HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Phase IA-IB Mostowy Property 012123
JANUARY 2023
830 BERLIN TURNPIKE
BERLIN, CONNECTICUT 06037
PREPARED FOR:
MONTVILLE PARKS & RECREATION
310 NORWICH-NEW LONDON TURNPIKE
UNCASVILLE, CONNECTICUT 06382
PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SURVEY &
PHASE IB CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
OF THE MOSTOWY PROPERTY ALONG OAKDALE ROAD
(ROUTE 163) IN MONTVILLE, CONNECTICUT
ii
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a Phase IA cultural resources assessment and Phase IB cultural
resources reconnaissance survey for the Montville Parks and Recreation Department of the Mostowy
Property along Oakdale Road (Route 163) in Montville, Connecticut. The proposed Project area
encompasses approximately 30 acres of land that will be developed into a public park. The Phase IA
cultural resources assessment survey involved a review of previously identified cultural resources
recorded within the vicinity of the Project area; the collection and examination of aerial photographs and
maps showing the Project area; pedestrian survey; and an assessment of the area for containing intact
archaeological deposits. Completion of the Phase IA survey resulted in the identification of two areas
determined to retain moderate/high potential to yield archaeological sites or intact deposits. They were
designated as sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-2. Phase IB archaeological testing if the two sensitivity areas,
which total 12.77 acres in extent, was recommended. The remaining 17 acres were determined to have
no/low potential for yielding archaeological sites or deposits and therefore require no additional testing.
The subsequent Phase IB cultural resources reconnaissance survey of Sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-2 was
completed in December of 2022. During the survey, 201 of 227 (89 percent) of planned shovel tests were
excavated throughout Sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-2. The 26 planned but unexcavated shovel tests fell
within areas characterized by standing water, slopes, and treefalls. A total of seven post-European Contact
period artifacts were recovered from plow zone soils across Sensitivity Area SA-2. Sensitivity Area SA-1
failed to yield any cultural material of evidence of cultural features. Due to the low-density nature of the
archaeological deposits identified within Sensitivity Area SA-2 and the lack of associated above ground
architectural features or soil anomalies throughout either area, the post-European Contact period
artifacts were characterized as unassociated field scatter. They were assessed as not significant applying
the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]. No additional
archaeological examination of Sensitivity Areas SA-1 or SA-2, or the remainder of the project parcel, is
recommended prior to construction.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
Project Description and Methods ...................................................................................................... 1
Project Results .................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Personnel .............................................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER II: NATURAL SETTING ...................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Ecoregions of Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 3
Southeast Hills Ecoregion ............................................................................................................ 3
Hydrology in the Vicinity of the Project Area ..................................................................................... 3
Soils Comprising the Project Area ...................................................................................................... 4
Canton-Charlton Soils (Soil Codes 60c; 62D) ................................................................................ 4
Paxton-Montauk Soils (Soil Codes 84B; 84C)................................................................................ 5
Ridgebury-Leicester-Whitman Soils (Soil Code 3) ........................................................................ 5
Woodbridge Soils (Soil Codes 45A; 46B) ...................................................................................... 6
Summary........................................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER III: PRECONTACT ERA SETTING .......................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Paleo-Indian Period (12,000 to 10,000 Before Present [B.P.]) ............................................................ 8
Archaic Period (10,000 to 2,700 B.P.) ................................................................................................ 9
Early Archaic Period (10,000 to 8,000 B.P.) .............................................................................. 10
Middle Archaic Period (8,000 to 6,000 B.P.) ............................................................................. 10
Late Archaic Period (6,000 to 3,700 B.P.) ................................................................................. 11
Terminal Archaic Period (3,700 to 2,700 B.P.) .......................................................................... 11
Woodland Period (2,700 to 350 B.P.) ............................................................................................... 12
Early Woodland Period (ca., 2,700 to 2,000 B.P.) ....................................................................... 12
Middle Woodland Period (2,000 to 1,200 B.P.) .......................................................................... 13
Late Woodland Period (ca., 1,200 to 350 B.P.) ........................................................................... 13
....................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER IV: POST-EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD OVERVIEW ............................................................................ 15
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 15
New London County ........................................................................................................................ 15
Woodland Period to Seventeenth Century ...................................................................................... 15
Seventeenth Century through Eighteenth Century .......................................................................... 16
Nineteenth Century to Present ........................................................................................................ 17
History of the Project Area .............................................................................................................. 18
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER V: PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................................ 21
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 21
iv
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and National/State Register of Historic Places Properties 21
Site 86-9 ................................................................................................................................ 21
Raymond Bradford Homestead .............................................................................................. 21
Montville Center Congregational Church ............................................................................... 22
Joseph Bradford House .......................................................................................................... 22
Carding Mill Site..................................................................................................................... 22
Clothing Mill House ................................................................................................................ 23
CHAPTER VI: METHODS.............................................................................................................................. 24
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 24
Research Design ............................................................................................................................ 24
Field Methods ............................................................................................................................... 24
Phase IA Survey Methods....................................................................................................... 24
Phase IB Survey Methods ....................................................................................................... 24
Curation ........................................................................................................................................ 25
CHAPTER VII: RESULTS & MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 26
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 26
Results of Phase IA Survey............................................................................................................ 26
Results of Phase IB Survey ............................................................................................................ 26
Summary and Management Recommendations ..27
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................... 28
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. the location of the
project area in Montville, Connecticut.
Figure 2. Digital map showing the soil types present in the vicinity of the project area in Montville,
Connecticut.
Figure 3. Excerpt from an 1854 map of New London County showing the location of the project area in
Montville, Connecticut.
Figure 4. Excerpt from the 1868 Beers map showing the location of the project area in Montville,
Connecticut.
Figure 5. Excerpt from a 1934 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville,
Connecticut.
Figure 6. Excerpt from a 1965 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville,
Connecticut.
Figure 7. Excerpt from a 1970 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville,
Connecticut.
Figure 8. Excerpt from a 2004 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville,
Connecticut.
Figure 9. Excerpt from a 2019 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville,
Connecticut.
Figure 10. Digital map showing the locations of previously identified archaeological sites in the vicinity
of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
Figure 11. Digital map showing the locations of previously identified National and State Register of
Historic Places properties in the vicinity of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
Figure 12. Excerpt from a 2021 aerial photograph showing areas of no/low and moderate/high
sensitivity areas as a result of the Phase 1A pedestrian survey within the project area in
Montville, Connecticut.
vi
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from western boundary. Photo facing east.
Photo 2. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from eastern boundary. Photo facing west.
Photo 3. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from northern boundary. Photo facing south.
Photo 4. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from southern boundary. Photo facing north.
Photo 5. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from northern boundary. Photo facing south.
Photo 6. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from southern boundary. Photo facing north.
Photo 7. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from western boundary. Photo facing east.
Photo 8. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from eastern boundary. Photo facing west.
Photo 9. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 near Shovel Test pit 12 along Transect 11.
Photo 10. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from northeast corner. Photo facing south.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of Phase IA cultural resources assessment and Phase IB archaeological
reconnaissance surveys of the proposed Mostowy Property project along Oakdale Road in Montville,
Connecticut (Figure 1). The Montville Department of Parks and Recreation (MDPR) requested that Heritage
Consultants, LLC (Heritage) complete the investigations as part of the planning process for the
development of a 30-acre parcel of land that will be converted into a public park. Heritage completed the
fieldwork for this investigation in December of 2022. All work associated with this Project was performed
in accordance with the (Poirier
1987) promulgated by the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (CT-SHPO).
Project Description and Methods
The Phase IA cultural resources reconnaissance survey of the Project area consisted of the completion of
the following tasks: 1) preparation of precontact era, post-European
Contact period, and natural settings (e.g., soils, ecology, hydrology, etc.); 2) a literature search to identify
and discuss previously recorded cultural resources in the region encompassing the Project area; 3) a
review of readily available maps and aerial imagery depicting the Project area in order to identify potential
post-European Contact period resources and/or areas of past disturbance; and 4) pedestrian survey and
photo-documentation of the Project area in order to determine its archaeological sensitivity.
The assessment survey portion of the Project described above was followed by a Phase IB reconnaissance
survey utilizing systematic shovel testing, GPS recordation, and photo-documentation within areas deemed
to retain a moderate/high potential for containing intact cultural deposits during the Phase IA survey.
During the Phase IB survey, Heritage conducted the systematic excavation of shovel tests positioned at 15
m (49.2 ft) intervals along parallel survey transects spaced 15 m (49.2 ft) apart throughout sensitive areas
identified during the Phase IA survey. Each shovel test measured 50 x 50 cm (19.7 x 19.7 in) in size and
each was excavated to the glacially derived C-Horizon or until immovable objects (e.g., tree roots, boulders,
etc.) or water was encountered. Each shovel test was excavated in 10 cm (3.9 in) arbitrary levels within
natural soil horizons, and the fill from each level was screened separately. All shovel test fill was screened
through 0.635 cm (0.25 in) hardware cloth and examined visually for cultural material. Soil characteristics
were recorded using Munsell Soil Color Charts and standard soils nomenclature. Each shovel test was
backfilled after it was recorded.
Project Results
A review of data currently on file at the CT-SHPO, as well as the electronic site files maintained by Heritage,
revealed a single previously identified post-European Contact period archaeological site (86-9), four
Connecticut State Register of Historic Places Properties, and a single National Register of Historic Places
property within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Project area. They are discussed in detail in Chapter V. The Phase IA
survey also resulted in the identification of two areas of moderate/high potential to yield archaeological
sites or intact deposits. They were designated as Sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-2. The two sensitivity areas,
which together encompass 12.77 acres of land, contain well drained soils and low slopes; they were
subjected to Phase IB archaeological testing. The remaining 17 acres, which contained poorly drained
soils, slopes, and obvious signs of disturbances, were determined to retain no/low potential for yielding
archaeological sites or deposits; no additional testing of the 17 acres was recommended.
2
Phase IB cultural resources reconnaissance survey of Sensitivity Areas, SA-1 and SA-2 was completed in
December of 2022. During the Phase IB survey, 201 of 227 (89 percent) of planned shovel tests were
excavated throughout Sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-2. The 26 planned but unexcavated shovel tests fell
within areas characterized by standing water, treefalls, and boulders. A total of seven post-European
Contact period artifacts were recovered from plow zone soils throughout Sensitivity Area SA-2. Due to the
low-density nature of the archaeological deposits and the lack of associated above ground architectural
features or soil anomalies throughout these areas, the recovered artifacts were characterized as
unassociated field scatter. They was assessed as not significant applying the National Register of Historic
Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]. No cultural material was recovered from Sensitivity Area
SA-1. No additional archaeological examination of Sensitivity Areas SA-1 or SA-2, or the remainder of the
project parcel, is recommended prior to construction.
Project Personnel
Heritage Personnel who contributed to the project include David R. George, M.A., R.P.A., (Principal
Investigator); Renée Petruzelli, M.A., R.P.A., (Project Archaeologist); Nita Vitaliano, M.A., (Historian);
Samuel Spitzschuh, B.A., (Field Director); and Sean Buckley, B.A., (Geographic Information Specialist).
3
CHAPTER II
NATURAL SETTING
Introduction
This chapter provides a brief overview of the natural setting of the region containing the Mostowy
Property in Montville, Connecticut. Previous archaeological research has documented that a few specific
environmental factors can be associated with both precontact and post-European Contact period site
selection. These include general ecological conditions, as well as types of fresh water sources and soils
present. The remainder of this section provides a brief overview of the ecology, hydrological resources,
and soils present within the project area and the larger region in general.
Ecoregions of Connecticut
Throughout the Pleistocene and Holocene Periods, Connecticut has undergone numerous environmental
changes. Variations in climate, geology, and physiogra
has very different natural characteristics than the coastline. Recognizing this fact, Dowhan and Craig
(1976), as part of their study of the distribution of rare and endangered species in Connecticut, subdivided
the state into various ecoregions. Dowhan and Craig (1976:27) defined an ecoregion as:
landscapes and regional climate as expressed by the vegetation
composition and pattern, and the presence or absence of certain indicator species and species groups. Each
ecoregion has a similar interrelationship between landforms, local climate, soil profiles, and plant and animal
communities. Furthermore, the pattern of development of plant communities (chronosequences and
toposequences) and of soil profile is similar in similar physiographic sites. Ecoregions are thus natural divisions of
land, climate, a
Dowhan and Craig defined nine major ecoregions for the State of Connecticut. They are based on regional
diversity in plant and animal indicator species (Dowhan and Craig 1976). Only one of the ecoregions is
germane to the current investigation: Southeast Hills ecoregion. A brief summary of this ecoregion is
presented below. It is followed by a discussion of the hydrology and soils found in and adjacent to the
project area.
Southeast Hills Ecoregion
The Southeast Hills ecoregion
characterized by low, rolling to locally rugged hills of moderate elevation, broad areas of upland, and local
s in the Southeast Hills
ecoregion generally range from 75.7 to 227.2 m (250 to 750 ft) above sea level (Dowhan and Craig 1976).
The bedrock of the region is composed of schists, and gneisses deposited during the Paleozoic. Soils in the
region have developed on top of glacial till in upland locales and on top of stratified deposits of sand,
gravel, and silt in the local valleys and upland areas (Dowhan and Craig 1976). Freshwater sources located
in the region containing the proposed project items include Williams Pond, Trent Pond, Salmon River,
Nipsic Brook, and Wildcat Brook, as well as other unnamed streams, ponds and wetland areas.
Hydrology in the Vicinity of the Project Area
The proposed Project parcel is situated within close proximity to several sources of freshwater, including
Falls Brook, Oxoboxo Brook, McAlpine Brook, Fox Brook, Scholfield Pond, Wheeler Pond, Lake Konomoc,
and the Thames River to the east. Previously completed archaeological investigations in Connecticut have
demonstrated that streams, rivers, and wetlands were focal points for precontact era occupations because
4
they provided access to transportation routes, sources of freshwater, and abundant faunal and floral
resources.
Soils Comprising the Project Area
Soil formation is the direct result of the interaction of a number of variables, including climate, vegetation,
parent material, time, and organisms present (Gerrard 1981). Once archaeological deposits are buried
within the soil, they are subject to a number of diagenic processes. Different classes of artifacts may be
preferentially protected, or unaffected by these processes, whereas others may deteriorate rapidly.
Cyclical wetting and drying, freezing and thawing, and compression can accelerate chemically and
mechanically the decay processes for animal bones, shells, lithics, ceramics, and plant remains. Lithic and
ceramic artifacts are largely unaffected by soil pH, whereas animal bones and shells decay more quickly
in acidic soils such as those that are present in within the current project area. In contrast, acidic soils
enhance the preservation of charred plant remains.
A review of the soils within the Project area is presented below. The Project area is characterized by the
presence of five major soil types characterized as sandy loams (Figure 2). The most ubiquitous soil types
found within the Project area include Canton-Charlton, Paxton-Montauk, Ridgebury-Leicester-Whitman,
and Woodbridge. Canton-Charlton, Paxton-Montauk, and Woodbridge soil types are well drained and are
correlated with both post-European Contact and precontact era archaeological site locations, while the
Ridgebury-Leicester-Whitman are poorly drained and not well correlated with either post-European
Contact period or precontact era occupations. Descriptive profiles for each, which were accessed via the
National Resources Conservation Service, are presented below.
Canton-Charlton Soils (Soil Codes 60c; 62D)
The Canton consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in a loamy mantle underlain by sandy till. They
are on nearly level to very steep moraines, hills, and ridges. Slope ranges from 0 to 45 percent. A typical
profile associated with Canton soils is as follows: Oi-- 0 to 5 cm; slightly decomposed plant material; A-- 5
to 13 cm; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) fine sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; friable;
common fine roots; 5 percent gravel; very strongly acid (pH 4.6); abrupt smooth boundary; Bw1-- 13 to
30 cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
common fine and medium roots; 5 percent gravel; very strongly acid (pH 4.6); clear smooth boundary;
Bw2-- 30 to 41 cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; common fine and medium roots; 5 percent gravel; strongly acid (pH 5.1); clear smooth
boundary; Bw3-- 41 to 56 cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) gravelly fine sandy loam; weak medium
subangular blocky; friable; common fine and medium roots; 15 percent gravel; strongly acid (pH 5.1);
abrupt smooth boundary, and; 2C-- 56 to 170 cm; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) gravelly loamy sand; massive;
friable; 25 percent gravel; moderately acid (pH 5.6).
The Charlton Series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in loamy melt-out till. They are nearly
level to very steep soils on moraines, hills, and ridges. Slope ranges from 0 to 60 percent. A typical profile
associated with Charlton soils is as follows: Oe -- 0 to 4 cm; black (10YR 2/1) moderately decomposed
forest plant material. A -- 4 to 10 cm; dark brown (10YR 3/3) fine sandy loam; weak fine granular structure;
very friable; many fine roots; 5 percent gravel; very strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary; Bw1 -- 10 to
18 cm; brown (7.5YR 4/4) fine sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure; very friable; many fine and
medium roots; 5 percent gravel; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary; Bw2 -- 18 to 48 cm; yellowish
brown (10YR 5/6) fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; very friable; common fine
and medium roots; 10 percent gravel and cobbles; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary; Bw3 -- 48 to
69 cm; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) gravelly fine sandy loam; massive; very friable; few medium roots; 15
5
percent gravel and cobbles; very strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary; and C -- 69 to 165 cm; grayish
brown (2.5Y 5/2) gravelly fine sandy loam with thin lenses of loamy sand; massive; friable, some lenses
firm; few medium roots; 25 percent gravel and cobbles; strongly acid.
Paxton-Montauk Soils (Soil Codes 84B; 84C)
The Paxton series consists of well drained loamy soils formed in lodgment till. The soils are very deep to
bedrock and moderately deep to a densic contact. They are nearly level to steep soils on hills, drumlins,
till plains, and ground moraines. Slope ranges from 0 to 45 percent. A typical profile associated with
Paxton soils is as follows: Ap--0 to 20 cm; dark brown (10YR 3/3) fine sandy loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3)
dry; moderate medium granular structure; friable; many fine roots; 5 percent gravel; strongly acid; abrupt
smooth boundary; Bw1--20 to 38 cm; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) fine sandy loam; weak medium
subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine roots; 5 percent gravel; few earthworm casts; strongly
acid; gradual wavy boundary; Bw2--38 to 66 cm; olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) fine sandy loam; weak medium
subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine roots; 10 percent gravel; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary;
and Cd--66 to 165 cm; olive (5Y 5/3) gravelly fine sandy loam; medium plate-like divisions; massive; very
firm, brittle; 25 percent gravel; many dark coatings on plates; strongly acid.
The Montauk series consists of well drained soils formed in lodgment or flow till derived primarily from
granitic materials with lesser amounts of gneiss and schist. The soils are very deep to bedrock and
moderately deep to a densic contact. These soils are on upland hills and moraines. Slope ranges from 0 to
35 percent. A typical profile associated with Montauk soils is as follows: Ap--0 to 10 cm; very dark gray
(10YR 3/1) loam; moderate fine granular structure; very friable; many very fine, fine, medium, and coarse
roots; 2 percent gravel, 1 percent cobbles, and 1 percent stones; extremely acid (pH 4.1); clear smooth
boundary; BA--10 to 34 cm; brown (10YR 4/3) loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky
structure; friable; many fine, medium, and coarse roots; many fine and medium pores; 4 percent gravel,
1 percent cobbles, and 1 percent stones; extremely acid (pH 4.3); clear wavy boundary; Bw1--34 to 65 cm;
dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; many fine,
medium, and coarse roots; many fine and medium pores; 6 percent gravel, 1 percent cobbles, and 1
percent stones; extremely acid (pH 4.3); clear wavy boundary; Bw2--65 to 87 cm; yellowish brown (10YR
5/6) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; many very fine, fine,
and coarse roots; many fine and medium pores; 5 percent gravel and 1 percent cobbles; extremely acid
(pH 4.3); clear smooth boundary; 2Cd1--87 to 101 cm; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) gravelly loamy sand;
moderate medium plates; firm; few fine roots; many fine pores; 10 percent gravel, 5 percent cobbles, and
1 percent stones; very strongly acid (pH 4.7); clear wavy boundary; and 2Cd2--101 to 184 cm; dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) gravelly loamy sand; moderate medium plates; firm; many fine pores; 10
percent gravel, 5 percent cobbles, and 1 percent stones; strongly acid (pH 5.1).
Ridgebury-Leicester-Whitman Soils (Soil Code 3)
The Ridgebury series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in lodgment till derived
mainly from granite, gneiss, and/or schist. They are commonly shallow to a densic contact. They are nearly
level to gently sloping soils in depressions in uplands. They also occur in drainageways in uplands, in
toeslope positions of hills, drumlins, and ground moraines, and in till plains. Slope ranges from 0 to 15
percent. A typical profile associated with Ridgebury soils is as follows: A--0 to 13 cm; black (N 2/0) fine
sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure; friable; many very fine, fine and medium tree
roots; 5 percent gravel and 5 percent cobbles; very strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary; Bw--13 to 23
cm; brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine tree roots;
5 percent gravel and 5 percent cobbles; very strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary; Bg--23 to 46 cm; dark
gray (10YR 4/1) gravelly sandy loam; massive; friable; 10 percent gravel and 5 percent cobbles; common
6
fine prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) and common medium distinct reddish brown (5YR 4/4) masses
of iron accumulation; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary; and Cd--46 to 165 cm; gray (5Y 5/1)
gravelly sandy loam; massive; firm; 10 percent gravel and 5 percent cobbles; common fine prominent
reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/8) masses of iron accumulation; very strongly acid.
The Leicester series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in coarse-loamy till. They are nearly
level or gently sloping soils in drainageways and low-lying positions on hills. Slope ranges from 0 to 8
percent. A typical profile associated with Leicester soils is as follows: Oe--0 to 3 cm; black (10YR 2/1)
moderately decomposed plant material; A--3 to 18 cm; black (10YR 2/1) fine sandy loam; moderate
medium granular structure; friable; common fine and medium roots; 10 percent gravel and cobbles;
strongly acid; clear wavy boundary; Bg1--18 to 25 cm; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) fine sandy loam; weak
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine and medium roots; 10 percent gravel and
cobbles; common medium prominent yellowish red (5YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation; strongly acid;
gradual wavy boundary; Bg2--25 to 46 cm; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) fine sandy loam; weak medium
subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine and medium roots; 10 percent gravel and cobbles; common
fine prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation; strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary; and BC--46 to 61 cm; pale brown (10YR 6/3) fine sandy loam; massive; friable; few fine roots;
10 percent gravel and cobbles; many medium distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) and yellowish red (5YR
4/6) masses of iron accumulation; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary; C1--61 to 84 cm; dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/4) gravelly fine sandy loam; massive; friable; 15 percent gravel and cobbles; many medium
distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation and prominent pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2)
iron depletions; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary; and C2--84 to 155 cm; dark yellowish brown (10YR
4/4) gravelly fine sandy loam; massive; friable; 15 percent gravel and cobbles; few fine distinct yellowish
brown (10YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation; strongly acid.
The Whitman series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in lodgment till derived mainly
from granite, gneiss, and schist. They are shallow to a densic contact. These soils are nearly level or gently
sloping soils in depressions and drainageways on uplands. A typical profile associated with Whitman soils
is as follows: Ap--0 to 25 cm; black (10YR 2/1) loam, dark gray (10YR 4/1) dry; weak medium granular
structure; friable; 10 percent rock fragments; common medium distinct red (2.5YR 4/8) masses of iron
accumulation lining pores; moderately acid; abrupt wavy boundary; Bg--25 to 46 cm; gray (5Y 5/1) fine
sandy loam; massive; friable; 10 percent rock fragments, few medium distinct pale olive (5Y 6/4) and light
olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) masses of iron accumulation; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary; Cdg--46 to 79
cm; gray (5Y 6/1) fine sandy loam; moderate medium plates; firm; 10 percent rock fragments; many
medium distinct light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) masses of iron accumulation; moderately acid; clear wavy
boundary; Cd1--79 to 122 cm; olive (5Y 4/3) fine sandy loam; massive; firm; 10 percent rock fragments;
few medium prominent dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) masses of iron accumulation; moderately acid;
gradual wavy boundary; and Cd2--122 to 165 cm; olive (5Y 5/3) fine sandy loam; massive; firm; 10 percent
rock fragments; moderately acid.
Woodbridge Soils (Soil Codes 45A; 46B)
The Woodbridge series consists of moderately well drained loamy soils formed in lodgment till. They are
very deep to bedrock and moderately deep to a densic contact. They are nearly level to moderately steep
soils on hills, drumlins, till plains, and ground moraines. Slope ranges from 0 to 25 percent. A typical profile
associated with Woodbridge soils is as follows: Ap--0 to 18 cm; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) fine
sandy loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dry; moderate medium granular structure; friable; many fine
and medium roots; few very dark brown (10YR 2/2) earthworm casts; 5 percent gravel; moderately acid;
abrupt wavy boundary; Bw1--18 to 46 cm; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) fine sandy loam; weak
7
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine roots; few very dark brown (10YR 2/2)
earthworm casts; 10 percent gravel; moderately acid; gradual wavy boundary; Bw2--46 to 66 cm; dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common
fine roots; few very dark brown (10YR 2/2) earthworm casts; 10 percent gravel; few medium prominent
strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation and light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) areas of iron
depletion; moderately acid; gradual wavy boundary; Bw3--66 to 76 cm; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) fine
sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine roots; 10 percent gravel;
common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation and light brownish
gray (10YR 6/2) areas of iron depletion; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary; Cd1--76 to 109 cm; light
olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) gravelly fine sandy loam; weak thick plates of geogenic origin; very firm, brittle; 20
percent gravel; many medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) masses of iron accumulation and light
brownish gray (10YR 6/2) areas of iron depletion; moderately acid; gradual wavy boundary; and Cd2--109
to 165 cm; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) gravelly fine sandy loam; weak thick plates of geogenic origin; very
firm, brittle; few fine prominent very dark brown (10YR 2/2) coatings on plates; 25 percent gravel;
common fine prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) masses of iron accumulation; moderately acid.
Summary
The natural setting of the area containing the proposed Project area is common throughout the Eastern
Coastal ecoregion. Streams and rivers of this area empty into the Thames River, which in turn drain into
Long Island Sound. In general, the region was well suited to Native American occupation throughout the
precontact era. This portion of Montville was also used during the post-European Contact period, as
evidenced by the presence of residences, outbuildings, and agricultural fields throughout the region; thus,
archaeological deposits dating from the precontact era and post-European Contact periods may be
expected near or within the proposed Project area.
8
CHAPTER III
PRECONTACT ERA SETTING
Introduction
Prior to the late 1970s and early 1980s, very few systematic archaeological surveys of large portions of
the State of Connecticut had been undertaken. Rather, the precontact era occupation of the region was
studied at the site level. Sites chosen for excavation were highly visible and they were in such areas as the
coastal zone, e.g., shell middens, and Connecticut River Valley. As a result, a skewed interpretation of the
precontact era occupation of Connecticut was developed. It was suggested that the upland portions of
the state, i.e., the northeastern and northwestern hills ecoregions, were little used and rarely occupied
by precontact era Native Americans, while the coastal zone, i.e., the eastern and western coastal and the
southeastern and southwestern hills ecoregions, was the focus of settlements and exploitation. This
interpretation remained unchallenged until the 1970s and 1980s when several town-wide and regional
archaeological studies were completed. These investigations led to the creation of several archaeological
phases that subsequently were applied to understand the precontact period of Connecticut. The
remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the precontact era setting of the region encompassing
the Facility.
Paleo-Indian Period (12,000 to 10,000 Before Present [B.P.])
The earliest inhabitants of the area encompassing the State of Connecticut, who have been referred to as
Paleo-Indians, arrived in the area by ca., 13,000 B.P. (Gramly and Funk 1990; Snow 1980). Due to the
presence of large Pleistocene mammals at that time and the ubiquity of large fluted projectile points in
archaeological deposits of this age, Paleo-Indians often have been described as big-game hunters (Ritchie
and Funk 1973; Snow 1980); however, as discussed below, it is more likely that they hunted a broad
spectrum of animals. While there have been over 50 surface finds of Paleo-Indian projectile points
throughout the State of Connecticut (Bellantoni 1995), only three sites, the Templeton Site (6-LF-21) in
Washington, Connecticut, the Hidden Creek Site (72-163) in Ledyard, Connecticut, and the Brian D. Jones
Site (4-10B) in Avon, Connecticut have been studied in detail and dated using the radiocarbon method
(Jones 1997; Moeller 1980; Singer 2017a; Leslie et al. 2020).
The Templeton Site (6-LF-21) in Washington, Connecticut was occupied between 10,490 and 9,890 years
ago (Moeller 1980). In addition to a single large and two small, fluted points, the Templeton Site produced
a stone tool assemblage consisting of gravers, drills, core fragments, scrapers, and channel flakes, which
indicates that the full range of stone tool production and maintenance took place at the site (Moeller
1980). Moreover, the use of both local and non-local raw materials was documented in the recovered tool
had access to distant stone sources, the use of which likely occurred during movement from region to
region. More recently, the site has undergone re-investigation by Singer (2017a and 2017b) who has
determined that the overwhelming majority of tools and debitage are exotic and were quarried directly
from the Hudson River Valley. Recent research has focused on task-specific loci at the Templeton Site,
particularly the production of numerous Michaud-Neponset projectile points, as identified through
remnant channel flakes.
The Hidden Creek Site (72-163) is situated on the southeastern margin of the Great Cedar Swamp on the
Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Ledyard, Connecticut (Jones 1997). While excavation of the Hidden
Creek Site produced evidence of Terminal Archaic and Woodland Period components (see below) in the
9
upper soil horizons, the lower levels of the site yielded artifacts dating from the Paleo-Indian era.
Recovered Paleo-Indian artifacts included broken bifaces, side-scrapers, a fluted preform, gravers, and
end-scrapers. Based on the types and number of tools present, Jones (1997:77) has hypothesized that the
Hidden Creek Site represented a short-term occupation, and that separate stone tool reduction and
rejuvenation areas were present.
The Brian D. Jones Site (4-10B) was identified in a Pleistocene levee on the Farmington River in Avon,
Connecticut; it was buried under 1.5 m (3.3 ft) of alluvium (Leslie et al. 2020). The Brian D. Jones Site was
identified by Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc., in 2019 during a survey for the Connecticut
Department of Transportation preceding a proposed bridge construction project. It is now the oldest
known archaeological site in Connecticut at +12,500 years old. The site also provides a rare example of a
Paleo-Indian site on a river rather than the more common upland areas or on the edges of wetlands.
Ground-penetrating radar survey revealed overbank flooding and sedimentation that resulted in the
creating of a stable ancient river levee with gentle, low-energy floods. Archaeological deposits on the
levee were therefore protected.
Excavations at the Brian D. Jones Site revealed 44 soil anomalies, 27 of which were characterized as
cultural features used as hearths and post holes, among other uses. Of these, one hearth has been dated
thus far (10,520 ± 30 14C yr BP; charred Pinus; 2-sigma 12,568 to 12,410 CAL BP) (Leslie et al. 2020:4).
Further radiocarbon testing will be completed in the future. Artifact concentrations surrounded these
features and were separated in two stratigraphic layers representing at least two temporally discrete
Paleo-Indian occupations. The recovered lithic artifacts are fashioned from Normanskill chert, Hardyston
jasper, Jefferson/Mount Jasper rhyolite, chalcedony, siltstone, and quartz. They include examples of a
fluted point base, preforms, channel flakes, pièces esquillées, end scrapers, side scrapers, grinding stones,
bifaces, utilized flakes, gravers, and drilled stone pendant fragment. Lithic tools numbered over 100, while
toolmaking debris was in the thousands. The channel flakes represent the production of spear points used
in hunting. Scrapers, perforators, and grinding stones indicate animal butchering, plant food grinding, the
production of wood and bone tools, and the processing of animal skins for clothing and tents. Other
collected cultural materials included charred botanicals and calcined bone. Botanical specimens
recovered in hearth features included burned remains of cattail, pin cherry, strawberry, acorn, sumac,
water lily, and dogwood. In addition, pieces of ochre were recovered during the excavations; these, in
combination with the drilled pendant fragment, are the earliest evidence of personal adornment and
artistic expression identified in Connecticut (Leslie et al. 2020). Approximately 15,000 artifacts were
collected in total.
The scarcity of identified Paleo-Indian sites suggests a low population density during this period. The small
size of most Paleo-Indian sites, their likely inundation by rising sea levels, and the high degree of landscape
disturbance over the past 10,000 years likely contribute to poor site visibility, although the presence of
two deeply alluvially buried Paleo-Indian sites in Connecticut suggests that other sites may be located
along stable rivers (Leslie et al. 2021).
Archaic Period (10,000 to 2,700 B.P.)
The Archaic Period, which succeeded the Paleo-Indian Period, began by ca., 10,000 B.P. (Ritchie and Funk
1973; Snow 1980), and it has been divided into three subperiods: Early Archaic (10,000 to 8,000 B.P.),
Middle Archaic (8,000 to 6,000 B.P.), and Late Archaic (6,000 to 3,400 B.P.). These periods were devised
to describe all non-farming, non-ceramic producing populations in the area. Regional archeologists
Archaic Period, the Terminal Archaic Period (3,400-2,700
B.P.), which was meant to describe those groups that existed just prior to the onset of the Woodland
10
Period and the widespread adoption of ceramics into the toolkit (Snow 1980; McBride 1984; Pfeiffer 1984,
1990; Witthoft 1949, 1953).
Early Archaic Period (10,000 to 8,000 B.P.)
To date, very few Early Archaic sites have been identified in southern New England. As a result,
researchers such as Fitting (1968) and Ritchie (1969) have suggested a lack of these sites likely is tied to
cultural discontinuity between the Early Archaic and preceding Paleo-Indian Period, as well as a
population decrease from earlier times; however, with continued identification of Early Archaic sites in
the region, and the recognition of the problems of preservation, it is difficult to maintain the discontinuity
hypothesis (Curran and Dincauze 1977; Snow 1980).
Like their Paleo-Indian predecessors, Early Archaic sites tend to be very small and produce few artifacts,
most of which are not temporally diagnostic. While Early Archaic sites in other portions of the United
States are represented by projectile points of the Kirk series (Ritchie and Funk 1973) and by Kanawha
types (Coe 1964), sites of this age in southern New England are identified on the basis of a series of ill-
defined bifurcate-based projectile points. These projectile points are identified by the presence of their
characteristic bifurcated base, and they generally are made from high quality raw materials. Moreover,
finds of these projectile points have rarely been in stratified contexts. Rather, they occur commonly either
as surface expressions or intermixed with artifacts representative of later periods. Early Archaic
occupations, such as the Dill Farm Site and Sites 6LF64 and 6LF70 in Litchfield County, are represented by
camps that were relocated periodically to take advantage of seasonally available resources (McBride
1984; Pfeiffer 1986). In this sense, a foraging type of settlement pattern was employed during the Early
Archaic Period.
Another localized cultural tradition, the Gulf of Maine Archaic, which lasted from ca. 9,500 to 6,000 14C
BP, is beginning to be recognized in Southern New England (Petersen and Putnam 1992). It is distinguished
by its microlithic industry, which may be associated with the production of compound tools (Robinson and
Peterson 1993). Assemblages from Maine (Petersen et al. 1986; Petersen 1991; Sanger et al. 1992),
Massachusetts (Strauss 2017; Leslie et al. 2022), and Connecticut (Forrest 1999) reflect the selection of
local, coarse-grained stones. Large choppers and hoe-
Hill Site likely functioned as digging implements. Woodworking tools, including adzes, celts, and gull-
channeled gouges recovered at the Brigham and Sharrow sites in Maine (Robinson and Petersen 1993:
68), may have been used for dugout canoe manufacture. The deeply stratified Sandy Hill (Forrest 1999;
Jones and Forrest 2003) and Sharrow sites (Petersen 1991), with th
floor deposits, suggest intensive site re-occupations according to an adaptation that relied, in part, on
seasonally available wetland resources. Thus far, sites from this tradition have only been identified within
coastal and near-coastal territories along the Gulf of Maine, in southeastern Connecticut, and in
Massachusetts.
Middle Archaic Period (8,000 to 6,000 B.P.)
By the onset of the Middle Archaic Period modern deciduous forests had developed in the region (Davis
1969). Increased numbers and types of sites associated with this period are noted in Connecticut (McBride
1984). The most well-known Middle Archaic site in New England is the Neville Site in Manchester, New
Hampshire studied by Dincauze (1976). Careful analysis of the Neville Site indicated that the Middle
Archaic occupation dated from between 7,700 and 6,000 years ago. In fact, Dincauze obtained several
radiocarbon dates from the Middle Archaic component of the Neville Site associated with the then-newly
named Neville type projectile point, ranging from 7,740+280 and 7,015+160 B.P. (Dincauze 1976).
11
In addition to Neville points, Dincauze (1976) described two other projectile points styles that are
attributed to the Middle Archaic Period: Stark and Merrimac projectile points. While no absolute dates
were recovered from deposits that yielded Stark points, the Merrimac type dated from 5,910+180 B.P.
Dincauze argued that both the Neville and later Merrimac and Stark occupations were established to take
advantage of the excellent fishing that the falls situated adjacent to the site area would have afforded
Native American groups. Thus, based on the available archaeological evidence, the Middle Archaic Period
is characterized by continued increases in diversification of tool types and resources exploited, as well as
by sophisticated changes in the settlement pattern to include different site types, including both base
camps and task-specific sites (McBride 1984:96).
Late Archaic Period (6,000 to 3,700 B.P.)
The Late Archaic Period in southern New England is divided into two major cultural traditions that appear
to have coexisted. They include the Laurentian and Narrow-Stemmed Traditions (Funk 1976; McBride
1984; Ritchie 1969a and b). Artifacts assigned to the Laurentian Tradition include ground stone axes,
adzes, gouges, ulus (semi-lunar knives), pestles, atlatl weights, and scrapers. The diagnostic projectile
point forms of this time period in southern New England include the Brewerton Eared-Notched,
Brewerton Eared and Brewerton Side-Notched varieties (McBride 1984; Ritchie 1969a; Thompson 1969).
In general, the stone tool assemblage of the Laurentian Tradition is characterized by flint, felsite, rhyolite,
and quartzite, while quartz was largely avoided for stone tool production.
In terms of settlement and subsistence patterns, archaeological evidence in southern New England
suggests that Laurentian Tradition populations consisted of groups of mobile hunter-gatherers. While a
few large Laurentian Tradition occupations have been studied, sites of this age generally encompass less
than 500 m2 (5,383 ft2). These base camps reflect frequent movements by small groups of people in search
of seasonally abundant resources. The overall settlement pattern of the Laurentian Tradition was
dispersed in nature, with base camps located in a wide range of microenvironments, including riverine as
well as upland zones (McBride 1978, 1984:252). Finally, subsistence strategies of Laurentian Tradition
focused on hunting and gathering of wild plants and animals from multiple ecozones.
The second Late Archaic tradition, known as the Narrow-Stemmed Tradition, is unlike the Laurentian
Tradition, and it likely represents a different cultural adaptation. The Narrow-Stemmed Tradition is
recognized by the presence of quartz and quartzite narrow stemmed projectile points, triangular quartz
Squibnocket projectile points, and a bipolar lithic reduction strategy (McBride 1984). Other tools found in
Narrow-Stemmed Tradition artifact assemblages include choppers, adzes, pestles, antler and bone
projectile points, harpoons, awls, and notched atlatl weights. Many of these tools, notably the projectile
points and pestles, indicate a subsistence pattern dominated by hunting and fishing, as well the collection
of a wide range of plant foods (McBride 1984; Snow 1980:228).
Terminal Archaic Period (3,700 to 2,700 B.P.)
The Terminal Archaic, which lasted from ca., 3,700 to 2,700 BP, is perhaps the most interesting, yet
confusing of the Archaic Periods in the southern New England precontact period. Originally termed the
e.g., broadspear projectile points and soapstone bowls, the Terminal Archaic has long posed problems for
regional archeologists. While the Narrow-Stemmed Tradition persisted through the Terminal Archaic and
into the Early Woodland Period, the Terminal Archaic is coeval with what appears to be a different
technological adaptation, the Susquehanna Tradition (McBride 1984; Ritchie 1969b). The Susquehanna
12
Tradition is recognized in southern New England by the presence of a new stone tool industry that was
based on the use of high-quality raw materials for stone tool production and a settlement pattern
-Stemmed Tradition.
The Susquehanna Tradition is based on the classification of several Broadspear projectile point types and
associated artifacts. There are several local sequences within the tradition, and they are based on
projectile point type chronology. Temporally diagnostic projectile points of these sequences include the
Snook Kill, Susquehanna Broadspear, Mansion Inn, and Orient Fishtail types (Lavin 1984; McBride 1984;
Pfeiffer 1984). The initial portion of the Terminal Archaic Period (ca., 3,700-3,200 BP) is characterized by
the presence of Snook Kill and Susquehanna Broadspear projectile points while the latter Terminal Archaic
(3,200-2,700 BP) is distinguished by Orient Fishtail projectile points (McBride 1984:119; Ritchie 1971).
In addition, it was during the late Terminal Archaic that interior cord marked, grit tempered, thick-walled
ceramics with conoidal (pointed) bases made their initial appearance in the Native American toolkit. These
are the first ceramics in the region, and they are named Vinette I (Ritchie 1969a; Snow 1980:242); this
type of ceramic vessel appears with much more frequency during the ensuing Early Woodland Period. In
addition, the adoption and widespread use of soapstone bowls, as well as the implementation of
subterranean storage, suggests that Terminal Archaic groups were characterized by reduced mobility and
longer-term use of established occupation sites (Snow 1980:250).
Finally, while settlement patterns appeared to have changed, Terminal Archaic subsistence patterns were
analogous to earlier patterns. The subsistence pattern still was diffuse in nature, and it was scheduled
carefully. Typical food remains recovered from sites of this period consist of fragments of white-tailed
deer, beaver, turtle, fish, and various small mammals. Botanical remains recovered from the site area
consisted of Chenopodium sp., hickory, butternut, and walnut (Pagoulatos 1988:81). Such diversity in food
remains suggests at least minimal use of a wide range of microenvironments for subsistence purposes.
Woodland Period (2,700 to 350 B.P.)
Traditionally, the advent of the Woodland Period in southern New England has been associated with the
introduction of pottery; however, as mentioned above, early dates associated with pottery now suggest
the presence of Vinette I ceramics appeared toward the end of the preceding Terminal Archaic Period
(Ritchie 1969a; McBride 1984). Like the Archaic Period, the Woodland Period has been divided into three
subperiods: Early, Middle, and Late Woodland. The various subperiods are discussed below.
Early Woodland Period (ca., 2,700 to 2,000 B.P.)
The Early Woodland Period of the northeastern United States dates from ca., 2,700 to 2,000 B.P., and it
was thought to have been characterized by the advent of farming, the initial use of ceramic vessels, and
increasingly complex burial ceremonialism (Griffin 1967; Ritchie 1969a and 1969b; Snow 1980). In the
Northeast, the earliest ceramics of the Early Woodland Period are thick walled, cord marked on both the
interior and exterior, and possess grit temper. Archaeological investigations of Early Woodland sites in
southern New England resulted in the recovery of narrow stemmed projectile points in association with
ceramic sherds and subsistence remains, including specimens of white-tailed deer, soft and hard-shell
clams, and oyster shells (Lavin and Salwen 1983; McBride 1984:296-297; Pope 1952). McBride (1984) has
argued that the combination of the subsistence remains and the recognition of multiple superimposed
cultural features at various sites indicates that Early Woodland Period settlement patterns were
characterized by multiple re-use of the same sites on a seasonal basis by small co-residential groups.
13
Middle Woodland Period (2,000 to 1,200 B.P.)
The Middle Woodland Period is marked by an increase in the number of ceramic types and forms utilized
(Lizee 1994a), as well as an increase in the amount of exotic lithic raw material used in stone tool
manufacture (McBride 1984). The latter suggests that regional exchange networks were established, and
that they were used to supply local populations with necessary raw materials (McBride 1984; Snow 1980).
The Middle Woodland Pe
projectile points, and increased amounts of exotic raw materials in recovered lithic assemblages, including
chert, argillite, jasper, and hornfels; and conoidal ceramic vessels decorated with dentate stamping.
Ceramic types that are indicative of the Middle Woodland Period include Linear Dentate, Rocker Dentate,
Windsor Cord Marked, Windsor Brushed, Windsor Plain, and Hollister Stamped (Lizee 1994a:200).
In terms of settlement patterns, the Middle Woodland Period is characterized by the occupation of village
sites by large co-residential groups that utilized native plant and animal species for food and raw materials
in tool making (George 1997). These sites were the principal place of occupation, and they were
positioned close to major river valleys, tidal marshes, estuaries, and the coastline, all of which would have
supplied an abundance of plant and animal resources (McBride 1984:309). In addition to villages,
numerous temporary and task-specific sites were utilized in the surrounding upland areas, as well as in
closer ecozones such as wetlands, estuaries, and floodplains. The use of temporary and task-specific sites
to support large village populations indicates that the Middle Woodland Period was characterized by a
resource acquisition strategy that can best be termed as logistical collection (McBride 1984:310).
Late Woodland Period (ca., 1,200 to 350 B.P.)
The Late Woodland Period in southern New England dates from ca., 1,200 to 350 B.P., and it is
characterized by the earliest evidence for the use of corn in the lower Connecticut River Valley (Bendremer
1993; Bendremer and Dewar 1993; Bendremer et al. 1991; George 1997; McBride 1984); an increase in
the frequency of exchange of non-local lithics (Feder 1984; George and Tryon 1996; McBride 1984; Lavin
1984); increased variability in ceramic form, function, surface treatment, and decoration (Lavin 1980,
1986, 1987; Lizee 1994a, 1994b); and a continuation of a trend towards larger, more permanent
settlements in riverine, estuarine, and coastal ecozones (Dincauze 1974; McBride 1984; Snow 1980).
Stone tool assemblages associated with Late Woodland occupations, especially village-sized sites, are
functionally variable and they reflect plant and animal resource processing and consumption on a large
scale. Finished stone tools recovered from Late Woodland sites include Levanna and Madison projectile
points; drills; side-, end-, and thumbnail scrapers; mortars and pestles; nutting stones; netsinkers; and
celts, adzes, axes, and digging tools. These tools were used in activities ranging from hide preparation to
plant processing to the manufacture of canoes, bowls, and utensils, as well as other settlement and
subsistence-related items (McBride 1984; Snow 1980). Finally, ceramic assemblages recovered from Late
Woodland sites are as variable as the lithic assemblages. Ceramic types identified include Windsor Fabric
Impressed, Windsor Brushed, Windsor Cord Marked, Windsor Plain, Clearview Stamped, Sebonac
Stamped, Selden Island, Hollister Plain, Hollister Stamped, and Shantok Cove Incised (Lavin 1980, 1988a,
1988b; Lizee 1994a; Pope 1953; Rouse 1947; Salwen and Ottesen 1972; Smith 1947). These types are
more stylistically diverse than their predecessors with incision, shell stamping, punctation, single point,
linear dentate, rocker dentate stamping, and stamp and drag impressions common (Lizee 1994a:216).
The precontact period of Connecticut spans from ca., 13,000 to 350 B.P., and it is characterized by
numerous changes in tool types, subsistence patterns, and land use strategies. Much of this era is
14
characterized by local Native American groups who practiced a subsistence pattern based on a mixed
economy of hunting and gathering plant and animal resources. It is not until the Late Woodland Period
that incontrovertible evidence for the use of domesticated species is available. Further, settlement
patterns throughout the precontact period shifted from seasonal occupations of small co-residential
groups to large aggregations of people in riverine, estuarine, and coastal ecozones. In terms of the region
that includes the proposed Project area, a variety of precontact site types may be expected, ranging from
seasonal camps utilized by Paleo-Indian and Archaic populations to temporary and task-specific sites of
the Woodland era.
15
CHAPTER IV
POST-EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD OVERVIEW
Introduction
The Mostowy Property is located along Oakdale Road (Route 163) in the Town of Montville, New London
County, Connecticut. For the purposes of this study, this chapter will provide a brief overview of New
London County followed by a history of the Town of Montville with a focus on the past use of the proposed
Project area. Most Connecticut towns, including Montville in particular, originated as Native American
settlements and later became English colonial villages. Originally part of New London, the Town of
Montville was settled in 1646 and was known as Pequot. As more colonists moved to the area, it became
incorporated as the North Parish of New London (1658) before becoming incorporated as a separatee
town in 1786. Through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Montville functioned as an agricultural
hub with manufacturing centers powered by local waterways. Its location on the Thames River and
proximity to both the Quinebaug River and Long Island Sound, as well as the cities of New London and
Norwich, allowed the local population to engage in agricultural, manufacturing, and maritime activities.
In the late twentieth to early twenty-first century, the Town of Montville was transformed into a
residential area as it transitioned from defense industry spending to a gaming and hospitality economy.
The town also has become a residential area due to the location of one of the largest Native American
casinos within its boundaries, yet predominately retains its rural character. The Project parcel is located
in the Oakdale section of Montville, which is to the south of modern-day CT-163 and north of what is
currently Camp Oakdale.
New London County
New London was one of the four original counties established that was in 1666 following the merger of
Connecticut Colony and New Haven Colony. Located in the southeastern corner of Connecticut, New
London County is bounded to the south by Long Island Sound, to the east by the State of Rhode Island, to
the north by Windham County, Tolland, and Hartford Counties, and to the west by Middlesex and Tolland
Counties. Its landscape includes rich farmland, significant freshwater rivers, and an extended shoreline on
Long Island Sound. Important waterways associated with New London County include the Connecticut,
Thames, Shetucket, Quinebaug, Yantic, Pawcatuck, Mystic, Poquonnock, and Niantic Rivers (Hurd 1881).
are located on the Thames River; New London on the western shore near the mouth, Groton on the
include Mystic, Stonington Borough, Waterford, and Niantic. As mentioned above, Montville became a
town in 1786 a
bounded to the north by the towns of Norwich and Bozrah, to the south by the Town of Waterford, to the
east by the Thames River, and to the west by the towns of Salem and East Lyme (Barry 1985). The Project
parcel is located in the Oakdale section of town, along Oakdale Road (Route 163).
Woodland Period to Seventeenth Century
During the Woodland Period of northeastern North American history (ca., 3,000 to 500 years ago) the
Indigenous peoples who resided in New London County were part of the greater Algonquian culture of
northeastern North America (Lavin 2013). They spoke local variations of Southern New England Algonquian
languages and resided in extended kinship groups on lands they maintained for a variety of horticultural and
resource extraction purposes (Goddard 1978). Native people in the region practiced subsistence activities
that included hunting, fowling, and fishing, along with the cultivation of various crops, the most important
16
of which were maize, squash, and beans. They supplemented these foods seasonally by collecting
shellfish, fruits, and plants during warmer periods, and gathering nuts, roots, and tubers during colder
times (Lavin 2013). In addition, these communities came together in large groups to hunt deer in the fall
and winter. Indigenous peoples lived with their immediate or extended families in large settlements often
concentrated along rivers and/or wetlands. Some villages were fortified by wooden palisades. Native
American habitations, known as a weetu or wigwam, were generally constructed of a tree sapling frame
and covered in reed matting during warm months and tree bark throughout the winter. These varied in
size from a small, individual dwellin
families. Native communities commonly traded among both their immediate neighbors and often
maintained long-distance networks as well (Lavin 2013). The Native people who resided at present-day
Norwich, Montville, and the northern portion of Waterford were known as Mohegan. Their neighbors to the
south were the Niantics; they were bordered to the east and southeast by the Pequot and the Nipmuc to
the north.
Seventeenth Century through Eighteenth Century
As Native communities maintained oral tradition rather than a written record, most surviving information
of the Indigenous people of present-day New London County was recorded by European observers who
were Dutch or English colonists (Lavin 2013). The earliest Europeans known to have entered Long Island
Sound and the Connecticut River along present-day New London County were the Dutch, who visited the
area in 1614. During his 1614 voyage Captain Adrian Block created a figurative map of the region that
depicted the shoreline, including the areas of Pawcatuck, Mystic, Pequot (Thames), and Connecticut Rivers.
also identified Native nations in the region and placed the Mohegan and Pequot homeland
on the landscape. The Dutch established trade relationships with Native people of the area and by the early
1620s they entered an agreement with the Pequot of present-day southeastern Connecticut in which the
Pequot would provide wampum and furs for European goods. Through their relationship with the Dutch,
the Pequot had steady access to a variety to valuable European trade goods they could distribute to
tributaries and/or trade with other groups in the region. The Pequot extended their dominance over the
Connecticut shoreline, eastern Long Island, and the lower Connecticut River Valley bringing all the Native
nations in those areas into a tributary relationship under their leadership (Hauptman and Wherry 2009;
McBride 2013).
To break from the Pequot, several Connecticut River sachems invited the English to the middle Connecticut
River Valley; they settled at Windsor in 1633, at Wethersfield in 1634, and at both Hartford and Saybrook by
1635 (Van Dusen 1961). Increased interaction with Europeans resulted in exposure to diseases and
epidemics Indigenous people had never encountered and to which they had no natural immunity. Illnesses
such as smallpox, measles, tuberculosis, and cholera devastated Native communities during the early
seventeenth century. In 1633, one epidemic spread through the region, impacting the Pequot and people
further west (Lavin 2013).
Growing tensions between Native and European groups in the Connecticut River during the early decades
of the seventeenth century resulted in the death of several English traders; these deaths were blamed on
the Pequot. In retaliation, English forces from Massachusetts Bay destroyed Pequot and Niantic villages on
the Pequot (Thames) River in August 1636 which began the Pequot War. The Pequot laid siege to Saybrook
Fort at the mouth of the Connecticut River during the winter of 1636-1637 and attacked Wethersfield in
April 1637 further upriver. Connecticut Colony declared war on the Pequot and were joined by Native
warriors from the Connecticut River and Mohegans under the Sachem Uncas (Oberg 2006). In May of 1637,
English allied forces destroyed the fortified Pequot village at Mystic and pursued Pequot refugees west
17
towards present-day Fairfield. (Cave 1996). After the war, the Connecticut English claimed Pequot lands as
conquered lands for their growing colony.
opted and outlined the framework for Connecticut
Colony, a self-governed colony separate from Massachusetts Bay or Plimoth (Trumbull 1886). In the
aftermath of the Pequot War, the Sachem Uncas claimed much of northeastern Connecticut colony, the
lands of former Pequot tributaries, as Mohegan lands through both right of conquest and hereditary
claims (Larned 1874; Oberg 2006). The Mohegan tribe pushed back against proselytizing efforts of the
Reverend John Eliot who established English-Wabbaquasset country in the
-1676) the Mohegan,
Pequot, and other Connecticut groups sided with Connecticut Colony (Bowen 1926; Oberg 2006).
Afterwards, Connecticut Colony recog
parts of the colony. When Uncas died around 1684 and his lands at Mohegan, present-day Montville, were
secure and recognized by the English. They were divided between his two sons, Attawanhood and
Owaneco.
The colonization of New London, the parent town of Montville, began in the 1640s. Several large tracts of
land in the former Pequot territory were granted to prominent colonial individuals, with an initial focus
on the Thames River harbor. Originally named Pequot, the Connecticut legislature changed the growing
in 1658. Uncas similarly made grants of land from the territory he held in
the future Montville in the 1640s. The first known colonists to be granted land there were Richard
Haughton and James Rogers in 1658 (Caulkins 1895). Disputes over land ownership slowed early
settlement of present-day Montville, and by 1720 there were only enough colonial residents to form what
would become known as the North Parish of New London. Throughout the eighteenth century, the North
Parish would develop into an agricultural area with strong maritime connections to activities such as
fishing, shipbuilding, and international trade (Van Dusen 1961; Marshall 1922). With New London Harbor
only a few miles to the south, the farmers and merchants of present-day Montville were connected to
markets throughout the English world.
During the American Revolution (1775-1783) New London County played an important role in recruiting
soldiers, supplying food stores, and providing a variety of military goods for the war effort. After the
Revolution, New London County recovered from wartime economic disruptions thanks to its robust
agricultural production and maritime trade. In 1784, New London and Norwich were incorporated among
the first five cities in the state. That same year the State passed a gradual manumission law, but slavery
was not fully abolished until 1848 (Normen 2013). In 1786, the North Parish of New London was separated
into the Town of Montville as part of a wave of post-Revolutionary War era town incorporations across
the state (Montville 2022; Crofut 1937). On January 9, 1788, Connecticut ratified the U.S. Constitution to
become the fifth state (Van Dusen 1961).
Nineteenth Century to Present
In 1800, Montville had a population of 2,233 residents, which declined as of the 1820 census, largely due
to the separation of the town of Salem in 1819 (Connecticut 2021a). Montville witnessed various
nineteenth century economic trends: stagnation and decline between 1830 and 1850, modest growth
from 1850 to 1880, and another net decline from 1880 to 1900. The population fluctuated between
roughly 1,800 to 2,200 during this time (Connecticut 2021b; Connecticut 2021c). The 1850 federal census
reported 14 firms that made at least $500 of product per year in Montville, half of which were textile mills
of various types (United States Census Bureau 1850). By the end of the nineteenth century, manufacturing
and industrial sectors in Montville saw an increase in activity. A tributary of the Thames River known as
18
Saw-mill Brook (now called Oxoboxo Brook) hosted a dye works, numerous paper mills, and several textile
mills. The smaller streams in the area continued to support grist mills and sawmills (Baker 1896).
Additionally, the wool industry was important to the history of Montville as the technology to process
wool advanced, coinciding with wool embargoes during the War of 1812 (Montville 2022). Montville, like
many Connecticut towns, provided men and resources during the Civil War. From Montville, 157 men
served in the Union army (Hines 2002). As early industry continued to develop at this time, Montville also
became an important location for wool mills and the production of coarse satinets and flannels. Favorable
tariffs and subsidies during the war years helped to bolster this industry (Nivens 1965).
Table 1: Population of Montville, Connecticut 1790-2020 (Connecticut 2022a-d)
Town 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900
Montville, New
London County
--- 2,233 2,187 1,972 1,990 1,990 1,848 2,141 2,495 2,664 2,344 2,395
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
2,894 3,411 3,970 4,135 4,766 7,759 15,662 16,455 16,673 18,546 19,571 18,387
By the early twentieth century, Montvil
ficantly after
1900, almost doubling by 1950 to 4,766 residents (Connecticut 2021c). Various factors contributed to this
population growth. Continued industrial activity attracted new residents and many European immigrants
arrived to work in the factories or establish farms. Improved transportation, such as the establishment of
streetcars in the villages of Uncasville and Chesterfield, and the prevalence of automobiles also facilitated
the 1950s, perpetuating a more
gradual upward trend through the rest of the century (Connecticut 2021c). Late-twentieth century growth
was the result of suburbanization, as people moved out of Norwich and New London, aided by the 1958
opening of Interstate 395 (Oglesby 2013). The establishment of United Nuclear Company, formed as a
joint venture between Matheison Chemical Corporation, Mallinckrodt Corporation of America, and
Nuclear Development Corporation also contributed to the growth of Montville, particularly during the
Cold War period, with 1400 employees at its beginning in 1961. The reactor site was later fully
decommissioned by 1994 (Coldwar-ct.com 2021). The population also grew when a state prison opened
in Montville in 1994 which added 1,800 impr
In 1994, the Mohegan Tribe received federal recognition and in 1995 gained 700 acres of land in Montville
(Connecticuthistory.org n.d.). The tribe opened a casino on this land in 1996. As of 2021, the
employers were the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority and two retail firms. The population by 2021 was
listed as 18,835 residents (AdvanceCT and CTData Collaborative 2021). Current principal industries in
Montville include the manufacture of paper products and computer boards, along with gaming at the
casino (Connecticut 2021d). Despite its population growth, Montville retains areas of rural landscape
along with its suburban sections.
History of the Project Area
The Project parcel is located in the Oakdale section of Montville, just south of what was called Montville
Project parcel during
the middle of the nineteenth century (Figure 3). A meetinghouse, school, and Parish family homes also
were located to the northeast of the Project parcel at that time, along what is now Raymond Hill Road.
The original Montville meetinghouse was constructed in 1772 (Historic Buildings of Connecticut 2022).
That building was struck by lightning in 1823 and subsequently repaired, although the entire
19
meetinghouse was later reconstructed in 1857. In the 1990s, the congregation of the Montville Center
Congregation Church tried to sell this property, but the deed stipulated that the building may not be
turned into a private property. The site was acquired by the town of Montville in May 2011 and the church
was accepted to the Connecticut State Register of Historic Places in 2012 (Shanahan 2016). This building
is currently located to the east of the Project parcel.
Directly to the west of the Project parcel was the property of Mulford C. Raymond, (born 1800), son of
Mulford Raymond (born about 1760 in Montville), a member of the family for whom Raymond Hill Road
is named (Baker 1896). The Raymond family originally settled in this area shortly after 1704 when Joshua
Raymond died and his widow, Mercy (Sands) Raymond, purchased 1500 acres at what she called
Raymond family (along with the Merritt family) who gave the land for the construction of the previously
mentioned church in Montville (Baker 1896).
Throughout the 1800s the Raymond family remained active in the area containing the project parcel. The
1800 census states that Mulford Raymond Sr., was a farmer and a slave owner, in possession of one slave,
1820). Raymond Sr. was active in town affairs and held multiple town offices (Baker 1896). Raymond Sr.
was married to Eleanor Bradford, a descendant of William Bradford of the Mayflower (Jewett 1908).
Beers 1868 map (Figure 4) shows that the Bradfords were property owners northwest of the project
parcel. Raymond Jr. was active in town politics like his father. He was town clerk from 1827 to 1847, a
probate judge for three years, and then an elected representative for Montville (Baker 1896). Raymond
-Bradford Homestead is located on Raymond
Hill Road, north of the project parcel, and was entered into the National Register of Historic Places in 1982
(National Park Service n.d.). For these reasons, the Raymond family is culturally significant.
The Bradford family also was prominent in Montville. The Joseph Bradford House is situated to the
southwest of the Project parcel and is a Connecticut State Register property (Chase 2004). Bradford
purchased a half interest in the property in 1720 and built a house on the land in 1721. The home was the
settlers were allowed to keep the properties (Chase 2004). In the late twentieth century, the house
underwent restoration.
There former location of a carding mill is also located to the southwest of the Project parcel; it too is a
Connecticut State Register property. Originally built in 1799, and modified in the 1870s, it is an abandoned
two-story frame mill (Connecticut Historical Commission 1974). During the expansion of manufacturing in
the nineteenth century, brothers John and Arthur Scholfield developed and finetuned the technology for
carding, or processing wool on the Oxoboxo River at this location (Montville 2022). Clothing Mill House,
another Connecticut State Register property, which is located next to the Carding Mill Site, was a two-
story frame residence on Scholfield Pond (Connecticut Historical Commission 1974).
During the twentieth and early twenty first centuries, the region containing the Project parcel remained
largely agricultural in character. In 1934, the Project parcel consisted of agricultural fields and open space,
with one building located in the northwest portion of the property along what is now Oakdale Road (Figure
5). It is likely that this building was associated with the other buildings directly across from it on Oakdale
Road. By 1965, there was minimal change to the Project parcel apart from the addition of a small building
at the southern end of the property with access to Oakdale Road (Figure 6). By 1970, the small structure
20
at the southern end of the study area had been removed, but the Project parcel remained largely
unchanged and was still predominantly open space (Figure 7). Between 1970 to 1990, the site underwent
minimal change; however, the land to the south and east of the Project area was developed into
recreational park space, while additional residences were built to the north and east of the Project parcel.
In 2004, the open nature of the study area had changed. The eastern half of the site was no longer clear
but filled with vegetation (Figure 8). This trend continued through the early twenty first century and the
Project parcel was almost entirely covered in vegetation by 2019 (Figure 9). By this time, the recreation
facilities to the southeast of the parcel were expanded with parking, while the surrounding landscape of
the Project area and its environment remained largely unchanged.
Conclusions
Based on the location of the Project area and its past use as agricultural fields and open space, there is
the possibility of encountering remains of outbuildings, stonewalls, or other evidence of post-European
Contact period farming remains. While the surrounding area has cultural significance, including the
Montville Center Congregational Church and the properties of the Raymond and Bradford families, there
is no evidence to suggest that there are culturally significant findings associated with these groups on the
project parcel itself. Any archaeological deposits associated with the individuals who owned the land, and
their occupations, are not likely to be considered culturally significant.
21
CHAPTER V
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Introduction
This chapter presents an overview of previous cultural resources research completed within the vicinity
of the Mostowy Property Project area in Montville, Connecticut. This discussion provides the comparative
data necessary for assessing the results of both the Phase IA and Phase IB surveys, and it ensures that the
potential impacts to all previously recorded cultural resources located within and adjacent to the Project
area are taken into consideration. Specifically, this chapter reviews previously identified archaeological
sites, National/State Register of Historic Places properties, and inventoried standing structures over 50
years old situated in the project region (Figures 10 and 11). The discussions presented below are based
on information currently on file at the CT-SHPO in Hartford, Connecticut. In addition, the electronic site
files maintained by Heritage were examined. Both the quantity and quality of the information contained
in the original cultural resources survey reports and State of Connecticut archaeological site forms are
reflected below.
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and National/State Register of Historic Places Properties
A review of data currently on file at the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office, as well as the
electronic site files maintained by Heritage resulted in the identification of a single previously identified
post-European Contact period site (86-9), four Connecticut State Register of Historic Places Properties,
and a single National Register of Historic Places property located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Project area
(Figure 10 and 11). A brief discussion of the identified cultural resources is provided below.
Site 86-9
Site 86-9, which is also known as the Scholfield Woolen Mill, is situated on private land on the northern
shore of Scholfield Pond in Montville, Connecticut (Figure 10). Site 86-9 was recorded in 1976 by Jim
Coggeshall. The eighteenth through twentieth century site was formerly a sawmill and fulling mill. At the
time it was recorded, the millpond and race were present, but the icehouse and other structures were
already gone. No artifacts were recovered were recovered from the site area. Site 86-9 has not been
assessed applying the qualities of significance as defined by the National Register of Historic Places criteria
for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). It located approximately 0.5 km (0.31 mi) to the southwest of the
Project area and will not be impacted by the proposed project.
Raymond Bradford Homestead
The Raymond Bradford Homestead is located on Raymond Hill Road in Montville, Connecticut (Figure 11).
The homestead was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 8, 1982. The Homestead
is a two-and-a-half-story, hipped roof structure situated on a long ridge. The house contains a mixture of
eighteenth and nineteenth century elements and reflects a number of substantial alterations made over
the years, with three major building periods. The house was originally built in 1710 and was a large five
bay structure with a gable roof. In 1820, the gable roof was removed and replaced with a hipped roof, and
Federal-style details were also added at that time. In 1870, multiple changes to the structure occurred,
including modification of the brick replacements, the addition of small dormer windows, the replacement
of the original sash windows with Victorian style two-over-two windows; a new staircase and front door
were introduced into an enlarged hallway, and a kitchen was added to the house. The Raymond Bradford
Homestead is considered significant architecturally not due to it being of a particular style but because it
represents the evolution from generation to generation of ideas about the relationship between beauty
22
and function in a modest domestic residence. The Raymond Bradford Homestead is also listed as
significant in local history, wome its connection with the life of Mercy
Sands Raymond, who was fabled to be connected with the notorious pirate, Captain Kidd. The Raymond
Bradford Homestead is located approximately 0.3 kilometers (0.18 miles) to the north of the Project area.
No impacts to this property area are expected from the proposed development.
Montville Center Congregational Church
The Montville Center Congregational Church was built in 1847 in a vernacular Greek Revival style after
the original church at that site. The former church building was erected 1722 and burned down in 1823.
The Montville Center Congregational Church is located at 812 Raymond Hill Road in Montville, Connecticut
(Figure 11). The church measures 15 x 10.6 meters (50 x 35 feet) in area, and white clap board siding and
a stone foundation. The front (western) elevation of the building consists of three bays with two
entrances, two one-over-one sash windows flanked with shutters, two Doric style pilasters, and a
pediment with a large central bell tower in the Doric style. The bell was added to the tower in 1860
through the efforts of Reverend Hiram C. Hayan. The south elevation consists of four bays with four 16-
over-16 sash windows flanked with shutters. The Montville Center Congregational Church is located
approximately 0.37 kilometers (0.22 miles) to the east of the Project area. No impacts are expected to
occur as a result of the proposed development.
Joseph Bradford House
The Joseph Bradford House was built in 1730 in the Colonial style. The structure has two-and-a-half
stories, a wood frame, a gable roof line, sash windows, and a central chimney. A single-story addition,
characterized as a garage, was added to the northern elevation at an unknown time. The structure is
documented to have been covered with asbestos shingles at some point, likely replacing the original
clapboard siding. The house is located off Route 163, approximately 0.6 miles to the east of Montville
Center Congregational Church, and another 0.2 miles to the north off a dirt road in Montville, Connecticut
(Figure 11). Nancy Belcher and William Hurley of the Connecticut Historical Commission recorded the
house as a State Register of Historic Place property on December 9, 1966. The Joseph Bradford House is
located approximately 0.37 kilometers (0.22 miles) to the southwest of the Project area. No impacts are
expected to occur as a result of the proposed development.
Carding Mill Site
The Carding Mill Site was established in 1799 and operated until 1806 by John and Arthur Scholfield. The
site is located off Route 163 in Montville, Connecticut along the Oxo River (Figure 11). The Carding Mill
was the first woolen factory to operate in Connecticut. The original structure was built from locally
available resources such as field stone and timber; however, the essential metal parts of the machinery
were smuggled in by the Scholfield family from England. Importation of mill technology from England was
illegal at the time, so the women of the family sewed the parts into their petticoats and successfully
brought them to America. The Scholfields sold the mill to John R. and Nathan Comstock in 1806 after a
disagreement with adjoining property owners arose concerning water rights. The original Carding Mill
building no longer exists, and it was discovered that the current building standing on the site is a later
textile mill that was erected in ca., 1870s-1880s. No architectural description or information is provided
on the later mill building within the state record. The state record also notes that in 1653 the site was
occupied by a sawmill run by John Winthrop
Nancy Belcher and William Hurley of the Connecticut Historical Commission recorded the mill site on
December 8, 1966. The Carding Mill Site is located approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.31 miles) to the
southwest of the Project area. No impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed development.
23
Clothing Mill House
The Clothing Mill House is located in Montville, Connecticut within the vicinity of Scholfield Pond and the
Oxo River (Figure 11). The structure is documented as a wood framed house build in 1814 that was
undergoing private restoration processes; no additional architectural information about the house is
provided. The house is noted to be owned by Warren I. Coggshall, the son in law of Mrs. Scholfield. The
record states that of the original associated mill, only the foundation remains. According to the record,
the mill was purchased in 1814 by John Scholfield and his son, Thomas. The mill was a large wooden
structure which was equipped to make Scholfield satinet and was the first mill to produce satinet in
Connecticut. President Monroe had his inauguration suit tailored from 13 yards of black broadcloth
satinet. Nancy Belcher and William Hurley of the Connecticut Historical Commission recorded the mill site
on December 9, 1966. The Clothing Mill House is located approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.31 miles) to the
southwest of the project area. No impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed development.
24
CHAPTER VI
METHODS
Introduction
This chapter describes the research design and field methods used to complete the combined Phase IA
and Phase IB survey of the proposed Mostowy Property in Montville, Connecticut. In addition, the location
and point-of-contact for the facility at which all cultural material, drawings, maps, photographs, and field
notes generated during survey will be curated is provided below.
Research Design
The cultural resources investigations were designed to identify all precontact era and post-European
Contact period cultural resources located within the Project area. Fieldwork for the Project was
comprehensive in nature and planning utilized the information gathered during the background research
portion of the Project. The methods used to complete this investigation were designed to provide
complete and thorough coverage of all portions of the Project area. This undertaking entailed pedestrian
survey, systematic subsurface testing, detailed mapping, and photo-documentation.
Field Methods
The following sections present overview discussions of the methods used to complete the Phase IA
cultural resources assessment survey of the Project areas and the subsequent Phase IB cultural resources
reconnaissance survey of the Project area.
Phase IA Survey Methods
precontact
and post-European Contact periods and natural setting; 2) preparation of a literature search to identify
and discuss previously recorded cultural resources in Project region; 3) a review of maps, topographic
quadrangles, and aerial imagery depicting the Project area in order to identify potential post-European
Contact period resources and/or areas of past disturbance; and 4) pedestrian survey and photo-
documentation of the Project area in order to determine its archaeological sensitivity. These methods are
in keeping with those required by the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office in the document
entitled: (Poirier 1987).
Phase IB Survey Methods
Following the completion of the Phase IA survey, a Phase IB archaeological reconnaissance survey, utilizing
pedestrian survey, photo-documentation, GPS recordation, and systematic shovel testing was conducted
in the Project area. The field strategy was designed such that the area of impact was examined visually
and photographed. Field methods included subsurface testing during which shovel tests were excavated
at 15 m (49.2 ft) intervals along parallel survey transects space 15 m (49.2 ft) apart throughout proposed
archaeologically sensitive portions of Project area.
During survey, each shovel test measured 50 x 50 cm (19.7 x 19.7 in) in size and each was excavated until
the glacially derived C-Horizon was encountered or until large buried objects (e.g., boulders) prevented
further excavation. Each shovel test was excavated in 10 cm (3.9 in) arbitrary levels within natural strata,
and the fill from each level was screened separately. All shovel test fill was screened through 0.635 cm
(0.25 in) hardware cloth and examined visually for cultural material. Soil characteristics were recorded in
25
the field using Munsell Soil Color Charts and standard soils nomenclature. Each shovel test was backfilled
after it was recorded.
Curation
Following the completion and acceptance of the Final Report of Investigations, all cultural material,
drawings, maps, photographs, and field notes will be curated with:
Dr. Sarah Sportman
Office of Connecticut State Archaeology
Box U-1023
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut 06269
(860) 486-5248
Sarah.sportman@uconn.edu
26
CHAPTER VII
RESULTS & MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the Phase IA cultural resources assessment and Phase IB
archaeological reconnaissance surveys of the proposed Mostowy Property project in Montville,
Connecticut. The goals of the investigation included completion of the following tasks: 1) preparation of
a precontact and post-European Contact periods and natural setting
(e.g., soils, ecology, hydrology, etc.); 2) a literature search to identify and discuss previously recorded
cultural resources in the region encompassing the project area; 3) a review of maps and aerial imagery
depicting the Project area in order to identify potential post-European Contact resources and/or areas of
past disturbance; 4) pedestrian survey and photo-documentation of the proposed Project area; and 5)
subsurface examination of the moderate/high archaeologically sensitive areas identified during the Phase
IA survey portion of the investigation.
The Project area encompasses approximately 30 acres of land that will be developed into a public park.
All fieldwork was performed in accordance with the
Archaeological Resources, which is promulgated by the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office
(Poirier 1987). Field methods employed during the current investigation consisted of pedestrian survey,
mapping, photo-documentation, and subsurface testing throughout the array area. Field methods and
results are discussed below.
Results of Phase IA Survey
The Phase IA portion of this investigation was completed through background research, a review of
cultural resources field maintained by the CT-SHPO and Heritage, pedestrian survey, and photo-
documentation. The review of the CT-SHPO files revealed one previously identified post-European Contact
period site (86-9), four Connecticut State Register of Historic Places Properties, and a single National
Register of Historic Places property within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Project area. It was determined that none
of these resources would be impacted by the proposed construction project.
The pedestrian survey portion of the Phase IA survey resulted in the identification of two areas that
appeared to retain moderate/high archaeological sensitivity to yield archaeological sites or intact deposits
based on the presence of well drained soils, level topography, and proximity to fresh water. They were
designated as Sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-2. It was recommended that the two sensitivity areas, which
encompasses 12.77 acres of land in the western and northeastern portion of the Project area, be
subjected to Phase IB archaeological testing prior to construction. Due to the presence of slopes, standing
water, and modern disturbance, the remaining 17 acres were characterized by poorly drained soils, slopes,
and obvious signs of disturbances. They were determined to have a no/low potential for yielding
archaeological sites or deposits; no additional testing of the 17 acres of no/low sensitivity was
recommended.
Results of Phase IB Survey
During the Phase IB survey fieldwork, A total of 201 of 227 (89 percent) of planned shovel tests were
excavated throughout Sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-2 (Figure 12; Sheets 1 and 2). The 26 planned but
unexcavated shovel tests fell within portions of the sensitivity areas characterized by standing water,
localized disturbances, and treefalls. A typical shovel test excavated within Sensitivity Areas SA-1 and SA-
27
2 exhibited three soil horizons in profile and reached to a depth of 65 centimeters (26 inches) below
surface; however, many of shovel tests were terminated before the C-Horizon was reached due to
encountering the water table. The uppermost soil horizon (Ap-Horizon) of a typical shovel test extended
from 0 to 25 centimeters (0 to 9.8 inches) below surface and was described as a deposit of dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/4) silt mixed with medium sand. It was underlain by a layer of subsoil (B-Horizon) that
ranged in depth from 25 to 50 centimeters (9.8 to 19.7 inches) and was classified as a deposit of light
yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) silt mixed with medium sand. In those cases where the C-Horizon was
reached, it extended to approximately 71 cmbs (28 inbs) and was described as a layer of very pale brown
(10YR 7/3) silt with fine sand.
Sensitivity Area SA-1
During the Phase IB survey fieldwork, a total of 27 of 31 (87 percent) planned shovel tests were excavated
throughout Sensitivity Area SA-1 (Figure 12; Sheet 1 and Photos 1 through 4). The four planned but
unexcavated shovel test fell within areas of standing water. Despite the field effort, no cultural materials,
features, or soil anomalies were identified. It was determined that no impacts to significant cultural
resources are anticipated by proposed construction, and no additional testing of the Sensitivity Area SA-
1 is recommended.
Sensitivity Area SA-2
During the Phase IB survey fieldwork, a total of 174 of 196 (89 percent) planned shovel tests were
excavated throughout Sensitivity Area SA-2 (Figure 12; Sheet 2 and Photos 5 through 10). The 22 planned
but unexcavated shovel tests fell within areas of localized disturbances, treefalls, and standing water.
Sensitivity Area SA-2 produced a total seven post-European Contact period artifacts, all of which were
recovered from disturbed plow zone soils (Ap-Horizon) between 0 to 30 centimeters (0 to 11.8 inches)
below surface. These seven artifacts are represented by 2 ironstone earthenware vessel sherds, 1 salt
glazed stoneware vessel sherd, 1 milk glass vessel shard, 2 unidentified ferrous metal fragments, and 1
machine cut nail (1790-1900s). These artifacts were recovered from five shovel tests spread throughout
the southern portion of Sensitivity Area SA-2 (see Figure 12; Sheets 2). Due to the low-density nature and
distribution of the of the archaeological deposits across the southern portion of the sensitivity area, as
well as the absence of associated above ground architectural features or soil anomalies, the post-
European Contact period artifacts were characterized as unassociated field scatter. They were assessed
as not significant applying the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-
d]. No additional archaeological examination of Sensitivity Area SA-2 is recommended prior to
construction.
Summary and Management Recommendations
In sum, the Phase IA and Phase IB survey failed to produce any evidence of significant precontact era of
post-European Contact period archaeological resources within the limits of the Project area. As a result,
no additional archeological examination of Sensitivity Areas SA-1 or SA-2, or the no/low archaeologically
sensitivity areas identified on the Project parcel, is recommended prior to construction. It is the
professional opinion that the construction of a public park on the subject parcel will not impact any
significant cultural resources.
28
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AdvanceCT and CTData Collaborative
2021 Montville, Connecticut, 2021 Town Profile. Electronic document, https://s3-us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/cerc-pdfs/2021/Montville.pdf, accessed September 13, 2022.
Baker, Henry A.
1896 History of Montville, Connecticut, Formerly the North Parish of New London from 1640 to
1896. Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company, Hartford, CT.
Barber, John Warner
1837 Connecticut Historical Collections. 2nd edition. Bibliopola Press, Hanover, NH, distributed by
the University Press of New England.
Barry, Ann P.
1985 Connecticut Towns and Their Establishment. Connecticut State Library, Archives, History, and
Genealogy Unit, Hartford, CT.
Beers, F. W.
1868 Atlas of New Haven County, Connecticut. F. W. Beers, A. D. Ellis & G. G. Soule, New York, NY.
Bell, Michael
1985 The Face of Connecticut: People, Geology, and the Land. State Geological Natural History
Survey of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Bowen, Clarence Winthrop
1926 The History of Woodstock, Connecticut. The Plimpton Press, Norwood, MA.
Bushman, Richard L.
1967 From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Caulkins, Frances Manwaring
1895 History of New London, Connecticut, From the First Survey of the Coast in 1612 to 1860. H. D.
Utley, New London, CT.
Cave, Alfred A.
1996 The Pequot War. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
Chase, Jon
2004 Images of America: Montville. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.
Coldwar-ct.com
2021 United Nuclear Corporation Naval Products Division. https://coldwar-
ct.com/United_Nuclear_Corp.html, accessed September 14, 2022.
29
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT)
2004 Connecticut Statewide Aerial Photograph Series. CT DOT, Newington, CT.
Connecticut Environmental Conditions Online (CT ECO)
2019 Connecticut 2019 Orthophotography. Storrs, Connecticut: University of Connecticut,
Connecticut Environmental Conditions Online.
http://www.cteco.uconn.edu/data/flight2019/index.htm.
Connecticuthistory.org
n.d. Montville-Connecticut History: A CTHumanities Project.
https://connecticuthistory.org/towns-page/montville/, accessed September 14, 2022.
Connecticut Historical Commission
1974 Historic Preservation: A Plan for Connecticut. Volume 2. The State of Connecticut, Hartford,
CT.
Connecticut, State of
1932 State Register and Manual. State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT.
2021a Population of Connecticut Towns 1756-1820. https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-
Manual/Section-VII/Population-1756-1820, accessed September 14, 2022.
2021b Population of Connecticut Towns 1830-1890. https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-
Manual/Section-VII/Population-1830---1890, accessed September 14, 2022.
2021c Population of Connecticut Towns 1900-1960. https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-
Manual/Section-VII/Population-1900-1960, accessed September 14, 2022.
2021d State Register and Manual. State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT.
Connole, Dennis A.
2001 The Indians of Nipmuck Country in Southern New England, 1630-1750: An Historical
Geography. McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC.
Crofut, Florence S. Marcy
1937 Guide to the History and the Historic Sites of Connecticut. 2 volumes. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT.
Fairchild Aerial Surveys
1934 Connecticut Statewide Aerial Photograph Series. Connecticut State Archives, Hartford, CT.
Funk, R.E.
1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum Memoir 22.
Albany, NY.
George, D.
1997 A Long Row to Hoe: The Cultivation of Archaeobotany in Southern New England. Archaeology
of Eastern North America 25:175 - 190.
30
George, D., and C. Tryon
1996 Lithic and Raw Material Procurement and Use at the Late Woodland Period Cooper Site, Lyme,
Connecticut. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut
and the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Storrs, CT.
Gerrard, A.J.
1981 Soils and Landforms, An Integration of Geomorphology and Pedology. George Allen & Unwin,
London.
Goddard, Ives
1978 Handbook of North American Indians, V. 17, Languages. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Gramly, R. Michael, and Robert E. Funk
1990 What is Known and Not Known About the Human Occupation of the Northeastern United
States Until 10,000 B. P. Archaeology of Eastern North America 18:5-32.
Gray, Ormando Willis
1869 Atlas of Windham and Tolland Counties: With a Map of Connecticut. C. G. Keeney, Hartford,
CT.
Griffin, J.B.
1967 Eastern North America Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175-191.
Hauptman, Laurence M. and James D. Wherry (editors)
1990 The Pequots in Southern New England: The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation.
University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, OK.
Hines, Blaikie
2002 Civil War: Volunteer Sons of Connecticut. American Patriot Press, Thomaston, ME.
Historic Buildings of Connecticut
2022 Montville Center Congregational Church (1874). https://historicbuildingsct.com/montville-
center-congregational-church-1847/, accessed September 20, 2022.
Hoadly, Charles J.
1887 The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, Volume 14. Case, Lockwood & Brainard
Company, Hartford, CT.
Hurd, D. Hamilton, comp.
1881 History of Fairfield County, Connecticut, With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Its
Prominent Men and Pioneers. J. W. Lewis & Co., Philadelphia, PA.
Jewett, Frederic Clarke
1908 History and Genealogy of the Jewetts of America. The Grafton Press, New York.
https://archive.org/details/historygenealogy01jewe/page/322/mode/2up, accessed
September 20, 2022.
31
Jones, B.
1997 The Late Paleo-Indian Hidden Creek Site in Southeastern Connecticut. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 25:45-80.
Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc.
1965 Connecticut statewide Aerial Photograph Series. Connecticut State Archives, Hartford, CT.
1970 Connecticut Statewide Aerial Photograph Series. Connecticut State Archives, Hartford, CT.
Larned, Ellen D.
1874 History of Windham County, Connecticut 1600-1760. Charles Hamilton, Worcester, MA.
Lavin, Lucianne
1980 Analysis of Ceramic Vessels from the Ben Hollister Site, Glastonbury, Connecticut. Bulletin of
the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 43:3-46.
1984 Connecticut Prehistory: A Synthesis of Current Archaeological Investigations. Archaeological
Society of Connecticut Bulletin 47:5-40.
1986 Pottery Classification and Cultural Models in Southern New England Prehistory. North
American Archaeologist 7(1):1-12.
1987 The Windsor Ceramic Tradition in Southern New England. North American Archaeologist
8(1):23-40.
1988a Coastal Adaptations in Southern New England and Southern New York. Archaeology of
Eastern North America, Vol.16:101-120.
1988b The Morgan Site, Rocky Hill, Connecticut: A Late Woodland Farming Community in the
Connecticut River Valley. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 51:7-20.
2013
About Their Communities and Cultures. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Lizee, J.
1994a Prehistoric Ceramic Sequences and Patterning in southern New England: The Windsor
Tradition. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
1994b Cross-Mending Northeastern Ceramic Typologies. Paper presented at the 1994 Annual
Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological Association, Geneseo, NY.
32
Marshall, Benjamin Tinkham, ed.
1922 A Modern History of New London County, Connecticut. Lewis Historical Publishing Company,
New York, NY.
McBride, K.
1978 Archaic Subsistence in the Lower Connecticut River Valley: Evidence from Woodchuck Knoll.
Man in the Northeast 15 & 16:124-131.
1984 Prehistory of the Lower Connecticut River Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
2013 War and Trade in Eastern New Netherland. In A Beautiful and Fruitful Place. M. Lacy, editor
pp. 271-141. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
McDermott, William P.
2010 Stafford, Connecticut: 1719-1870, from Farm to Factory. Kerleen Press, Tolland, CT.
Moeller, R.
1980 6-LF-21: A Paleo-Indian Site in Western Connecticut. American Indian Archaeological Institute,
Occasional Papers No. 2.
Montville, Town of
2022 Plan of Conservation and Development. Electronic document. https://repository.montville-
ct.org/TownofMontville2022POCD.pdf, accessed September 14, 2022.
National Park Service
n.d. National Register of Historic Places. Electronic document.
https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/AssetDetail/531f61a2-cfb7-4d23-b33b-8fdb6e8451ca,
accessed September 20, 2022.
Nivens, Allan
1965 Connecticut for the Union. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Normen, Elizabeth J. (Editor)
2013 African American Connecticut Explored. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT.
Oberg, Michael Leroy
2006 Uncas: First of the Mohegans. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Oglesby, Scott
2013 I-395. Connecticut Roads. http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/i395.html, accessed September
14, 2022.
Pagoulatos, P.
1988 Terminal Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the Connecticut River Valley. Man in the
Northeast 35:71-93.
33
Pease, John C. and John M. Niles
1819 A Gazetteer of the States of Connecticut and Rhode-Island. William S. Marsh, Hartford, CT.
Pfeiffer, J.
1984 The Late and Terminal Archaic Periods in Connecticut Prehistory. Bulletin of the Bulletin of the
Archaeological Society of Connecticut 47:73-88.
1986 Dill Farm Locus I: Early and Middle Archaic Components in Southern Connecticut. Bulletin of
the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 49:19-36.
1990 The Late and Terminal Archaic Periods in Connecticut Prehistory: A Model of Continuity. In
Experiments and Observations on the Archaic of the Middle Atlantic Region. R. Moeller, ed.,
pp. 85-104.
Poirier, D.
1987 Connecticut
Historical Commission, State Historic Preservation Office, Hartford, CT.
Pope, G.
1952 Excavation at the Charles Tyler Site. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 26:3-
29.
1953 The Pottery Types of Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Haven 27:3-
10.
Ritchie, W.A.
1969a The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
1969b A Framework for the Prehistory of Southern New
England; A study in Coastal Ecology and Adaptation. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York State Projectile Points. New York State Museum
Bulletin Number 384, State Education Department. University of the State of New York,
Albany, NY.
Ritchie, W.A., and R.E. Funk
1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum Memoir 20. The
State Education Department, Albany, NY.
Rouse, I.
1947 Ceramic Traditions and sequences in Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of
Connecticut 21:10-25.
Salwen, B., and A. Ottesen
1972 Radiocarbon Dates for a Windsor Occupation at the Shantok Cove Site. Man in the Northeast
3:8-19.
34
Shanahan, Martha
2016 After snag, Montville historical church project gets town funding. The Day.
https://www.theday.com/local-news/20160314/after-snag-montville-historical-church-
project-gets-town-funding/, accessed September 20, 2022.
Smith, C.
1947 An Outline of the Archaeology of Coastal New York. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of
Connecticut 21:2-9.
Snow, D.
1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Stafford, Town of
2012 Stafford 2012 Plan of Conservation & Development. Accessed May 26, 2021.
http://www.staffordct.org/uploads/download.php?id=758.
Thompson, David H.
1969 The Binette Site, Naugatuck Connecticut. Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 26-
27.
Trumbull, J. Hammond
1886 The Memorial History of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1633-1884, edited by J. Hammond
Trumbull, Vol. 2. Boston: Edward L. Osgood, Boston, MA.
United States Census Bureau
1800 Second Census of the United States. Ancestry.com. Provo, UT.
1820 Fourth Census of the United States. Ancestry.com. Provo, UT.
1850 Seventh Census of the United States. Ancestry.com. Provo, UT.
1870 Ninth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Ancestry.com. Provo, UT.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1952 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Aerial Photography for Connecticut.
Collections of the National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.
Van Dusen, Albert E.
1961 Connecticut. Random House, New York, NY
Walling, H. F.
1854 Map of New London County, Connecticut. William E. Baker, Philadelphia, PA.
Witthoft, J.
1949 An Outline of Pennsylvania Indian History. Pennsylvania History 16(3):3-15.
1953 Broad Spearpoints and the Transitional Period Cultures. Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 23(1):4-
31.
35
Figure 1. the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
37
Figure 2. Digital map showing the soil types present in the vicinity of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
38
Figure 3. Excerpt from an 1854 historical map of New London County showing the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut (Walling
1854).
39
Figure 4. Excerpt from the 1868 Beers map showing the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut (Beers 1868).
40
Figure 5. Excerpt from a 1934 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
41
Figure 6. Excerpt from a 1965 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
42
Figure 7. Excerpt from a 1970 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
43
Figure 8. Excerpt from a 2004 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
44
Figure 9. Excerpt from a 2019 aerial photograph showing the location of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
45
Figure 10. Digital map showing the locations of previously identified archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
46
Figure 11. Digital map showing the locations of previously identified National and State Register of Historic Places properties in the vicinity of the
project area in Montville, Connecticut.
47
Figure 12; Sheet 1. Excerpt from a 2021 aerial photograph showing areas of no/low and moderate/high sensitivity areas as a result of the Phase 1A pedestrian survey within the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
Sensitivity Area SA-1
48
Figure 12; Sheet 2. Excerpt from a 2021 aerial photograph showing areas of no/low and moderate/high sensitivity areas as a result of the Phase 1A pedestrian survey within the project area in Montville, Connecticut.
Sensitivity Area SA-2
49
Photo 1. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from western boundary.
Photo facing east.
Photo 2. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from eastern boundary.
Photo facing west.
50
Photo 3. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from northern boundary.
Photo facing south.
Photo 4. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-1 from southern boundary.
Photo facing north.
51
Photo 5. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from northern boundary.
Photo facing south.
Photo 6. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from southern boundary.
Photo facing north.
52
Photo 7. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from western boundary.
Photo facing east.
Photo 8. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from eastern boundary.
Photo facing west.
53
Photo 9. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 near Shovel Test pit 12
along Transect 11.
Photo 10. Overview photo of Sensitivity Area, SA-2 from northeast corner.
Photo facing south.