REPORT

PHASE IB CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY

AND HISTORIC RAIL FEATURE DOCUMENTATION

BLOOMFIELD GREENWAY MULTI-USE TRAIL

BLOOMFIELD, CONNECTICUT

Prepared for

BL Companies 355 Research Parkway Meriden, CT 06450

By

Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. 569 Middle Turnpike P.O. Box 543 Storrs, CT 06268

Authors:

Brian Jones, Ph.D. Bruce Clouette, Ph.D. Ross K. Harper, Ph.D.

February 6, 2014 Revised March 20, 2015

ABSTRACT

The Town of Bloomfield, Connecticut, is planning construction of Section 1 of the Bloomfield Greenway Multi-Use Trail. The trail runs from Station 100+00 (Tunxis Avenue, Route 189/187) at the north to Station 186+00 (Tunxis Avenue, Route 189/187) at the south (Figure 1). Most of the Base Phase, which measures 8,285 feet (2,524 meters) in length, will follow the former Connecticut Western/Central New England Rail Line. The trail is planned to be approximately 11 feet wide. A 50-foot-long prefabricated bridge will span Griffin Brook, at the location of a former railroad bridge which is no longer extant. The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), Office of Environmental Planning (OEP), reviewed the proposed project and noted that the project area, or Area of Potential Effect (APE), possesses pre-colonial Native American archaeological sensitivity, and contains rail-related historic resources that are potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ConnDOT recommended that a Phase IB subsurface reconnaissance survey be conducted along portions of the proposed trail under current design that are archaeologically sensitive. ConnDOT further recommended that the eligibility of historic-rail-related features for listing in the National Register of Historic Places be assessed. Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. (AHS) conducted the recommended cultural resources survey in December 2013. A very small Native American lithic flake scatter was identified during the survey. Intensive testing around the scatter, designated Site 11-13, identified no additional associated cultural materials. Site 11-13 does not appear to be National Register-eligible based on the low artifact count, lack of diagnostic artifacts or features, and compromised integrity. The site, however, may extend outside of the APE. A number of historic-period rail-related engineering features were identified and documented. None of these are considered to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and none are expected to be impacted by the proposed undertaking. In June of 2014, a 2,437-foot-long (743 meters) extension to the southern end of the Base Phase was tested at the request of OEP. From this section of the project, which was labeled Alternative 2, a small number of late historic-period artifacts and a quartz Lamoka projectile point were recovered from fill and disturbed contexts. No further work is recommended in this portion of the project area, as it is unlikely to recover intact cultural resources.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract …………...…………………………………………………………………………….…. i

List of Figures …………….………………………………………………………………………….…. iii

List of Photographs ………………………………………………………………………………..… iv

I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK ………………………………………………... 1 A. Introduction …...……………………………………………………………………... 1 B. Scope of Work …...………….………………………………………………………….. 1

II. PHASE IB SURVEY TASKS ……………………………………………………………….… 3

III. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH ……………... 5 A. Environmental Context ………………………………………………..……………..…. 5 B. Pre-Colonial Native American Context ……………………………………………..…. 7 C. Historical Background of the APE Vicinity ………………………………….………….... 16 D. History of the Former Rail Line ………………………………………………..…….... 18

IV. RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ……………..……………………..… 19

V. RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION OF HISTORIC RAIL FEATURES …………………….. 22

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ……………….……………………... 24

VII. REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………….……………….... 26

APPENDIX I Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 34

APPENDIX II Photographs …………………………………………………………………….…………… 58

APPENDIX III Test Pit Profiles …………………………………………………………………….………….... 78

APPENDIX IV Artifact Inventory Catalogues ……………………………………………………...………... 98

APPENDIX V Archaeological Site Inventory Form ………………………………………………...... … 102

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project area on USGS topographic quadrangle

Figure 2 Documented archaeological sites within one mile of the APE

Figure 3 1855 Woodford county wall map showing project area

Figure 4 1869 Baker and Tilden atlas map showing project area

Figure 5 1893 USGS quadrangle map showing project area

Figure 6 1931 Dolph and Stewart map showing project area

Figure 7 1934 Fairchild aerial photograph showing project area

Figure 8 ca. 1925 photograph of Central New England Railroad in Bloomfield

Figure 9 ca. 1925 photograph of Barnards Station

Figure 10 Overview of Base Phase shovel test pits on USGS topographic map

Figure 11 Location of engineering features along rail line depicted on USGS topographic map

Figure 12 Project plans with railroad features identified in Base Phase

Figure 13 Project plans with railroad features identified in Base Phase

Figure 14 Project plans with railroad features identified in Base Phase

Figure 15 Project plans with railroad features identified in Base Phase

Figure 16 Project plans with railroad features identified in Base Phase

Figure 17 Project plans with railroad features identified in Base Phase

Figure 18 Project plans with shovel test pits identified in Base Phase

Figure 19 Project plans with shovel test pits identified in Base Phase

Figure 20 Project plans with shovel test pits identified in Base Phase

Figure 21 Project plans of showing areas of disturbance in Alternative 2

Figure 22 Project plans showing areas of disturbance in Alternative 2

Figure 23 Project plans showing areas of disturbance and shovel test pits in Alternative 2

iii

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1 Excavation of shovel test pit A1

Photograph 2 Modern culvert near Station 25+00

Photograph 3 Modern culvert near Station 39+00

Photograph 4 Rock cut near Station 54+00

Photograph 5 Second rock cut near Station 54+00

Photograph 6 Rail-top culvert near Station 59+00

Photograph 7 Rail-top culvert near Station 59+00

Photograph 8 Rail-top culvert near Station 59+00

Photograph 9 Stone-slab culvert near Station 61+00

Photograph 10 Stone-slab culvert near Station 61+00

Photograph 11 Stone-slab culvert near Station 61+00

Photograph 12 West side of embankment through which the culvert near Station 61+00 passes

Photograph 13 South Griffin bridge abutment near Station 66+00

Photograph 14 North Griffin bridge abutment near Station 66+00

Photograph 15 Modern pipe culvert near Station 83+00

Photograph 16 Concrete-slab culvert/bridge near Station 94+00

Photograph 17 Concrete-slab culvert/bridge near Station 94+00

Photograph 18 Concrete-slab culvert/bridge near Station 94+00

Photograph 19 Late Archaic-period quartz Lamoka projectile point recovered from test pit AT2-3

iv

I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK

A. Introduction The Town of Bloomfield, Connecticut, is planning the design and construction of Section 1 (the Base Phase) of the Bloomfield Greenway Multi-Use Trail. The trail runs from Station 100+00 (Tunxis Avenue, Route 189/187) at the north to Station 186+00 (Tunxis Avenue, Route 189/187) at the south (Figure 1). Most of the Base Phase will follow the former Connecticut Western/Central New England rail line. The trail is planned to be approximately 8, 285 feet (2524 m) long and 11 feet (3.4 m) wide. Near Station 100+00, Tunxis Avenue, grading and the construction of a parallel switchback handicapped- access ramp are planned. A 50-foot-long prefabricated bridge will span Griffin Brook, at the location of a former railroad bridge, no longer extant. In June of 2014 the Alternative 2 section of the Multi-Use Trail was added to the southern end of the project. Alternative 2 is 2437 feet (743 m) long; it follows a short section of Route 187/189 and Tunxis Avenue (Route 189) and it terminates on Day Hill Road (Figure 1). The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), Office of Environmental Planning (OEP), reviewed the proposed project and noted that the project area, or Area of Potential Effect (APE), possesses pre-colonial Native American archaeological sensitivity and contains rail-related historic resources that are potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ConnDOT recommended that “Phase IB subsurface reconnaissance survey be conducted along virtually the entire length of Phase C and the northernmost section of Phase A [both contained in Section 1 or the Base Phase in the project’s current nomenclature]”; these portions of the APE were considered archaeologically sensitive based on the proximity to an array of pre-colonial Native American sites identified along Griffin Brook and the Farmington River (Speal 2013). ConnDOT further recommended that the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of historic rail-related features along the trail be assessed. ConnDOT’s recommendations were made in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which requires federally-assisted or permitted undertakings to take into account their efforts on cultural (i.e., archaeological and/or historical) resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. (AHS) conducted the recommended cultural resources survey under contract to BL Companies. The results of the survey are presented in this report.

B. Scope of Work The purpose of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey is to identify all archaeological or historical resources that may be affected by a proposal project. Phase I survey is typically divided into two stages: Phase IA and Phase IB. The purpose of a Phase IA survey is to identify areas of archaeological sensitivity (that is, areas with sufficient soil integrity to contain intact subsurface archaeological deposits) and any above-ground historic resources such as buildings or structures. The tasks of a Phase IA survey include background research in the archaeological site files of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Office of State Archaeology (OSA); review of professional and avocational work conducted in the project vicinity, including cultural resource management (CRM) survey reports, articles, and unpublished information; research in historic maps as well as primary and secondary sources; consultation with individuals knowledgeable about the project area’s archaeological and historical resources; and consultation with Native American tribes about possible religious or cultural concerns within the APE. This research is designed to predict the locations of archeological and historical resources and to provide historical contexts in which to interpret identified archaeological sites and historical resources. ConnDOT conducted preliminary background research on the APE’s pre-colonial Native American and post-Colonial Euro-American history and related resources within the APE, noting railroad structures that may be significant, and a concentration of Native American sites adjacent to the APE. An extensive pre-colonial Native American context was already available for the APE, from a Ph.D. dissertation study (Banks 2000) and a CL&P-related CRM survey report (Raber et al. 2010). Other Phase IA tasks include a walkover survey to identify any above-ground structures, buildings, or visible remnants of archaeological sites such as mill ruins. The walkover also assesses the

1

integrity, or degree of disturbance, of the APE, which is related to the potential for intact archaeological sites to be present. ConnDOT completed a preliminary walkover survey as part of its review, and noted some rail-related structural remains. AHS conducted a walkover survey to refine the assessment of areas of archaeological sensitivity, and to identify historic rail-related features and assess their National Register eligibility. The purpose of Phase IB survey is to locate buried archaeological sites through systematic shovel-test-pit investigations. Phase IB testing is only conducted in portions of a project area that are demonstrated in Phase IA survey as having moderate to high archaeological sensitivity. This sensitivity is evidenced by the absence of major ground disturbance, the location of an APE in an environmental context known to be associated with pre-colonial Native American sites, the proximity to recorded archaeological sites, and surface indications of possible subsurface archaeological remains. As noted by ConnDOT, the southern two-thirds of the Base Phase was obviously disturbed by the construction of the rail line and subsequent use as a power transmission corridor; as a consequence, it was not considered archaeologically sensitive. In the northern third of the proposed trail, however, ConnDOT collected pre-colonial artifacts from the ground surface in the “same general area” as Site 11-2, the Indian Hill Site, recorded in the early 1990s (Banks 2000), and observed level terrain judged to have the potential for containing undisturbed archaeological deposits (Speal 2013). Phase IB subsurface testing was therefore undertaken to determine whether intact, buried archaeological deposits are present in the APE, associated with Site 11-2 or the multiple pre-Contact archaeological sites discovered nearby in a recent archaeological survey associated with a CL&P electrical power project (Raber et al. 2010). The archaeological survey of the Alternative 2 section of the proposed multi-use trail was conducted in June 2014. This section begins at the southern portion of the Base Phase of the trail at Route 187/189. The Alternative 2 section continues south along the west side of Tunxis Avenue (Route 189) and then turns east on the north side of Day Hill Road and will end at a proposed parking lot. The trail is 743 meters (2,437 feet) long. All but the section of the APE along the north side of Day Hill Road and the proposed terminus parking lot were considered disturbed from road construction and active utility work at the time of the archaeological testing. The archaeological survey was conducted in accordance with the SHPO’s Environmental Review Primer for Connecticut’s Archaeological Resources, the guiding standards for all archaeological work performed in Connecticut.

2

II. PHASE IB SURVEY TASKS

ConnDOT conducted a preliminary Phase IA survey of the Base Phase portion of the project area and determined that the northern third of the trail was archaeologically sensitive. This section of the APE was subjected to subsurface archaeological testing. The southern portion of the Base Phase, from Station 186+00 to 158+00, has little or no archaeological potential as it is situated within an existing railroad bed, therefore it was not tested. AHS surveyed the Alternative 2 portion of the project area in June, 2014. Subsurface testing was conducted in the southern part of Alternative 2, but the northern part of this trail section was not tested due to extensive roadside disturbance in the form of cutting and filling, as well as active utilities work in this area. The tasks of the Phase IB survey included the following:

1. Document Research. A considerable amount of professional archaeological investigation has been conducted in the APE environs. A review of the SHPO/OSA site files by AHS indicates that in addition to Site 11-2, a roughly 8000-square-meter multi-component Native American site located in the immediate environs of the APE (Banks 2000), a significant concentration of pre-colonial Native American sites was identified in the Griffin Brook area in archaeological investigations associated with the CL&P electrical substation and power-line construction in the APE vicinity (Raber et al 2010) (Figure 2). Most of the latter sites have been determined to be National Register-eligible and are under consideration for designation as a State Archaeological Preserve (Speal 2013; SHPO, personal communication). The Farmington River Valley, especially near tributaries to the River such as Griffin Brook, has long been established as containing significant concentrations of pre-Contact Native American sites (Feder 1981). Extensive archaeological excavations were undertaken at the substation site (Raber et al 2010), and at Site 11-2, which was the focus of a doctoral dissertation (Banks 2000). Based on this data and the identification of surface artifacts, undisturbed or minimally disturbed portions of the APE were assessed as having high archaeological potential. AHS conducted a small amount of documentary research in railroad histories, such as Ronald Karr’s The Rail Lines of Southern New England (1995), Turner and Jacobus’s Connecticut's Railroads - An Illustrated History (1986) and other railroad histories (Stevens 1969; Turner and Jacobus 1986; Karr 1995; Dowd and Dowd 2005); in published histories of Simsbury and Bloomfield (e.g., Phelps 1845 and Wintonbury Historical Society 1983) to establish a local historical context; and in historical maps and aerial photographs (Figures 3-9) to document land uses along the non-rail portion of the project (i.e., Base Phase from Station 132+80 to 100+00). Although controlled by the New Haven Railroad, the Connecticut Western/Central New England was operated as a separate company for much of its history. Therefore, archival sources at the Railroad History Collection, Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut, are not as extensive as for most rail lines in Connecticut. Nevertheless, the Dodd Research Center has numerous early 20th-century photographs showing the rail line that could be informative and were consulted.

2. Consultation. Project engineers and the Town Engineer were interviewed to ascertain whether non- apparent disturbance has occurred in the northern part of the proposed trail. ConnDOT’s OEP was kept abreast of the archaeological fieldwork schedule in order to facilitate the Native American consultation process, which was conducted by ConnDOT.

3. Walkover Inspection. Aerial photographs and a drive-by view of the APE suggested there may be micro-areas of disturbance within the northern Base Phase section, from Station 100+00 to 158+00. The archaeologically sensitive area was originally estimated by the Town of Bloomfield at 4000 linear feet. Based on a desktop survey conducted during the winter, when a field visit was not possible, AHS reassessed the sensitive area as comprising 3,300 linear feet. At the time of the walkover survey, however, visual assessment of the APE revealed more extensive disturbance,

3

lowering the archaeologically sensitive portions of the project area to 2132 linear feet. Phase IB subsurface survey was confined to areas designated as having moderate to high sensitivity. Based on aerial photographs and a walkover inspection of the Alternative 2 section of the APE, AHS determined that only the areas north of Day Hill Road and west of Station 200+000, comprising 442 linear feet, were archaeologically sensitive. The remainder of Alternative 2 has undergone extensive disturbance from road and utility work, and was therefore determined to have low archaeological sensitivity.

4. Subsurface Testing and Laboratory Processing. The SHPO standards call for shovel test pits placed at intervals no greater than 15 meters (50 feet); this interval is designed to intercept even small buried archaeological sites. Where warranted, judgment pits and array (bracket) test pits were added to investigate areas of microsensitivity missed by the interval testing or to explore apparent significant artifact or feature finds. The test pits were dug by hand with shovel and trowel, in 10- to 20- centimeter levels, until sterile soils (C Horizon) or impenetrable objects impeded further excavation of the pits. All excavated soil was screened through ¼-inch mesh to ensure recovery of even small artifacts. All recovered artifacts were bagged and transported to AHS’s laboratories where they were cleaned, catalogued, and bagged and boxed in archival containers for permanent curation. The pits were backfilled immediately upon completion and the ground contour restored. The test pit locations were mapped onto project plans, and stratigraphic profiles of each pit were drawn (see Appendices I and III).

5. Identification and Evaluation of Historic Rail-Related Structures. This task includes identification and evaluation of historic rail-related structures such as the stone-lined culvert and former rail bridge abutments noted by ConnDOT (Speal 2013). AHS Senior Historian Bruce Clouette, an acknowledged railroad expert, recorded visible structures and made an assessment of their National Register eligibility, as requested by ConnDOT (Speal 2013).

6. Data Analysis and Report Preparation. AHS produced an end-of-fieldwork memorandum in December 2013. This report provides a more thorough summary of the survey results, in narrative and graphic form, including recommendations regarding identified archaeological sites. The results of the identification and evaluation of historic rail-related features are also included in this report.

4

III. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH

The purpose of this section is to provide general information on the environmental and cultural context of the project area; this information can help predict the types of cultural resources that may be present within the APE, and help interpret resources identified in the APE. Even in a small state such as Connecticut, significant variations in topography, climate, and geology on the local level are expressed in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Variations in habitat can yield complex and dynamic mosaics of distinctive plant and animal communities. Humans, like most species, are sensitive to these variations, and can generally be expected to settle in areas providing both reliable and predictable resources. While climate change over the course of the last 11,000 years has repeatedly transformed the environment in the southern New England, many basic characteristics of the landscape itself have remained relatively stable. Local geology and topography present important controls on the development and potential organization of habitats, and thus provide archaeologists with one means of identifying enduring features of the landscape around which people in the past would have organized themselves.

A. Environmental Context

A.1 Bedrock, Glacial Geology and Sediments The town of Bloomfield lies within the relatively level Hartford Mesozoic Basin that defines Connecticut’s Central Lowlands. The Mesozoic Basin developed when a rift formed within the older Paleozoic Iapetos Terrane about 190 million years ago. This rift slowly widened, filling with the sandy sediments that now form the underlying Portland arkose (brownstone) “red beds” of the valley. This bedrock formation underlies the APE except where it is bisected by intrusive basalt flows which form the Talcott Mountain range (Metacomet Ridge). The first of these basalt flows, consisting of Hampden Basalt, lies about midway along the APE. Here the former rail line was forced to blast through the bedrock outcrop (see engineering features discussed below in Section V). The basalt ridge continues beneath the APE for about a tenth of a mile (0.2 km) in this area, marked by relatively steep terrain. Beyond the Hampden basalt intrusion, the proposed trail returns to Mesosoic Basin bedrock, now consisting of East Berlin Formation reddish-brown shales. The final 350 feet (0.1 km) of the APE is underlain by a second intrusive basalt formation (Holyoke Basalt) and a return to more rugged terrain. Most of the future Section E of the proposed trail line (not part of the current APE) continues north across this basalt ridge, following the bedrock cut formed by the ancient Farmington River. Overall, these shifts in bedrock mark changes from low level areas interspersed with streams and wetlands, to areas of greater relief less amenable to human habitation. In fact, 14 of the 15 recorded archaeological sites closest to the APE (Figure 2) lie on East Berlin Formation Mesozoic shale, while only one is associated with an adjacent basalt flow. Basalt outcrops were an important source of hard stone materials for both groundstone and flaked tools in the traditional pre-colonial lithic economy of the region. The valley bedrock was repeatedly scoured and smoothed during various Ice Ages over the past two million years. Glacial deposits consisting of till and outwash sediments now drape the bedrock of the Central Lowlands and form the primary substrate within which soils developed after the last retreat of glacial ice about 15,000 years ago. Superimposed upon the tills in many parts of the valley are a series of sediments deposited by glacial ponds, lakes and streams. The most significant of these water bodies was Glacial Lake Hitchcock, a massive lake system that extended from Rocky Hill and New Britain north as far north as St. Johnsbury, Vermont, until about 12,500 radiocarbon years ago. Massive silt beds were deposited within this lake bottom over its ca. 3,000-year history. Base Phase Stations 186+00 to 158+00 and Alternative 2 of the project area are underlain by these glacial lake bed sediments. Most of the middle portion of the APE consists of coarser glacial till materials. The northern portion of the APE, north of Griffin Brook (Base Phase section between Stations 100+00 and 158+00) are underlain by undifferentiated glacial meltwater deposits, likely reflecting ice-contact and meltwater zones predating the formation of glacial Lake Hitchcock. Such landforms are typified by glacial kames and similar features that provide terraces of well-drained sandy soils often very suitable to human habitation. In fact, it is this

5

area that was considered to be archaeologically sensitive by ConnDOT (Speal 2013). The northern third of the trail returns to a stonier till landscape. Till areas are generally considered to be less archaeologically sensitive, although the presence of sites cannot be ruled out. Of the 15 closest documented archaeological sites, 10 are associated with meltwater deposits, three with stream terrace deposits, and just one with till (deposits).

A.2 Soils The APE is comprised of a variety of soil types, based on their USDA classifications at the state level. The following table summarizes soil within each of the three proposed greenway sections that are part of the current APE. Trail phases and their associated soils are listed from south to north (Figure 1).

Greenway Associated Soils Section Base Phase Udorthents-Urban land complex, Windsor loamy sand, 0-3% slopes, Merrimac sandy loam, (Stations 0-3% slopes 186+00 to 158+00) Base Phase Sudbury sandy loam, 0-5% slopes, Merrimac sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, Cheshire-Holyoke (Station complex, 3-15% slopes, very rocky, Sudbury sandy loam, 0-5% slopes 158+00 to 132+80) Base Phase Windsor loamy sand, 0-3% and 8-15% slopes, Raypol silt loam, Merrimac sandy loam, 0- (Stations 3% slopes, Ninigret and Tisbury soils, 0-5% slopes, very rocky Cheshire-Holyoke 132+80 to complex, 3-15% slopes, Holyoke-Rock outcrop complex, 15-45% slopes 100+00) Alternative Udorthents-Urban land complex, Merrimac sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, Windsor loamy sand, 2 0-3% slopes

Sediments along much of the rail line were disturbed or buried during rail construction in the 19th century, although this is not reflected in the state-level soil designations. The APE along the Base Phase (up to Griffin Brook) is too disturbed to have the potential to contain intact archaeological deposits. North of Griffin Brook, ConnDOT noted that sites with good soil integrity could exist, and the area was recommended for archaeological testing (Speal 2013). AHS commenced Phase IB testing within Sudbury sandy loam north of Griffin Brook in the Base Phase, testing areas of Windsor and Merrimac sandy loam except in areas of steep relief. A small portion of the trail running over Raypol silt loam was also not tested as it had been filled and leveled. The area of Ninigret and Tisbury soils is associated with an active farm machinery area and has been significantly altered; this portion of the proposed trail was not tested. Although the sediments were stonier, the following section of Cheshire-Holyoke complex was tested and Native American artifacts were identified (see below). The remaining portion of the northern Base Phase consisted of Holyoke-Rock outcrop complex. Two shovel test pits were placed in these sediments, but the remaining portion of the trail was significantly disturbed and testing was deemed unnecessary (see results of testing in Section IV).

A.3 Ecological Context The ecological context of the project area, including geology, soils, and climate, indicates that a variety of habitats and resources of economic importance were available to pre-colonial and early historic populations in the area. The local landscape was appropriate for hunting and gathering of forest resources and those of small wetland habitats. The Farmington River is located just over a hundred yards (0.1 km) from the north end of the APE, and this constriction point was certainly an important Native American

6

fishing station for millennia (Banks 2000). Prime farmland soils occur at several places along the APE and would have provided planting grounds for the region’s early farmers. The APE falls within the Connecticut Valley ecoregion of the Northeastern Coastal zone (CT DEEP GIS). The topography is mostly level to rolling. To the east, the rolling hills are interrupted by higher hills and ridges associated with basalt dikes, as noted above. The Connecticut River Valley’s climate is milder than that of the surrounding uplands and provides a longer growing season (135-180 frost-free days). The environment is considered mesic (moist), receiving 38 to 52 inches of rain annually. The loamy soils and generally level terrain would have been especially attractive to early Native American farming communities and later to European settlers. Suburban development is prevalent in Bloomfield, though cropland and pasture remain in some areas. Mixed deciduous forests dominate much of the uncultivated area. These forests consist of mixed oak and oak-conifers including northern red oak- black oak-chestnut oak forest, oak-hemlock-white pine forest, and red oak-sugar maple transition forest. The Connecticut Valley provided excellent hunting opportunities for mobile foragers, and the Connecticut River and its major tributaries (such as the nearby Farmington River), represented central transportation routes. Much of the region was well-suited for late pre-colonial large-scale community- based farming settlements. Maize was introduced to the Native communities of the Connecticut River Valley by about 1000 AD. The broad and rich alluvial landscapes of Connecticut River Valley to the east were particularly conducive to the growth of maize and other early cultigens, and permanent horticultural village sites appear in the region after ca. 1300 AD. Bloomfield and Windsor’s adjacent lowlands also provided fertile soils well-suited to a pattern of shifting horticulture where floodplains were not available. The APE represents a portion of a broader landscape that was once rich in terrestrial game, freshwater fish, and economically important wild plant species. Native groups living in the Central Connecticut Valley likely derived their sustenance from a wide variety of plants and animals, reflecting the diversity of ecological communities present in the region. The Connecticut River, and its tributaries like the Farmington River, provided ample enough fishing resources to support numerous communities throughout the valley. Primary fished resources included Atlantic salmon, shad, sturgeon, eel and lamprey. Freshwater lake and stream game fish included brook trout, brown bullhead, calico bass, chain pickerel, lake trout, pumpkinseed, white catfish, white perch, and yellow perch (Whitworth 1996). Important local freshwater shellfish species include alewife floater, eastern elliptio, eastern floater, eastern pond mussel, and eastern lamp mussel. Freshwater wetlands located along smaller tributary streams like Griffin Brook would have also provided starchy plants such as cattail, bulrush, water plantain, blue flag iris and water lily, as well as small game species (muskrat, beaver, etc.) that were important for both food and fur. Finally, the forested hills and traprock ridges of the central valley offered large game, in particular white-tailed deer. Other large mammals included grey wolf and black bear (moose and elk were likely uncommon). Small game animals of the valley still include woodchuck, raccoon, cottontail and gray squirrel. Fishers and smaller members of the weasel family, as well as bobcat, were taken for their pelts. Turkey and passenger pigeon were also important to the diet, as were smaller birds. Blueberry was likely abundant in mid- to late summer along the drier upland ridges in the northern portion of the APE, while hickory, acorns and chestnut were important resources in the late summer and early autumn. Groves of such nut trees were likely tended by Native American families to promote the harvest of edible nut meats.

B. Pre-Colonial Native American Context Below we present a synopsis of the region’s pre-colonial history as background context relative to potential Native American resources located within the APE.

B.1 Paleoindian Period (11,000-9,000 BP) In the Northeast, the Paleoindian Period dates from 11,000 to 9,500 BP (as measured in radiocarbon years), during the final glacial period known as the Younger Dryas. This was a time marked by a return to severe glacial conditions after a brief warming phase (McWeeney 1999). The earliest

7

archaeological evidence for human occupation in the New England region dates to approximately 11,000 BP (Spiess et al. 1998) and in Connecticut to around 10,200 BP (Jones 1997; Moeller 1980). Sites from this period are characterized by distinctive fluted points and flaked stone assemblages dominated by unifacial tools such as side- and end-scrapers. The exploitation of a wide range of food resources, including small and large game, fish, wild plant foods, and perhaps extinct megafauna is assumed, but poorly documented (Jones 1998; Meltzer 1988). Caribou is believed by most archaeologists to have played a significant, if seasonal role in subsistence. The archaeological record suggests a settlement system based on small, highly mobile social groups exploiting dispersed seasonally available resources. Data reflecting Paleoindian Period land-use patterns and subsistence activities in the Northeast is relatively scarce (Spiess et al 1998). Few intact Paleoindian sites have been found in Connecticut. Only two have been investigated and published in detail: the Templeton Site in Washington (Moeller 1980, 1984) and the Hidden Creek Site on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Ledyard (Jones 1997). A handful of other sites have received more cursory attention. Former State Archaeologist Nicholas Bellantoni noted that about 50 fluted points have been recovered as isolated finds across Connecticut (Bellantoni 1995). The scarcity of sites indicates that population density was likely very low at this time. Poor site visibility is also likely a factor of small site size and a high degree of landscape disturbance over the years. Because Paleoindian sites are so rare, any information regarding this time period is viewed as highly significant. Critical research questions pertain to the colonization process (e.g., Jones 2004) and adaptation to the changing glacial-postglacial environment (Jones 1998; Spiess et al 1998). A better understanding of lithic sources has led to improved information about the extent and directionality of raw material transport. During this period, foragers are known to have been highly mobile, utilizing a very broad resource base, and the acquisition of exotic raw materials is generally seen as embedded within normal co-residential group movements. Sites have become more common in northern New England over the past decade, while little new information has been unearthed in southern New England. Environmental data suggest that northern New England might have provided the most ideal caribou habitats, and therefore people tended to settle most densely in that area. If this is the case, it raises the question of how these early foragers utilized the more temperate forests of southern New England and how adaptations to this region are expressed archaeologically. Although no Paleoindian sites are documented within a mile of the APE, they could be present. The absence of local Paleoindian sites is likely simply a reflection of the limited number of professional archaeological surveys in the area. Across New England, Paleoindian sites are most often associated with sandy sediments adjacent to wetlands, but could also occur anywhere along the Connecticut River’s Pleistocene lowlands. It is probable that the Central Lowlands provided an important grazing area for Late Pleistocene herds of caribou, and upland sites were probably positioned as lookout points in areas similar to the APE. The early Farmington River may also have provided important fish resources even in this early period. Evidence for Paleoindian fishing is uncommon, but has been documented at the Shawnee- Minisink Site in Pennsylvania (Dent 2002).

B.2 Archaic Period (9,500-2,700 BP) The Archaic Period dates from 10,000 to 2,700 BP in the Northeast and is characterized by generalist hunter-gatherer populations utilizing a variety of seasonally available resources. The period is subdivided into the Early, Middle and Late Archaic Periods on the basis of associated changes in environment, projectile point styles and inferred adaptations (Snow 1980; McBride 1984). Each sub- period is discussed briefly below.

B.2.1 The Early Archaic Period (9,500-8,000 BP). Pollen evidence indicates a gradual trend toward a warmer climate beginning around 10,000 BP (McWeeney 1999). By this time Pleistocene megafauna had disappeared, and were replaced by modern cool-temperate game species such as moose, muskrat and beaver. Deer may not have become abundant until the end of this period when oak began to dominate upland forests. Plant and animal resources may

8

have become more predictable and abundant as the climate stabilized, permitting Early Archaic populations to exploit a somewhat wider range of seasonal resources. Population density appears to have remained low during this period, as reflected in the poor representation of Early Archaic sites in the regional archeological record. This low representation could be due in part to changing environmental conditions which have deeply buried, inundated or destroyed many early sites by erosion, or to the difficulty of recognizing some Early Archaic assemblages (Funk 1997; Jones 1998; Forrest 1999). Stone tool assemblages dating to the Early Archaic Period have been recovered from several sites in the Northeast and indicate that this period can be characterized by a number of distinct traditions. The most poorly understood period, that between 9,500 and 9,000 BP, appears to reflect both local Late Paleoindian and intrusive southern Piedmont Tradition Early Archaic influences. A quartz lithic industry in which projectile points are extremely rare occurs locally between roughly 9,000 and 8,500 BP as demonstrated at the Sandy Hill Site on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation (Forrest 1999, Jones and Forrest 2003). The site represents a local expression of a much broader techno-complex referred to as the Gulf of Maine Archaic Tradition (GMAT) (Robinson et al. 1992). Sandy Hill produced evidence of multiple semi-subterranean living structures and a variety of plant-food remains, including abundant cattail root and hazelnuts. The period concludes with the appearance of an apparently intrusive temperate forest-adapted culture utilizing bifurcate-based projectile points typically manufactured from non-regional materials about 8,500 years ago (Jones 1998, 1999). The Dill Farm Site in East Haddam is one of the best- documented bifurcate sites in Connecticut (Pfeiffer 1986). Archaeological investigations at this site have identified cooking/refuse features, quartz flakes, retouched tools, bifurcate-based projectile points, and subsistence remains including charred nuts and mammal bone associated with a radiocarbon date of 8560 +/- 270 BP. Bifurcate points are documented throughout the state, though most appear to represent isolated finds without apparent associated artifacts. Bifurcate points are commonly manufactured from rhyolite, with a probable Boston Basin source. Many are also manufactured from chert (usually acquired in eastern New York), but few are made from local lithic materials such as quartzite. The discovery of the Sandy Hill Site completely rewrote the understanding of the Early Archaic period in southern New England, and regional archaeologists are still coming to grips with its new data. It now appears that a tradition very focused on the use of wetland resources had developed in the region. This culture was highly adapted to local resources and utilized predominantly local raw materials in a way that appears to mark an abrupt shift from the prior Paleoindian pattern. The Sandy Hill Site indicates that GMAT sites are most likely to be located adjacent to major wetlands in areas of well-drained sediments. The small wetlands within the APE are unlikely to have supported a similarly large occupation, but small GMAT sites could be present. Subsequent bifurcate point findspots are strongly associated with the Connecticut River Valley. Known locations suggest that fishing likely played an important role in seasonal site location strategies at this time. The Farmington River and Griffin Brook were potentially fished at this time, thus the APE was believed to have sensitivity for Early Archaic sites. In a report of archaeological investigations near the APE (Raber et al. 2010), an Early Archaic component was identified at the North Bloomfield Substation site about a thousand feet west of the APE (Figure 2). The site overlooks wetlands along Griffin Brook, and the report noted that upstream of the site, Griffin Brook flows through an extensive wetland system that may have been used as a spawning ground for anadromous fish. Seasonal fishing and the collection of wetland resources are believed to have drawn people to this large site for millennia.

B.2.2 The Middle Archaic Period (8,000-6,000 BP). Pollen evidence indicates a trend toward a warmer, drier climate in this period as well as the development of alluvial terraces along the state's major river systems (Jones 1999; Jones et al. 2008). Most modern nut tree species were established during this time, providing a new food resource for both human foragers and many game animals such as deer, turkey and bear. Evidence of Middle Archaic Period occupation in Connecticut is more widely documented than for the preceding periods and indicates adaptation to local resources during a period of population increase (McBride 1984; Jones 1999). The

9

development of grooved axes suggests the increased importance of wood as a raw material, while the presence of pebble netsinkers on some regional sites implies a growing reliance on marine and riverine resources (Dincauze 1976; Snow 1980). Despite their relative abundance, sites in Connecticut have yielded limited information on Middle Archaic subsistence and land-use patterns (Jones 1999). Archaeological assemblages are characterized by the presence of Neville and Stark projectile points and large flake tools usually manufactured from local materials such as quartzite. The settlement pattern appears oriented at least seasonally toward large upland interior wetlands (McBride 1984; Jones 1999). The data suggest seasonal re-use of such locales over a long period of time. This pattern is evident at the Dill Farm Site and those around the Great Cedar Swamp on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation (Jones 1999, 2004). Coastal and riverine sites may be poorly documented because of rising sea levels that have resulted in deep alluvial burial. One of the most striking aspects of the Middle Archaic Period is its apparent rapid appearance in the region. The abundance of sites and artifacts marks a significant change from the previous bifurcate phase of the Early Archaic. Also, the focus on regionally available lithic raw materials, especially quartzite, indicates that, unlike their bifurcate-making ancestors, the Middle Archaic foragers of the region were very familiar with its resources. The abundance of sites is suggestive of both population growth and regional “settling in.” If such is the case, what was the resource base that supported this population change? Unfortunately, despite the number of finds, very few features that might contain food remains are documented for this period. It has been long suggested that fishing became increasingly important to the economy (Dincauze 1976), but if so, how did this affect site selection criteria and the organization of foragers on the landscape, and where are the fishing sites in Connecticut? Middle Archaic sites are well-documented in the vicinity of the APE. Sites 11-2, Bloomfield Substation, Structure 4, Structure 9, and Structure 11 all indicate site use during the Middle Archaic Period (Figure 2). The Indian Hill Site (11-2) is the closest of these, lying on a terrace just 80 feet east of the APE in the northern portion of the Base Phase. Based on data from across New England, fishing locations likely played an important role in Middle Archaic site location strategies, and most of these sites are at least indirectly associated with fishing activity along Griffin Brook and the Farmington River (Banks 2000; Raber et al 2010). Middle Archaic site use is expected to have occurred within or adjacent to the APE.

B.2.3 Late Archaic Period (6,000-2,700 BP). The Late Archaic Period in the Northeast is characterized by an essentially modern distribution of plant and animal populations. This period is often considered a time of cultural fluorescence, as reflected by evidence for burial ritual, population increase, and long-distance exchange networks (Dincauze 1975; Snow 1980; Ritchie 1994; Cassedy 1999). The Late Archaic Period is one of the best-known temporal sequences in southern New England, and is characterized by three major cultural traditions: the Laurentian (ca. 5,500-4,500 BP), the Narrow-stemmed (ca. 4,500-3,500 BP), and the Terminal Archaic (ca. 3,800-2,700 BP). Sites dating to this period are common throughout the state, although the period between ca. 6,000 and 5,000 BP remains poorly documented. During most of this period, large, revisited seasonal settlements are located in riverine areas and along large wetland terraces while smaller, more temporary and special-purpose sites are situated in the interior and uplands (Ritchie 1969, 1971; McBride 1984; Cassedy 1997, 1999). The nature and distribution of sites suggest aggregation during summer months, with seasonal dispersal into smaller groups during the cold weather (McBride and Dewar 1981). In general, this period could be argued to represent a continuation of land-use and resource-acquisition patterns observed during the Middle Archaic. The transition to the Narrow-stemmed phase of the Late Archaic presents a notable alteration of lithic raw material use. Quartz becomes by far the most commonly used material, while quartzite use drops significantly. Similar patterns of raw material use have promoted arguments that population increase at this time restricted the availability of even regional resources, such as quartzite. A new quartz cobble technology developed, focused on the reduction of cobble cores into useful blanks for the production of projectile points, especially the narrow-stemmed forms. It is not clear whether technology

10

drove raw material selection or whether restrictions on raw material access drove the development of this new technology. Features become more common at this time, expressed as broad fire-cracked rock pavements, earth ovens and some fire-cracked rock hearths. Narrow-stemmed phase sites are the most abundant of any period represented in the state. A transition in settlement and perhaps subsistence patterning appears to occur with the onset of the Terminal Archaic Period (Dincauze 1975). A number of technological innovations appear as well. These include the use of steatite bowls and the manufacture of cord-marked and grit-tempered ceramics. Lithic assemblages contain high proportions of imported chert and other non-local lithics such as argillite, rhyolite and felsite. Regionally available quartzites were commonly used as well, but the use of quartz became uncommon at this time. Settlement appears focused on upper river terraces rather than floodplains as well as expansive lacustrine and wetland settings (McBride and Dewar 1981). The interior and uplands appear to have been used less extensively (McBride 1984), though this may be a reflection of small, difficult-to-locate logistical hunting sites. Human cremation burials also appear at this time (Dincauze 1968; Robinson 1996; Leveillee 1999). These cultural attributes may represent intrusive peoples or ideas, though debate over the possibility of migration remains active (see e.g. Robinson 1996: 38-39). The period marks another shift in raw material use, one in which quartz is rarely used. Instead, out-of-state materials such as argillite, chert and rhyolite are most abundant. This pattern appears to indicate renewed social and economic contact with a broader region. Fire-cracked-rock features are often associated with this period and appear to reflect rather intensive food-processing activities. The abundance of Late Archaic sites has lulled the region’s archaeologists into a sense that this period is rather well understood. In fact, our knowledge of forager adaptations, population trends, residential mobility, lithic technology and trade and exchange systems remains vague at best. New England’s Late Archaic period has yet to be placed within a general model of forager adaptations to temperate woodland and coastal habitats. One factor that inhibits adequate modeling of the foraging life during this period is the rarity of ethnographic documentation reflecting hunter-gatherer life in temperate environments. Foragers in most of these areas were displaced by farming peoples around the world, so there is little information about traditional lifeways in such relatively hospitable environments. Questions about the Terminal Archaic transition also remain wholly unanswered. It was long thought that the period marked the migration of a new group into the region, at the expense of the local “Narrow stem” people (Pfeiffer 1992). During the 1980s such migration models fell out of favor in the archaeological literature, but the question regarding the rather sudden appearance of new projectile point styles and burial rituals was never clearly resolved. Perhaps the most important question reflects the renewed focus on out-of-state raw materials. Does the trend reflect the increased need for broad economic ties as an adaptive strategy to a fluctuating resource base? Does it mark the development of an increasingly complex, perhaps ritually formalized exchange system? Does it reflect a social desire to establish personal prestige through outward symbols that linked their owner to the broader social landscape? Were formalized regional exchange systems possibly developed as a sociopolitical response to increased inter-group conflict during the preceding millennium? Or did all of these issues somehow work together? Seven Late and Terminal Archaic sites are recorded in the vicinity of the APE: North Bloomfield Substation, East of Structure 3, Structure 4, Structure 6, Between Structures 6-7, North of Structure 8, and Structure 9 (Figure 2). Significant burial sites, such as the Schwartz Site, have been excavated in nearby Windsor as well (Site 164-4 on Hayden Station Road). Late and Terminal Archaic sites, with well- established fishing economies and a developed fishing technology, are expected to be common along the Farmington River and Griffin Brook, as well as the adjacent hills and uplands, including the project area. The most significant Late Archaic sites should minimally provide new information about settlement organization, raw stone tool acquisition strategies, food-processing and cooking methods and diet. Such sites were expected to be present in the APE.

11

B.3 The Woodland Period (2,700-450 BP) The Woodland Period is characterized by the increased use of clay pottery, groundstone celts, and exotic raw materials, as well as the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology, smoking pipes and horticulture (Lavin 1984; Feder 1984, 1999). An increase in site size and complexity suggests a trend toward greater sedentism and social complexity, probably the result of an increase in the population base, particularly at the end of this period (McBride and Dewar 1987; Lavin 1988; Jones 2002). The Woodland Period has been traditionally subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late periods on the basis of ceramic styles, settlement and subsistence patterns, and political and social developments (Ritchie 1969, 1994; Snow 1980; Lavin 1984). Despite these changes, most recent scholars see the Woodland as a period well- rooted in the traditions and lifeways of the preceding Archaic period (Feder 1984, 1999).

B.3.1 The Early Woodland Period (2,700-2,000 BP). Early Woodland regional complexes are generally characterized by stemmed, tapered and less commonly side-notched (Meadowood) point forms and preforms (often of Onondaga chert); thick, grit- tempered, cord-marked ceramics; tubular pipe-stones; burial ritual; and indications of long-distance trade/exchange networks (Lavin 1984; Juli 1999). The Early Woodland Period remains poorly understood, and is less well represented in the archaeological record than the preceding phases of the Late Archaic, indicating to some a probable population decline (Fiedel 2001). The observed change may also be the result of shifts in settlement which promoted the formation of larger, but fewer, seasonal aggregation camps (Jones 2002). It is possible that incipient horticulture focused on native plant species such as goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.) had begun by this time (George 1997). The existence of stone pipes suggests the trade of tobacco into the region, if not local production. Despite the rarity of sites, a number of very large, deep pit features have been attributed to this period across southern New England where they may represent nut-storage facilities. Jones (2002) has estimated that a single pit could have held enough hickory nuts to feed a family of five for three months. Clusters of such pit features have been noted and could indicate repeated use of nut-gathering locations by families, perhaps with established rights to certain groves. This would represent a break from presumed earlier patterns based on more mobile kin-based social units with relatively open access to local areas.

B.3.2 The Middle Woodland Period (2,000-1,200 BP). The Middle Woodland Period is characterized by increased ceramic diversity in both style and form, continued examples of long-distance exchange (especially of jasper), and at its end, the introduction of tropical cultigens (Dragoo 1976; Snow 1980; Juli 1999). Much of our current knowledge of the Middle Woodland Period in southern New England is extrapolated from work done by Ritchie (1994) in New York State. Ritchie noted an increased use of plant foods such as goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), which he suggested had a substantial impact upon social and settlement patterns. George (1997) reiterated this hypothesis for the Middle Woodland in Connecticut. Ritchie further noted an increased frequency and size of storage facilities during the Middle Woodland Period, which may reflect a growing trend toward sedentism (Snow 1980; Ritchie 1994). At this time jasper tool preforms imported from eastern Pennsylvania appear to be entering the region through broad, formalized exchange networks (Luedtke 1987). Settlement patterns in Connecticut indicate an increased frequency of large sites adjacent to tidal marshes and wetlands along the Connecticut River, a decrease in large upland occupations, and a corresponding increase in upland temporary camps (McBride 1984). This may indicate reduced residential mobility from earlier time periods and is likely due to the development of modern tidal marshes and estuaries in low-lying riverine areas by 2,000 BP. The tidal marshes would have supported a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic animal and plant resources, allowing longer residential stays (McBride 1984).

12

B.3.3 Late Woodland Period (1,200-450 BP). This period is characterized by the increasingly intensive use of maize, beans, and squash; changes in ceramic technology, form, style, and function; population aggregation in villages along coastal and riverine locales; the eventual establishment of year-round villages; and the use of the upland-interior areas by small, domestic units or organized task groups on a temporary and short-term basis. The settlement pattern suggests a trend toward fewer and larger villages and hamlets near coasts and rivers. It has been hypothesized that these changes can be attributed to the introduction of maize, beans, and squash, but it is unclear how important cultigens were in the aboriginal diet of southern New England groups, especially those with access to coastal resources (Ceci 1980; McBride 1984; McBride and Dewar 1987; Bendremer and Dewar 1993; Ritchie 1994; Chilton 1999). Although sites clearly demonstrate the use of tropical cultigens in the Connecticut River Valley, wild plant and animal resources were still a primary component of the aboriginal diet. The use of imported cherts increases over time in the Connecticut River Valley, suggesting possible social, economic, and/or political ties to the Hudson Valley region. Ceramic style affinities also suggest western ties at this end of this period (Feder 1999). Woodland Period sites are well-documented in the vicinity of the APE (Sites North Bloomfield Substation, East of Structure 3, Structure 4, Between Structures 4-6 (5 loci), Structure 6, Access Road near Structure 6, Between Structures 6-7 (3 loci), North of Structure 8, Structure 9, and Structure 11 (Figure 2). While the state’s earliest farming communities and villages probably first developed closer to the Connecticut River, small Woodland hamlets and short-term foraging sites are common throughout the region. Sites associated with upland wetlands and stream tributaries are expected to be more sporadic and smaller, reflecting primarily ancillary seasonal foraging activities similar to those of the preceding Archaic Period. Most of the local Woodland sites are believed to reflect such short-term foraging camps and are marked by the presence of diagnostic Levanna projectile points or small pottery fragments, sometimes associated with small features. The Structure 4 Site, located on a terrace west of Griffin Brook, however, included numerous and varied features as well as post-mold stains suggesting the presence of three wigwams. The site could indicate the presence of a Woodland hamlet, perhaps associated with a nearby garden.

B.4 Summary of Pre-Colonial Period Archaeological Sensitivity Within the APE The abundance of documented Native American sites in the vicinity of the APE expresses the high archaeological sensitivity of this area. In the summary of its archaeological survey of the Greater Springfield Reliability Project in Bloomfield, Raber Associates (Raber et al. 2010) noted that:

Sites which appear directly associated with Griffin Brook and its tributary drainage dominate the finds made to date, and north of Tariffville Road include some of the largest concentrations of significant Native American Resources in Connecticut. This group of sites is tentatively called the Griffin Brook Archaeological Complex.

Some of the observed density of archaeological sites in the area is clearly a result of this power- line survey, but the dense occurrence of sites indicates that this part of the state is particularly sensitive for pre-colonial cultural resources. The Greenway trail APE clearly lies within one of the greatest site concentrations along the Farmington River. The resources of the Farmington River, Griffin Brook and its ancillary wetlands likely attracted people to this location for millennia. Nearby waterfalls and rapids at Tariffville Gorge and the drop at Griffin Brook provided key fishing locations where predictable food supplies could be gathered in season by Native American occupants of the region. Smaller streams like Griffin Brook also likely played a role in the interception of fish and eels during spawning runs. The adjacent meadows and wetlands along Griffin Brook also provided excellent locations for harvesting useful wild foods and utilitarian plants, such as nutsedge, dogbane, bulrush and cattail. These nutrient- rich plants also attracted important game animals such as muskrat and potentially beaver. Overall, it is expected that the APE was used as a resource-gathering location and seasonal settlement area for

13

millennia by kin-organized groups of foragers. Resource-gathering parties left relatively light indications of their presence of the landscape in the form of retouched stone tools and associated lithic debris, but repeated use of the area resulted in the accumulation of significant numbers of artifacts in many cases. Larger sites reflecting at least seasonal occupation also appear to have been used along Griffin Brook, as attested by the evidence from the Structure 4 Site. Raber Associates suggested a three-part settlement organization for this part of the state, including 1) fish-capture and processing sites supplemented by plant and animal foraging along Griffin Brook, 2) possible fish-capture and processing sites at rapids or falls along the Farmington River, and 3) upland wetland resource-extraction areas lying north along the Metacomet Ridge (Raber et al. 2010: 7). The power-line study also provides an indication of the relationship of the local inhabitants to neighboring areas. One of the surprising results of the study is the frequency of chert in the lithic assemblages recovered at nearby sites. While the most common raw materials, such as quartz, basalt, hornfels and quartzite could be acquired from local quarry sources, chert found in Connecticut is most often associated with large quarries in the Hudson Valley region, especially south of Albany. Chert (and the lithologically similar material jasper) comprised over 20% of the lithic material assemblage from the Indian Hill Site (Site 11-2) (Banks 2000: 130). In the power-line survey, all of the local sites and individual loci contained chert, with one exception where only a single quartz flake was found. It is likely that chert travelled overland from the Albany region along traditional paths through western Massachusetts along the Westfield River, and then south along the Farmington River. While Feder has suggested that the Farmington River Valley may have comprised a largely self-contained settlement system (Feder 1981), the persistent presence of chert from the Late Archaic Period forward indicates that the communities of this region were nonetheless socially and economically tied to more distant groups to the west. The presence of extra-regional raw materials in the valley indicates that the people settled here had exchange items of interest to others. Processed fish may represent one such potential trade item (e.g. Tache 2011: 174 ff.), but by the Terminal Archaic Period, the trade material of choice was likely steatite, acquired from sources further up the Farmington River Valley in north-central Connecticut. At this time, burial ceremonialism developed into a complex social ritual, and rich grave goods became common in nearby sites such as the Schwartz Site (164-4) north of the Farmington River in Windsor. The archaeological record indicates that Native American communities along the Farmington became materially wealthy at this time, and both fish and steatite may have played a role in their economic success, as well as the development of more complex forms of political organization.

B.5 Contact and Historic-Period Native American Context By the 1630s, when direct European contact was felt throughout Connecticut's coasts and larger rivers, Native Americans were organized in groups of small households which banded together along ethnic and territorial lines in larger villages during the spring and summer and dispersed during other seasons (Williams 1973). These small groups engaged in hunting, fishing, gathering of wild plant foods, and maize horticulture. During the Contact Period, trapping of beaver and other fur-bearing animals was an important economic activity. In the late pre-colonial and Contact periods, settlement was focused on or adjacent to the floodplains of the major tributaries, reflecting the importance of agricultural activities, fishing, and access to transportation and communication routes (Pagoulatos 1990). Shifts in settlement and the increased dependence on maize agriculture are likely a result of contact with Europeans. Planting in the spring and capture of anadromous fish at waterfalls and choke-points brought together households. Upland areas continued to be used for hunting, trapping, and gathering from the late summer through the winter by the component household groups of the larger village-based communities. Dutch merchant and cartographer Adriaen Block made the earliest recorded encounter with the Natives of central Connecticut during his 1614 excursion up the Connecticut River. His famous map, known as the “Adriaen Block Chart,” depicts a cluster of five Native settlements immediately south of Windsor Locks. Block identified them with the ethnonym “Nawaas.” This word is probably a variant of “Nowashe,” an Indian place name generally referring to land between the Podunk and Scantic Rivers comprising present-day South Windsor (Stiles 1892 Vol.1: 128). An account of the Indians of the

14

Connecticut River Valley is provided by a 17th-century director of the Dutch West India Company, Johan de Laet:

The natives there [Windsor area] plant maize, and in the year 1614 they had a village resembling a fort for protection against the attacks of their enemies. They are called Nawaas and their sagamore was then named Moraheick (Laet 1909: 43).

During the 1620s and 30s, the Indians of central Connecticut were in the midst of a competitive, and sometimes violent, trade economy. The lower Connecticut River became a strategic corridor that English, Dutch, and Native (particularly Pequot) traders struggled to control. In September of 1633 a group of Massachusetts Bay traders sailed up the Connecticut River and erected a trading house at Mationocke (Windsor) to compete with a recently established Dutch outpost at Hartford. The sachem of Mationocke at the time was Natawanute (Stiles 1892 Vol.1:109). That winter, a smallpox pandemic swept through the Connecticut Valley killing approximately 80 percent of the Native population and temporarily crippling the local fur trade (Winthrop 1996 Vol.1: 108-109; Oberg 2003: 44-45). Among the victims of this pandemic was Natawanute (Spiess 1933:28). William Bradford, the second governor of Plymouth Colony, recorded this tragic development as it played out at Windsor’s trading house.

But those of the English house, though at first they were afraid of the infection, yet seeing their woeful and sad condition and hearing their pitiful cries and lamentations, they had compassion of them, and daily fetched them wood and water and made them fires, got them victuals whilst they lives; and buried them when they died. For very few of them escaped, notwithstanding they did what they could for them, to the hazard of themselves (Bradford 1989:271).

Massachusetts Bay authorities were keenly aware of this event, and John Winthrop (the first governor of Plymouth Colony) interpreted it as an act of God meant to clear the land of Indians (Winthrop 1943 Vol.3:167). Massachusetts Bay capitalized on this event almost immediately by establishing three permanent settlements in central Connecticut. Wethersfield was settled in 1634, while the Windsor outpost received settlers in 1635. Hartford was settled next in 1636. The Connecticut Valley Indians who survived the epidemic likely reconsolidated their communities for protection against potentially hostile elements of a highly competitive fur trading economy (Ives 2009). In the wake of these trying circumstances several politically distinct Native communities emerged into historical view in central Connecticut, including Hockanum (at East Hartford), Tunxis (at Farmington), Sakiaug (at Hartford), Podunk (at South Windsor,) Poquonnock (at Windsor), and Wangunk (at Middletown). Seventeenth- century colonial administrators often referred to these groups collectively as the “River Indians.” Early historical references to Indian identity and political geography in central Connecticut generally fail to account for the complex and fluid social networks that lent structure to local Native society. Analysis of land deeds from central Connecticut dating to the 1760s and 70s demonstrates that Native men from politically prominent families frequently held land rights among multiple communities (Ives 2009). These rights appear to have been secured through exogamous (and sometimes polygamous) marriage bonds according to a land system that was, in part, governed under the authority of politically prominent women (Ives 2009, 2011). This pattern is consistent with patterns found across greater southern New England (Johnson 1999) and the Hudson Valley (Van Wassenear 1909: 70; Van Der Donck 1968: 82). Thus, the early Native inhabitants of Bloomfield-Windsor area should not simply be considered members of the Poquonnock or Podunk “tribes,” but recognized as participants and stakeholders in a complex network of Native communities extending throughout, and beyond, central Connecticut. While it is safe to assume that all River Indian communities were, in some way, socially interlinked, they did not always cooperate. For example, in 1661, the General Court appointed a committee to end warfare

15

between the “Farmington Indians” and the “Podunk Indians” and secure the release of captives (PRCC, Vol.2: 371). Following the outbreak of King Phillip’s war in 1675, the Connecticut Colony’s General Court convened as a War Council. One of their early goals was to create an alliance with the “Indians of Farmington, Hartford, Wethersfield, and Midleton” (PRCC, Vol. 2: 370). The colonists had limited success in this task, and resorted to taking a number of River Indian leaders hostage to ensure cooperation (PRCC, Vol.2:378). However, Nesahegan, a highly influential sachem with kinship ties throughout the Connecticut Valley (Ives 2009), served as a captain of a small force of River Indians who were dispatched to the Springfield area to reconnoiter enemy activities on behalf of the colony (Trumbull 1886:14; Stiles 1892 Vol.1.:110). Nesahegan is specifically identified as the “sachem of Paquinock” (Everts 1879 Vol.1:19), which is an area of Windsor along the Farmington River. Native landholdings in central Connecticut dwindled under the social, political, and economic pressures of a colonial society. The Podunks, based out of what is now East Windsor were gradually dispossessed of their lands, and their last claim to ancestral territory was recorded in 1722 (Goodwin 1879: 34). The Poquonnock community sold their small reservation on the Farmington River, which was established in 1642, in 1659 (Stiles 1892 Vol.1: 125-126). Throughout the 18th century, the Tunxis (centered a short distance up-river in Farmington) constituted the largest Native community in central Connecticut, and they welcomed residents from other communities with dwindling memberships. By 1759, a small number of Quinnipiac families had left New Haven and settled among the Tunxis (Menta 1994: 339-340), and, by 1774, the majority of Quinnipiacs had followed (ibid: 345). The Tunxis also accepted members of the Wangunk (Ives 2001) and Saukiaug (Love 1935: 97) communities. Additionally, new integrated communities emerged in the Western Uplands of New Hartford and Barkhampsted, where people of African, European, and Native ancestry made their livings together (Feder 1993). Despite common perceptions, Native Americans did not disappear from the Connecticut River Valley, and they continue to live and maintain their Native identity in the region.

B.6 Contact and Historic-Period Archaeological Sensitivity Within the APE Seventeenth-century archaeological sites, both Native and Euro-American, remain extraordinarily uncommon in the region. This is in part a result of declining Native American population, and the propensity for Euro-American households to be centrally organized in core areas of settlement. Small, peripheral sites associated with both Native American and Euro-American hunting, fishing, farming, plant-gathering and trapping activities contain few artifacts and are expected to be very difficult to identify. A significant disadvantage to the discovery of 17th-century activity areas is the short amount of time in which they were produced. While similar types of activities were performed by earlier inhabitants of the Bloomfield-Windsor area for millennia, enough time passed during each major pre-colonial period (e.g., the Late Archaic persists for ca. 2000 years) that these sites are better represented across the landscape. Though not far from a core area of both Native American and early English settlement at the confluence of the Farmington and Connecticut rivers, the project area lies far enough interior that Contact Period sites are not expected to be very common in the immediate vicinity. Nonetheless, isolated Native American households were very likely present in this part of Bloomfield along the Farmington River throughout the 17th and early 18th centuries until most families joined larger communities, such as the nearby Tunxis.

C. Historical Background of the APE Vicinity The proposed trail traverses a portion of the northwest corner of Bloomfield that, until 1843, was part of the Town of Simsbury. Simsbury, including this portion, was settled by the English in the middle of the 17th century. In 1642, the General Court of Connecticut ordered that the land in this vicinity should be divided up and sold to the various inhabitants of Windsor, an order that was reaffirmed in 1648. Among the first settlers were Lt. Aaron Cook, Thomas Ford, and John Bissell, who were granted land near present-day Tariffville in 1653. At the time, Ford, at least, was already farming the land; others were engaged in the cutting of timber and the manufacture of tar and turpentine. The general area was known

16

as the “Peninsula” in the 17th century because of its location within a sharp bend in the Farmington River. Simsbury as a whole was known as “Massacoe Plantation” until it was formally incorporated as a town in 1670 (Phelps 1845; Wintonbury Historical Society 1983). For many years, Simsbury’s families were on the frontier of settlement. During King Philip’s war, the settlers were twice ordered to evacuate to Windsor and Hartford. On March 26, 1676, about 40 houses and other buildings were burned by the Indians; local tradition holds that the landform known as Mount Philip was where the Indian leader watched the fires. After the war, a relief fund was set up to assist those wishing to return to their lands. By 1682, there were sufficient families in Simsbury that the gathering of a Congregational Church was authorized, with the first meetinghouse erected shortly thereafter. As the population of Simsbury, which at that time included Granby, East Granby, and part of present-day Bloomfield, increased, the inhabitants grew increasingly dissatisfied with such a large area having only one Congregational society. Throughout the 1720s and 1730s, numerous schemes to divide the town into two, three, or even more societies were advanced, only to fall to dissension and controversy. Finally, the General Court decreed an end to the matter (or so it was thought) in 1738 by setting up three societies, roughly corresponding to present-day Simsbury, Granby, and East Granby. According to the town’s 19th-century historian,

The quarrel was general, if not universal, few being able to escape its influence. It destroyed social intercourse, broke up the church, and in great measure prevented public worship. During three years, from 1731 to 1733 inclusive, owing to this excited state of feeling, the legislature deemed it inexpedient to appoint any Justices of the Peace in the town (Phelps 1845: 71).

The final chapter in the story of Simsbury’s religious controversies came in 1740, when six families living in what was then known as Scotland (corresponding to the part of Bloomfield through which the project extends) declared their allegiance to the Church of England. At that time, persons were obliged to support the Congregational Church with their taxes, but members of the Church of England were exempt if they could show that they supported their own minister. A small meetinghouse was erected on the site of the present Old St. Andrews Church, and in 1763 twenty-six other families joined the first group. The Rev. William Gibbs, sent over from England by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, was the congregation’s clergyman for many years. In 1806, the congregation erected a new meetinghouse some two miles away, but the location proved to be unsatisfactory, and the building was taken down and re-erected at the site of the old church, where it stands today. In addition to the church and the cemetery, Scotland also was the site of a district school as early as 1795. Simsbury developed a number of a number of industries, including steelmaking, the manufacture of powder and fuses, and, at Tariffville, the weaving of wool carpets. For the most part, these enterprises had little influence on the project area, which remained in agricultural use until recent times. In 1843, the area through which the proposed trail passes was transferred from Simsbury to the Town of Bloomfield, which had been created in 1835 from portions of Farmington, Simsbury, and Windsor (Bloomfield, earlier called Wintonbury, traces its origins to yet another Congregational society set apart from the center societies in those towns in 1736). This corner of Bloomfield was a center of cigar-wrapper tobacco production from the early 19th century to the very recent past. Historical maps from 1855 to 1931 (Figures 3-6) indicate that much of the property adjoining the route of the proposed trail was owned by the Mitchelson family, pioneers in the cultivation of tobacco, including tenant-occupied houses and, in 1869, a boardinghouse. The Mitchelson family continued to be active well into the 20th century, by which time they were joined by corporate growers such as the American Sumatra Tobacco Corporation. The 1934 aerial photograph (Figure 7) shows that much of the land in this vicinity was being cultivated for shade-grown tobacco, a capital and labor-intensive enterprise that produced an especially valuable type of cigar tobacco. Today, this part of Bloomfield is still characterized by open land, tobacco sheds, and scattered houses from the 18th and early 19th century. Interspersed among these, however, is evidence of the great

17

growth in suburban-type residential housing that accompanied Connecticut’s post-World War II population boom. Throughout the 20th century, Bloomfield’s identity as a suburb of Hartford was on the rise, with the population of 1,513 residents in 1900 doubling by 1930. After the war, this modest rate of growth was completely eclipsed: the town’s population of 5,746 in 1950 reached 13,613 in just ten years.

D. History of the Former Rail Line The former rail line over which the trail passes was built beginning in 1869 as the Connecticut Western Railroad (Turner and Jacobus 1986; Karr 1995). Promoted by Egbert Butler of Norfolk, Connecticut, the line was originally planned to connect Collinsville with Canaan, but as re-chartered in 1868, the line was authorized to go from Hartford to the New York state line, where it would connect with lines leading to the Hudson River. Construction was completed in 1871, partly funded by appropriations from towns along the way. It was expected that the line would prosper by becoming a main route for coal coming into New England. While some modest traffic did ensue, the line was not a great success, and the Connecticut Western went bankrupt during the depression of the 1870s. Subsequent railroad operating companies were

• Hartford and Connecticut Western, 1881-1889 • Central New England & Western, 1889-1892 • Philadelphia, Reading & New England, 1892-1898 • Central New England, 1898-1927 • New York, New Haven & Hartford, 1927-1938

Although it achieved formal ownership only in 1927, the New York, New Haven & Hartford effectively controlled the Central New England Railway as a subsidiary after 1904. Nearly all the towns along the route were also served by another New York, New Haven & Hartford line, so this line became superfluous. Passenger service was discontinued in 1927, and after the New York portion was discontinued in 1932, there was little reason to keep the Connecticut part open. Formal abandonment began in 1937, with this segment discontinued the following year. In 1939, most of the line in Bloomfield was sold to the Hartford Electric Light Company for use as a transmission-line corridor (McCluskey 1939). The only portion that remains in active rail use is the so-called Griffin Line between Tunxis Avenue in Bloomfield and Hartford. Tariffville and Bloomfield were major stations along the route. In between were small station stops at Bernards, also known as North Bloomfield or Scotland, and Griffin, at one time known as Clarkville. There was virtually no industry along the line between Tariffville and Hartford; aerial photographs from 1934 (Figure 7) show the land alongside the railroad right-of-way open and in agricultural use, including the intensive cultivation of tobacco, which may have generated some seasonal freight traffic. Historical photographs from the railroad collections at the Dodd Research Center at the University of Connecticut (Figures 8 and 9) show the line as a single track passing through a rural agricultural landscape. As discussed in Section V, the only rail-related features from the line’s initial construction that were observed during the field survey were the stone abutments for the Griffin Brook crossing, two small lengths of rock cuts, and a small stone-slab culvert carrying an unnamed brook under the track. In addition, a small ca.1920 concrete-slab bridge and a ca. 1920 rail-top culvert were identified. The latter two features appear to incorporate brownstone side walls from earlier structures (see Figure 11 for feature locations and Appendix II for feature photographs).

18

IV. RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

A. Base Phase The Phase IB Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the proposed Greenway Trail Base Phase began just north of Griffin Brook and proceeded along the existing electrical-power transmission right-of- way north to Route 189 (Figure 10; Photograph 1). This area had been previously assessed by ConnDOT as being sensitive for the presence of potentially significant archaeological resources (Speal 2013). That assessment was based on the presence of numerous nearby archaeological sites found during prior utility- related archaeological surveys (Raber et al. 2010), as well as the location of the Indian Hill Site (Site 11- 2) just south of the utilities right-of-way (Banks 2000). Based on a visual assessment and walkover survey, approximately 2132 feet (650 meters) of the Base Phase were determined to be archaeologically sensitive. At the SHPO-required 15-meter interval, this resulted in the excavation of 44 shovel test pits. The pits were excavated along a single linear transect (Transect 1) running along the proposed trail alignment. An additional four judgmentally-placed and array test pits (J1, J2, A1, and A2) were also excavated in the Base Phase, bringing the total number of shovel test pits to 48. The proposed Base Phase section of the trail follows an old railroad bed for the first 100 meters, and an existing gravel road for the last 350 meters. Shovel test pits were not excavated across a farm along Tariffville Road because of observed surface disturbance. Historic-era rail-related, power-line, and farm-related activity along this portion of the proposed trail resulted in the identification of disturbed sediments in many of the test pits excavated. Three noncontiguous shovel test pits (T1-1, T1-6, T1-19) (Figures 10, 18, and 19) (Stations 68+50 to 85+00) produced a total of two 19th-century whiteware sherds (one brown transfer-printed and one hand-painted blue) and a kaolin pipe fragment. The cultural material was found in disturbed fill contexts, which characterized virtually the entire APE. This cultural material was considered insignificant field scatter and catalogued as 11-FSBGT (Appendix IV), but not assigned a site number. Shovel test pit T1-42, located approximately two meters north of HelCo utility pole #2027 at Station 97+00, produced a hornfels flake from disturbed sediments (Figures 10 and 20). The location was further assessed with two array test pits: the first, STP A1, was offset two meters to the north and the second, STP A2, was placed four meters to the south of STP T1-42 (the latter to avoid utility pole disturbance). The southern array pit, A2, produced a chert utilized flake with potlid fractures and four additional chert flake fragments from an intact B2/1 subsoil context beneath fill layers. One of the four chert flakes included cortex, and a second is a retouched flake. This small lithic locus was designated Site 11-13. No additional archaeological material was recovered within the tested trail alignment (although 31 of the test pits contained modern materials that were noted but not collected). Most of the test pits expressed one or more layers of disturbed overburden sediments (see test pit profiles in Appendix III). Those closest to Griffin Brook had the most intact soil conditions (albeit beneath fill deposits), but did not produce artifacts. Because fewer than the anticipated number of Phase IB test pits were required to complete the survey, and winter was closing in, AHS requested that a portion of the remaining budget be used to complete a small Phase II intensive investigation of the lithic scatter identified near STP T1-42 and designated site 11-13. The purpose of the intensified survey was to collect enough data to allow a determination of the eligibility of the site for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The narrow APE, an existing road surface, and utility poles limited the potential extent of this testing. Shovel test pit T1-42 was assigned the datum coordinate of N0E0, around which the intensive testing grid was established (Figures 10 and 20). Shovel test pits were excavated at five-meter intervals, with one line along E0 and one line along W5. All 10 Phase II test pits lacked additional pre-colonial artifacts or features; two contained modern material that was not saved. Only one test pit, S5E0, expressed clearly intact subsoil. The other pits contained multiple layers of redeposited sediments, only two of which contained remnant subsoil strata. The identified Native American lithic scatter was either very small, has been heavily disturbed, or extends beyond the APE. This site does not appear to meet eligibility

19

requirements for listing in the National Register based on its low artifact count, lack of diagnostic artifacts or features, and compromised integrity.

B. Alternative 2 The Phase IB testing of the Alternative 2 section of the Multi-Use Trail was conducted in June of 2014, at the request of the OEP. Only the southern section of the 743-meter-long (2,437 feet) APE, comprising about 135 meters (442 feet), had apparent sensitivity. The remainder of Alternative 2 was determined to lack archaeological sensitivity due to extensive roadside disturbance from cutting and filling, residential landscaping, and active utilities work. The trail section along the southern edge of Route 187/189 follows the rail line but was also cut and is now characterized by a large-scale fill embankment used to elevate Route 187/189. The section of the trail then diverts south along Tunxis Avenue, which is also characterized by extensive cutting and filling for the road (Figure 21). This area was also elevated with fill to create the intersection of these two major roads. The APE along the western edge of Tunxis Road was further found to be extensively disturbed by utility work for the adjacent subdivision being conducted at the time of the archaeological survey. No archaeological testing was conducted along this section of the APE. The trail then continues south along the western edge of Tunxis Road (Figure 22). Visual inspection indicates that this stretch was extensively disturbed by cutting and filling during modern construction of the road and for residential landscaping for the adjacent subdivision. No archaeological testing was conducted along this section of the APE. The trail then turns from Tunxis Road onto Day Hill Road (Figure 23), where it follows along the northern edge of Day Hill Road and terminates at a proposed parking lot at the town line. This section of the APE is in open agricultural field (tobacco cultivation) and a small scrub wood lot. A total of thirteen (13) shovel test pits were excavated here, between Stations 200+00 and 203+00, including four test pits in the proposed parking area. Along the western edge of the lot STPs AT1-1, AT2-2 and AT2-3 were excavated (Figure 23). Test pit AT1-1 contained two levels of fill over a possible fill/buried plowzone (Ap); each strata contained modern artifacts such as asphalt, modern clear glass, coal, and plastic, which were recorded on field forms but not saved. At 70 centimeters below surface a possible B2/1 subsoil was found over an intact C Horizon subsoil at 94 centimeters below surface. AT1-1 terminated at 107 centimeters below surface. Test pit AT1-2 contained similar soils with three strata of fill over a B2/1 subsoil which extended to 92 centimeters below surface. The test pit was terminated at 103 centimeters after C Horizon subsoil was confirmed. Artifacts from AT1-2 include modern clear safety glass, electrical wire, brick, plastic and coal ash, which was noted, but not collected. Test pit AT1-3, that last in that transect line, contained two distinct layers of fill over a B2/1 subsoil atop a C-Horizon subsoil. AT1-3 terminated at 100 centimeters below surface. Modern clear safety glass and brick and other modern artifacts were noted in this pit but not collected. Most of the east side of the proposed parking area was heavily disturbed, though one STP, AJ1, was excavated in the southeast corner. This test pit contained more fill soils or a possible fill/buried plowzone which extended from 60 to 87 centimeters below surface. At 87 centimeters below surface was a B2/1 (possibly disturbed) subsoil which extended to 94 centimeters where a C-Horizon subsoil was found. The test pit terminated at 103 centimeters below surface. Modern safety glass, asphalt, bottle caps and string from the fill levels was noted but not collected. Therefore, the entire proposed parking lot area was found to be mostly disturbed by deep modern disturbance down to the C-Horizon subsoil. A second line of shovel test pits (AT2-1 through AT2-6, Stations 200+00 to 202+00), was excavated from the parking lot along the trail route on the northern side of Day Hill Road (Figure 23). This area also bordered an agricultural field. Test pit AT2-1 contained a thick stratum of fill extending to 33 centimeters below surface. A total of 12 modern-era and possible 19th-century artifacts were collected from this stratum, including brick, slag, coal ash, a wire nail (post-1850), a whiteware sherd (post-1820), clear window glass and blue-green window glass (both types were sampled), and plastic. Below the fill was a 21-cm-thick buried plowzone (Ap), which was sterile. Below the plowzone were intact B2/1 and C Horizon subsoils and the test pit terminated at 80 centimeters below surface.

20

Test pit AT2-2 was similar, with a thick artifact-rich fill overlying a buried plowzone. The fill extended to 31 centimeters below surface; however, this test pit only contained plastic, asphalt, brick, coal ash and clear safety glass, which was noted but not collected. Below the plowzone were intact B2/1 and C Horizon subsoils and the test pit was terminated at 94 centimeters below surface. Test pit AT2-3 contained a thick fill level extending to 27 centimeters below surface. From this stratum ten artifacts were collected including two (untyped) nails, an iron fragment, coal (sampled) and various types of clear and blue-green glass, which were also sampled. From 27 to 35 centimeters below surface the soil appeared to be a possible fill or buried plowzone. The seven artifacts recovered included blue-green and a clear window glass, clear curved glass, a (untyped ) nail, a fragment of sheet brass, a coal fragment and a whole Late Archaic-period quartz Lamoka projectile point. Because the nature of the soils between 27 and 37 centimeters below surface were unclear and appeared to be possibly redeposited, three array test pits were excavated two meters from test pit AT2-3 to determine if a pre-colonial site was associated with the Lamoka projectile point. These include test pit AA1 to the north, AA2 to the east, and AA3 to the west (Figure 23). A south array test pit was not excavated due to the road curb. Test pit AA1 contained two strata of fill (Fill 2 is possibly a disturbed buried plowzone (Ap)). A B2/1 subsoil was found at 39 centimeters below surface and a C-Horizon subsoil was found at 55 centimeters below surface. Test pit AA2 had three layers of fill resting on a C-Horizon subsoil at 55 centimeters below surface. Test pit AA3 also had three strata of fill overlying a C-Horizon subsoil, which was at 70 centimeters below surface here. All three of the array pits contained various amounts of clear bottle glass, asphalt, plastic, coal and string, which was noted, but not collected. No other pre-colonial Native American artifacts were found. The array test pits confirmed that no archaeological site associated with the Lamoka projectile point was present in the APE, and that the soils in this area are redeposited and disturbed. Test pit AT2-4 contained a very thick stratum of fill reaching down to 44 centimeters below surface. At this depth there was an unclear break to a thin and truncated plowzone. A deep plowscar was visible in the profile down to about 50 centimeters below surface. Below the thin plowzone were a B2/1 subsoil and a C-Horizon subsoil, and the test pit terminated at 87 centimeters below surface. Again, similar types of modern glass, coal ash, and coal ash was observed but not collected. Test pit AT2-5 revealed a thick fill stratum down to 28 centimeters when a buried plowzone was encountered. A B2/1 subsoil reached down to 67 centimeters below surface and a C-Horizon subsoil was terminated at 74 centimeters below surface. Various clear glass, coal ash, coal and string were noted in the top disturbed fill, but were not collected. Test pit AT2-6 was the last one in the AT2 transect line, and it contained similar soils. The top layer of fill extended to 36 centimeters below surface, followed by a buried plowzone to 47 centimeters. This was followed by B2/1 and C-Horizon subsoils, with the test pit terminating at 90 centimeters below surface. Here again, clear glass, coal ash, coal, wire and string were noted, but not collected. All of the cultural material from Alternative 2 was considered insignificant, disturbed scatter, and was catalogued as 11-FSBGT (see Appendix IV).

21

V. RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION OF HISTORIC RAIL FEATURES

Visual inspection of the former rail line identified a number of engineering structures, depicted on Figure 11 and on individual project plan sheets (Figures 12-17).

• Culvert near Station 25+00 (Figure 12; Photograph 2). The culvert includes a precast concrete pipe approximately 18” in diameter, set within what appear to be precast concrete headwalls approximately 4’ high and 6’ long. This structure almost certainly postdates the abandonment of the rail line in 1938. Judging from examination of other rail lines in Connecticut, precast concrete components were not commonly used in railroad construction/maintenance in the pre- World War II period.

• Culvert near Station 39+00 (Figure 13; Photograph 3). The east side of the culvert appears to be buried in fill. The west side consists of a concrete headwall approximately 3’ high and 8’ long. The west opening has been blocked up with concrete but appears to have been approximately 18” in diameter. In construction details (except for the color of the sand used in the concrete mix), this culvert is nearly identical to the one at 25+00; it almost certainly postdates the 1938 abandonment of the rail line.

• Rock cuts, north of Duncaster Road, near Station 54+00 (Figure 14; Photographs 4 and 5). Two short lengths of relatively shallow cuts through bedrock outcroppings appear between Duncaster Road and Griffin Brook. Perhaps because of the sedimentary nature of the rock, no drill or other tool marks are evident. Erosion of the exposed rock faces is ongoing.

• Culvert near Station 59+00 (Figure 14; Photographs 6-8). This rail-top culvert, which is about 5’ wide and 3’ high, consists of sidewalls of mortared brownstone blocks that are spanned by a series of rails embedded in a concrete slab. On the west side, the concrete is deteriorated so that the rail is exposed. The bottom flanges of the rails are visible on the interior. Dated examples of rail-tops on other Connecticut lines indicate that the technique was chiefly used about 1920. It was an inexpensive and expedient way for railroads to upgrade the load-capacity of a culvert using materials on hand.

• Culvert near Station 61+00 (Figure 14; Photographs 9-12). This culvert probably dates to the initial construction of the rail line ca. 1870. It is a dual stone-slab box culvert, with each opening approximately 3’ wide and 2’ high. There are stepped end walls of brownstone blocks. Other than some minor subsidence of the stone, the culvert appears to be unaltered from its original appearance. The culvert is located at the bottom of a 200-foot long embankment that rises some 30 feet above the stream. A great deal of modern trap-rock rip-rap has been added to the embankment, particularly on the west slope.

• Griffin Brook bridge abutments, near Station 66+00 (Figure 15; Photographs 13 and 14). The abutments consist of large brownstone blocks, with wing walls both upstream and downstream. There is a shelf at the top of each abutment, probably for accommodating a series of parallel beams for the bridge structure; the abutments are about 18’ apart.

• Culvert near Station 83+00 (Figure 16; Photograph 15). This structure is a 36” galvanized steel corrugated pipe that carries a drainage ditch under the former railroad right-of-way. It almost certainly postdates the 1938 abandonment of the rail line. Because it is identical to the corrugated steel pipe under Tariffville Road at the west end of the ditch, it can be assumed that the structure was built for highway-drainage purposes.

22

• Culvert/Bridge near Station 94+00 (Figure 17; Photographs 16-18). The structure consists of a concrete slab, approximately 2’ thick, spanning brownstone-block side walls. The span length is approximately 5’, with the height of the opening about 3’. Stepped wing walls appear on both the upstream and downstream elevations. Board form marks visible on the underside of the slab suggest that it dates from ca. 1920 and used the side walls from an earlier bridge. (Railroad terminology of the period would have considered this a small bridge rather than a culvert, since there is virtually no overburden between the top of the slab and the level of the roadbed).

As might be expected of a line that was discontinued more than 75 years ago, very little remains to suggest a railroad road bed. Early 20th-century photographs (e.g., Figures 8 and 9) show a slightly raised road bed as the line traversed level topography; it is likely that originally the track ties were laid on flat ground, since ballasting became common only in the middle 1880s. In addition to erosion or removal of the railroad road bed, some portions, particularly that between Duncaster Road and Griffin Brook, show evidence of grading and added gravel fill. Since the Griffin Brook bridge abutment stonework represents only a secondary remnant of the historic bridge(s) that crossed at this point, the set of abutments is not regarded as National Register- eligible because of a lack of integrity. Nevertheless, if the pedestrian bridge planned for this crossing could retain some or all of the stonework, it would enhance the sense of the trail as a former rail line. As small isolated engineering features, the adjacent stone culverts lack sufficient size and scale to merit National Register consideration; in any case, the trail improvements are not expected to affect the culvert.

23

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AHS identified a single small pre-colonial site in the 8285-foot-long (2524 meters) Base Phase project area/APE. This small lithic scatter, identified at the north end of the APE, was assigned Site No. 11-13 at Station 97+00. The discovery of artifacts beside the existing path indicates that the site may continue into more intact soil south of the proposed Greenway, outside of the current APE. The presence of chert at this location is in agreement with other sites recently identified in the area, suggesting that sites in this area closer to Tariffville Gorge may also be included in the Griffin Brook Archaeological Complex proposed by Raber et al. (2010). The portion of the site within the APE does not appear to warrant National Register of Historic Places designation, due to the lack of diagnostic artifacts or features, and issues of integrity (the rail bed and trail have disturbed sediments immediately west of the findspot). Testing along the proposed Greenway did not identify any cultural material associated with the nearby Indian Hill Site (11-2); it does not appear that the proposed undertaking will have any impact on this important site. The Alternative 2 section of the project, south of the Base Phase, produced no National Register- eligible sites. Only the 442-foot-long (135 meters) southern Day Hill Road section of this 2437-foot-long (743 meters) APE was determined to have archaeological sensitivity, with the remainder of Alternative 2 disturbed by extensive road cutting and filling, residential landscaping, and ongoing utilities work. Four test pits were excavated in the proposed parking lot area, which found entirely disturbed fills over deep subsoils. Various types of modern debris were observed but not collected. Six test pits were excavated along the trail along the northern edge of Day Hill Road, which recovered 28 19th-century and modern-era artifacts from disturbed fill contexts. One test pit, AT2-3, contained a possible buried plowzone or fill stratum, and a quartz Lamoka projectile point was found at 27-47 centimeters below surface. Three array pits were excavated around the test pit; no other pre-colonial Native American artifacts were recovered, but this area was confirmed to be extensively disturbed by cutting and filling, probably from previous roadwork. Consequently, no further work is recommended in the Alternative 2 portion of the project. Since the Griffin Brook railroad bridge’s stonework represents only a secondary remnant of the historic bridge or series of bridges that crossed at this point, the set of abutments is not regarded as National Register-eligible because of a lack of integrity. Current plans call for construction of new footings for the trail bridge and retention of the abutments; this treatment will help convey the sense of the trail as a former railroad right-of-way. As a small isolated engineering feature, the ca.1870 stone-slab culvert probably lacks sufficient size and scale to merit individual National Register consideration. Current practice has been to consider such structures as contributing resources to historic rail lines that are eligible because they have a reasonable density of historic features along their length. However, unlike the New Haven to Springfield rail line, the Connecticut Western/Central New England line from Griffin to Tariffville has relatively few such features in close proximity; preliminary consultation between ConnDOT and the SHPO (Speal 2013) concluded that the line as a whole did not represent an eligible linear historic resource. Instead, the role the Connecticut Western/Central New England line played in Connecticut’s transportation history might be better recognized by more significant resources, such as the two-span stone-arch Whiting Viaduct in North Canaan or the surviving railroad stations along the route. The two ca.1920 rail-related features, the rail-top culvert near Station 59+00 and the small concrete-slab bridge near Station 94+00, both have some historical interest because they are typical of early 20th-century railroad maintenance and repair activities, in which earlier structures were upgraded with added concrete. However, these two represent minor engineering features that probably should not be considered as rising to the level of National Register eligibility. The rock cuts near Duncaster Road are relatively modest compared to those further west on the line or to those on other lines in Connecticut, such as the deep, mile-long cut on the Hartford-Providence line at Bolton Notch. They should probably not be considered as National Register-eligible engineering features.

24

Current plans call for no changes to the ca.1870 stone-slab culvert, the ca.1920 rail-top culvert, the ca.1920 concrete-slab bridge, or the rock cuts. AHS recommends that no further investigation or documentation is required for these rail-related engineering features beyond that produced for this report.

25

VII. REFERENCES

Baker & Tilden 1869 Atlas of Hartford, City and County. Hartford.

Banks, Marc 2000 Anadromous Fish and Prehistoric Site Selection in the Farmington River Valley of Connecticut. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Bellantoni, Nicholas 1995 Distribution of Paleoindian Cultural Material in Connecticut. Paper presented at the Archaeological Society of Connecticut Annual Spring Meeting.

Bendremer, Jeffrey and Robert Dewar 1993 The Advent of Maize Horticulture in New England. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology, No 5, edited by Sissel Johannessen and Christine A. Hastorf, pp. 369-393. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bradford, William 1989 Bradford's History of Plimoth Plantation, 1620-1647. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Brasser, Ted J. 1978 Early Indian-European Contacts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, edited by W.C. Sturtevant, pp. 78-88. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Caesar, Joseph Anthony 1974 Obituary, Hartford Courant, July 11, 1974.

Cassedy, Daniel F. 1997 From the Erie Canal to Long Island Sound: Technical Synthesis of the Iroquois Pipeline Project, 1989-1993. Atlanta, GA: Garrow and Associates, Inc.

1999 The Archaic Florescence: The Late and Terminal Archaic Periods of Connecticut as seen from the Iroquois Pipeline. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62: 125-139.

Caulkins, Francis M. 1895 History of New London Connecticut. Hartford, CT, Press of Case, Tiffany and Company.

Ceci, Lynn 1977 The Effect of European Contact and Trade on the Settlement Pattern of Indians in Coastal New York, 1524-1665: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.

1980 Maize Cultivation in Coastal New York: The Archaeological, Agronomical and Documentary Evidence. North American Archaeologist 1(1): 45-74.

Chilton, Elizabeth 1999 Mobile Farmers of Pre-Contact Southern New England: The Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Evidence. In Current Northeast Paleoethnobotany, edited by J. Hart, pp. 157-176. New York State Museum, No. 494, Albany.

26

De Forest, John W. 1853 History of the Indians of Connecticut From the Earliest Known Period to 1850. Hartford: William Hamersly.

Dent, Richard J. 2002 Paleoindian Occupation of the Upper Delaware Valley: Revisiting Shawnee-Minisink and Nearby Sites. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by Kurt Carr and James Adovasio, pp. 51-78. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology, Number 2, Paul A. Raber, Series Editor. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA.

Dincauze, Dena F. 1968 Cremation Cemeteries in Eastern Massachusetts. Cambridge, MA: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 59(1).

1975 The Late Archaic Period in Southern New England. Arctic Anthropology 12(2): 23-24.

1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag. Peabody Museum Monographs 4. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Dolph & Stewart 1931 Atlas of Hartford County, Conn., with Parts of New Haven, Middlesex, Litchfield, & Tolland Counties. New York.

Dowd, Timothy and Bernard Dowd 2005 “The Remains of the Central New England Railway in Connecticut” online at http://www.angelfire.com/ct/tdowd/arizona/cnzr/

Dragoo, Don W. 1976 Some Aspects of Eastern North American Prehistory: A Review 1975. American Antiquity 41(1):3-27.

Everts, L. H. 1879 History of the Connecticut Valley in Massachusetts, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of its Prominent Men and Pioneers. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Press of J.B. Lippincott & Co.

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

Feder, Kenneth 1981 The Farmington River Archaeological Project: Focus on a Small River Valley. Man in the Northeast 22: 131-146.

1982 The Avaricious Humor of Designing Englishmen: The Ethnohistory of Land Transactions in the Farmington Valley. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 45:29-40.

1984 Pots, Plants, and People: The Late Woodland Period in Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 47: 99-111.

1993 The Lighthouse: History and Archaeology of an Outcast Village. Northeast Anthropology 46: 39- 59.

27

1999 The Late Woodland Revisited: The Times, They Were A-Changin' (But Not That Much). Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62: 155-174.

Fiedel, Stuart 2001 What Happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:101-142.

Field, David D. 1853 Centennial Address. Middletown, CT: News and Advertiser Print.

Filios, E. S. 1989 The End of the Beginning or the Beginning of the End: the Third Millennium BP in Southern New England. Man in the Northeast 38: 79-93.

Forrest, Daniel 1999 Beyond Presence and Absence: Establishing Diversity in Connecticut's Early Holocene Archaeological Record. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62: 79-99.

Funk, Robert E. 1997 Holocene or Hollow Scene? The Search for the Earliest Archaic Cultures in New York State. The Review of Archaeology 17(1): 11-24.

George, David 1997 Late Prehistoric Archaeobotony of Connecticut: Providing a Context for the Transition to Maize Agriculture. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 60: 13-28.

Goodwin, J .O. 1879 East Hartford, Its History and Traditions. Hartford: Case Lockwood and Brainard Company.

Hoadly, Charles J. (editor) 1897 Hartford Town Votes, Vol. 1 1635-1716. In Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, Vol. 6. Hartford: The Society.

Ives, Timothy H. 2001 Wangunk Ethnohistory: A Case Study of a Connecticut River Indian Community. Unpublished Master’s thesis, College of William and Mary.

2009 Expressions of Community: Reconstructing Native Identity in Seventeenth-Century Central Connecticut through Land Deed Analysis. In Mohican Seminar 3, The Journey - An Algonquian Peoples Seminar, edited by Shirley W. Dunn, pp. 25-38. Albany: The University of the State of New York.

2011 Reconstructing the Wangunk Reservation Land System: A Case Study of Native and Colonial Likeness in Central Connecticut. Ethnohistory 58(1): 65-90.

Johnson, Eric S. 1999 Community and Confederation: A Political Geography of Contact Period Southern New England. In The Archaeological Northeast. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Jones, Brian D. 1997 The Late Paleoindian Hidden Creek Site in Southeastern Connecticut. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25: 45-80.

28

1998 Human Adaptation to the Changing Northeastern Environment at the End of the Pleistocene: Implications for the Archaeological Record. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, No. 9906705.

1999 The Middle Archaic Period in Connecticut: The View From Mashantucket. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62: 101-123.

2002 Continuity vs. Change During the Last Three Millennia at Mashantucket. Northeast Anthropology 64: 17-29.

2004 Paleoindian Population Dynamics in New England: Possible Typological Consequences. In Hunters and Gatherers in Theory and Archaeology, edited by G. Crothers. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 31. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

Jones, Brian D., and Daniel T. Forrest 2003 Life in a Postglacial Landscape: Settlement-Subsistence Change During the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Southern New England. In Geoarchaeology of Landscapes in the Glaciated Northeast, edited by D.L. Cremeens and J.P. Hart, pp. 75-89. Albany, NY: New York State Museum Bulletin 497, University of the State of New York, the State Education Department.

Jones, Brian, Daniel Forrest and Robert Thorson 2008 The Adriaen's Landing Project and the Development of the Connecticut River Floodplain at Hartford. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 70: 5-16.

Juli, Harold 1999 Current Perspectives on Early and Middle Woodland Archaeology in Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62: 141-153.

Karr, Ronald D. 1995 The Rail Lines of Southern New England, a Handbook of Railroad History. Pepperrell, MA: Branch Line Press.

LaFantaise, Glen W. (editor) 1988 The Correspondence of Roger Williams. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Laet, Johan de 1909 From the “New World,” by Johan de Laet, 1625, 1630, 1633, 1640. In Narratives of New Netherlands, 1609-1664, edited by J. Franklin Jameson. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons (reprinted Barnes and Noble, New York, 1967).

Lavin, Lucianne 1984 Connecticut Prehistory: A Synthesis of Current Investigations. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 47: 5-40.

1988 Coastal Adaptations in Southern New England and Southern New York. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16: 101-120.

Lewis, Thomas R. 1981 Near the Long Tidal River. Landham, MD: University of America Press.

29

Leveillee, Alan 1999 Transitional Archaic Ideology as Reflected in Secondary Burials at the Millbury III Cremation Complex. Man in the Northeast 27:157–183.

Love, William D. 1935 The Colonial History of Hartford. Hartford: Connecticut Printers, Inc.

Luedtke, Barbara E. 1987 The Pennsylvania Connection; Jasper at Massachusetts Sites. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 48: 37-47.

McBride, Kevin A. 1984 Prehistory of the Lower Connecticut River Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

1994 The Source and Mother of the Fur Trade: Native-Dutch Relations in Eastern New Netherland. In Enduring Traditions, edited by Laurie Weinstein, pp. 31-56. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

McBride, Kevin A. and Robert Dewar 1981 Prehistoric Settlement in the Lower Connecticut River Valley. Man in the Northeast 22: 37-66.

1987 Agriculture and Cultural Evolution: Causes and Effects in the Lower Connecticut River Valley. In Emergent Horticultural Economies in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W. Keegan, pp. 305- 328. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, University of Illinois.

McCluskey, J. P. 1939 “Land in Bloomfield and Windsor, Conn. To be Conveyed to the Hartford Electric Light Company.” Bloomfield Town Clerk Map Files, Book 5, Map 212, January 1939.

McManis, Douglas R. 1975 Colonial New England: A Historical Geography. New York: Oxford University Press.

McWeeney, Lucinda 1999 A Review of Late Pleistocene and Holocene Climate Changes in Southern New England. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62: 3-18.

Meltzer, David J. 1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2(1): 1-52.

Menta, John 1994 Cultural Conflict in Southern New England: A History of the Quinnipiac Indians. Master’s thesis, Southern Connecticut State University.

Moeller, Roger W. 1980 6LF21: A Paleo-Indian Site in Western Connecticut. American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut.

1984 Regional Implications of the Templeton Site for Paleo-Indian Lithic Procurement and Utilization. North American Archaeologist 5(3): 236-246.

30

Oberg, Michael Leroy 2003 Uncas: First of the Mohegans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Pagoulatos, Peter 1990 Late Woodland and Contact Period Land-Use Patterns in Rhode Island: Continuity and Change. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 51: 69-82.

Pfeiffer, John 1986 Dill Farm Locus One: Early and Middle Archaic Components in Southern New England. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 49: 19-35.

1992 Late and Terminal Archaic Cultural Adaptations of the Lowest Connecticut Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York Albany.

Phelps, Noah A. 1845 History of Simsbury, Granby, and Canton. Hartford: Case, Tiffany and Burnham.

Price & Lee Company 1930 - The Greater Hartford Directory. Hartford.

Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut 1850- Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut. Vol. 1-3 edited by J.H. Trumbull, Vol. 4-15 edited 1890 by C.J. Hoadley. Hartford: Case, Lockwood, and Brainard.

Raber, Michael, Marc Banks, Stephen Carini and Robert Thorson 2010 Management Summary of Archaeological and Historical Investigations Made Through May 2010 for Connecticut Sections of the Connecticut Light and Power Company Greater Springfield Reliability Project, Towns of Bloomfield, East Granby and Suffield, Connecticut. Glastonbury, CT: Raber Associates.

Ritchie, William A. 1969 The Archaeology of Martha's Vineyard. Garden City, NJ: The Natural History Press.

1971 The Archaic in New York. New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 52:2-12.

1994 The Archaeology of New York State, Revised Edition of 1965). Fleischmanns, NY: Purple Mountain Press.

Robinson, Brian S. 1996 Archaic Period Burial Patterning in the Northeast. The Review of Archaeology, Special Issue 17(1): 33-44.

Robinson Brian, Peterson Jim and Ann Robinson (editors) 1992 Early Holocene Occupation in Northern New England, Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology 9. Augusta, ME: Maine Historic Preservation Commission.

Salwen, Bert 1978 Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 15. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.

31

Snow, Dean 1980 The Archaeology of New England. New York: Academic Press.

Speal, C. Scott 2013 Memorandum from C. Scott Speal, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Planning, to Glenn Elliott, FHWA, regarding Bloomfield Greenway – Phase A, B, and C, January 31, 2013.

Spiess, Arthur E., Deborah B. Wilson, and James Bradley 1998 Paleoindian Occupation in the New England-Maritimes Region: Beyond Cultural Ecology. Archaeology in Eastern North America 26:201–64.

Stevens, Edward R. 1969 “Norfolk’s Mr. Railroad [Egbert T. Butler],” Lure of the Litchfield Hills, Spring-Summer 1969, pp. 12-14.

Stiles, Henry R. 1892 The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor. Hartford: Case, Lockwood & Brainard.

Tache, Karine 2011 Structure and Regional Diversity of the Meadowood Interaction Sphere. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Memoir 48: Ann Arbor.

Tarbox, Increase N. 1886 How the River Towns Came to be Planted. In Memorial History of the County of Hartford, Conn., Vol.1, edited by J.H. Trumbull, pp. 19-36. Boston: Edward L. Osgood.

Trumbull , James H. 1886 The Memorial History of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1633-1884. Boston: E. L. Osgood.

Trumbull, J. Hammond, and Charles J. Hoadley (editors) 1850- Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut. 15 vols. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood, and 1890 Brainard.

Turner, Gregg M., and Melancthon Jacobus 1986 Connecticut Railroads: an Illustrated History. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Historical Society.

U. S. Census [agency name varies] 1860 Census of Population, manuscript returns, microfilm, Connecticut State Library, Hartford.

1930 Census of Population, manuscript returns, microfilm, Connecticut State Library, Hartford.

U.S. Geological Survey 1893 Topographical Maps of Connecticut. Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Librarian.

Van Der Donck, A. 1968 A Description of the New Netherlands, edited by Thomas F. O’Donnell, Reprint. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press (first printed in 1655).

32

Van Wassenaer, Nicholaes 1909 From the "Historich Verhael" [1624-1630]. In Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664, edited by Franklin Jameson, pp. 61-96. Original Narratives in Early American History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Vaughn , Alden 1979 New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675. Boston; Little, Brown.

Whitworth, W.R. 1996 Freshwater Fishes of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. Second edition, Bulletin 114.

Williams, R. 1973 Key Into the Language of America. J.J. Teunissen and E.J. Hinz, editors. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. (First printed 1643).

Winthrop, John 1943 Winthrop Papers. Massachusetts Historical Society.

1996 Journal of John Winthrop. Vol. 1, edited by L. Yeandle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wintonbury Historical Society 1983 From Wintonbury to Bloomfield. Bloomfield, CT.

Woodford, E. M. 1855 Smith’s Map of Hartford County, Connecticut. Philadelphia: H. & C. T. Smith.

33

APPENDIX I

Figures

34

Figure 1: Bloomfield Greenway Trail Project Area on USGS Tariffville Quadrangle.

35

Figure 2: Documented archaeological sites within a mile of the project on USGS Tariffville and Windsor Locks quadrangles.

36

Figure 3: Project route (shaded) shown on the 1855 Woodford county wall map. Several nearby properties were owned by H[ugh] Mitchelson, an early grower of broad-leaf tobacco for cigar wrappers.

37

Figure 4: Project route (shaded) shown on the 1869 Baker and Tilden atlas map. Although the railroad was authorized in 1868, it had not yet been built when this map was prepared. The notation “H. Mitchell” is probably a misprint for “H. Mitchelson,” as on the 1855 map.

38

Figure 5: Route of proposed trail as plotted on the 1893 USGS Granby and Hartford Quadrangles. The topography was surveyed in 1889. The route appears to diverge from the railroad as it approaches Tariffville; this is probably the result of imprecision in the map, not a re- alignment of the railroad.

39

Figure 6: Project route (shaded) shown on the 1931 Dolph and Stewart map. This map shows property ownership, but not buildings. Like Figure 5, this map shows the alignment of the railroad north of St. Andrew’s Church as substantially straighter than it actually was.

40

Figure 7: Project route (shaded) shown on the 1934 Fairchild aerial photograph.

41

Figure 8: Typical scene along the Central New England Railroad in Bloomfield, ca. 1925 (Railroad Collections, Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT).

42

Figure 9: The Barnards station, also known as Scotland or North Bloomfield, ca. 1925 (Railroad Collections, Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT).

43

Figure 10: Overview of location of Base Phase shovel test pits on USGS Tariffville quadrangle.

44

Figure 11: Location of engineering features along the rail line on USGS Tariffville and Windsor Locks quads.

45

[[

T1-10

T1-9

T1-8

T1-7

T1-6

T1-5

T1-4

T1-3

T1-2

T1-1

Figure 18Figure

0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 50 100 Meters [ T1-26 [

T1-25

T1-24

T1-23

T1-22

T1-21

T1-20

T1-19

T1-18

T1-17

T1-16

T1-15

T1-14

T1-13

J2

T1-12

J1

T1-11

Figure 19Figure

0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 50 100 Meters [ T1-43 [

T1-44

N10W5 N10E0 )" )" T1-43

N5W5 N5E0 )" A1 )" T1-42 A2 A1

T1-41 N0W5 T1-42 )"

S3E0 T1-40 )" A2 S5W5 S5E0 )" )" T1-39 05 10 20 Meters

)" )" T1-38

T1-37

T1-36

T1-35

T1-34

T1-33

T1-32

T1-31

T1-30

T1-29

T1-28

Figure 20Figure

T1-27

0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 50 100 Meters

APPENDIX II

Photographs

58

Photograph 1: Excavation of shovel test pit A1 along the proposed Bloomfield Greenway Trail. This pit was located two meters north of STP T1-42 that contained a hornfels flake. STP A2, located south of the telephone pole, produced five chert flakes. The subsequent Phase II survey of this location produced no additional associated archaeological material.

59

Photograph 2: Modern culvert near Station 25+00, west headwall, camera facing east.

60

Photograph 3: Modern culvert near Station 39+00, west headwall, camera facing northeast.

61

Photograph 4: Rock cut near Station 54+00, north of Duncaster Road, camera facing west.

62

Photograph 5: Rock cut near Station 54+00, north of Duncaster Road, camera facing northwest.

63

Photograph 6: Rail-top culvert, ca. 1920, near Station 59+00, west elevation, camera facing north.

64

Photograph 7: Rail-top culvert, ca. 1920, near Station 59+00, east elevation, camera facing northwest.

65

Photograph 8: Rail-top culvert, ca. 1920, near Station 59+00, underside, camera facing southwest.

66

Photograph 9: Stone-slab culvert, ca. 1870, near Station 61+00, west elevation, camera facing north.

67

Photograph 10: Stone-slab culvert, ca. 1870, near Station 61+00, east elevation, camera facing north.

68

Photograph 11: View northeast through south barrel of stone-slab culvert, ca. 1860, near Station 61+00.

69

Photograph 12: West side of embankment through which the culvert near Station 61+00 passes, camera facing southeast.

70

Photograph 13: South Griffin Brook bridge abutment, ca. 1870, near Station 66+00, east elevation, camera facing southeast.

71

Photograph 14: North Griffin Brook bridge abutment, ca. 1870, near Station 66+00, east elevation, camera facing west.

72

Photograph 15: Modern pipe culvert near Station 83+00, east end, camera facing northwest.

73

Photograph 16: Concrete-slab culvert/bridge near Station 94+00, west elevation, camera facing northeast.

74

Photograph 17: Concrete-slab culvert/bridge near Station 94+00, east elevation, camera facing west.

75

Photograph 18 : Underside of concrete-slab culvert/bridge near Station 94+00, camera facing east.

76

Photograph 19: Late Archaic-period quartz Lamoka projectile point recovered from test pit AT2-3.

77

APPENDIX III

Test Pit Profiles

78

APPENDIX IV

Artifact Inventory Catalogues

98

Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Artifact Inventory Site: 11 - 13 02/11/14 Site Name: Scatter Name: Page 1

Inv#Locus Unit Quad DepthDatum Soil Ph Fea. Count Item DescriptionWeight Period Bag # 1.00 T1-42 10-20cm bsFill 1 I 1 hornfels flake 1 possible mudstone 2.00 A2 0-15cm bsA0 (Duff)/Fill 1 I 1 chert retouched flake 1 fragment from a large flake; raclette-like edge modification 3.00 A2 40-50cm bsB21 (Upper Subsoil) I 1 chert utilized flake w/ potlid fractures 2 delicate continuous damage along one edge 4.00 A2 50-60cm bsB21 (Upper Subsoil) I 1 chert flake 3

5.00 A2 60-75cm bsB21 (Upper Subsoil) I 1 chert flake 4

6.00 A2 60-75cm bsB21 (Upper Subsoil) I 1 chert flake w/ cortex 4 Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Site Summary Report

Site: 11-13 Phase I 03/20/15

Material Total Lithic 6

Total Artifacts: 6 Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Detailed Site Summary Report Site: 11-13

03/20/15 Phase I Page 1

Material Description Count Lithic chert flake 3 Lithic chert retouched flake 1 Lithic chert utilized flake 1 Lithic hornfels flake 1

Total Artifacts: 6 Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Artifact Inventory Site: 11 - FSBGT 03/20/15 Site Name: Scatter Name: Page 1

Inv#Locus Unit Quad DepthDatum Soil Ph Fea. Count Item DescriptionWeight Period Bag # 1.00 T1-1 30-45cm bs Fill 2 I 1brown transfer printed whiteware sherd 1810-1900+ 1

2.00 T1-6 10-20cm bs Fill 1 I 1hand painted blue whiteware rim sherd 1820-1900+ 1

3.00 T1-19 50-65cm bsFill 3 I 1 kaolin pipe 5/64 stem fragment 1

4.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bsFill 1 I 1 iron wire nail shank 1

5.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bsFill 1 I 1 blue-green window glass fragment 1 onlt a sample was collected 6.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bsFill 1 I 4 clear window glass fragment 1 onlt a sample was collected 7.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bsFill 1 I 1 plastic fragment 1

8.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bsFill 1 I 2 brick fragment 1.02 gm 1

9.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bsFill 1 I 1 slag fragment 0.40 gm 1

10.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bsFill 1 I 1 coal ash fragment 0.06 gm 1

11.00 AT2-1 3-33cm bs Fill 1 I 1untyped whiteware sherd 1820-1900+ 1

12.00 AT2-3 4-27cm bsFill 1 I 1 iron unidentified fragment 1

13.00 AT2-3 4-27cm bsFill 1 I 2 iron nail whole 1

14.00 AT2-3 4-27cm bsFill 1 I 1 clear unidentified curved glass fragment 1 only a sample was collected 15.00 AT2-3 4-27cm bsFill 1 I 4 clear window glass fragment 1 only a sample was collected 16.00 AT2-3 4-27cm bsFill 1 I 1 coal fragment 1.42 gm 1 only a sample was collected 17.00 AT2-3 4-27cm bsFill 1 I 1 slag fragment 0.42 gm 1 only a sample was collected 18.00 AT2-3 27-35cm bsFill 2/Redeposited I 1 blue-green window glass fragment 2

19.00 AT2-3 27-35cm bsFill 2/Redeposited I 1 clear window glass fragment 2

20.00 AT2-3 27-35cm bsFill 2/Redeposited I 1 clear unidentified curved glass fragment 2

21.00 AT2-3 27-35cm bsFill 2/Redeposited I 1 iron nail fragment 2 Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Artifact Inventory Site: 11 - FSBGT 03/20/15 Site Name: Scatter Name: Page 2

Inv#Locus Unit Quad DepthDatum Soil Ph Fea. Count Item DescriptionWeight Period Bag # 22.00 AT2-3 27-35cm bsFill 2/Redeposited I 1 brass sheet fragment 2

23.00 AT2-3 27-35cm bsFill 2/Redeposited I 1 coal fragment 0.14 gm 2

24.00 AT2-3 27-35cm bsFill 2/Redeposited I 1 quartz Lamoka projectile point whole Late Archaic 2 Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Site Summary Report

Site: 11-FSBGT Phase I 03/20/15

Material Total Lithic 1 Historic Ceramic 3 Metal 6 Glass 13 Other Historic 8 Historic Pipe 1

Total Artifacts: 32 Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc. Detailed Site Summary Report Site: 11-FSBGT

03/20/15 Phase I Page 1

Material Description Count Lithic quartz projectile point 1 Historic Ceramic brown transfer printed whiteware 1 Historic Ceramic hand painted blue whiteware 1 Historic Ceramic untyped whiteware 1 Metal brass sheet 1 Metal iron nail 3 Metal iron wire nail 1 Metal iron unidentified 1 Glass blue-green window glass 2 Glass clear window glass 9 Glass clear unidentified curved glass 2 Other Historic brick 2 Other Historic coal 2 Other Historic coal ash 1 Other Historic plastic 1 Other Historic slag 2 Historic Pipe kaolin pipe 5/64 1

Total Artifacts: 32

APPENDIX V

Archaeological Site Inventory Form

102

HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Town No.:11 Site no.:13 HIST-7 NEW 9/77 UTM: 1 8 6 8 5 9 5 0 4 6 4 0 8 5 0 STATE OF CONNECTICUT QUAD:Tariffville DISTRICT YES CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL COMMISSION NR: ACT ELIG. NO 59 SOUTH PROSPECT STREET, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, 06106 SR: ACT ELIG. NO NO 1. SITE NAME STATE SITE NO. CAS NO. 11-13 2. TOWN/CITY VILLAGE COUNTY Bloomfield Hartford 3. STREET AND NUMBER (and/or location) Northeast of Tariffville Road along old railroad bed 4. OWNER(S) PUBLIC PRIVATE

IDENTIFICATION 5. ATTITUDE TOWARD EXCAVATION favorable 6. USE (Present) (Historic) field 7. PERIOD Early Archaic Early Woodland Contact Paleo Middle Archaic Middle Woodland Unknown Late Archaic Late Woodland Other(specify) 8. DATING C-14 Intuition Other(specify) METHOD Comparative Materials 9. SITE TYPE Quarry Camp Rockshelter Shell Midden Cemetery Village Other(specify) 10. APPROXIMATE SIZE AND BOUNDARIES DESCRIPTION 10 square meters as tested. The site could extend beyond the APE to the east. . 11. STRATIGRAPHY Surface finds Plowed Not Stratified Stratified Major Disturbance Other(specify) 12. SOIL USDA SOIL SERIES CONTOUR ELEVATION SLOPE % Cheshire-Holyoke 200'

0-5 5-15 15-25 over 25 TEXTURE ACIDITY Sand Clay Silt less than 4.5 4.5-5.5 5.6-6.5 6.6-7.3 7.4-8.4 Other (specify)sandy loam 13. WATER NEAREST WATER SOURCE SIZE AND SPEED DISTANCE FROM SITE SEASONAL AVAILABILITY Farmington River large 150 meters year round

ENVIRONMENT 14. PRESENT PAST VEGETATION weeds, briars unknown 15. SITE INTEGRITY

Undisturbed Good Fair Destroyed 16. THREATS TO SITE None Known Highways Vandalism Developers Other (specify) Renewal Private Deterioration Zoning Unknown

CONDITION 17. SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT Open Land Woodland Residential Scattered Buildings visible from site Commercial Industrial Rural High Building Density Coastal Isolated

18. ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC – VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC ROAD Yes No 19. PREVIOUS EXCAVATIONS BY WHOM/AFFILIATION DATE

SURFACE COLLECTED BY WHOM/AFFILIATION DATE POT HUNTED BY WHOM/AFFILIATION DATE TESTED AHS, Inc. Phase I and II 12/2013 DATE BY WHOM/AFFILIATION

EXCAVATION 20. PRESENT LOCATION OF MATERIALS AHS labs , Storrs, CT 21. PUBLISHED REFERENCES

RESEARCH POTENTIAL Jones, Brian and Bruce Clouette (2014) Phase IB Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Rail Feature Documentation, Bloomfield Greenway Multi-Use Trail. Storrs, CT: AHS, Inc. 22. RECOVERED DATA (Identify in DETAIL, including features, burials, faunal material, etc.) 3 chert flakes, 1 chert utilized flake, 1 retouched chert flake, and 1 hornfels flake from both fill and subsoil layers.

23. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE This small lithic assemblage is dominated by fine-grained chert, including a utilized flake. Chert is relatively common in sites of the CT River Valley and in the local Griffin Brook area, but it does not often comprise the majority lithic material. The site's location near Tarrfiville Gorge suggests that seasonal fishing may have been an aspect of site choice. The absence of diagnostic material and the site's apparent small size limits its scientific research potential, but its presence indicates that more substantive activity areas are likley to be found in the vicinity.

SIGNIFICANCE

PHOTOGRAPHER

DATE Place VIEW 35 mm contact print here NEGATIVE ON FILE PHOTOGRAPH

The site is located about 200 meters northwest the significant Indian Hill Site (11-2) on the same landform. This small location could represent a temporary activity area associated with a component of that larger site, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

NAME ADDRESS Brian Jones 569 Middle Tpke, Storrs, Ct 06268

BY ORGANIZATION DATE AHS, Inc. 2/2014 REPORTED

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY FIELD EVALUATION

COMMENTS