south

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT/MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... i

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ii

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ...... iv

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. METHODOLOGY ...... 3

III. RESULTS OF FIELD INSPECTION ...... 6

IV. RESULTS OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...... 7

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBILITY ...... 16

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 19

VII. REFERENCES ...... 20

APPENDIX I: FIGURES ...... 24

APPENDIX II: PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 54

APPENDIX III: HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY FORM ...... 65

v I. INTRODUCTION

A. Scope of Work The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CONNDOT) is studying alternatives for widening Interstate 95 in the Long Wharf neighborhood of New Haven, Connecticut. In commenting on the environmental studies undertaken in connection with the project, the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested clarification regarding the potential historic status of the present-day Long Wharf structure and concluded:

the Long Wharf pier structure may possess historic importance and moderate to high sensitivity for industrial archaeological resources. . . . We recommend that a professional assessment survey be undertaken by an industrial historian and/or industrial archaeologist who meets National Park Service qualifications guidelines in order to comprehensively evaluate the historic and archaeological aspects of the Long Wharf pier structure (Senich 2007).

Specific requests by the SHPO include information of the wharf’s historic uses and development chronology and an assessment of the archaeological integrity of any remains from the historic period. This assessment survey addresses the concerns of the SHPO by providing the requested information in sufficient detail to allow a decision regarding the historic status of Long Wharf. It was prepared by Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. of Storrs, Connecticut, under contract to the project’s consulting engineers, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. The information and evaluation developed by the assessment survey will inform the Environmental Assessment for the Long Wharf segment of I-95 being prepared by the engineers. The Environmental Review Primer for Connecticut's Archaeological Resources provides general requirements for an assessment-level survey such as this. In addition, AHS Director Mary Harper conferred with David A. Poirier, SHPO Staff Archaeologist, regarding the anticipated level of research and report product for documenting and assessing the Long Wharf pier structure. The work described in this proposal meets all SHPO requirements.

B. Project Location and Description Interstate 95 passes through this part of New Haven on an elevated embankment and consists of a multi-lane limited-access highway paralleled to the north and south by frontage roads (see location map, Figure 1, Appendix I). The north frontage road, known as Sargent Drive, serves an industrial and commercial area that was created by urban development during the 1950s and 1960s. The south frontage road, known as Long Wharf Drive, provides access to a waterfront park, nature preserve, information center, and the current wharf structure. The frontage roads are connected by two underpasses beneath I-95. Long Wharf as it exists today consists of a concrete-slab structure that was constructed on top of the remains of the historic wharf in the early 1960s; its approximate dimensions are 30 feet wide and 650 feet long. The structure is protected by heavy riprap consisting of large pieces of pink granite. On the north side, the wharf gives access to a connected dock where the freedom schooner Amistad is berthed when in port. About 100 feet from the end of the wharf, additional riprap surrounds the concrete base of a lighted navigational marker.

1 There are several alternatives currently under study that would provide additional lanes for I-95 in the vicinity of Long Wharf (see plan of Alternative 2B, Figure 2). The alternatives differ primarily in the changes proposed for the frontage roads and whether or not Brewery Street to the north would be incorporated into the project as a connecting road. All the alternative project plans call for adding fill to the existing embankment for I-95 so as to create the necessary slopes for the widened highway and maintaining the frontage roads at their current level.

C. Personnel AHS historian Bruce Clouette, Ph.D., conducted the historical background research, site inspection, and photography, with assistance from historical archaeologist Ross Harper, Ph.D. Clouette meets the National Park Service historian and industrial archaeologist qualifications in 36 CFR 61; Ross Harper meets the 36 CFR 61 qualifications for historical archaeologists. Mary Harper served as project manager.

D. Disposition of Materials Original field notes, digital graphics and photographs, and project records are on file at AHS’s office in Storrs, Connecticut, and will be turned over to the Office of State Archaeology, the designated repository for state-property projects, as space becomes available.

2 II. METHODOLOGY

In order to provide the additional information and evaluation requested by the SHPO, it was necessary for the assessment survey to include three basic components:

• Field inspection of the present Long Wharf structure to determine what, if anything, remains from its original construction and historic-period modifications

• Background research to identify the historic uses of the pier and a chronology of its construction and modifications

• Evaluation of any remnants of the historic wharf in terms of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

A. Field Inspection The project area was inspected by a two-person AHS team consisting of an historical archaeologist and an historian/industrial archaeologist. The site visit took place on the morning of March 10, 2008, so as to observe the wharf at the lowest tide of the month. Most of the time the rise and fall of the tide in New Haven harbor is about four to six feet, but during the new moon and full moon, the difference between high and low tide typically reaches a little over eight feet. Consequently, much more of the wharf is visible at low tide during these times. In fact, the water had retreated far enough so that entire length of the wharf was accessible by walking on wet sand. The project team made descriptive notes on the dimensions and materials of both the current wharf and the historic-period stonework that lay beneath the modern construction. The wharf was photographed using an 8-megapixel digital camera. Overall views and views of particular details are reproduced as Photographs 1 through 10 in Appendix II. Because the wharf is shown with great accuracy on numerous nautical charts, topographical maps, engineering drawings, and aerial photographs, it was thought unnecessary to record the wharf with survey instruments for this level of assessment.

B. Historical Background Research The background research began with a reading of previously published general and specialized histories of New Haven, including Three Centuries of New Haven (Osterweis 1938) and the essays in Carriages and Clocks, Corsets and Locks (Maynard and Noyes 2004). Thomas R. Trowbridge’s essay on the history of Long Wharf, published by the New Haven Colony Historical Society in 1865, proved especially informative, as did his exhaustive history of New Haven shipping and commerce from settlement to the War of 1812 (Trowbridge 1897). The Mayor’s Game (Talbot 1967) was useful for the last phase of Long Wharf’s evolution, the redevelopment efforts of the 1950s and 1960s. Early descriptions of New Haven by Timothy Dwight (1821), John Warner Barber (1836), and Barber and Punderson (1856) were found to contain helpful descriptions of Long Wharf. Finally, indexes of early newspapers were checked for references to Long Wharf and “Union Wharf,” the structure’s formal name. The history of Interstate 95, now more than 50 years old, was investigated using the records of the Connecticut State Highway Department, the predecessor to CONNDOT. Of particular importance was the engineering report prepared in 1953 by Ammon & Whitney, consulting

3 engineers, which indicated the relationship of the I-95 project, then known as the Greenwich- Killingly Expressway, to earlier state-highway projects, including the one that directly affected Long Wharf, the relocation of Route 1. The report can be found in the Connecticut Documents section of the State Library in Hartford. Also of importance in understanding how I-95 affected the historic wharf are the plan files maintained by CONNDOT at its Newington annex. Several separate project files relate to just this one small section of I-95, of which the most informative was State Project No. 92-60, File No. 162-12, which contain plans and profiles for filling in the portions of New Haven Harbor (and thereby burying a portion of Long Wharf) in order to create the embankment for the relocation of Route 1. The third component of highway-history research was the examination of the construction photographs in the records of the Connecticut Turnpike, as I-95 was then known, in Record Group 89 of the Connecticut State Archives at the State Library. RG 89 includes four large photograph albums showing the construction of the turnpike at various points between 1953 and 1956, many of them taken from the air. The physical evolution of Long Wharf was traced using a series of historical maps and aerial photographs ranging in date from 1748 to the present. The maps show that Long Wharf was repeatedly extended until reaching a maximum length of 3,900 feet, and they also indicate the shoreline of New Haven harbor has moved south as former tidal marsh or shallow water was filled in to create land. In order to reach these conclusions, all the historical maps were scanned into digital form and overlaid on the current U.S. Geological Survey topographical quadrangle by rotating and re-scaling them. This process, often highly tentative in rural areas, was made easier for New Haven because the city retains it original 17th-century nine-squares plan even today. Historical maps must be used cautiously: even a gifted amateur cartographer such as Ezra Stiles could not be expected to take a quantity of survey points or minutely measure shoreline detail to the extent that modern topographical maps require. Nevertheless, the 18th-century and early 19th-century maps that show Long Wharf overlay with a minimum of stretching and accord well with contemporary verbal accounts. Beginning in 1838, the U.S. Coast Survey produced a series of nautical charts for New Haven Harbor that can be relied upon as accurate in terms of shore and wharf outlines and depth soundings. The topographical sheets of the U. S. Geological Survey and the 20th-century aerial photographs can be used with a similar degree of confidence. Many of the early maps indicate buildings on the wharf and specify the uses of some of them. Beginning in 1888, the insurance-rating maps produced by the Sanborn Map and Publishing Company show the wharf and the buildings on it in great detail; however, by that time the wharf’s economic importance was in decline and so the information from the Sanborn maps is less useful than for most historical sites. Other privately produced maps that depict Long Wharf include a mid- 19th-century county wall map (Whiteford 1852), the somewhat later New Haven County atlas (Beers 1868), an 1870s bird’s-eye view (Bailey and Hazen 1879), and a late 19th-century city atlas (Hopkins 1888). There are many engravings and views that show Long Wharf, particularly in the holdings of the New Haven Museum (New Haven Colony Historical Society) in New Haven. Most are long views that do not show particular details. A few photographs, however, were vital to appreciating components of the wharf that have not survived as well as the stone work. These key photographs, along with reproductions of the most important historical maps and views, are reproduced as Figures 3 through 27 in Appendix I, arranged as far as possible in chronological order.

4 C. National Register Evaluation Once the field recording and the background research were complete, what remained of the historic wharf could be evaluated in terms of the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. National Register eligibility is the key factor that must be assessed as part of a project’s environmental evaluation. In order to be listed on the National Register, properties must possess integrity and meet at least one of the following criteria established by the National Park Service:

A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past;

C. Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master;

D. Demonstrated ability or potential to yield important information about prehistory or history.

Criteria A, C, and D are the most relevant in evaluating the historic remnants of Long Wharf. Criterion A addresses the role the wharf may have played in the historical development of New Haven (National Register significance can be on the local, state, or national level). Criterion C may be fulfilled if what remains of the wharf typifies the marine engineering of a particular period in terms of its design and materials. Criterion D addresses the information value of archaeological remains in terms of their ability to add to our knowledge about the past. In addition to meeting the criteria, National Register eligibility requires that the property have integrity of “location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” Integrity is an issue in the case of properties, such as Long Wharf, that have been built over by later construction. The question is whether the alterations and additions to the wharf, the obscuring of a large portion of the structure by later fill, and changes to the structure’s setting have compromised its ability to convey its significance under Criteria A and C. Integrity is interpreted somewhat differently if the wharf is considered an archaeological feature. Archeological properties almost by definition represent fragments of their original state. The issue of integrity in the case of Criterion D becomes a matter of judging whether enough survives to provide answers to important questions about the past.

5 III. RESULTS OF FIELD INSPECTION

In their field visit at low tide, the historian and historical archaeologist were able to walk around the entire perimeter of the modern Long Wharf structure, as well as inspect about 100 feet of additional stonework south of the existing wharf that is usually under water. The east side of the wharf (Photograph 1) is the better preserved, with five or six feet of historic-period stonework visible for nearly its entire length below the modern wharf structure, which consists of a concrete slab and large pieces of pink-granite riprap. The historic-period stonework for the most part is rubble masonry using small and medium-sized irregularly shaped pieces of stone, with the top two courses constructed of large slabs of cut stone (Photograph 2). Some of the stone at the foot of the wall, lying on the harbor bed, appears to have been dislodged by the riprap that was deposited as part of the construction of the present wharf in the early 1960s. A few sections of the east wall appear to be collapsing, but most are intact. The west side has been more severely impacted by the placement of riprap (Photograph 3); virtually no intact historic stonework is visible, though a large amount of displaced stone resembling that in situ on the east side is evident at the base of the riprap (Photograph 4). About 100 feet of historic stonework, including both parallel walls, continues beyond the south end of the modern wharf (Photographs 5 and 6), to varying heights. In between the walls is a fill of sand, gravel, and stone. On both sides of the wharf are the remains of old timber piles (Photographs 7 and 8), some of which form a line paralleling the side walls of the wharf. Another item of cultural origin that was observed during the field visit were pieces of European flint lying on the surface of the fill in the part of the historic wharf that lies beyond the end of the present wharf (Photograph 9). The background research (see next section) cites evidence that this part of the wharf, which was constructed beginning in 1810, was filled, at least in part, with ballast stone discharged from vessels from overseas. At its southern end, the stonework becomes much less distinct as it expands to either side beyond the parallel walls that define the historic extent of the wharf. A large concrete base, surrounded by riprap like that flanking the wharf, supports an aid to navigation consisting of a small beacon and a day mark (Photographs 5 and 10). On the basis of this fieldwork, and subsequent historic background research, the remnants of the wharf were given the site number 92-25 and a State of Connecticut Historic Resource Inventory–Historic Archaeological Sites Form was completed. The wharf will thus be included in the state’s ongoing inventory of archaeological sites, a database maintained by the SHPO and the Office of the State Archaeologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. A copy of the inventory form is included in this report as Appendix III.

6 IV. RESULTS OF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH

The origins of New Haven’s Long Wharf go to the earliest years of the 17th century, when English and Dutch explorers recognized the commercial potential of New Haven Harbor. Adriaen Block briefly explored the harbor and its environs, and it is probable that Dutch trading expeditions followed, in which Native people exchanged furs for trade goods (Townshend 1896: 162). Similar considerations led to a group of Englishmen securing rights to the area at the end of the Pequot War and starting a settlement, in 1638, that was intended to carry on trade and engage in shipping. In 1644, it was realized that larger vessels could not readily approach the settlement under all conditions, and Richard Malbon, John Evance, and George Lamberton proposed a plan to the General Court of the New Haven Colony:

having seriously considered the damages which hinder vessels from coming near the town, they will undertake (upon conditions named) to build a wharf, to which at least boats may come to discharge their cargoes (quoted in Townshend 1896: 163).

In the context of their proposal, the word “boats” referred to lighters, small vessels that would take the cargo from ships in the harbor and bring it to the landing places, which were on a tidal creek that provided access to the harbor near the present location of Long Wharf. The wharf proponents were allowed to commandeer four days of labor from every male over sixteen years of age; those who could not work were obliged to hire others in their place. The wharf that Malbon and company built was near the intersection of present-day George and Fair streets, on the creek, about two blocks south of the New Haven Green. In 1663, Samuel Bache came up with a plan that would allow ships in the harbor to be unloaded directly onto a wharf. He was granted a lot of land on the waterfront for a warehouse and was authorized to build a wharf “as far down into the flats as he should see cause to build a wharf or dock” (Quoted in Trowbridge 1865: 87). In 1683, Thomas Trowbridge received a grant allowing him to build adjacent to the wharf and eastward, provided that he allow townspeople to land upon it for free. These two grants together represent the beginning of Long Wharf. Long Wharf was continually expanded over the years, with extensions recorded in 1710, 1717, and 1731. Although formally named Union Wharf, perhaps because it had been improved by a consortium of merchants, it was called Long Wharf as early as 1738 (Townshend 1896: 162). The Union Wharf Company was formally incorporated in 1760 and operated and improved the wharf until the property was purchased by the New Haven Railroad in 1890. In the 16th century, despite the occasional ship outfitted for coastal trade, the commerce of New Haven never fulfilled the expectations of the original settlers, but in the 18th century, especially after the French and Indian War ended, trade with other American ports, the West Indies, and Europe flourished. In the 1760s, some 30 vessels annually left New Haven harbor for foreign voyages, principally carrying the products of the Connecticut countryside: wheat, rye, flaxseed, corn, and livestock (Trowbridge 1897: 760-61). The earliest depiction of Long Wharf is that in James Wadsworth’s 1748 map of New Haven (Figure 3). The wharf at that time was said to be 26 rods long (429 feet), which accords well with the 1748 map, on which, using the nine squares of central New Haven as a reference, the wharf scales to about 400 feet (24 rods). Other authorities (Dwight 1821: 131, Barber and Punderson 1857: 44) use the figure of 20 rods (330 feet), a difference which may be due to using a round number or else to the difficulty of determining where, on the waterfront side, the wharf began

7 and the land ended. Dwight described the wharf as “built of timber and earth,” indicating that it used a traditional construction, earth-filled timber bulkheads (Dwight 1821: 138). In this method of building a wharf, a line of wooden piles is driven into the bed of the harbor, to which are attached thick planks so as to form a wall. Stone, dirt, and gravel are then placed in between the bulkheads to fill the structure and create a surface. Remnants of 19th-century wharfs of this type have been recorded at two locations on the Thames River in Norwich and Preston, Connecticut (Clouette 2005, 2006). Wharfs have a number of interrelated functions, the most basic of which is to provide a place where vessels may pull alongside so as to discharge and take on cargo. If they were sufficiently wide, wharfs also provided a place for storing cargo while it awaited transhipment, either out in the open or in warehouses. In addition to warehouses, the buildings on wharves may include related enterprises, such as stores where wholesale or even retail transactions took place, inns and taverns, and the offices of merchants, insurers, and customs officials. The Wadsworth map (Figure 3) illustrates many of Long Wharf’s uses, since, as was common with 18th and early 19th- century maps, the wharf is shown in profile as well as in plan. A brig and two sloops are shown moored along the east side of the wharf, on which are two two-story buildings, one of which is an inn owned by James Peck, one of the proprietors of the wharf. On the surface of the wharf are scattered bales or barrels, some which are stacked two high, and a two-wheel cart for moving the merchandise. What does not show in Wadsworth’s map is what may be considered Long Wharf’s most critical function: reaching deep water. From the earliest days of English settlement, New Haven harbor experienced ongoing sedimentation that created tidal flats along the waterfront. Undoubtedly, the deforestation of the interior countryside for agriculture accelerated the effect, as increased runoff carried ever greater amounts of sediment into the Quinipiac, Mill and West rivers and the unnamed creek leading from the Green to the harbor. Writing after the wharf had achieved its maximum length, Timothy Dwight described the problem as follows:

At the time when the first settlers arrived in this town, there was in the northwestern region of this harbor a sufficient depth of water for all the ordinary purposes of commerce. Ships were built and launched, loaded and unloaded, where now there are meadows and garden, So late as the year 1765, the long wharf extended only twenty rods from the shore. It now extends 3,943 feet. Yet there is less water a few rods from its foot now than at its termination in 1765. The substance which here so rapidly accumulates is what in this country is called marsh mud, the material of which its salt marshes are composed (Dwight 1821: 131).

The repeated lengthening of Long Wharf was probably due as much to the need to reach navigable depths in the harbor as to the need for more berthing space along its side. The Union Wharf Company continued to build out the wharf in the second half of the 18th century. Around 1765, it was extended to a length of about 30 rods (495 feet). Five years later, in 1770, a different approach was tried: a freestanding platform, measuring some 80 feet on a side and of timber and stone construction, was erected in the water hundreds of feet south of the wharf, adjacent to what was then a deep-water channel. Called a “pier,” the platform allowed vessels to pull alongside and unload their cargo, which then would be transported in smaller vessels to the wharf or other harborside facilities (Trowbridge 1865: 87). While it addressed the consequences of sedimentation, at least temporarily, the 1770 pier was in effect a backward step in time to the mid-

8 1600s, when ships were offloaded into lighters. The proprietors continued to build outward, undoubtedly aiming to connect the wharf and pier in order to eliminate the intermediate transfer of cargo. By the time Ezra Stiles made his map of New Haven, in 1775 (Figure 4), the wharf was approximately 1,100 feet long. By 1802, it was described as being 120 rods in length (1,980 feet). In undertaking these expansions, the owners of the wharf not only contributed their own funds but also benefited from lotteries authorized by the Connecticut General Assembly. In 1772, for example, the owners hoped to net $3,333 toward improving the wharf by selling 4,444 tickets, at five dollars each, for a lottery to be drawn on March 15, 1773. The top prize was $4,000, with more than a thousand small prizes of $10 each. The owners appealed to their fellow New Haven merchants to help them sell tickets:

The Managers [of the lottery] have formed the most flattering expectations from the assistance it is hoped all those gentlemen who are friends to the trade and prosperity of the town of New Haven, will afford towards the filling up of the lottery, by early becoming adventurers themselves, and using their influence to induce others to do likewise (Connecticut Journal 1772).

Long Wharf, or Union Wharf as it was properly known, appears in numerous commercial advertisements (Figure 5) as a place where goods were bought and sold, and so it was not unreasonable for the proprietors to assume that others would assist them out of their own interest in ensuring New Haven’s prosperity. In 1791, another lottery was held to benefit the wharf. With a top prize of $10,000 and more than 5,000 smaller prizes, the lottery was expected to raise nearly $11,000. This time, the lottery managers cast an even wider appeal for the purchase of the $5 tickets:

The public utility of extending this wharf is too evident to require any comment; not only the mercantile interest of New Haven and towns adjacent, but the landowner and farmer of the western and middle part of the state, are highly interested in promoting this object, as the increase of conveniences for navigation in this harbor will necessarily increase the demand, and insure a better market for their produce (Connecticut Journal 1791).

Although the American Revolution had interrupted the growth of commerce, trade resumed shortly after the war was settled. More than 4,000 people called New Haven home at the time of the 1790 census, and the total volume of shipping reached new highs. As a consequence of the increased trade, New Haven merchants organized first a bank and, shortly thereafter, the New Haven Marine Insurance Company (Trowbridge 1897: 763). An idea of the vitality of Long Wharf in the late 18th and early 19th centuries can be gained by considering a notice that appeared in a New Haven newspaper in January 1803. The firm of Alling, Hotchkiss & Co., one of several in that issue that mentioned commerce at the wharf, offered the following for sale: rum, gin, molasses, loaf and brown sugar, pepper, allspice, ginger, coffee, chocolate, tea, mustard, Poland starch, nutmeg, three kinds of tobacco, three kinds of snuff, rock salt, codfish, wrought and cut nails of all kinds, whale and linseed oil, turpentine, various types of pottery, lumber, bread and crackers, and a complete line of ship’s-chandlery items. At the same time, they offered to take in trade country produce in payment for any of these goods (The Visitor 1803).

9 In 1810, the proprietors of the wharf, reorganized by the legislature with a new charter that took effect in 1802, undertook the single largest expansion of the facility by building a 1,500-foot connection between the wharf, which by that time was 120 rods or 1,980 feet in length (Osterweis 1953: 193), and the pier that lay beyond the wharf out in the harbor. Unlike earlier portions, which had been of timber construction, the plans for the connecting portion called for it to be of stone and earth construction. To finance the undertaking, the company issued $36,000 in new shares. Various figures between 3,500 and 3,900 feet appear for the final length of the wharf, probably depending upon whether the pier was counted and how much of the on-shore portion was reckoned as part of the length. It was, however, commonly considered the longest wharf ever built in the United States. Although it is said to have taken several years to complete, a survey made in 1811 (Warren and Gillett 1813, Figure 6) shows it at its full length. The stone for the wharf was quarried at New Haven’s East Rock, then hauled to the water and loaded onto scows to be taken to the site (Trowbridge 1865: 98). The East Rock stone is a reddish basalt that forms part of the ridge extending up through the center part of Connecticut almost to the Massachusetts border. The earthen fill was a combination of harbor sand and stone and gravel, of which a considerable portion is said to have been ballast discharged from ships:

In [the wharf’s] structure will be found part of the Island of Malta, stones from the Rock of Gibralter, ballast from Sicily, gravel from the harbor of Dublin, stones from Bristol in England, rocks from the Gulf of Para, and from the Islands of St. Domingo, Porto Rico, Guadaloupe, Martinico, Trinidad, Antigua, St. Vincents, St. Lucia, St. Barts, St. Eustacia, St. Kitts, St. Croix, in fact from almost every island in the West Indies. . . . Wherever New Haven vessels have prosecuted their voyages, almost every port visited has contributed materials that have been used in the construction of this wharf; and probably, by excavating, a greater collection of foreign minerals could be made from this wharf than from any other spot in the United States (Trowbridge 1865: 102).

Other elements of the wharf’s construction can be identified by the study of early photographs. An undated photograph, probably c.1875 (Figure 12), shows the edge of the wharf protected by a fender system of closely spaced wooden piles. A remnant of these piles may be what was observed in the field inspection (Photographs 7 and 8). Another view, published in the 1890s but probably taken much earlier, shows the edge of the wharf defined by stout timbers lying atop the stonework (Figure 17). The timbers were anchored by periodic stout wooden braces set into the wharf’s fill. The surface of the wharf was unpaved, the top of the fill serving as the working surface. Additional piles, probably for mooring, were set into the fill back from the wharf’s edge. In addition to extending the wharf in stone to the pier, the 1810 work also raised up the entire surface of the wharf so that it would be above the highest tide. Previously, the wharf was regularly overtopped by monthly spring tides, leading to an exodus of vermin, known locally as “Rat Days” (Trowbridge 1865: 97, 100). The top courses of the masonry observed in the field inspection do not seem to be quite as high as what the historical photographs show; whether this is due to missing courses of stone or subsidence of the structure could not be determined. The contractor for the 1810 improvements to Long Wharf was William Lanson (c.1782- 185?). Lanson was a prominent and sometimes controversial member of the city’s African American community. As a businessman owning several properties, he filed a formal protest with the Connecticut General Assembly when it explicitly denied blacks the right to vote in 1814, and he

10 was one of the founders of New Haven’s first black church, the African Ecclesiastical Society, in 1824. Subsequent to his work on the wharf, Lanson undertook some or all of the masonry for the New Haven portions of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, commonly known as the Farmington Canal. Even while continuing his contracting business, Lanson also operated a livery stable and hotel. The latter, the Liberian Hotel, was a source of concern for the more proper elements of New Haven society. Newspaper accounts suggest that the hotel also served as a brothel, but the truth of that claim cannot be ascertained at this time; it may well be that the serving of alcoholic beverages, general revelry, and the mixing of the races were enough to make many assume the worst. The Liberian Hotel was raided in 1831 and two interracial couples were broken up; the white halves of each, a man and a woman, were arrested (Warner 1940: 28-29). In 1843, William Lanson suffered two setbacks. On November 23, the Liberian Hotel was burned to the ground by a fire that started in an adjacent barn; the firemen are said to have turned their hoses on the African American women and the children (described as mixed-race) who were fleeing the blaze (Barre Gazette, Berkshire County Whig 1848). That same year, Lanson was hurt in a fall, which obliged him to give up his livery stable and stonemason businesses (Lanson 1848: 1). Thereafter, he and his wife Nancy supported themselves by operating a clothing and sewing notions store and taking in boarders. In 1848, a fight between two of his boarders ended in one bludgeoning the other to death, and Lanson was blamed for contributing to the murder. In his defense, he published his side of the story, in which he admitted occasionally serving alcoholic beverages (which he noted was a common practice) but disavowed having any inkling that either man was unruly. Published at his own expense as William Lanson’s Book of Satisfaction, the booklet included a poem about the murder:

On the twentieth day of April C. Parkisson was slain By Samuel C. Yemmans, From the northward did hail.

He put up at William Lanson’s, Who never saw him before; He behaved very properly Until the four days were o’er.

[continuing for 18 more stanzas]

This poetic effort earned Lanson ridicule in the press. The poem was reprinted in its entirety by The Knickerbocker, a New York literary magazine, along with arch commentary by the editor in which Lanson’s character was impugned. The Brattleboro, Vermont, Weekly Eagle picked up the story, adding that such bad poetry would probably prevent future murders at the Lanson establishment. Although he was alive at the time of the U.S. Census of 1850 (no occupation listed), William Lanson probably died sometime thereafter, as he is not listed in the 1860 census. Against the unfavorable notices that William Lanson received in the press in the latter part of his life, it is worth noting the opinion of his character given by Thomas R. Trowbridge, a New Haven lawyer who may well have known him personally:

11 He was respected as a man of energy and skill, and he was a useful citizen, Becoming involved in his latter days, he fell into bad repute, but even then he was a man receiving considerable respect for his previous worth. He was capable of great things (Trowbridge 1865: 98).

Because of the expansion, Long Wharf continued to play a central role in the commercial life of the city. At some point, New Haven’s federal custom house was located at the north end of the wharf, which became known as Custom House Square. Amos Doolittle’s 1824 map of New Haven shows the wharf crowded with buildings and more than a dozen vessels moored along the east side (Figure 7). In addition to warehouses and stores, the wharf also housed the offices of two insurance companies (see Figure 8). Most of New Haven’s vessels in this period were involved in of exporting agricultural products and importing rum, sugar, and molasses from the West Indies and finished goods from Europe, but more than a dozen also engaged in sealing in the South Seas. One or two entrepreneurs attempted whaling, but the lead in this enterprise by New Bedford and New London captains was too great for New Haven interests to gain a foothold. Similarly, New Haven merchants attempted but failed to make substantial inroads into the China trade. Nevertheless, trade with the West Indies, South America, and Europe was more than sufficient to sustain New Haven as a prosperous commercial center. As of 1815, there were 100 merchant vessels registered in New Haven (Trowbridge 1897: 780ff., 813). New Haven’s Long Wharf may be said to literally represent the very definition of a wharf in the early 19th century. Noah Webster (at that time a resident of New Haven) defined “wharf “ in his 1828 dictionary as

A perpendicular bank or mound of timber or stone and earth, raised on the shore of a harbor, or extending some distance into the water, for the convenience of lading and unlading ships and other vessels. . . . The two longest wharfs in New England are at Boston and at New Haven. The latter is much the longest, extending into the harbor about three quarter of a mile.

The same geological forces that had necessitated Long Wharf contributed to its near- destruction. On the night of October 26, 1820, a fire broke out on the wharf, and 26 stores and other buildings, along with their contents, were reduced to ashes. Because the tide was out, no water could be obtained for the pumpers, and the flames were left to burned unchecked (Osterweis 1953: 277). The fire was said to have caused many of the city’s leading merchants to suspend business and to have reduced others to “a state of necessity and want.” The city government sent a circular to other towns in Connecticut and throughout New England asking them to assist New Haven citizens in rebuilding (City of New Haven Mayor’s Office 1821). In the late 1820s, Long Wharf was incorporated into a Farmington Canal structure known as Union Basin, a large area where canal boats could be loaded and unloaded (Figure 8). The canal, which stretched from New Haven all the way to Northampton, Massachusetts, was intended by its proponents, the leading merchants of New Haven, to give the city better access to the products of the New England countryside and divert some of the business that was being captured by Hartford. In New Haven, the canal took over the course of the creek that had been used by the settlement’s first shipping, reaching the harbor at the east side of Long Wharf. In order to create the Union Basin, a second wharf, known as Basin Wharf, was built in a diagonal direction from a point about 1,200 feet down from the head of Long Wharf northeasterly to the shore. Because the level of the

12 basin changed with the tides, a lock was provided at the northern end so canal boats could proceed northward at the water level of the canal. (The change in water level in the basin was exploited by a tide-powered mill, probably a gristmill, at the northeast corner of the basin.) The coming of railroads dramatically changed both the economics of transportation and the actual physical geography of the New Haven waterfront. In the late 1830s, rail lines connected New Haven to both Hartford and New York City, necessitating the use of land close to the waterfront first for tracks and then for all the other infrastructure needed to run a railroad: roundhouses, freight yards, repair shops, and warehouses. The Farmington Canal was converted to a rail line, and what had been Union Basin was partially filled in for the canal line’s facilities (Figure 10). The shoreline route to New York crossed Long Wharf at its northerly end and proceeded across the tidal flats on a low trestle. In the late 1860s, the New York and New Haven Railroad began filling in the tidal flats west of the wharf for a new shop complex, and in place of the trestle most of the harbor near the wharf was filled in for the shoreline tracks (Figure 13). The north end of the wharf, between the shoreline tracks and Water Street, disappeared under the fill for a large railroad freight yard. Ever more of the former Union Basin was filled in, and the New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which had taken over the canal, began building a railroad wharf out into the harbor from Basin Wharf; eventually the wharf, known as Canal Wharf, would rival Long Wharf in length (see Figure 14). At first, Long Wharf continued to be a busy place. Mid 19th-century photographs (Figures 11 and 12) indicate substantial shipping and commerce at the wharf. But the wharf was increasingly eclipsed by newer facilities with better connections to the railroads, particularly at Canal Wharf and the wharf known as Belle Dock near the Tomlinson Bridge. Long Wharf became relegated to lower-value commerce such as lumber and coal. In the 1870s, much of the center part of the wharf was occupied by the Sperry & Barnes pork-packing plant; hogs arriving by rail would be slaughtered and made into meat and lard, with various by-products draining directly into the harbor. By the time of the first Sanborn insurance survey in 1886, most of the Long Wharf buildings were occupied by businesses dealing in low-value commodities: in addition to lumber and coal yards and the pork plant, these included another meat-packing plant, rag sorting and storage, kerosene storage, salt packing, and molasses storage. These enterprises depended upon rail shipping as much as waterborne transportation, and so the importance of the wharf itself declined. Increasingly, the north end of the wharf, particularly the part north of Brewery Street, which marks the location of Basin Wharf, was indistinguishable from the surrounding streets of New Haven. Except for a few buildings at the tip, the site of the 1770 “pier,” there were no buildings at all along the southern part of the wharf (Figure 16). In 1890, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad bought the entire wharf from its owners for $100,000, thereby ending its existence as a separate entity (New York Times 1890). According to the 1891 Connecticut Railroad Commissioner’s Report, the railroad’s chief purpose in acquiring the wharf was to avoid the danger of having a public right-of-way (the wharf) crossing its numerous tracks at grade. The railroad cleared off most of the remaining buildings on the north end of the wharf, expanded its freight yard tracks, and built two utilities, an electric-generating plant and a gas plant, to serve its own operations. By the 20th century, all that was left on Long Wharf, other than railroad facilities, were the Sperry & Barnes pork plant and an adjacent facility run by the wholesale butchers Strong, Barnes and Hart (1934 aerial photograph, Figure 18, and 1947 topographical map, Figure 19; see also Sanborn Map and Publishing 1901). Livestock arrived at these plants by rail and finished meat products were shipped out the same way, so the location on

13 Long Wharf had become merely incidental. Osterweis (1953: 427) reported that in 1938 nothing from the north end of Long Wharf could be discerned. Writing in 1896, long after Long Wharf had seen its best days, Charles Townsend probably echoed the common understanding of what Long Wharf had meant for the commercial prosperity of New Haven:

As a commercial city, New Haven owes its chief importance to Long Wharf, and rightly have the citizens fostered it and had its well-being always at heart. It has been one of the most important institutions of the city, and not groundless has been the pride of the wharf merchant in the realization that the building of such a structure, great to undertake at our time, but a far greater undertaking at the time it was done, was completed in the early part of this century (Townsend 1896: 165).

In the middle of the 20th century, highway building obscured about half of what remained visible of the southern half of Long Wharf. Increased congestion along the state’s major shoreline route, U.S. Route 1, led the Connecticut State Highway Department to undertake a number of improvements to that road in the years immediately following World War II. In the vicinity of Long Wharf, the department proposed a major re-routing of the highway across the tidal flats at the north end of New Haven Harbor. The proposed two-lane roadway (Figures 20 and 21), known as the Harborfront Relocation Project, would be on a high embankment, with surface-level frontage roads paralleling the new Route 1. The department designed and let out the contract for the relocation project, and work was well underway by 1951 (see Figure 22). The fill for creating the highway embankment is said to have come from dredging spoils from New Haven Harbor that had been deposited at various points along the waterfront (Talbot 1967: 105). The plans for the fill called for about three feet to be laid over the remains of Long Wharf’s side walls in the vicinity of the frontage roads and about 30 feet for the highway embankment itself. The Harborfront Relocation roadway was not built as originally planned. By 1953, the project was subsumed by plans for the Greenwich-Killingly Expressway, a limited-access four-lane divided highway that would cross the entire width of the state. Already-built or under-construction portions of the Route 1 improvements in Darien, West Haven, New Haven, East Haven, Old Saybrook, and Old Lyme were incorporated into Greenwich-Killingly Expressway (Amman & Whitney 1953: 5). To build the road, the previously constructed embankment was modified for a four-lane width, and the embankment was interrupted for bridges connecting the two frontage roads (Figures 23 and 24). By the time it was completed in the late 1950s, the project was known as the Connecticut Turnpike, the predecessor to today’s Interstate 95 and Interstate 395. At the same time that the Connecticut Turnpike was under construction, the City of New Haven, using large amounts of federal and state aid, undertook a massive urban renewal project just to the north. The entire area between the railroad tracks and the turnpike was filled in to create a level base for the construction of new factories, office buildings, and a produce market. One goal of the project was to keep the Sargent & Company hardware manufacturing plant in New Haven; the old Sargent plant was demolished and a new factory built on the redevelopment parcel, with the north frontage road designated Sargent Drive (Talbot 1967: 158). The ruins of Long Wharf that lay south of the turnpike remained unchanged until the early 1960s: the parallel stone walls, fill, and scattered pilings evident today beyond the end of the modern wharf structure characterized the entire length of the remaining portions of the wharf (Figure 25). By 1963, the New Haven Redevelopment Agency had transformed the waterfront

14 into the present park, and a new structure was completed atop the ruins of the earlier wharf remains, creating the Long Wharf that we see today (Figure 26). The final component of the redevelopment of the area immediately adjacent to Long Wharf occurred in the late 1960s. The Sperry & Barnes pork-processing plant (Figure 27) continued to occupy the location of pre-1810 portions of the wharf, but by 1969 the plant had been replaced by a new headquarters for the Armstrong Rubber Company, a multi-story building designed by internationally known architect Marcel Breuer. Later known as the Pirelli Tire building, today it is part of Ikea, a furniture retailer (see Figure 2 for location of the Pirelli building and the new Ikea building in relation to Long Wharf). In order to summarize the long history of Long Wharf over time, Figure 28 plots the wharf and shoreline at various points of time. As can be seen, although the shoreline at this point of the harbor changed little in the 18th and early 19th centuries, the wharf itself was steadily expanded until reaching its present length in 1838. During the era when railroads were at their height, the land at the north end of the wharf was filled in for the shoreline tracks, the north end of the New Haven rail yard behind Union Station, and other railroad facilities. These and industrial uses such as the pork- processing plant came to obscure the older, north end of the wharf until it was no longer discernible. The final changes came with the construction of the Connecticut Turnpike in the 1950s, which filled in half of what remained, and the construction of the present wharf structure in the early 1960s.

15 V. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBILITY

It is recommended that the remnants of Long Wharf, both those visible at low tide beneath and beyond the modern wharf structure and those that presumably lie buried beneath later fill, be considered an historical archaeological site that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The background research makes it clear that Long Wharf played a vital role in New Haven’s economic history, contributing to its identity as one of Connecticut’s leading centers of trade; it can therefore be considered eligible under Criterion A, association with broad patterns of history. The National Register recognizes two areas of significance that relate directly to Long Wharf: commerce and maritime history (Townsend et al. 1993: 23). It would be impossible to tell either the story of New Haven’s maritime activities or its commercial development without reference to Long Wharf. Long Wharf has an additional claim to eligibility under Criterion A in the area of ethnic heritage. The builder of the portion of the wharf that is most visible today, William Lanson, was a leader in the city’s early African American community and, at least at some points in his life, a successful businessman. Not only was Long Wharf something that New Haven was celebrated for in the historic period, but also the fact that it was built by a person of color was considered a notable distinction. Despite his later notoriety for supposed moral and literary deficiencies, Lanson remains an important figure in local history, a man of many accomplishments who was not afraid to speak up for the rights of the people of his race. National Register Criterion C, embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, is specifically intended to recognize “representatives of the human expression of culture or technology, especially architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering” (Townsend et al. 1993: 22). Long Wharf is an example of the vernacular technology that was applied to wharf building in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it is a particularly early and large example. The visible portion exhibits one of two common methods of building wharfs, depositing earth fill within massive stone walls, and it is likely that the now-buried portions of Long Wharf still preserve some evidence of the other common method, placing earth fill within plank- and-pile bulkheads. Earth and stone wharfs continued to be built throughout the 19th century; one Connecticut wharf of this type, the 1876 Central Vermont Railroad Pier in New London, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Long Wharf, while not as intact as the Central Vermont pier, is much older: it recalls how this technology was traditionally executed, using hand tools, rowed vessels, and horse-powered derricks and pile drivers. In contrast, the Central Vermont pier was the product of steam-powered quarrying, transportation, and construction. The fact that Long Wharf was for many years the nation’s longest wharf suggests that its eligibility under Criterion C could be considered not only at the local but also at the state or even the national level of significance. Nearly all National Register-listed archaeological sites, including historical archaeological sites, are eligible at least in part for their information value, the ability of the site to address important questions in history or prehistory (Criterion D). The remnants of Long Wharf, if subject to additional archaeological analysis, could shed light on the evolution of wharf-building technology. For example, assuming that even a few buried portions of the early portions of the wharf remain intact, one could compare the construction of an 18th-century timber wharf existing fragments of ostensibly similar 19th-century timber wharfs. Was the same species of wood used? Perhaps not; earlier wharf builders had access to types of wood, for example, hard pine, that were much less locally available in the later period. How deep were the piles driven? Were fewer piles

16 used because they were more difficult to drive? What kind of hardware was used? (In the later period, manufactured bolts, nuts, rods, and cable were available; the same items would have been hand-made in the earlier period.) Archaeological analysis could also inform us in greater detail about the 1810 stone portions of the wharf. Again, it would be informative to know the depth of the underlying piling that supports the stone walls (assuming there is timber piling under the walls). Also, the use of rubble masonry for the lower courses is interesting (the New London pier’s walls appear to be ashlar for their entire height). Although it must have been much less expensive than fully cut stone, the rubble masonry would seem to be less suitable for the function of containing the expansive forces associated with the earthen fill within. At the same time, the rubble portions of the wall were less exposed to wave action that the top ashlar courses, and of course, history has rendered the final verdict on its suitability: long portions of William Lanson’s 1810 masonry remains intact nearly two hundred years later. Archaeological investigation could also reveal the interior structure of the wharf, showing whether or not the interior of the walls were stepped or battered and what kind of anchoring or bracing, if any, extends from the walls into the fill. Both these features would have been characteristic of English wharf-building in this period (Du-Plat- Taylor 1949: 65-72). The National Register requires candidate properties to not only possess significance but also to exhibit integrity. According to the National Register, integrity embraces the qualities of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; to be eligible for listing, a property “will possess several, and usually most,” of these qualities (Townsend et al. 1993: 17). Integrity is not the same as being completely intact; archaeological features, in particular, are expected to be fragmentary. Instead, the threshold for integrity is whether or not the property has the ability to convey its significance under whatever criteria it is being nominated. The historic portions of Long Wharf are remnants or ruins of what it looked like in the early 19th century, but the National Register guidelines for historical archaeological sites (Townsend et al. 1993) repeatedly use as examples of eligible properties various ruins of buildings and sites; the key determinant is whether or not a site retains “well-preserved features.” The National Register does not expect everything about a property to be exactly what it was, but rather that enough remain to suggest its original or early appearance and character. Is this the case with the remnants of Long Wharf? Unlike some historic houses and structures, it has not been moved, so its integrity of location is not open to question. The essential design and workmanship of the visible 1810 portion can still be appreciated, despite the imposition of a modern structure on top of it; one can readily perceive that the design consists of fill between two large stone walls, and the workmanship involved in constructing both the rubble and cut-stone portions is apparent. In terms of materials, much (but not all) of the wooden components have disappeared; however, these are known through historical photographs, and in the case of historical archaeological sites, the loss of less permanent materials is expected and does not necessarily result in ineligibility (Townsend et al. 1993: 19). The setting of Long Wharf has changed greatly over time. In place of ships’ masts, warehouses, harborside inns, and coal pockets, the wharf’s setting now consists of an interstate highway, a recreational park and wildlife area, and a modern commercial area created by redevelopment. Some aspects of its setting have not changed: the shallowness of the harbor in this vicinity, the main factor that gave rise to the wharf, is readily apparent at any low tide, and at least facing southward, one could say that the setting is still decidedly maritime. The aspect of feeling is necessarily subjective; the feeling that the remnants of Long Wharf convey may well depend upon which direction one is facing and how high the tide is, but certainly at some low tides, the remnants

17 of Long Wharf have potential to elicit “a historic sense of the property during its period of significance” (Townsend et al. 1993: 20). The aspect of association is a measure of the closeness of the connection between the property and the proposed criteria and areas of significance. The modern wharf, while in the same location and setting and fulfilling some of the same functions of the historic wharf, could not be considered to have a very close connection, since it was built long after Long Wharf’s period of significance. In contrast, the remnants of the historic wharf are very closely associated with the proposed criteria and areas of significance: the wharf was a critical harbor improvement that allowed New Haven’s commercial sector to prosper and grow; as the product of his energy and skill, it is directly associated with William Lanson’s identity as a stonemason and entrepreneur; and as a large and early example of maritime engineering, its information potential is directly associated with questions in the history of this particular technology. The final part of any consideration of integrity, which embraces all of the aspects or qualities discussed above, is whether or not the resource has the ability to “convey its significance.” In terms of the wharf’s information potential (Criterion D), it probably does not matter how many essentially redundant portions of the wharf remain: any portion could probably address the same research questions as other similar portions. Because the substantial portions of Long Wharf are either known to be either relatively intact underneath the current wharf structure or else buried under thick deposits of fill (and therefore most likely intact), Long Wharf would appear to have adequate integrity to answer research questions. In order to convey significance under Criteria A and C, integrity would appear to require some minimum amount of the structure to remain intact, even as an archaeological resource. A few stones piled upon stones would not be adequate to convey the sense of the structure as a notably large wharf, one that was central to the commercial health of New Haven. If there was just a small amount of historic masonry left, would it be adequate to serve as an example of a particular period and type of construction? How much is necessary to convey the sense of Long Wharf as a monumental project undertaken by a black man at a time when African Americans were deprived of the respect, rights, and economic opportunities afforded to other citizens? Clearly, there can be no single quantifiable answer to the question of how much is enough. It is the opinion of the author of this report, however, that 100 feet of both walls and center fill from the 1810 masonry that lies beyond the end of the modern wharf, along with the several hundred more feet of historic masonry on the east side, collectively constitute an assemblage that can convey the size, scale, and importance of Long Wharf in the historic period, as well as memorialize the contributions of one of the city’s leading African Americans, William Lanson. These judgements of significance and integrity represent the informed opinion of the consultant and constitute a recommendation to the government agencies undertaking and reviewing the proposed project. The actual determination of the historic status of the remnants of Long Wharf, that is, the site’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is the responsibility of the state and federal agencies undertaking the project, in consultation with the SHPO and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

18 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Field inspection of the existing Long Wharf pier structure revealed that underneath the modern concrete-slab and riprap structure there remain substantial portions of stonework dating from the extension of the wharf in 1810, the episode that brought the wharf to its maximum length. On the east side, several hundred feet of intact historic stonework remain, at a height of five to six feet. At the end of the modern wharf, both parallel stone walls that define the wharf and the earth, gravel and stone fill in between are visible, at low tide, for another hundred feet. The visible remnant represents about half of the total 1,500 feet built in 1810; the rest of that part of the wharf is buried beneath the embankment for I-95, which was constructed in the early 1950s. Engineering drawings suggest that the fill deposited for the highway lies at a considerable depth over the 1810 portions of the wharf, and there is no indication that the remains of the wharf were disturbed in the process of filling for the highway. There is no way to know what remains of the earlier wharf that extended for more then 2,000 feet northward to Water Street, which in the 18th century was literally on the water. This portion of Long Wharf, built in several stages beginning in the early 18th century or even earlier, was a timber and earth structure which gradually disappeared as the area was taken over in the 19th century for railroad facilities and other industrial purposes. Experience with railroad archaeology suggests that a minimum of disturbance occurred as fill was deposited to construct yards, freight terminals, and engine houses, so it may be that, outside the project area, portions of the earlier wharf could remain as significant archaeological resources. Historical research undertaken for this assessment shows that Long Wharf was an historically important structure that was a vital factor in New Haven’s commercial development and that it was widely known as one of New Haven’s most distinctive landmarks. It also was notable because it was built by an African American who was a successful entrepreneur and a leader in his community, William Lanson. In the opinion of the consultants, the remnants of Long Wharf, both those visible today and those that probably lie undisturbed under later fill, collectively constitute an historical archaeological site that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This eligibility is based upon its importance in the economic history of New Haven and Connecticut as a whole, its association with a prominent figure in New Haven’s early African American community, its significance as an example of vernacular marine engineering, and its potential to answer research questions for the history of technology. The proposed improvements to Interstate 95 (Figure 2) will take place entirely within the existing highway right-of-way, and the construction of the interstate, the parallel frontage roads, and (in some alternatives) Brewery Street is not expected to disturb the existing grade to a depth that would encounter any buried remains of the historic wharf. Additional fill will be added to the existing embankment so as to create the necessary slopes for the widened highway. So long as these assumptions prove valid, it is the recommendation of the consultants that the impacts of all the proposed alternatives on the National Register-eligible resource be considered as no adverse effect. Should the parameters of the proposed undertaking change, particularly should construction for the roadway or associated components be undertaken to a depth that would encounter buried wharf remains, the consultants recommend that consultation with the SHPO be resumed to determine the effects of the project as amended.

19 VII. REFERENCES

Ammon & Whitney Consulting Engineers 1953 An Engineering Report on Estimated Cost for Greenwich-Killingly Expressway. Prepared for Connecticut State Highway Department, November 1953.

Bailey, O. H., and J. C. Hazen 1879 View of New Haven, Conn. 1879. Milwaukee, WI: O. H. Bailey.

Barber, John W. 1836 Connecticut Historical Collections. New Haven, CT: J. H. Benham.

Barber, John W., and Lemuel S. Punderson 18 56 History and Antiquities of New Haven, Conn., From the Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. New Haven, CT: J. H. Benham.

Barre Gazette (Barre, MA) 1843 “ Nuisance Abated–Destruction of the ‘Liberian Hotel’,” December 1, 1843.

Beers, F. W. 1868 Atlas of New Haven County, Connecticut, From Actual Surveys. New York: F. W. Beers, A. D. Ellis & G. G. Soule.

Bogart, James P., and Horace Andrews 1877 City and Vicinity of New Haven Connecticut, Derived Wholly From the Maps of the U.S. Coast Survey and of the City Engineer Department. New York, NY: Julius Bien.

Buckingham, L. W. 1830 Map of the City of New Haven, From Actual Survey. Hartford, CT: Jocelyn, Darling & Co.

Clouette, Bruce 2005 Report: Phase Ia Archaeological Assessment Survey, Hollyhock Island Intermodal Transportation Center, Norwich, Connecticut. Prepared for Milone & MacBroom, Inc. Storrs, CT: Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc.

2006 Photographic Documentation of Above-Ground Resources. Vol. Ib. Archaeological Survey and Historical Documentation, Former Norwich State Hospital Property, Norwich and Preston, Connecticut. Prepared for Connecticut Department of Economic Development. Storrs, CT: Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc.

20 Connecticut Journal (New Haven) 1773 “New Haven Lottery,” December 16, 1772.

1791 “New-Haven Wharf Lottery,” May 11, 1791.

Connecticut Railroad Commission 1891 Annual Report.

Connecticut State Highway Department 1951 Hydraulic Fill, Harborfront Relocation of Route U.S. 1, State Project no. 92-60, plans and profiles, May 1951, Connecticut Department of Transportation File No. 162-12. Newington, CT.

1956 Photographs, Connecticut Turnpike construction. Connecticut State Archives, Department of Transportation Records, Record Group 89, Series 9.

Doolittle, Amos 1824 Plan of New Haven. New Haven, CT: A. Doolittle.

Du-Plat-Taylor, F. M. 1949 The Design, Construction and Maintenance of Docks, Wharves & Piers. 3rd ed. revised. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.

Dwight, Timothy 1821 Travels in New England and New York. New Haven, CT: Dwight S. Converse. Reprinted as Travels in New England and New York, by Timothy Dwight, ed. by Barbara M. Solomon (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969).

Fairchild Aerial Survey 1934 Aerial photographs of Connecticut. Connecticut State Library, Hartford, CT.

Hopkins, G. M. 1888 Atlas of the City of New Haven, Connecticut. Philadelphia, PA.

The Knickerbocker (New York, NY) 1848 “Editor’s Table,” Vol. 32, December 1848. Reprint of poem by William Lanson with commentary.

Lanson, William 1848 William Lanson's Book of Satisfaction, Addressed to the Public. New Haven, CT: Printed for the author.

Maynard, Preston, and Marjorie B. Noyes (eds.) 2004 Carriages and Clocks, Corsets and Locks: the Rise and Fall of an Industrial City–New Haven, Connecticut. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

21 New Haven, City of 1821 “City of New-Haven Mayor’s Office, January 29, 1821.” Broadside circular asking other communities to respond with financial aid to the Long Wharf fire of October 26, 1820.

New York Herald 1845 “Potter’s Final Confession,” February 20, 1845.

New York Times 1890 “The New-Haven and Hartford Buys a Wharf,” September 23, 1890.

Osterweis, Rollin G. 1953 Three Centuries of New Haven, 1638-1938. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sanborn Map and Publishing Company 1886 - Insurance maps of New Haven. Microfilm, Connecticut State Library, Hartford, 1951 CT.

Senich, Karen 1007 Letter of Karen Senich, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, to Allan A. Hodges, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., regarding the I-95 Long Wharf Improvement Project, August 1, 2007.

Stiles, Ezra 1775 Map of New Haven, 1775. In The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, D.D., LL.D., ed. by Franklin B. Dexter (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901), p. 275.

Talbot, Allan R. 1967 The Mayor's Game: Richard Lee of New Haven and the Politics of Change. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Townsend, Jan et al. 1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts. Washington, DC: National Park Service.

Townsend, Charles H. 1896 “New Haven Harbor,” Connecticut Magazine 2 (1896), 161-65.

Trowbridge, Thomas R. 1865 “History of Long Wharf in New Haven.” Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society, Vol 1. New Haven, CT: Thomas J. Stafford.

1897 “Ancient Maritime Interests of New Haven.” In The New England States, Their Constitutional, Judicial, Educational, Commercial, Professional and Industrial History (Boston: D. H. Hurd), ed. by William T. Davis, Vol. II, 744-814.

22 U.S. Census Office 1850 Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, manuscript population schedules. Microfilm, Connecticut State Library, Hartford.

U.S. Coast Survey 1838 New Haven Harbour, Sounding Sheet No. 14. Washington, DC.

U. S. Department of Agriculture 1951 Aerial photographs of Connecticut. Connecticut State Library, Hartford, CT.

U.S. Geological Survey 1949 New Haven Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series, Scale 1:24000.

Wadsworth, James 1748 A Plan of the Town of New Haven, With All the Buildings in 1748. New Haven, CT: T. Kensett (published in 1806).

Warren, Moses, and George Gillet 1813 Connecticut, from Actual Survey Made in 1811. Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin.

Warner, Robert A. 1940 New Haven Negroes, a Social History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Webster, Noah 1828 An American Dictionary of the English Language. New York, NY: S. Converse.

Weekly Eagle (Springfield, VT) 1848 Review of the current issue of The Knickerbocker, including a poem by William Lanson, December 21, 1848.

Whiteford, R. 1852 Map of the County of New Haven, Connecticut, From Actual Surveys. New Haven, CT: R. Budington & R. Whiteford.

The Visitor (New Haven, CT) 1803 Various advertisements, January 1, 1803.

23