AD-Al46 046 AN ARCHEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE i/ISNATFORD ARMY ENGINE P AN(U) ENVIROSPHERE CO NEW YORK

d IKLEIN ET AL. FER 64 CX-4000-3-GD1N

UNCLASSIFIED FIG 5/6 N

FI_

U 28 25L- 112.2

L6

11111-25 1.8

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS IP63 A

RFinalReport No.5

February 1984

(0

An Archeological Overview and Management Planfor the Stratford Army Engine Plant

Under Contract CX4000-3-0018with the

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

for theU.S. Army Materiel Development and

Readiness CommandThis document has been approvedfor public releuse and sale; its bydistribution 13 unlimited. E v r s h r o p n

,2 World Trade Center

0

CLD New York, New York 10048

Ui ~ELOTE- C Prepared under the Supervision of

LA- 0 CT 1 1984k

kJ-

AnJoel 1. Klein, Principal Investigator

84- 09 18 046

FinalReport No. 5

February 1984

An Archeological Overview and Management Planfor the Stratford Army Engine Plant

Under Contract CX4000-3-0018with the

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

for theU.S. Army Materiel Development and

Readiness Command

by

Envirosphere Company

2 World Trade CenterNew York, New York 10048

Prepared under the Supervision of

J o~lKlein, Principal Investigator

JWIK-

REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. ORr NO. 3. Necpl.nt's Acessie. No.

PACE Y.1 6o ____________

4. 7WIl and Suitie S. Fape. Da

An Archeological Overview and Management Plan February 1984

for the Stratford Army Engine Plant e

7. AuthOKs) Joel l.Klein and Elise M.Brenner . Peroming Organization Rep. Me.DARCOM Report No.5

9. Perfrmlng Organizatlon Name and Addrsse 10. Pmietask/Work Unit Na.

Envirosphere CompanyTwo World Trade Center - 90th Fl IL CouoeC)a waue(M ft .

New York, NY 10048 C. CX 4000-3-0018

IL Sponsoring Organizatlon Name and Addrees IL Type of *openO & Period coverdNational Park Service Final ReportMid-Atlantic Regional Office600 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19106

3S. Supplementary Noes This report was prepared as part of the DARCOM Historical ArcheologicalSurvey (DHAS), an interagency technical services program, to developfacility-specific archeological overviews and management plans for theU.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Cmnnmand (DARCOM).

36. Abstract (Limit 200 wods)

This archeological overview and manageent plan provides a tool which can be used to assist DARCOM anddecision-makers at the Stratford Army Engine Plant (SAEP),in complying with existing regulations andprocedures relating to historic preservation, ( echnical Manual 5-801-1, Technical Note No. 78-17, ResourcesManagement; 32 CFR 650.18-650.193; Army Regulation 420; 36 CFR 800). -'This document summarizes datarelating to the area's environmental history; cultural chronology; historic and modern ground disturbances%previous archeological surveys, presently identified archeological resources; known artifact-, ecofact, and/or documentary collections relptlng to archeological resourcesf potentially Identifiable, but not presentlyrecorded archeological resources1 significant archeological resources; ongoing and planned activities thatcould effect archeological resources; locational data of known archeological resources- and locational dataof potential archeological resources. No significant archeological remains are known to exist on SAEPproperty. Although prehistoric sites have been reported in the general vicinity,-sit analysis of prior landuses and ground disturbing activities suggests that there is little likelihood that previously undiscovered,Intact, archeological resources exist on the upland portion of the SAEP site. Early prehistoric archeologicalsites, inundated by rising sea levels, may be present within the riparian rights area of the SAEP. No siteor project specific archeological management activities are recommended for the SAEP at this time. lt isrecommended that procedures be established to (a) insure that potential archeological resources within theriparian rights area are identified prior to the start of construction in that area; and (b) deal with theemergency discovery of archeological resources in upland areas.

17. Doemmem Analy a. Deecriptors

Archeological ManagementArmy Installation ManagementEnvironmental Assessment

t. Iderilfteo /Opee-nded Tsem*

Cultural Resource ManagementArcheological Resource ManagementStratford Army Engine Plant

c. COSAnI Plhd/@.s..e 5FI& Avelloblty Stalw: 1. Iscuft Class (This Re"n) 21. Ne. Of Pages

Available for public release without x + 43appended site locational data. L secu cyC la his Psg") 2. Prce

0e AN0-09.10 a INAlnemIe o Reverse OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)ii (Formerly NTIS-IS)

Department of commee

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

This archeological overview and management plan provides a tool which

can be used to assist DARCOM and decision-makers at the Stratford ArmyEngine Plant (SAEP) in complying with existing regulations and procedures

relating to historic preservation (Technical Manual 5-801-1, TechnicalNote No. 78-17, Resources Management; 32 CFR 650.18-650.193; ArmyRegulation 420-XX Army Regulation 200-1; Army Regulation 200-2; 36 CFR800). This document summarizes data relating to the area's environmentalhistory; cultural chronology; historic and modern ground disturbances;previous archeological surveys; presently identified archeologicalresources; known artifact, ecofact, and or documentary collectionsrelating to archeological resources; potentially identifiable but notpresently recorded archeological resources, significant archeologicalresources; ongoing and planned activities that could effect archeological

resources; locational data of known archeological resources; andlocational data of potential archeological resources.

No significant archeological remains are known to exist on SAEPproperty. Although prehistoric sites have been reported in the generalvicinity, an analysis of prior land uses and ground disturbing activitiessuggests that there is little likelihood that previously undiscovered,intact, archeological resources exist on the upland portion of the SAEPsite. Early prehistoric archeological sites, inundated by rising sealevels, may be present within the riparian rights area of the SAEP.

No site or project specific archeological management activities arerecommended for the SAEP at this time. It is recommended that proceduresbe established to a) insure that potential archeological resources within

the riparian rights area are indentified prior to the start ofconstruction in that area, and b) deal with the unanticipated discoveryof archeological resources in upland areas.

1/77

ii i -

PREPARERS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Joel I. Klein is Project Manager for the DARCOM project and is the

principal author of this Archeological Overview and Management Plan. Heholds a B.S. in Anthropology and Physics and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in

Anthropology, and is certified by the Society of ProfessionalArcheologists in field research, and cultural resource management. His15 years of professional experience have been in anthropological andarcheological research, and cultural resource management, including

several projects in Connecticut. He has participated in archeologicalinvestigations across the United States. He is presently a Principal

Engineer with Envirosphere Company.

Elise M. Brenner is a contributing author. For the DARCOM project

Dr. Brenner was directly responsible for the collection of all baselinedata and the preparation of the regional culture history for theStratford Army Engine Plant overview. Dr. Brenner received her M.S. andPh.D. degrees in Anthropology from the University of Massachusetts-

Amherst. She is a specialist In ethnohlstory of eastern Massachusetts.She has served as a supervisor on several archeological projects in

southern New England.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS

The authors wish to thank the following individuals, who provided

assistance and information during the preparation of this archeologicaloverview and management plan: Major Jimmy A. Watt, U.S.A., Chief,

Contract Operations Branch, SAEP; Neal Sansome and Jack Kennedy, AvcoLycoming Stratford Division.

David Poirier, Connecticut Historical Commission, was very helpful

during the data gathering phases of the project. Stephanie Rodeffer,National Park Service, provided much appreciated guidance throughout thepreparation of this report.

v

CONTENTS

PAGE

NTIS FORM jj

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY iii

PREPARERS AND QUALIFICATIONS iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES x

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need 1-11.2 The Stratford Army Engine Plant 1-31.3 Summary of Previous Archeological Work Conducted 1-6

on the Stratford Army Engine Plant1.4 The Sociocultural Context of the Archeological 1-6

Resources on the Stratford Army Engine Plant

2.0 AN OVERVIEW OF THE CULTURAL AND RELEVANT NATURAL 2-1HISTORY OF THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

2.1 The Physical Environment 2-1

2.1.1 Earth Resources 2-12.1.2 Water Resources 2-12.1.3 Modern Climate 2-32.1.4 Plant Resources 2-32.1.5 Animal Resources 2-32.1.6 Paleoenvironment 2-3

2.2 The Cultural Environment 2-6

2.2.1 Prehistory 2-62.2.2 Ethnohistory 2-92.2.3 History 2-10

vi

PAGE

2.3 Archeological Research Directions 2-11

2.3.1 Regional Concerns 2-11

2,3.2 Installation-Specific Archeological 2-12Research Directions

3.0 AN ASSESSMENT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION 3-1

AND SURVEY ADEQUACY

3.1 Environmental Constraints to Site Preservation 3-1

3.2 Historic and Recent Land Use Patterns 3-23.3 Previous Cultural Resource Investigations; 3-8

Coverage and Intensity3.4 Summary Assessment of Data Adequacy, Gaps 3-8

4.0 KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE STRATFORD ARMY 4-1

ENGINE PLANT

5.0 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL 5-1RESOURCE BASE ON THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

5.1 The Significant Resource Base 5-1

5.2 Ideal Goals and Objectives 5-1

6.0 A RECOMMENDED ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE 6-1STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

6.1 Facility Master Plans and Proposed Impacts 6-1

6.2 Appropriate Archeological Management Goals WithinStratford Army Engine Plant's Master Plan 6-1

6.2.1 General Facility Planning 6-1

6.2.2 Project-Specific Resource Protection or 6-1Treatment Options

6.2.3 A Summary of Recommended Mangement Directions and 6-1

Priorities for Effective Compliance andProgram Development

6.3 Estimated Scopes-of-Work and Cost Levels for Presently 6-2

Identifiable Management Needs

6.3.1 Management of Archeological Resources Within the 6-2

Riparian Rights Area of the SAEP6.3.2 Unanticipated Archeological Site Discovery Procedure 6-3

vii

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . .... ... .. . . . . .. .J j

PAGE

7.0 SUMMARY 7-1

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 8-1

8.1 Primary Sources and References Cited 8-1

8.2 Other Pertinent Literature 8-3

viii

TABLES

Table Page

2-1 A SUMMARY OF CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE AREA 2-7OF THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

3-1 A SUMMARY OF HISTORIC AND MODERN GROUND DISTURBANCE 3-3THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE PRESENT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCEBASE ON THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

3-2 ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYS CONDUCTED ON THE STRATFORD ARMY 3-9ENGINE PLANT

4-1 PRESENTLY IDENTIFIED ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-2ON THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT; ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

4-2 PRESENTLY IDENTIFIED ARCHEOLOGICAL COMPONENTS 4-3ON THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT: DESCRIPTIONAND EVALUATION

5-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5-2ON THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

ix

FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1 MAP OF THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE STRATFORD ARMY 1-4ENGINE PLANT

1-2 DETAILED MASTER MAP OF THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT 1-5

3-1 MAP OF HISTORIC AND/OR MODERN 3-7GROUND DISTURBANCE THAT MIGHT LIMIT THEPRESENT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE BASE ON THESTRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

J'

1.0INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

This archeological overview and management plan will assist the U.S.Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) in its effortsto comply with laws and regulations concerning the management ofarcheological resources on the Stratford Army Engine Plant.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (94 Stat.2988) affirmed the policy of the federal government (Sec. 2(3)) to"administer federally owned, administered or controlled prehistoric andhistoric resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration andbenefit of present and future generations." Section ll0(a)(1) of thatcode specifies that each federal agency is responsible for thepreservation of such resources on agency-owned or controlled lands.DARCOM is committed to the implementation of that policy, following theguidelines for historic resource management set forth in the 1966 Act andrelated laws, regulations, and technical guidance.

DARCOM has contracted with the U.S. Department of the Interior'sNational Park Service to provide technical guidance for the developmentof DARCOM installation cultural resource overviews and management plans.The program is entitled the DARCOM Historical/Archeological Survey(DHAS). The National Park Service has in turn separated this review andplanning program into two major elemcits, architectural andarcheological. The architectural review and planning function is beingdirected by the Service's Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS),while the archeological resource assessment and planning function isbeing handled through the Service's Interagency Resources ManagementDivision (IRMD). The archeological function includes both prehistoricand historical archeology.

Under the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) of 1966 as amended (80 Stat. 915, 94 Stat. 2987; 16 USC 470),DARCOM must:

inventory, evaluate, and, where appropriate, nominate to theNational Register of Historic Places all archeologicalproperties under agency ownership or control (Sec. l10(a)(2))

FHWECDIO PAGE BLALK-NOT F1LmD

.... _ _ _ _ ,

prior to the approval of any ground-disturbing undertaking, takeinto account the project's effect on any National Register -listed or eligible property; afford the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the

proposed project (Sec. 106)

complete an appropriate data recovery program on an eligible or

listed National Register archeological site prior to its beingheavily damaged or destroyed (Sec. 110(b), as reported by theHouse Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs [96th Congress,2d Session, House Report No. 96-1457, p. 36-37]).

Since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act

Amendments of 1980, DARCOM has begun a more active commmandwide programin historic resource management. DARCOM's management program involvesseveral steps. The first step is a literature review and preliminaryevaluation of known cultural resources on DARCOM facilities. Thisprovides a basis for prediction of the overall resource base requiringmanagement. The second step involves applying the understood parameters

of the resource base in a plan which takes into consideration both short-and long-term command activities and goals.

Other compliance regulations taken into consideration by thisarcheological overview and management plan include:

o The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (88Stat. 174, 16 USC 469), which requires that notice of an agencyproject that will destroy a significant archeological site beprovided to the Secretary of the Interior; either the Secretaryor the notifying agent may support survey or data recoveryprograms to preserve the resource's information values.

o The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (93 Stat.721, 16 USC 470aa; this supersedes the Antiquities Act of 1906(93 Stat. 225, 16 USC 431-43]), with provisions that effectivelymean that:

- The Secretary of the Army may issue excavation permits forarcheological resources on DARCOM lands (Sec. 4)

- Anyone damaging an archeological resource on DARCOM landsmay incur criminal (Sec. 6) or civil penalties (Sec. 7)

o 36 CFR 800, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"(44 FR 6068, as amended in May 1982); these regulations from theAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation set forth proceduresfor compliance with Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act

o Regulations from the Department of the Interior setting forthprocedures for determining site eligibility for the NationalRegister of Historic Places (36 CFR 60, 36 CFR 63), standardsfor data recovery (proposed 36 CFR 66), and proceduresimplementing the Archeological Resources Protection Act(proposed 36 CFR 69)

1-2

0 Guidance from the U.S. Department of the Army as to proceduresand standards for the preservation of historic properties(32 CFR 650.181-650.193; Technical Manual 5-801-1; TechnicalNote 78-17; Army Regulation 420-XX; Army Regulation 200-1; ARegulation 200-'.

The formulation of archeological plans for DARCOM installations ispart of a developing national acceptance of the historic ResourceProtection Planning Process (RP3) (HCRS 1980). RP3 presents an outlinefor the development of preservation plans, which, in turn, provide ananalytical structure for preservation decision-making. Thisarcheological overview and management plan has been prepared with thoseguidelines in mind.

This report is based on data made available by installation

representatives between April and September 1983.

1.2 THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

The Stratford Army Engine Plant (SAEP) (Figure 1-1) is aGovernment-Owned Contractor-Operated (GOCO) industrial facility operatedby the Avco Lycoming Division of Avco Corporation. The facility wasoriginally constructed in 1929 by the Sikorsky Aeronautical EngineeringCorporation. Subsequently, the Chance Vought Company followed Sikorskyas the operator of the facility. During the World War II era, the U.S.Government procured the facility and expanded it considerably. In 1951the Air Force reactivated the facility and it was operated by AvcoLycoming Division for production of Curtis Wright's nine cylinder R-1820radial engine and major components of the J-47 jet aircraft engine undera license agreement.

The facility was transferred from the U.S. Air Force to the U.S.Army in 1976 and was redesignated as the "Stratford Army Engine Plant."Government contracts were received for development of the AGT-1500 enginewhich was selected in 1976 to power the Army's new Abrams XMI Main BattleTank. Selection of the tank engine triggered a major U.S. Army sponsoredfacility rehabilitation and rearrangement program, essential to tankengine production requirements and helicopter engine mobilizationcommitments.

Buildings at SAEP consist of a combination of one, two, and threestories; steel frame; steel siding; steel frame with brick; concreteblock; reinforced concrete; and wood/wood siding. The two mainmanufacturing buildings are single story, steel frame, hangar-type,originally built for airframe manufacturing. The property, situated onthe western shore of the Housatonic River, consists of 75.31 a. of uplandwith an additional 39.50 a. of riparian rights in the Housatonic River.The plant consists of 48 buildings and building extensions in five mainbuilding areas, with a total gross floor area of approximately 1,539,980sq. ft. (Figure 1-2).

Avco Lycoming Division pays rent to the U.S. Government on a

semiannual basis for utilization of facilities in connection withnon-U.S. Government and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs.

1-3

-7 i ~ 4NGE "

~~irai COcEeC&

,4QANGLE LOCA',' " 1 + 1: - * . Cpos

f ;- Acidepmy

h y ILL.s

__ Island

Contour interval 10 FeetSTAFR MY

0 0.51 Sch1, .ENGINE PLANT

kilometer -Z

W: cf. o Ktfia Frash ~ Mip

od Pond ,~

4. 1,4.

,66- STA MFrD BnI

4? GrpoO~~Meade~W_%+ PA ..........................-

. *

/r .,,Mea.o

Figure 1-1. MAP OF THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

1-4

oi 4 T- LL Ca - S .~z- -- I. u .

0~ ,

S : .~ ~-; .i r-<Ii ~ ~I- cc

EE ~ ! ~ LLU~ !~ ~j LL

g IS ~ i ccC, I- W

- 2 Got

- ~-j- UVY S~idl~il

- - U.

1-5-

1.3 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL WORX CONDUCTED ON THE STRATFORDARMY ENGINE PLANT

Although no archeological work has been done at SAEP, there havebeen archeological investigations in the surrounding area. ThePrehistoric Archeological Survey Team (P.A.S.T.) of the University ofConnecticut at Storrs conducted an archeological survey of Sterling Parkin Stratford. The test pits yielded dumps and refuse areas of thehistoric period in disturbed contexts (Aigner et al. 1977). In theLordship area of Stratford, an archeological survey located a small shellmidden at the edge of a marsh just west of Lordship; a large shell middenin the northern part of Lordship Farms on the banks of Frash Pond; and aprehistoric site on the banks of the Housatonic, north of Marine BasinInlet (in Aigner et al. 1977:12). The historian Sammual Orcutt providesa description of artifacts recovered from this latter site by localcollectors: 3 stone celts, 20 pestles and pestle fragments, 17 chisels,2 soapstone bowls, 5 rubbing stones, 1 drill, 75 knife or pointfragments, fire-cracked rock, and unidentified pits (Orcutt 1886:63-67).

Francis Goldbach, the writer of a pamphlet describing Indianartifacts from Stratford, reports sites and shell middens in cornfieldsnorth of Duck Neck Creek and in the vicinity of Frash Pond (Goldbach1976). At Muskrat Hill a group burial of dogs associated with whelkshell artifacts is reported, as well as three Indian skeletons 100 ft.west of the dog burials (Coffin 1963). Coffin also reports a flexedindividual skeleton at the northeastern end of Frash Pond. Coffin (1947)reports on the remains of a fish weir in the Housatonic River west ofNell's Island.

1.4 THE SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THESTRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT (SAEP)

Stratford is located in Fairfield County, Connecticut, 60 mi. eastof New York City. Today Stratford is an industrial city in theBridgeport complex, with few hints of its early origin in 1639 (Bixby1974:266). However, efforts have been made to recall the late colonialaspects of the settlement, named, of course, for Stratford-upon-Avon,England (Bixby 1974:266). The American Shakespeare Festival Theatre andAcademy, attended by hundreds of thousands of visitors every year, is anexample of the city's recollection of its roots.

In the early years of aircraft development and manufacture,Stratford was the base of world-famous Sikorsky Aircraft. The SikorskyDivision of United Aircraft still operates in Stratford, and partsmanufacturers for aircraft are numerous (Bixby 1974:266). In the last 30years the town has grown rapidly, although in the last decade this growthrate has levelled off. Recently, attention has been paid to preservationof the wetlands along the shore and the Housatonic River estuary.

In terms of Stratford area's Native American population, in 1935 the

Golden Hill tribe, along with other tribes in the state, were placedunder the jurisdiction of the State Park and Forest Department. In 1941the State Welfare Department took over control of Indian Affairs, and in1973 the Comissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection took

1-6

J AM

control of Connecticut's reservation tribes (Guillette 1979). The NativeAmerican population of Connecticut took part in the national movementamong Native Americans in the late 1960s. In 1973 the Connecticut IndianAffairs Council was established as part of Connecticut Indians' campaignto gain control over their own lands and affairs (Guillette 1979). In1977 the descendants of the Golden Hill tribe--in turn, the descendantsof Stratford's native population--established in Trumbull, Connecticut, abase for tribal operations; this base also serves as a school, a museum,and a tribal center (Guillette 1979). The Golden Hill Tribal Council hasas its basic goal the self-sufficiency of its members. This requires anadequate land base. To this end, the tribe received a grant in 1979 fromthe Department of Housing and Urban Development to purchase land for anew, larger reservation (Guillette 1979). In the same year, the tribepurchased 69 a. in Colchester, Connecticut to serve as its land base tohelp the tribe become self-sufficient through economic development.

1-7

2.0AN OVERVIEW OF THE CULTURAL AND RELEVANT NATURAL HISTORY OF THE

STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

2.1 THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

2.1.1 Earth Resources

The bedrock in Stratford is composed of Middle and Upper Ordovicianmaterials, predominantly Oronoque member of Derby Hill schist (Fritts1965). Specifically, the bedrock is mainly slabby to thinly laminated,medium- to fine-grained greenish-gray to medium dark-gray quartz-rich andalbitic paragneiss with schistose to phyllitic partings and layerscontaining abundant muscovite and chlorite (Fritts 1965). The majorlocal mineral used by prehistoric people was quartz (Swigart 1977).Quartz was present in the form of glacial erratics, as major and minordikes, and still intrusive outcroppings in the exposed bedrock (Swigart1977). Above the bedrock is a shallow orange to yellow podzol; this soilmay become deeper on well-drained glacial alluvial terraces (Brumbach1965). The topsoil layer is a brown to black loam, approximately 6-10in. deep. The superficial geology consists of gravel, identified byFlint as Stratford outwash sediments (Flint 1968). The terrain isgenerally level (Hurd 1881:750); the only unevenness is a rise in theterrain to the north with topographical features elongated in thenorth-south and northeast-southeast direction (Aigner et al. 1977a:l).In other words, topographically, the land surface slopes gradually fromthe northern border to the southern coast. The present topography iscarved from what was a peneplain several million years ago (Bixby1974:41).

Where the ocean water has inundated the land surface there issignificant alteration of the local topography (Gordon 1983:66). Thereis evidence that the advancing surf zone has removed over 5 m of glacialdeposits along some parts of the Connecticut shore (Gordon 1983:66).

2.1.2 Water Resources

Stratford was formed by the broad mouth of the Housatonic Riverwhich widens at its outlet creating a bay between Milford Beach andStratford Point (Wilcoxson 1939:1). A network of inflowing rivers offresh water from the Housatonic, small inlets, landlocked retreats,fresh-water springs, ponds, streams, and brooks occur throughout the town(Wilcoxson 1939). The Stratford Army Engine Plant lies at the point

2-1

REDCZDM WEa BLAhIC-NOT 711JWM

where the Housatonic River enters the Long Island Sound. The Soundachieved its present form around 6000 years ago, and subsequent changesin its form have been the gradual advance of the shoreline landward(Gordon 1983:67).

The Housatonic River drains a region whose highest point is in the

northwestern corner of Connecticut (Bixby 1974:39). The land slopesgradually (about 20 ft. per mile) to the shores of the Long IslandSound. The shore is generally rocky, with few sand beaches. Theirregularities in the shoreline today are the result of the oceanflooding stream mouths and valleys near the shore. The mouth of the

Housatonic River is technically an estuary; only the dams prevent thetidal effect from being noticeable far up the Housatonic River (Bixby1974:44-45). Currently, the Housatonic River is not navigable very farupstream. In the late nineteenth century, the government made extensiveimprovements at the mouth of the Housatonic to open it to river

transportation. A channel was blasted through a shell bar consisting ofmillions of oysters, which extended across the mouth of the river,causing the river to be deep, narrow, and swift. A breakwater was built,first in 1888, and then completed in 1897. In the very early historicperiod, because of the shell bar, the Housatonic was known to change itscourse as often as seven times in one year (Coffin 1947).

Marsh lands occur where the river meets the ocean and where thetides restrict the outward flow of water (Bixby 1974:45). Along the

submerged shores of the Long Island Sound, rivers and streams depositedthe silt carried by the waters, and eventually the tidal marshes wereproduced. These marshes exist from the low-tide mark to the point onshore where the highest of the high tides has ever reached (Bixby1974:45). They are, most often, periodically drowned horizontalstretches of land near the mouth of the Housatonic (Bixby 1974:56).

To the west of the SAEP lies Frash Pond. The Pond's outlet(s)reportedly passed under the SAEP to the river. Swampy land and marshlandoccur on all sides of the SAEP. Marine Basin Inlet is situated to thesoutheast. Several fresh water streams empty into the Housatonic in thevicinity of the Stratford Army Engine Plant.

As will be discussed at greater length later in this report, theoriginal shoreline of the Housatonic River along the northern edge of thePlant has been artificially modified. Similarly, changes in the LongIsland Sound will be discussed briefly here, and at greater lengthelsewhere in this report. In Connecticut the submergence of the coastwas caused by an initial rise of the land followed by subsidence (Gordon

1983:62). The land first rose rapidly after the retreat of the glacier,and then began to subside. This subsidence continues today, and is inpart responsible for the present rise of sea levels along the coast(Gordon 1983:65). The rest of the rise is due to additional melting of

the polar ice caps, which increased the volume of ocean water (Gordon1983:65). Also there are local variations in the vertical motion of theland surface in southern Connecticut which are responsible for changes inthe submergence rate along the shore of the Sound (Gordon 1983:64-65).

2-2

2.1.3 Modern Climate

The climate of the Stratford Army Engine Plant site is influenced byboth continental polar and maritime tropical air masses (Swigart 1977).Average annual high temperature in the vicinity of the SAEP is 59.5*F;the average annual low temperature is 44.3*F; the January hightemperature is 36.9*F; the low is 23.4*F. The July high temperature is76.0*F, and the low is 59.8*F. Annual average precipitation is 38.61in. Average January precipitation is 2.71 in.; average Julyprecipitation is 2.56 in. The SAEP lies at an elevation of 7 ft. abovesea level.

2.1.4 Plant Resources

The marshy areas surrounding the facility today, and upon which theSAEP was originally built, provided a variety of edible wild plants aswell as diversity of other wild plant resources. Saltwater grass, saltmeadow grass, grasswort, sea lavendar, gerardia, black grass, switchgrass, marsh elder, cattails, bulrushes, sword grass, and sea myrtle grewin marshes. In swampy areas ferns, cat tails, yussock sedge, skunkcabbage, red maple, and white ash are found. Edible fruits includedstrawberries, blueberries, whortleberries, and grapes (Wilcoxson 1939).

2.1.5 Animal Resources

In the Long Island Sound area, including the swamps and marshes, thefollowing fish and shellfish could have been utilized by prehistoric andearly historic populations: salmon, shad, striped bass, bluefish,mackerel, flounder, alewives, sand eels, sea worms, oysters, clams,mussels, lobsters, crabs, scallops, scate, snails, and starfish.Snapping turtles and tree frogs were also available. Such birds andducks as herring quail, gulls, partridge terns, osprey, snipe, pigeons,heron, mallards, wood-ducks, and geese lived in this ecosystem and couldbe exploited by human populations. Game in the area included turkey anddeer.

2.1.6 Paleoenvironment

Prior to historic development, the Housatonic River was characterizedas much different from the waterbody of today. There is evidence thatthe river has changed its channel course as often as seven times in oneyear. This dynamism resulted from the large shell bar that extendedacross the mouth of the river. The depth of this shell deposit was atleast 60 ft. (Coffin 1947). As a result of filling, the shoreline of theHousatonic River in the vicinity of the SAEP has been extended at least200 ft. It is most likely that the vicinity of the SAEP was quite wet,except perhaps during periods when sea level was lower than at present.The area was swamp and marsh land that underwent periodic flooding withinterspersed zones of open fields. This would have been a highlyproductive ecosystem, providing a variety of edible plants, animals,birds, fish and shellfish. Perhaps most important for the purposes ofinvestigating subsurface cultural remains is the fact that sea levelshave risen since the postglacial period. This has resulted in the

2-3

altering of the topography of the coastal zone, leading, in turn to thepossible submersion of early period prehistoric sites (Luedtke 1978:95).A closer examination of the changes in sea level is necessary in order toascertain at what time periods the vicinity of the Stratford Army EnginePlant would have been dry land and, therefore, able to support humanhabitation.

There are three major interpretations of postglacial changes in sealevel (Bourne 1972:11):

1. According to Fairbridge (1960a, 1960b, 1977), sea level hasfluctuated from about 1.5 m below to 3 m above the present sealevel. He argues that between 15,000-10,000 BP (the lateWisconsian stage) sea level had dropped to -135 m, and was

rising eustatically during the melt stage (Fairbridge 1977:90).During this time period the coastline was continually beingmoved inland from its original location at the edge of thecontinental shelf (Fairbridge 1977:90).

The mean horizontal transgression rate was almost10 meters per year, so that no coastal campsitescould have been occupied for long periods. In asmuch as sea level is constantly oscillating inshort-term cycles of 10-100 years relativelybrief regressions would occur, only to be

followed by very rapid transgressions, whichwould have endangered any riparian settlements(Fairbridge 1977:90).

Fairbridge (1977:91) adds that at approximately 10,000 years agoa temporary climatic cooling associated with a brief marineregression occurred, following which sea level rose rapidly onceagain. The transgressing sea continued to encroach on thecontinental shelf through 6000 BP (Fairbridge 1977:91).

With a relatively stable sea level after 6000 BP, seashorelocations, especially in protected bays and estuaries, wouldhave become attractive for human habitation. From 6000-3000years ago, although the sea level became nearly stabilized atIts current level, there were occasionally prominent shifts inmarine transgression onto the continental shelf (Fairbridge1977:91). During such times, coastal communities would havebeen forced to move their campsites. During this same timeperiod (6000-3000 BP):

Along the coast, the isostatic crustal adjustment hadbecome almost stabilized, and progressive wave erosionstarted building bay-mouth bars, long-shore spits, andbarrier islands... A great variety of attractive campsiteswere thus created. Within the lagoons, estuaries, and baysa vast colonization by shellfish took place...(Fairbridge 1977:92).

2-4

At approximately 5600 BP and 4300 BP sudden drops in sea level

caused a loss of many shell-fishing spots; however, the rate offall in sea level, through several decades, allowed foryear-to-year community adjustments and demographic shifts toaccommodate to these sea level changes. Fairbridge suggeststhat by accurate radiocarbon dating of shell middens, localtrends in the movement of individual campsites could betracked. Furthermore, he argues that in times of sudden dropsin sea level, one could expect to find abrupt breaks in thearcheological record of coastal campsites.

2. Sea level has remained at the same level during the past 6000years.

3. The sea has been rising, and continues to rise up to the presenttime (Bourn 1972:11). However, at no time during this periodwas it above its present level (Bourn 1972; Ritchie 1980;Shepard 1964). Radiocarbon dates of peat and wood samples fromcoastal Connecticut indicate a continuous submergence over thepast 7000 years due to an eustatic rise of sea level (Ritchie1980:169). The submergence of the coast has been 9 ft. in thelast 3000 years, and 33 ft. in the last 7000 years (Bourn1972:11). From 7000-3000 BP there was a rapid rise in sealevel, but during the last 3000 years the rate was only half asmuch (Bourn 1972:11; Ritchie 1980:169; Sears 1963; Shepard1964). Ritchie claims that there is "no evidence of pauses orreversals in the submergent trend" (Ritchie 1980:169). Severalhundred borings in Connecticut tidal marshes indicate over 10ft. of salt marsh peat overlying bay mud (Ritchie 1980:169).This suggests that sediment accumulation and salt marsh growthequalled submergence rates only during the last 3000 years(Ritchie 1980:169), based on the research of Sears (1963) andShepard (1964). Prior to 3000 BP the more rapid submergencemaintained open, shallow estuaries and lagoons on the sites ofthe present salt marshes (Ritchie 1980:169, citing the work ofSears [1963] and Shepard [1964]).

It is worth noting the research of Bourne (1972) in coastalConnecticut, where the Connecticut River enters the Long Island Sound.Evidence here indicates the existence of submerged prehistoricarcheological sites. The artifact inventories from these sites indicatethat the sites were inhabited by communities of the so-called NarrowPoint tradition. These communities would have had access to open waterways, at least until 3000 BP. The recovery of gouges and adzes at thesesites may be associated with the manufacture of dugout canoes, and thediscovery of notched net-sinkers suggests the importance of fishing(Bourn 1972:15). No research concerning submerged sites has beenconducted in the immediate vicinity of the SAEP.

2-5

2.2 THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

2.2.1 Prehistory

The cultural history of the vicinity of the Stratford Army EnginePlant is presented in Table 2-1. Evidence for prehistoric occupation ofthe SAEP vicinity comes, not surprisingly, from around the various water

bodies in the area. At the bank of the Housatonic, near the mouth of theriver, a collection of artifacts and features is suggestive of a LateArchaic encampment. This site consisted of steatite bowls and fragments,projectile points, fire-cracked rock, charred ash, charred hickory nuts,

and heat-treated debris from stone tool manufacture. Late Archaicskeletal remains, associated with stone tools, pestle, axe, andprojectile points have been uncovered near Frash Pond.

In the Housatonic River, west of Nell's Island, a fish weir was

erected. This fish weir, now submerged and mostly destroyed, consistedof a series of wooden stakes of red oak or Jack pine, with wedge-shapedor burned points. The stakes are in double rows; the weirs are 400-500ft. long (Coffin 1947:36-37).

Along Route 113, approximately 500 m from the Housatonic River, alate Archaic campsite was uncovered on the floodplain at an elevation of10 ft. The cultural remains consisted of celts, scrapers, knives,hammerstones, and drilled slate. Along Route 113, 50 m from the river aLate Archaic campsite is evidenced by a grooved axe, a celt,

small-stemmed points, and net sinkers. The site lies at an elevation of10 ft. above sea level. There is a predominance of sites dating from theLate Archaic and Late Woodland periods. This may, however, be the resultof a bias in data recovery procedures.

Late Archaic sites tend to be temporary campsites, frequentlysituated on small knolls. Most likely, knolls were chosen for their dryground surfaces and visibility of the landscape. The Late Archaic periodin southern New England was characterized by alternating seasons of

aggregation and dispersal. The Late Archaic sites reported from theStratford region indicate small numbers of people staying at a site for ashort period of time.

Sites of the Late Woodland period in the SAEP vicinity are

frequently village sites, containing such features as post molds andhearths, an abundance of pottery, and ground stone and chipped stonetools. The high density of Woodland period sites along the coast mayindicate a shift from the inland to the coast at this time. Further,Late Woodland village sites may be suggestive of the exploitation of thecoast's fertile land for the practice of horticulture. Severalcemeteries also occur from the Woodland period in the general region ofthe Plant.

The lack of sites from Paleo-Indian through Middle Archaic times maybe the result of: (1) the submersion of these sites by risingpostglacial sea levels; (2) the destruction of these sites by wave actionerosion; and (3) bias in data recovery due to the low archeologicalvisibility of small, early period sites.

2-6

c 7c cc V 0 a Q. r-0 V V w E

"M is 4, c -041

1. W,v 0 v

WWto 0 -0 c

61 k .0 c a,u , v m x a z to a, 6

0 WE 00 Im 101. 0 -0 c ID '0 .0 0 v . . I - .2 .0 9 c 4; -0 a 4, . x (t

bc u 0- mg m r0 40 40 c .19 w 40 to 0 1. M

> a :: 0 6 0 &. 0 0 CL 00 t., v c a 2 00 OC - - 0 c

.c 0 w 0 .0 -0w 11 c " 0 cc c 0 -C(d - 0 ; . . ac c - r- .0 CS. 0, cc 1 0 6 31 - 0 39 E Q, r- 4,-C to u C

6 J, 40 C L

00 a a 0 rZ c v 41 c a,

0 x 0 0 6 1. w c c 0 S. C W40 do 6 0 a - CC .0 3W MO L zon W so 6 .9 " -

a1; vi 4,Ve twg 0 M A c ID C 0 C a C0r 0 w 4. lp I'M c 0 -0 C.-a -

-

4,

bg A " - . , , : = , , 0., 0 ol wx c c 0 o w 0 rr0 > u z V2 cc (A a A 4

4, c C C C ;

cc 6-u- = . - - r .0

r cc 3. v 40. a L, C u w 11 c ac

4 40 -C c 5c ID c c u cz M :; tow r

M me4. x.0 1 00 V 0 w ! 0 c a

c c r.4 06 0 0 go - C 0 c c vc S. 0, 6

cc cx 0 00 acz le rw go 0 *0 co 0 w m z Z OC r *I

41c C Go c c OC 4; 6, 4)C 4, M - ,,0 :: - CC Cc, wo V

C, if CcamV S. C v

IW

0: IV 41 c cc .0 6.c c

0 c 0 0 031 c C 0 z& 0 0 Isr 3, 4' .0 c 0 a 0

96 cc rv 4, 0,c 0 C4, - .0 0, 1, A. M a 00 u 4, 2022 c 0 c c

SK Gi CLat Q..C

tj06 I a - " % " It

c .0.0 .. 1.ac- 0, ac w .0

0 0 v o-

0, m c

c r r Z A06Qw C ow c L z m gn Gj

F 0 6 6 N W , w 4, -CIN a Q= 0 C 0 4)-V a A - a,c 0

C tjIL "C Ow cc 2 Iz 7 L) 0 M Q u 0 0 Q.- Er

Ic 0c M 00 w cy,01 010toCIL -C

C, c40 -0 CCI- c 10 0 so v -C

116, 0 so 0623 WM WO z 39

c

r

z4,

A

2-7

a - I cmc ai 0 0 I-c me

0 Xim v CZ *0c0 a 0C t PC x- 0

.~0 be am 6go t c mm em- t5

a .uma 0 w94 m vt - 5 v . 4 a~e -

a a m.oe r5l Z; 40

1. OO 1m -0a1.61 mcl a) 0 cim a-

0~ 4 -e t io aI - m iGO mo o m- CL.~ vo a a .amQ

cm t.- = ~ am Ic zm Vl be I.0 -C~ a t -

am L.-. a0 V. V I a ttgo 1 2 ccz mm0 c a,'a*

a ~ ~ ~ : .ac wn~~- l ~ m(m mi- ai 0 -L-

05 m4 u .0. , 0UC. C. a 11 C rc 40 .ti1; 1 00i ai c a .

ati aw .Juea - c v~ mi- 1. i "t, W do w.0ac a'm a ~a ~ ~cd to. c wm - Icm -0 c. wma

6 mm 0n~' 40~ IV E 0 aI. 6 a 4a Z c .0 0t

Go w In cam =L Zc

11 - A Cv -'

aLO - be~ a 0 -

co 0 0. 1. am W. a acu~ go u a n a

0 ;ci 15 tti 0 mc m cz - -.- A - ac e ' ac t- mC

A.m mc CPO. -0 tit mi- a% m "C 0

w in eac 00~ m ti p..- r .a 110 c ac xc -t Qm 'ac , em!---

za, ac. cm om/c.o ,

C ; 0-c .- c r- L.c. -- Ic -15 - = - 1m t.. acm ac..

CP m~

4vI- 4 - c m1

a. r 0 a V aa .a cma i .9Z e c ac L mini m - 'a

- ~ ~ o 4, 4,G A.'-

O - c -to0" 6. m- -a 1,'a~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ A 6~a i- C ~ l C i -iii

4 ~ ~ ~ o c 'a Qua c aiac m C O-i~

'a~~~ 0 u-tic a'u t0 AA

a. m3 ma- 'C c3 ti'C

c a mmmum- e- t aia

2-80

2.2.2 Ethnohistory

The Native Americans encountered by English settlers in theStratford area were known as the Cupheag. The Cupheag, as well as thePequannocks to the west, were members of the Paugusset tribe, part of theWappinger Confederacy (Aigner et al. 1977; Crofut 1937; Hurd 1881;Wilcoxson 1939).

The first Housatonic Valley Indians may have their origin in theHudson River Valley, and were, perhaps, Mohegans. The Cupheags were a

small local group led by Okenuk, who resided at Pootatuck (Shelton) onthe banks of the Housatonic. "Cupheag" means "a harbor" or "a place ofshelter" or "a place shut in" (Wilcoxson 1939:7). In historic times, theCupheags spent the summer on the shores of Long Island Sound fishing and

clamming. Middens are found at Great Neck and at Shell-Keep Point atSandy Hollow. The winters were spent hunting in the forested inlandvalleys; and in the spring communities returned to the shore.

In 1644 a settlement of wigwams was reported in the southwestern

part of Stratford Village, west of Main Street--a tract of land calledWigwam Meadow. In addition, wigwams reportedly stood on Wigwam Hill,located 3 mi. north of the village on a knoll overlooking the Sound (Hurd1881; Wilcoxson 1939:4). The Pequannocks' territory covered most of thesouthern portion of Bridgeport between the Pequannock River and theUncoway River (Ash Creek). Their planting fields were located on theplain at the north end of the cover in Black Rock Harbor. Pequannockmeans "cleared field" or "open field" or "broken up land"; land fromwhich trees and brush had been removed to prepare the land forcultivation. A group known as the Wepawaugs lived on the east bank ofthe Housatonic River (Wilcoxson 1939:4-5).

Stratford was in conquered territory held by the Connecticut Colonyafter the Pequot War. The Pequannocks paid tribute to the Pequots andwere their allies against the English in 1637, on the flight of thePequots through Stratford (Crofut 1937:154). Captain Mason and hiscompany went through Stratford while pursuing the Pequots to Saco Swampin Fairfield, the site of the "Great Swamp Fight" that ended the PequotWar in 1637.

In 1639 the English acquired Cupheag (Stratford) and Uncoway(Fairfield) by surrender (Orcutt 1882). This is substantiated by writtenstatements in the town's records, despite the fact that early historiansmaintain that the lands were acquired by purchase. At this time theIndians moved to two reservations: Golden Hill in Bridgeport,

Connecticut, and Coram, on the border of Huntington to the north ofStratford (Wilcoxson 1939). Trumbull estimated that in Connecticut therewere 20,000 native inhabitants at the time of European settlement;DeForest estimates 6000-7000 (Wilcozson 1939:5-6). The maximum nativepopulation of Fairfield County between the years 1639-1949 has beenestimated at 2000-2500 (Wilcoxson 1939:5-6).

2.2.3 History

The first European settlement in the vicinity of the SAEP was atSandy Hollow, a short distance from the Housatonic River. The nameStratford was given to Cupheag In 1643 (Crofut 1937:154). At this timethe early Stratford settlers had a palisade built from the west side tothe swamp and across Watch-House Hill ((Academy Hill) Wilcoxson 1939). Amill was built a few years later southwest of the village, on Nesumtaw'sCreek at Little Neck. The first 17 English proprietors of Stratford didnot settle in Stratford themselves, but entered their claims and thensold their land (Hurd 1881:750). The 1639-50 English plantation includedfour major "common fields": the "Ould Field" lay immediately south ofStratford Village; the "New Field" lay from Clapboard Hill to Mill Creek,including Nesumtaw's Creek; the "New Pasture" was situated just south ofOld Mill Green, now in Bridgeport, from Mill Creek, to the river; and the"Great Neck Field" was located south of the "Ould Field." The economy atthis time was based on the cultivation of wheat, rye, corn, oats, grassand flax; cider, cider brandy, butter, cheese, pork, lard, and flaxseedwere produced. Fishing and cattle raising were also practiced throughthe 1800s. Mills along the Housatonic and other rivers gave way to afully industrial based economy in the mid-late nineteenth century.

In 1810 the population of Stratford was 2895, and there wereapproximately 420 dwelling houses in the city (Wilcoxson 1939:613). Inthat same year, manufacturing and mechanical activities consisted of onetinware factory, one tannery, two carding machines, three grain mills,three merchant mills for flouring wheat, grinding corn, and plaster ofParis (Wilcoxson 1939:613).

In the early nineteenth century the region around Frash Pond, belowNeck Bridge, was described as a broad expanse of salt meadow stretchingto the Sound, lying scarcely above sea level; the water at high tidebeing level with the banks (Wilcoxson 1939:620). The salt grass was cutin the autumn by farmers from Stratford village and from neighboringtowns (Wilcoxson 1939:620).

In the 1890s the population of Stratford was 2608. The town wasstill rural in character; the community pursued predominantlyagricultural, rather than manufacturing, pursuits. By 1917 thepopulation of Stratford reached 10,000 and in 1927 capitalists fromBridgeport established the largest airport project in the state near themouth of the Housatonic River in Stratford (Wilson 1929:324). Theairfield was created on marsh land, by pumping sand and gravel from theriver bed (Wilson 1929:324). The population of Stratford at this timewas 12,347 (Wilson 1929:324).

F. W. Beers' Atlas of New York and Vicinity (1867) shows only asingle structure east of Frash Pond and west of Duck Neck Creek (DuckNeck Creek is no longer extant, presumably having been filled at the timeof the construction of Bridgeport Airport. Marine Basin, shown on modernmaps, is likely a remnant of the creek.). The structure is shown locatedat the end of a secondary road (Sniffens Lane?) and east of the propertypresently occupied by the SAEP.

2-10

2.3 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

2.3.1 Regional Concerns

The state of Connecticut has not yet formulated a State Plan for themanagement of archeological and historical cultural resources. Further,no comprehensive archeological survey has been conducted in the city ofStratford. However, many sites have been recorded in the region. Thearea around the SAEP includes a diversity of ecological niches, thereforeit offers the opportunity to investigate prehistoric and historic landuse patterns across time and space, resource exploitation techniquesemployed by the succession of peoples that have lived in the area,changes in settlement patterns, and the nature of the interactionsbetween different social groups.

In the absence of a state plan, the following research concerns areoffered:

1. Although the coastal zone has been altered by its intenseexploitation during the historic period (Luedtke 1978:95-96), itoffered prehistoric inhabitants specific resources unavailablein non-coastal areas. It played an integral part in theprehistoric settlement-subsistence system. Therefore, it isimportant to research food procurement strategies of coastalecological niches and the part these play in the generalsubsistence system. At the present time, reconstructions ofprehistoric lifeways in the region rely almost exclusively uponthe extrapolation of data from Long Island, eastern New York,and upland Connecticut. Further, this research should includean examination of how these coastal sites differ from sites innon-coastal locations.

2. In the state of Connecticut there is little archeologicalevidence as yet for the presence of horticulture on prehistoricsites, only on protohistoric sites (Swigart 1977:71). Moreresearch should be focused on collecting samples for flotationin order to detect carbonized agricultural produce and otherpieces of evidence for the practice of horticulture. The extentto which horticulture contributed to the diet and the ways oflife in prehistoric Connecticut communities should be examinedas well.

3. Examine whether the low frequency of Paleo-Indian through MiddleArchaic cultural remains is a product of the submersion of thesesites by rising postglacial sea levels, the destruction of thesesites by wave action erosion, or bias in data recovery due tothe low archeological visibility of small, early period sites.

4 Throughout the historic period, Stratford remained predominantlyrural in character; its population pursuing largely agriculturalrather than manufacturing activities. In comparison to otherlocations, Stratford was "slow" in its industrializing andurbanizing development. What was the reason for this trend?

2-11

Further, the area of the SAEP specifically was not developed atall until very late. How were the land and resources around theSAEP utilized throughout the historic period?

2.3.2 Installation-Specific Archeological Research Directions

There has been no archeological work carried out at the StratfordArmy Engine Plant. There are, however, known sites in the vicinity. Anyprehistoric archeological sites which may be located in the future atSAEP could provide data useful in addressing problems relating to theprehistoric utilization of the coastal zone in southern New England.

2-12

3.0AN ASSESSMENT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION AND SURVEY ADEQUACY

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO SITE PRESERVATION

The coastal zone is a particularly dynamic ecosystem (Luedtke1978:101). At the same time that is a very productive ecological niche,it is highly sensitive and vulnerable to destruction. Therefore, anycultural resources associated with the coastal ecosystem are similarlysensitive. Natural factors, such as the submergence of early periodsites due to postglacial rise in sea level (see Section 2.1.6) anderosion by wave action, create conditions for the destruction ofsubsurface remains. Therefore, the fact that the topography of the coasthas been extensively altered by natural agencies has adversely affectedsite preservation.

According to Gordon (1983:67) the continued rise of sea level overthe past 6000 years is attested to by direct physical and archeologicalevidence. For example, the Stony Brook and Baxter sites, currentlylocated near the sea, contain remains that may be interpreted as evidencefor substantially lower sea levels from 2500-4500 years ago (Salwen 1962,cited in Gordon 1983:67). Mammoth and mastodon teeth have been found atmany spots on the continental shelf (Edwards and Emery 1977, cited inGordon 1983:67). If the sites of the communities around Long IslandSound were at the edge of the sea, it is probable that their remains arenow submerged (Gordon 1983:67). Chances of finding such remains aresmall, because these would have passed through the surf zone as they weresubmerged (Gordon 1983:67). As a result, the smaller remains would havebeen dispersed by reworking by waves and subsequently buried by marinedeposits (Gordon 1983:67).

The most likely spots for locating prehistoric remains would bearound the margins of the deep embayments that have now become saltmarshes (Gordon 1983:67-68). According to Gordon (1983:68) these siteswould have been protected from the action of larger waves of the openSound and would have been buried under the rapidly-accumulating marshpeat.

Swigart (1977) has investigated site locations in the centralHousatonic watershed. He concluded that in the uplands characterized bysteep slopes and narrow floodplains, 97.5 percent of the sites were

3-1 . . i

ECSDiNO PAGz BLaJM-NOT InLIDS

located within 0.1 mi. of water and all were situated within 0.2 mi. ofwater; approximately three-quarters of the sites were located atconfluence of a large and small river; about 90 percent of the sites areadjacent to water. Areas adjacent to large navigable rivers contain agreater density of sites. Many of the sites were multicomponent; and themajority of sites were from the Late Archaic and Late Woodland periods.During Late Woodland times, lakeside sites were very frequent. Swigart'sstudy provides some general patterns of site distribution through timeand space. However, there are gaps in the existing data base which maybe the product of data recovery biases. Further, site distributioninformation itself is not sufficient to indicate prehistoric societies'use of the landscape.

In the coastal zone research concerns include the fact that thetopography of the coast has been altered due to the postglacial rise insea level. Therefore, coastal sites occupied before approximately 3000BP are either buried under sediments or destroyed by wave action.

3.2 HISTORIC AND RECENT LAND USE PATTERNS

As noted in Section 2.2.3, no historical documentation has beenfound indicating any structures were located on the site of the SAEPprior to the construction of the Sikorsky plant in 1929. The initialphase of construction included the administration building on the eastside of Main Street (now incorporated into the present Bldg. 1), the mainproduction facility (now the southern section of Bldg. 2), and a servicebuilding (now Bldg. 10). Sikorsky apparently built on the highestavailable ground on the property (Sansome, 1983, personal communication).

Sikorsky was also responsible for a fourth structure completed in

1930 (the present Bldg. 3). A grading plan dated September 30, 1929(Dwg. B864xl3, on file with Avco Lycoming at SAEP) showing the northcentral portion of the SAEP site, shows the main production facility andthe service building. It labels Bldg. 3 as "Proposed," and indicates alarge area, including the site of Bldg. 3 was to be levelled by cut andfill activities (GDAs 3, 4 and 5, Table 3-1, Figure 3-1). A companiongrading and contour map (Dwg. B864x2) showing cross sections through thearea indicate that as much as 5 ft. was cut from some areas, while otherareas were buried by as much as 5 ft. of fill. The same drawing alsoindicates a "new dyke" and causeway.

The need for the dike suggests that the area was always prone toflooding. Drainage remains a problem at the SAEP site. The problem hasbeen magnified by the fact that nearby Frash Pond apparently has severalunderground outlets on or near the SAEP (Sansome, 1983, personalcommunication).

An undated aerial photograph of the site taken sometime between 1930and 1939 (Photo 7102036, on file at with Avco Lycoming at SAEP) shows the

Sikorsky plant and the associated causeway. The area that is now thenorthern portion of the site and the area west of Main Street are seen ascultivated fields. It seems highly likely that the sites of Bldgs. 2 and

10 were also used for farming.

3-2

404.

C c4a,, a,

unC. 0

U30

4b'

4 4

4'-

im.oc C~'

f -f 9 4c

00

0 V% 40 r4

0 ~ .4 .4

C.), N SOIt N

- 4' 4' 4,on Im Int

om I

= 343-3

V 0

06

I-c

14 4 I

4e.

Z 4? 00

C4 C4

z c.

*00

U 4&W

4.3-4

u

-4

IWO 0

0 0n 0

U2 A

Q, 0 G

-A LM In I' 00 1

Aj a, (vy Cc In

, 4..

UN IW,.4 m~ 4.4.

.*

AjC4j -4 -

00

.4 ev Nv

-~~e .4 NNNNN 4

0 2t

04

.4 .. 4.4, % - 0

0lO.00@'r* aif U,

3-54

c-444 a .4

-4cW3 eq

41 -of

40 WS

'-4 a

4 01

cc 41

0 4

o L44. " C

X .0 41

F41 Aj

-4 -4

44j U.,

'4 4

W 0 441 660 41 4

-4 41.04141.0

4- ~~~--414 ~ M4

4-~~ a 1 a '

4A4

-3-

...... .... .. ..... ..

........2'****....****

C LU

W.c

ZZL) .. ........

)

X.X.IL~cc

Oi- v cc

........LJ L JJLL

3-Z 7

A comparison of Photo 7102036 with recent photos also shows that the

shoreline of the SAEP has been altered. This is confirmed by twodrawings (Chance-Vought Aircraft, Albert Kahn Architects, Dwgs. 1019,Sheet 1 and 1019a, Sheet 1, 1944) which indicate a "present shoreline"and a "proposed shoreline." The intervening land area is labelled fill

(GDAs 1 and 2, Figure 3-1).

Boring logs recorded in 1953 (Dwg. PW601-3, on file with AvcoLycoming of the SAEP) note the presence of all of these same areas. Theyalso note the presence of rip rap in two borings (nos. 28 and 30) locatedalong what the 1929 and 1944 drawings show as the original shoreline.

Aside from the major cut and fill and shoreline modificationsdescribed above, most of the prior ground disturbance at the SAEP hasbeen associated with the construction of buildings and undergroundutilities. With the exception of the north, south, and west parkingareas (GDAs 7, 8, and 9, Figure 3-1) all of the land portions of the SAEPproperty can be considered fully developed.

All buildings at SAEP have been constructed on either concrete slabsand/or piles, presumably because of the drainage problem at the site.For that reason, it is likely that ground disturbance in developedportions of the SAEP (other than those identified as cut and fill areas)is relatively shallow. However, even shallow disturbance when consideredalong with the poor drainage characteristics of site is sufficient reasonto believe that these areas are not likely to contain extantarcheological resources.

Boring logs recorded in 1953 within the area of the south parkinglot (GDA 9, Figure 3-1) indicate only 0.2 ft. of asphalt and crushedstone. The west and south parking lots (GDAs 8 and 7) which were also inexistence at that time were presumably paved in the same manner. This initself is suggestive of the possibility of only very minimal disturbancein these areas. However, brief examination of these areas suggest that

they were graded, and have even been terraced in some locations,presumably to enhance drainage.

3.3 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS; COVERAGE AND INTENSITY

There have been no archeological investigations conducted within theboundaries of the SAEP (Table 3-2). The National Park Service's HistoricAmerican Buildings Survey (HABS) has contracted for an inventory andevaluation of standing structures and objects at SAEP.

3.4 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF DATA ADEQUACY, GAPS

No archeological resources are known to exist or to have existed at

SAEP. The evaluation of prior ground disturbance (Section 3.2) whencombined with the fact that the drainage characteristics of the areawould have rendered it poorly suited for prehistoric occupation, makes ithighly unlikely that extant archeological remains exist on the landportions of the SAEP.

3-8

wv v .

- a,

00

I IU I-

U,,

400

orI

in so CU

0 C.~, 0,A

0 " 4

A - n

do.

A ri

53-

The 39.5 a. of riparian area included within the SAEP property do

not, however, appear to have been extensively disturbed. It is possiblethat inundated prehistoric sites may exist within this part of the site.

3-10

4.0KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

At present, there are no known historic or prehistoric archeologicalresources located at the Stratford Army Engine Plant (Tables 4-1 and 4-2).The extensive modification of the shoreline areas combined with theextremely poor drainage characteristics of the site make it highlyunlikely that intact, previously unrecorded resources exist on theonshore portion of the SAEP.

As noted in Section 2.2.1 prehistoric sites located along theHousatonic Rivt and dating from the Paleo-Indian and early Archaicperiods may hav been 'nundated by rising sea levels. Such sites mayexist within the riparian rights area of the SAEP.

4-1-

FWAMMMIN FAGS BLAhIL-ZOT 11iJSDS -

-44

0.,~

4...4

4-

U

C

4)

- 4Ie~4)

,~ .~I..cI U4,4) CUo~

zC

I-.*0

- ~D*~cJUC

z 0.Uo Co ~U

- C4) U~

U U *N- UUC

C

0

z

I -~~I4 C.,mUG) aCC).' C'

C 0.CC zC Co

0.U4)

U I.'

U4)

I- - C..C

a0

UU

'4'UI -4

I..

a4,0U -

U0

-4* UC. CI.4, '4)

U 44 I~ UI'

I--4

b..

N

I)

-4*

aI.. 3

4-3

5.0

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCEBASE ON THE STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

5.1 THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE BASE

There are no known archeological resources at the SAEP (Table 5-1).However, prehistoric aboriginal remains, inundated by rising sea levelsmay exist within the offshore portion (riparian rights area) for theinstallation. While, given the current state of New England prehistory,it is likely that any such site would be significant, no determinationscan be made in the total absence of site-specific data.

5.2 IDEAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Given the total absence of known, significant archeologicalresources at the SAEP, a discussion of how to best study and manageresources which might be identified in the future would be premature. Atthe present time, the first objective of any archeological planningprogram at the SAEP should be the development of a procedure to ensurethat potential resources within the riparian rights area are consideredin the future.

5-1

FFiGEDNQ PAU BLAWI-O? FILM6

IA

0 0 4

4Du

a 0 4)

a A

'I I

0.v".4 v. 0 L

s. f.0100 0

cO v4 -1 .4 Ui4

001.1-1-

400

1. 0~ .4 0

0I *.'

IL I

1.0

0 4 IO v A

0

0 e

U 01..00 -4 o

It~0

o -0. .00.5-2

6.0A RECOMMENDED ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE

STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

6.1 FACILITY MASTER PLANS AND PROPOSED IMPACTS

The SAEP site is considered fully developed by the contractor-tenant, Avco Lycoming (N. Sansome, 1983, personal communication). Noformal or informal master plans exist for the facility. As a fullydeveloped installation, it seems highly probable that future changes inthe facility, necessitated by changes in mission, will primarily involveinterior modifications to existing structures, and only minimal grounddisturbance. There are no ongoing or planned activities which mightimpact potential archeological resources within the riparian rights area.

6.2 APPROPRIATE ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT GOALS WITHIN THE STRATFORD

ARMY ENGINE PLANT'S MASTER PLAN

6.2.1 General Facility Planning

Given the fully developed and almost totally disturbed nature of theonshore portion of the SAEP, it is highly unlikely that any construction-related ground disturbance will occur within areas which might containintact, previously unrecorded archeological resources. However, verysmall areas of undisturbed ground are likely to be found randomlyscattered across the installation. Such areas may consist of severalsquare yards between utility trenches or areas covered by fill andoverlain by a foundation slab. While such areas are also unlikely tocontain archeological remains (because of the environmental constraintsdiscussed previously) chance finds are always possible. For this reasonany future facility planning should include procedures for the handlingof such an eventuality.

6.2.2 Project-Specific Resource Protection or Treatment Options

No project-specific resource protection or treatment options are

required as of the date of this study.

6.2.3 A Summary of Recommended Management Directions and Priorities forEffective Compliance and Program Development

6-1 . a

fICZDWJPAGZ BLAW-NOT 7JUSD

Two archeological resource management tasks have been identified as aresult of this study:

o development of a program to deal with as yet undiscoveredinundated archeological sites lying within the riparian rightsarea of the SAEP.

o development of procedures to deal with emergency discoveries ofpreviously unrecorded archeological remains.

6.3 ESTIMATED SCOPES-OF-WORK AND COST LEVELS FOR PRESENTLY IDENTIFIABLEMANAGEMENT NEEDS

6.3.1 Management of Archeological Resources Within the Riparian RightsArea of the SAEP

The SAEP site includes an offshore riparian rights area of 39.5 a.(including 4 a. of causeway). Determining the exact nature of theriparian rights involved would require a title search, since conditionsmay be attached to such rights depending upon how they were acquired.The SAEP does, however, have jurisdiction over this offshore area, and istherefore responsible for managing any archeological resources within it.

Significant archeological resources within the riparian rights areaare likely to consist of inundated prehistoric sites dating from theMiddle Archaic period or earlier. However, at the present time there isno evidence suggesting that such sites do exist.

The area is predominantly a shallow mudflat. Any constructionactivity within this area by the SAEP or other parties, will require aCorps of Engineers permit, automatically necessitating compliance under36 CFR 800. Archeological surveys within the riparian rights area willbe necessary in such cases.

An archeological survey of the entire riparian rights area is notrecommended as an independent management requirement. As already noted,archeological sites in this area are likely to be Archaic shell middens.Magnetometer and side-scan sonar surveys have, at best, limitedeffectiveness in identifying such sites (Gagliano 1977:340). Use ofsub-bottom profiling, although highly effective in locating such sites,is precluded at the SAEP because of the shallow water depth in the area.Coring and dredging remain as effective site discovery techniques. It ishighly probable that coring will be conducted as part of the early designstages of any construction project within the riparian rights area.DARCOM and the SAEP should develop a procedure to ensure that aprofessional archeologist and a geomorphologist with experience indealing with archeological sites are allowed to participate in thescoping of any pre-construction coring program. The program shouldprovide for early consultation with these individuals, and ensure thatadequate time is provided for analysis of core data (including inspectionof the actual cores) and any subsequent data recovery procedures whichmight be necessary.

It is anticipated that an estimated 1-2 days of DARCOM personneltime will be required to establish the procedure. An optional one day of

6-2

an archeological consultant's time at an estimated cost of $500 would bedesirable.

6.3.2 Unanticipated Archeological Site Discovery Procedure

Almost all of the upland portion of the SAEP has been disturbed inthe past. However, some very small areas may contain intact landsurfaces covered by fill or concrete slabs. Such areas may containremnants of prehistoric occupation. Because of the number andidiosyncratic location of these areas (many under existing buildings), anarcheological survey of these areas is not recommended. In addition,because of the relatively low likelihood that even these areas willcontain archeological remains, surveys done in conjunction with anyfuture ground disturbing activities are also not recommended because ofthe costs involved.

DARCOM should be prepared to deal with discoveries of unanticipatedprehistoric and historic cultural resources at the Stratford Army EnginePlant. The facility should develop a procedure for handling thesesituations in consultation with the Connecticut State HistoricPreservation Officer and the National Park Service. This procedureshould stipulate notification requirements, the process of evaluating theresource and conducting any necessary additional investigations, and thesource of funding.

It is anticipated that an estimated 1-2 days of DARCOM personneltime and 1 day of the SHPO's archeologist's time will be required todevelop the emergency discovery procedure. An optional one day of anarcheological consultant's time at an estimated cost of $500 would bedesirable.

6-3

7.0SUMMARY

A review of all major information sources likely to have data

relating to the archeology of the site occupied by the Stratford ArmyEngine Plant was conducted for thia study. That review indicated thatalthough several prehistoric and historic period sites have been reportedin the immediate vicinity of the SAEP, none are known to exist on SAEPproperty.

Nineteenth and early twentieth century maps of the SAEP indicatethat it was farmland prior to the construction of the SAEP facility(originally the Sikorsky Aircraft factory). The site is poorly drainedsuggesting it would not have been a preferred location for aboriginaloccupation during most of the prehistoric period. Extensive cut and fillactivities on the site have further reduced the likelihood that intactarcheological remains exist on the upland portion of the site. However,rising sea levels may have inundated possible prehistoric sites within

riparian rights area.

Among the institutions consulted as part of the basic data gatheringfor this report were: the Peabody Museum and the Institute forConservation Archeology, both at Harvard University, the ConnecticutHistorical Commission (State Historic Preservation Officer), theUniversity of Massachusetts (Amherst) Library, the Stratford, Fairfield,and Trumbull Historical Societies, the Bridgeport Historic DistrictCommission, the Barnum Museum, the American Museum of Natural History,the Museum of the American Indian - Heye Foundation, and the New YorkPublic Library. In addition, the "America: History and Life" data baseof Lockhead's Dialog Information Retrieval Service, which containsabstracts from more than 2000 history journals, was consulted.

A site visit to the SAEP was also made by the authors. As part ofthe visit all portions of the site were viewed. In addition,

construction plans maintained by Avco Lycoming for many of the structuresat the SAEP were reviewed. Photographs in the possession of the PublicAffairs Officer were also examined.

No specific archeological management tasks are recommended at thistime. However, prior to undertaking any activities within the riparian

7- " .. 7

7-1

rights area, consideration must be given to the identification andevaluation of potential inundated prehistoric sites. Unanticipated findsshould be dealt with in accordance with an installation procedure whichshould be developed specifically for that purpose, as discussed inSection 6.3.2 Unanticipated Archeological Site Discovery Procedure, above.

7-2

8.0BIBLIOGRAPHY

8.1 PRIMARY SOURCES AND REFERENCES CITED

Aigner, Jean, T. Del Bene and K. McBride. 1977. ArchaeologicalSurvey of Sterling Park, Stratford, CT. Prehistoric ArchaeologySurvey Team, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Beers, F. W. 1867. Atlas of New York and Vicinity. New York: F. W.Beers, A. D. Ellis, and G. G Soule.

Bixby, William. 1974. Connecticut: A New Guide. New York: CharlesScribner's Sons.

Bourn, Richard. 1972. New Submerged Sites of Coastal Connecticut.Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 37:5-16.

Brumbach, J. J. 1965. The Climate of Connecticut. State Geological andNatural History Survey, Bulletin 99.

Crofut, Florence S. Marcy. 1937. Guide to the History and the HistoricSites of Connecticut, Volume I. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Coffin, C. C. 1947. Ancient Fish Weirs Along the Housatonic River.Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 21:35-38.

1963. Connecticut Indian Burials. Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Connecticut 32:61-64.

Fairbridge, Rhodes. 1960a. The Changing Level of thq Sea. ScientificAmerican 202(5):70-99.

- 1960b. Recent World-Wide Sea Level Changes andTheir Possible Significance to New England Archaeology. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society 21(3-4):48-51.

- ---- 1977. Discussion Paper: Late QuaternaryEnvironments in Northeastern Coastal North America. In Amerinds andTheir Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited byWalter Newman and Bert Salwen, pp. 90-92. Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences 288.

8-1

Faz w F" -LIPTrm

Flint, R. F. 1968. The Surficial Geology of the Ansonia and MilfordQuadrangles. United States Geological Survey Report No. 23.

Fritts, Crawford E. 1965. Bedrock Geological Map of the MilfordQuadrangle; Fairfield, New Haven Counties, Connecticut. UnitedStates Geological Survey.

Gagliano, Sherwood. 1977. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the NorthernGulf of Mexico Continental Shelf, Volume I. Philadelphia: NationalPark Service.

Goldbach, Francis. 1976. Stratford, Connecticut 1639-1976 and Back10,000 Years or More. Unpublished. In the possession of Stratford(Connecticut) Historical Society.

Gordon, Robert B. 1983. History of Sea Level Changes Along theConnecticut Shore. In Connecticut Archaeology: Past, Present andFuture, edited by R. E. Dewar, K. L. Feder and D. A. Poirler, pp.61-69. Storrs, Connecticut: Occasional Papers in Anthropology,Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut.

Guillette, Mary. 1979. American Indians in Connecticut: Past toPresent. A Report Prepared for the Connecticut Indian AffairsCouncil, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection.

Hurd, Hamilton H. 1881. History of Fairfield County, Connecticut.Philadelphia: J. W. Lewis and Co.

Luedtke, Barbara. 1978. Survey in the Coastal Zone. In ConservationArchaeology in the Northeast: Toward a Research Orientation, editedby A. Spiess, pp. 95-101. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 3.

Orcutt, Samuel, Rev. 1886. History of the Old Town of Stratford andCity of Bridgeport. Fairfield County Historical Society.

Ritchie, William A. 1980. The Archaeology of New York State. RevisedEdition. New York: Harrison, Harbor Hill Books.

Sears, Paul. 1963. Vegetation, Climate, and Coastal Submergence inConnecticut. Science 140 (3562):59-60.

Shepard, Francis P. 1964. Sea Level Changes in the Past 6000 Years:Possible Archaeological Significance. Science 143(3606):574-576.

Smith, Carlyle. 1947. An Outline of the Archaeology of Coastal NewYork. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 21:3-9.

Snow, Dean. 1978. Late Prehistory of the East Coast. In Northeast,edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 58-69. Handbook of North AmericanIndians, Volume 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Swigart, Edmund. 1977. The Ecological Placement of Western ConnecticutSites. Archaeoloay of Eastern North America 5:61-72.

8-2

Wilcoxson, William H. 1939. History of Stratford, Connecticut,1639-1939. Stratford Tercentenary Commission.

Wilson, Lynn. 1929. History of Fairfield County, Connecticut.1639-1928. Hartford: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company.

8.2 OTHER PERTINENT LITERATURE

Batchelor, C. S. and R. E. Steck. 1941. Indian Archaeology in andAround Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Connecticut 12:19-26.

Beers, F. W. 1868. Atlas of Fairfield County, Connecticut. WestchesterCounty, NY.

Coffin, Claude C. 1937. A Prehistoric Shell Heap at the Mouth of theHousatonic.

- 1937. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society ofConnecticut 5:10-23.

- 1940. Excavation in Southwestern Connecticut.Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 10:33-50.

- 1941. Group Burials Found at Fort Trumbull Beach,Milford. Newsletter of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut18:3-5.

- 1944. Excavations near Milford. Newsletter of theArchaeological Society of Connecticut 34:1-3.

- 1946. Final Work at the Eagle Hill Site, 1937-1943.Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 19:28-36.

- 1951. Eagle Ridge Site-Laurel Beach, Milford,ConnectIcct. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut25:25-54.

- 1952. Recent Finds. Newsletter of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Connecticut 61:5.

- -1963. Seaside Indian Village Site, Fort TrumbullBeach. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut32:13-25.

Funk, Robert. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Northeast, editedby Bruce Trigger, pp. 58-69. Handbook of North American Indians,Volume 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Pope, G. D., Jr. 1953. The Pottery Types of Connecticut. Bulletin ofthe Archaeological Society of Connecticut 27:3-10.

Rogers, E. H. 1943. The Indian River Village Site, Milford,Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut15:7-18.

8-3

Russell, David. 1970. Artifacts Abound on Surface, in Soil atHousatonic River Sites in Milford. Newsletter of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Connecticut 111:2-3.

Waldo, G. C., Jr. 1917. History of Bridgeport and Vicinity. New York:S. J. Clarke.

8-4