HHC Report Text only.pdfArchaeological Reconnaissance
Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation
Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton,
and Northampton, Massachusetts
DECEMBER 2022
PREPARED FOR
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
(PVPC)
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FOR THE
HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL DOCUMENTATION
PROJECT, SOUTHWICK, WESTFIELD, RUSSELL, SOUTHAMPTON, EASTHAMPTON, AND NORTHAMPTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared for
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) 60 Congress Street Springfield, Massachusetts 01104-3419 Attn: Shannon Walsh
Prepared by
Zachary Nason, Nadia Waski, M.A.
SWCA Environmental Consultants 15 Research Drive
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 (413) 256-0202 www.swca.com
SWCA No. 70766
SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 22-899
December 2022
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
i
ABSTRACT
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a background review and an archaeological reconnaissance survey on behalf of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission as part of an ongoing, multi-town documentation and mapping effort of the approximately 30-mile-long Massachusetts portion of the
Hampshire and Hampden Canal.
SWCA field staff were able to conduct a walkover reconnaissance of roughly 90 percent of the former Hampshire and Hampden Canal. SWCA geographic information system (GIS) personnel used this collected field data, in conjunction with historical mapping and references, to accurately depict the former canal’s course, on parcel-level mapping, as it operated through Massachusetts. As part of this study, Massachusetts Historical Commission Area Forms were also completed describing the canal area within the bounds of each of the six townships, describing the route’s impacts on the towns individually, as well as detailing the physical presence canal engineering had, and still has, on the land.
Following the completion of the GIS map review and field verification, 78 remnant canal segments and/or features were recorded and mapped, with others lacking any remaining surficial indications plotted using other means. In all, approximately 34 percent of the original canal prism contains surficial remnants still identifiable today, with the remaining 66 percent being a combination of altered or obscured by post-canal impacts (46%), repurposed by subsequent engineering (9%), or not field verified (11%). Of the original 32 canal locks and two guard locks, 12 still contain surficial, identifiable traces of the former engineering.
Surficial evidence of the majority of the 12 original aqueducts and culverts constructed to ferry the canal over larger waterways have been completely removed, with much of the stone used in their construction repurposed for subsequent engineering efforts. In addition to the above-mentioned engineering features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and traversal bridges may have been present along the route through Massachusetts, any surficial evidence of which has since been altered/obscured.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant on the local, state, and national level, being eligible for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, and D. The present project includes extensive historical research and provides accurate mapping and field data on the present condition of the canal, with an initial statement of significance. We anticipate that additional work will be needed to complete the National Register nomination. This next step will need to explore the canal’s impact and design within the context of the greater Canal Era of the northeastern United States, as well as describe the significance of the entire endeavor in both its engineering scope and socioeconomic impacts on the region.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
iii
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Regulatory .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Project Personnel .................................................................................................................................... 4
Report Organization ............................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Background Research ............................................................................................................................. 4
GIS Mapping .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey ................................................................................................. 6
Consultations ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Background Research ............................................................................................................................. 8 The Hampshire and Hampden Canal ............................................................................................... 8 Southwick ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Westfield ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Russell ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Southampton .................................................................................................................................. 12 Easthampton ................................................................................................................................... 13 Northampton .................................................................................................................................. 14 Previous Canal Documentation ...................................................................................................... 15
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey ............................................................................................... 18
Summary of Work .................................................................................................................................... 23
Future Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 24
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Appendices
Appendix A. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Parcel-Level Map Appendix B. Mapbook Parcel ID Key Appendix C. MHC Area Forms (Form A)
Figures
Figure 1. Overview of Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area through Massachusetts. ................................ 2
Figure 2. Remnant canal prism in Segment 2, facing northeast. ................................................................. 19
Tables
Table 1. Canal Features Previously Recorded with the MHC .................................................................... 17 Table 2. Remnant Canal Prism and Features Recorded During Reconnaissance ....................................... 19
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a background review and an archaeological reconnaissance survey on behalf of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) as part of an ongoing, multi-town documentation and mapping effort of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. SWCA
completed background research using historical sources, including mapping, previous research, past surveys, and personal communications with informed parties, among other sources, in order to develop a comprehensive documentation of the historic canal route and its associated features, as well as what
developments/impacts may have altered its state since its abandonment. SWCA archaeologists conducted a walkover investigation of the length of the canal, excluding areas with restricted permissions and/or safety concerns, conducting surficial presence and condition documentation and GPS point mapping. No subsurface investigations were conducted as part of this effort. In addition, SWCA staff photographed segments of well-preserved canal prism and remnant engineering features as they exist today.
The project area consisted of a 75-foot wide linear corridor covering the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Upon completion, the canal ran approximately 30 miles through Hampshire and Hampden Counties, from the Connecticut border in Southwick to a meander of the Connecticut River in
Northampton called “the honey pot” (Figure 1). Six cities and towns were part of this joint effort, all of which contain sections of the original canal route and/or associated feeders. The original route, from south to north, crossed into Southwick, Massachusetts, from Connecticut, before continuing north through
Westfield and into Southampton, shifting slightly northeast. The canal route progressed through Easthampton and into Northampton prior to reaching its terminus at the Connecticut River, just north of Elwell Island. Additionally, three feeder canals were documented as they occurred within the state of
Massachusetts: the Salmon Brook feeder, located in Southwick; the Little River Feeder, located in Westfield; and the Westfield River feeder, which begins in Russell before emptying into the mainline in Westfield. This project is a regional, joint venture involving the cooperation and efforts of six cities and towns (Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton) under the stewardship of
the PVPC. The PVPC is a consortium of local governments, encompassing 43 cities and towns in Hampden and Hampshire Counties, who jointly, under the provisions of state law, serve to address problems and opportunities that are regional in scope. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC)
has been the designated regional planning body for the Pioneer Valley region. SWCA conducted all documentation and recordation of the project area under the guidance of the PVPC Historic Preservation Planner, Shannon Walsh, with recommendations provided by historian Carl E. Walter.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
2
Figure 1. Overview of Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area through Massachusetts.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
3
Scope
In 2003 the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) prepared a comprehensive scope for a survey aimed at collecting information necessary to locate, document, describe, and evaluate NRHP eligibility of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. MHC’s comments were synthesized and incorporated into PVPC’s
request for a consultant in 2021, with the goal of restarting the documentation project with the tasks listed below.
The project goals for this phase of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal documentation effort were as follows:
• Task 1: Background Research and Development of Project Area
o Using current mapping, historical mapping, LiDAR data, relevant histories and site data, and previously conducted reconnaissance work, develop digital mapping of the approximate, historic canal route (project area) to guide the archaeological
reconnaissance survey, as well as determine private parcel ownership to address access permissions.
• Task 2: Conduct an Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Designated Survey Areas
o Conduct a targeted archaeological and structural reconnaissance survey of properties along the entire Hampshire and Hampden County portion of the canal. This runs from the
state line south of the Congamond Ponds in Southwick to the Connecticut River in Northampton and includes a feeder line from the Westfield River in Russell. Record current GPS data, photographs, and integrity information.
• Task 3: Development of Final Assessor’s Parcel Level Canal Mapping
o Using the field collected data points, in conjunction with available historical resources
and LiDAR data, develop a final digital canal map and related map book depicting the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal as it progresses through the modern landscape. Include current integrity data for reconned segments and engineering features, as well as approximate locations of canal features, plotted using available locational data.
• Task 4: Preparation of Area (Priority) and Archaeological Site Forms for Submission to the MHC
o Based on data collected from the reconnaissance survey and relevant background research, complete six MHC Area Forms (Form A), detailing the canal as it exists in each of the cities/towns in Hampshire and Hampden Counties. Then prepare MHC Historic
Archaeological Site Forms (Form D) for priority sites along the canal route. Priority is determined following the completion of the reconnaissance survey. Prepared forms will be submitted to the MHC for inclusion in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth, MACRIS and MHC MACRIS Maps, as applicable.
• Task 5: Completion of an Archaeological Survey Report to be provided to the PVPC,
Participating Cities/Towns, and the MHC
o Complete an archaeological survey report, providing a project description, methodologies, survey results, and recommendations related to listing the Hampshire and
Hampden portion of the canal in the NRHP, as well as providing recommendations relevant to municipal and regional planning. Final report documents will be submitted to the MHC and PVPC and made available to related project cities and towns.
Project tasks were conducted in anticipation of a potential NRHP nomination, as well as to provide updated mapping and documentation of the remaining structural and archaeological features of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal to be utilized as a planning and development tool for local municipalities.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
4
Regulatory
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal documentation project requires no permitting from local, state, or federal agencies. The project is being administered by the PVPC, in cooperation with the six towns involved, with funding provided at the local level. A portion of the funds supporting this project were
received through the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act. The cities of Easthampton, Northampton and Westfield, and the town of Southampton, are funding this work through their Community Preservation Act funds. The project was reviewed by the MHC
SWCA conducts archaeological investigations in compliance with state regulations. State legislation dealing with the protection of historic and archaeological resources includes Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 9, Sections 26- 27C, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L., Chapter 30, amended by Chapter 947 of the Acts of 1977). Projects involving the discovery of human remains or cemeteries are conducted in compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 7, Section 38A; Chapter 38, Section 6; Chapter 9, Sections 26A and 27C; and Chapter 114, Section 17, all as amended. Massachusetts archaeological permit regulations are outlined in 950 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 70.00. The products of this project meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Preservation (as amended and annotated). The archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted under State Archaeologist’s Permit No. 4167.
Project Personnel
Christopher Donta, Ph.D., served as Principal Investigator for this project and was the permittee from the MHC. Nadia Waski, M.A., and Zachary Nason completed the background review, archaeological
reconnaissance survey, and coauthored the report. Julia Zorn developed the digital mapping, parcel-level map book and completed the graphics for the report. Shannon Walsh is the PVPC Historic Preservation Planner, providing guidance on project goals and facilitated communication with related parties. Carl
E. Walter provided recommendations for the research design, contributed valuable background information, and participated in a portion of field reconnaissance. Municipal contacts for the participating towns were as follows: Lee Hamberg in Southwick, Cynthia Gaylord in Westfield, Bruce Cortis in
Russell, Bob Kozub in Southampton, Jamie Webb and Michael Czerwiec in Easthampton, and Sarah LaValley in Northampton.
Report Organization
This report is divided into four main sections. Following this introduction is a discussion of the methodology used for this effort. The third section presents the survey results, including the background
research and reconnaissance survey. The report concludes with a recommendations section and references cited. Final canal mapping and prepared MHC forms are included in the appendices.
METHODOLOGY
Background Research
A substantial bibliography of canal resources has been developed over the years based on the work of Carl Walter, Michael Raber (2002), PAL’s pilot scope and results (PAL 2006, 2008), and interested stakeholders within the six Massachusetts communities. SWCA staff acquired, synthesized, and utilized
these documents in preparation of completing the canal’s documentation. The culmination of this research
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
5
provided the current canal documentation project with a starting point and subsequently assisted in establishing methods.
Prior to research conducted by Carl Walter, there was little documentation on the Massachusetts portion of the canal. The canal’s Connecticut portion from Suffield to New Haven was listed in the NRHP in 1985. Walter has been researching the canal for 30 years, working with individuals and historic commissions in all six Massachusetts towns in which the canal was situated. In 2002, Michael Raber conducted a survey to identify and map canal resources in support of an NRHP nomination for the canal (Raber 2002), assisted by Walter. However, mapping of the canal length and its specific structural elements were insufficiently precise enough to support a nomination, leaving too much ambiguity in the location of the canal. In 2007, PAL conducted a pilot project of two small portions of the canal in
Southwick and Westfield, to assess how to provide better mapping (PAL 2008). Since the projects of the 2000s, the six Massachusetts towns have worked to develop ways to combine knowledge and efforts to support a single cohesive study of the canal, with the ultimate goal of completing an NRHP nomination for the canal.
SWCA continued background research into nineteenth century historic maps (Walter 2006), photographs, USGS topographic data, GIS data including LiDAR and assessor’s parcel information, town
reconnaissance and regional reconnaissance information, town histories, and archaeological reports. Numerous reports in the MHC’s Inventory discuss small portions of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal encountered during projects over the past 30 years. Most of these refer to small areas of the canal route intersected by a project. However, out of these reports, two focus specifically on the canal. Raber’s report (2002) is an overall study aimed at assessing the canal’s current condition and mapping its location in support of a National Register nomination. The PAL 2008 report deals with two very small portions of the canal to assess methods for documenting and mapping the canal. SWCA used data from these reports to provide more accurate, parcel-level mapping, and conditional information about the canal route and its associated infrastructure.
SWCA also conducted research at the MHC offices in Boston prior to fieldwork to obtain copies of relevant archaeological forms, reports, and Inventory files. The goal was to assimilate all relevant data to obtain the most accurate mapping possible for the canal route and its associated components, and to support a reconnaissance survey of the route. This research included a study of previous work along the Blackstone and Middlesex Canals to see what methods of recording were used and what proved most
successful, and how such could be applied to this survey.
Historic archaeological sites in Massachusetts are numbered according to the town where they are located and the sequence of their inclusion in the state site files, using a three-letter code for the town name. The
letter codes for the six towns in this project area are: SOU for Southwick, WSF for Westfield, STH for Southampton, RUS for Russell, EAH for Easthampton, and NTH For Northampton. The first historic archaeological site recorded in Northampton, for instance, is recorded as NTH.HA.1. Records for archaeological resources are available through MACRIS, but only to those approved consultants with research needs regarding archaeology in Massachusetts.
GIS Mapping
As a starting point, SWCA’s GIS team used the canal centerline shapefile provided by the Northampton GIS Coordinator James Thompson. Then, using LiDAR-derived digital elevation models, the landscape in
the vicinity of that original center line was examined for manmade ditch/canal topography. Following this review, SWCA adjusted the centerline to match the topography more accurately. After that stage, any gaps which remained likely indicated the absence of a distinct canal prism. To fill those gaps in data, SWCA used portions of the Carl Walters map for landscape context and waypoint indications. A
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
6
georeferenced version of that map was provided by the Northampton GIS coordinator. The GIS team further refined the missing prism areas by reviewing the aerial imagery for soil staining, which can
indicate a filled waterway. In areas that had no geographical indication of the canal’s existence, written historic descriptions of the canal’s route were relied upon. SWCA then created a coded centerline file indicating the confidence level of each segment’s location, which served as a guide for the on-site field reconnaissance.
The field reconnaissance team took on-site GPS data points and photographs to document presence, absence, variations from the estimated centerline, and prism integrity status along all accessible segments of the canal route. Using these GPS data points, in conjunction with the previous LiDAR imagery mapping, the centerline was refined. The 75-foot-wide project corridor was created by adding a 37.5-foot
buffer around the established canal centerline, encompassing the width of the typical canal prism and towpath, along with associated engineering features. This corridor was separated into segments determined by the field reconnaissance team, and those segments were assigned status based on their condition at the time of survey, Spring 2022. Remnant or repurposed prism segments have accurate geographical placement. Segments which could not be field verified or contained no surficial traces of former canal engineering were approximated using historical references, topography, and general canal
engineering practices, as they could neither be retraced in the field nor using GIS mapping resources.
The locations of specific engineering features integral to canal operations (i.e., locks, aqueducts, culverts, etc.) were approximated on the preliminary pre-field mapping, primarily using the Carl Walter Map (Walter 2006). Distinctions between remnant features, and features which lack surficial evidence, as seen in the parcel-level mapping, were determined by the field-reconnaissance team and were subsequently coded accordingly. Similar to the canal prism segments, remnant engineering features were able to be accurately placed geographically, while the features lacking any surficial indication were approximated using historical resources and the Carl Walter Map.
The Parcel-Level Mapbook (Appendix A) was generated within ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro software using the abovementioned location information. Parcel and infrastructure data such as parcel boundaries, roads, and trails were acquired from the MassMapper Interactive Map (MassGIS 2022). For visual clarity, intersected parcels were assigned arbitrary numbers from 1 to 821, which correspond to a separate key indicating the original Parcel ID as it appears on the tax assessor’s map (Appendix B).
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
Following background research and the development of an approximated canal centerline, SWCA conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey along the project area from May 9 to 24, 2022. The purpose of this reconnaissance survey was to verify the canal centerline as represented on the original mapping completed by the GIS team, while also assessing the surficial conditions of the canal and determining the presence or absence of canal-related features. No archaeological subsurface testing
strategy was implemented as part of this effort. During this field verification process, photographs would be taken representing present conditions of said features.
Field verification points were recorded on a handheld GPS unit and plotted in real-time on ArcGIS field maps. Photographs were also recorded in the field and georeferenced on the same mapping. In the field, only the physical engineering elements were evaluated. While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants
was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
7
It was anticipated that portions of the canal would be inaccessible by field crews due to safety concerns and/or restricted access by property owners. Here, along with areas of the former prism lacking surviving
surficial indications, the canal mapping utilized historical references, area topography, and a general understanding of the canal engineering to approximate the route between verified points.
Upon completion of the field reconnaissance, the GIS mapping was refined, and MHC Area Forms were completed describing the canal area as it exists within each of the six participating townships (Appendix C).
CONSULTATIONS
Documentation of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal began as a collaborative effort between the PVPC and individual communities of Easthampton, Northampton, Russell, Southampton, Southwick and Westfield, Massachusetts. Project contacts include: Shannon Walsh, PVPC; Carl Walter, lead Hampshire and Hampden Canal historian and expert; Lee Hamberg, Chair, Southwick Historical Commission; Cynthia Gaylord, Chair, Westfield Historical Commission; Bruce Cortis, Town of Russell Historian; Bob Kozub, Chair, Southampton Historical Commission; Jamie Webb, City of Easthampton Planner; Michael Czerwiec, Chair, Easthampton Historical Commission; Sarah LaValley, City of Northampton Conservation and Land Use Planner; and James Thompson, City of Northampton GIS Coordinator.
SWCA participated in numerous virtual calls held between PVPC and project contacts to discuss various stages of progress. Consultation was initiated with the MHC to discuss and develop the most informative, consistent, and thorough methods for documenting the canal. A kick-off meeting with MHC and members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal team took place on May 3, 2022, to discuss goals of the project and expected deliverables. Information collected from consultation with MHC was incorporated into the
canal documentation research design and methodology.
Permission to enter private properties believed to hold canal-related resources were obtained by PVPC on behalf of SWCA. All outreach to landowners was communicated in writing via postcards generated by
PVPC and approved by Hampshire and Hampden Canal team members. Language in these mailers explained to property owners that SWCA would be conducting a walkover survey of the former Hampshire and Hampden Canal between the months of May and July 2022. Additional content included an explanation that certain individual’s property may contain portions of the canal’s path. The card asked for cooperation and allowance of SWCA staff access to the property to gather visual and photographic documentation related to the canal. A list was generated prior to fieldwork of accessible parcels and SWCA attempted to conduct documentation from adjacent public lands, for those individuals who opted out. Additionally, a press release was issued on PVPC’s website in April 2022 to connect individuals interested in canal field work to future information about the canal and project.
Throughout the project, SWCA consulted with Carl Walter regarding his personal expertise on the canal’s history and location. SWCA utilized his technical drawings and extrapolated surveyor data
information to assist with building a field map. Walter joined archaeologists for their first day of canal documentation on May 9, 2022, in Southwick. He provided critical feedback on in-field data collection and facilitated the implementation of methods to enhance canal mapping.
SWCA submitted deliverables to stakeholders for comments, which were then integrated into the final report documents.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
8
SURVEY RESULTS
Background Research
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal
The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between 1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper
Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River in Northampton, Massachusetts. The canal operated in its entirety for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway due to financial strain on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year.
Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism generally oriented north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath, and in places, embankments. The original engineering specifications
dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks, each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear, with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet, spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the much smaller Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design.
In 1822, when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte
1933). Members of the Farmington Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes
Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern boundary
line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977). At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St. Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. This would then be followed by entrepreneurs in western Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
9
Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823, commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd,
another veteran of the Erie Canal, was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977).
With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties
related to heavy rains and drought left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank, with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns, was able to provide the funds necessary for the completion of the canal. With this
new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August 30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977).
While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following 4 years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum,
which was the beginning of the end for the canal (Camposeo 1977).
The significant drought of the summer of 1845 rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along
the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended, with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977).
In Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, Connecticut, to Northampton, Massachusetts,
beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
10
Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route.
Southwick
The town of Southwick is located in the Westfield River watershed and was first incorporated as an independent town in 1770. First settled in the late-seventeenth century, the area was given the nickname “Poverty Plains” due to the lack of agricultural success throughout the region, leading settlers to believe
the land was infertile. It was not until the early nineteenth century that the town saw an economic and population boom via the area’s cultivation of tobacco and the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal through the town (MHC 1982a). Additionally, the successful ice harvesting industry of
the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries provided refrigeration for food storage from New York to Boston. The location of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal through the Congamond Lakes area and along Great Brook had little impact on the town’s settlement pattern other than the influx of Irish immigrants due to the necessity for canal diggers. After the abandonment of the canal operation and its replacement by the Canal Railroad, Southwick saw a steady population decline leading into the mid-twentieth century. Development and improvements to local autoroutes and the area’s highways brought an influx of commercial business to the region, specifically along Route 10 and Route 202 (MHC 1982a). Despite the growth in commercial business in the twentieth century, the tobacco industry continued to be the town’s principal economic staple. Today, Southwick is dominated by residential development and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
The overall economic impact of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on the town of Southwick is difficult
to determine. At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns, which when fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related
stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. In Southwick, the construction of the canal did, in part, contribute to a period of population growth for the town, the likes of which would not be seen again until the 1920s. The canal’s contribution to this growth can be observed through the influx of Irish immigrants into Southwick, many of whom settled in the area as canal builders in the late 1820s (MHC 1982a). The growth of the tobacco and cigar industry were likely beneficiaries of the canal route and subsequent railroad through Southwick in the first half of the nineteenth century. While soils in the area proved poor for growing staple crops, landowners began to realize at the turn of the nineteenth century that it was more than suitable for the growth of certain cash crops, primarily tobacco (MHC 1982a). Southwick and its neighbors soon had a resource with limited means of export. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, followed by the Canal Railroad, served to facilitate this need and soon Southwick and Westfield had a thriving cigar-making
industry and an in-demand commodity. The canal’s closure impacted the ability of Southwick to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Canal Railroad was completed through the town by 1855. Today, the route of the railroad has been converted into recreational trails and areas of the
original canal prism can still be observed to the north and south of Congamond Lakes.
Westfield
The city of Westfield is located within the Westfield River watershed and Woronoco Valley. It was incorporated as an independent town in 1669. First settlement of the area occurred in the late-seventeenth century in the form of the Woronoco fur trading station (MHC 1982b). Eventually, the town developed into an important agricultural center during the Colonial Period with farmsteads on the fertile lowlands. Construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal in 1826 divided Main Street and reoriented the town
center along Elm Street to the northside depot (NRHP 2013). The canal was the transportation innovation of the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century. Powder mills were added onto the previously
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
11
established ones from the seventeenth century to supply the blasting powder used for the canal’s construction (MHC 1982b). Westfield’s population grew as a result of worker needs for construction
efforts. An expansion of Westfield Village attracted newcomers and the town saw an influx of Irish immigrants who became canal laborers. The town’s thriving commerce was likely directly linked to the canal’s opening in 1829. Agricultural traffic to New Haven and other towns along the canal route allowed farmers to deliver their great variety of market produce (NRHP 2013). Formation of the Hampden National Bank and the organization of docks and warehouses followed the canal’s opening. The canal’s most prosperous period was in the years surrounding 1840. The canal was abandoned by 1845, and following a flood in 1853, the canal company was reorganized as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Company. The canal’s route was broadened and replaced by a railroad running north-south from the years of 1855 and 1856. Westfield’s Lyman Lewis was closely connected to the canal’s reorganization and oversaw freight and passenger traffic at the port (MHC 1982b). Lyman’s successor was H.B. Smith, who raised funds for the Western Railroad and had interest in the new Canal Railroad. Smith was nationally
recognized for his manufacturing of boilers and iron fences. The H.B. Smith Company is responsible for growing Westfield’s industry during the mid-nineteenth century through the acquisition of Samuel F. Gold’s patent for hot-air furnaces. Additional facets of Westfield’s economy during this time included
whipmaking and paper production (MHC 1982b). However, as early as 1855, Westfield led Hampden County in tobacco production, which was a title it retained for much of the remaining century. Whip production peaked in 1915 and new industries of bicycles, automobiles, and textile manufacturing
continued to attract laborers. There was an increase in multi-family housing developments along the industrial belt (MHC 1982b).
The early twentieth century brought development and improvements to local autoroutes and the area’s highways. After this, there was an influx of commercial business to the region, specifically along the Route 20 axis (MHC 1982b). Westfield has experienced rapid suburban expansion, especially in farmland areas along the Western Avenue axis to the State College campus. The town was re-incorporated into a city in 1920 and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area. The city’s north side primarily consists of warehousing centers for large corporations due to its proximity to
interstate highways. South of the Westfield River represents intersecting trends of growth since it is home to Westfield State University and the old downtown business district.
In 1822, the town’s citizens voted to approve the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal’s
Westfield portion. Canal construction began in 1826, and by 1829, the Westfield to New Haven route was opened. The canal link between Westfield and Northampton had been completed by 1835 (MHC 1982b). The former canal route follows the level topography along Great Brook (Southwick), crossing Little River
and through Westfield Center, cutting across Main Street, and running between the Mechanic Street Cemetery and Elm Street. It then crossed to the west side of Elm Street, meeting the Westfield River (NRHP 2013). A bridge existed to cross the Westfield River. Upon its divergence from the Westfield River, the canal follows the current route of Pochassic Road, where it spans Moose Meadow Brook via a stone-arch culvert. On the north side of the river, the canal shifts southeast, running roughly parallel to North Elm Street. It then follows northward along Powder Mill Brook to Brickyard Brook along the course of Lockhouse Road and off the canal’s main route is an extensive feeder. The Westfield River Canal Feeder ran south along the edge of the Westfield River crossing from Westfield into the town of Russell (Raber 2002).
During construction of the canal, Westfield’s population started to change as Irish immigrants were brought in to complete the intense, laborious tasks of digging and masonry work (NRHP 2013). Afterward, these individuals stayed and went on to work for new industries in the town. In the 1820s and 1830s, canal construction and operation in Westfield Center increased residential development on surrounding streets. The new canal introduced a cheaper means of transportation to the town and provided
Westfield with a direct route to the coast.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
12
The establishment of industry in the community changed the town’s character, shaping it into an industrial hub in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The new industrial base evolved around three
primary products: whips, cigars, and paper. Opening of the canal assisted in time to carry farm produce, whips, kegs, and muskets, among other goods, between Northampton and Connecticut, generating business in Westfield Center. A building boom simultaneously occurred in Westfield, with the construction of hotels, taverns, and warehouses. The canal’s presence initiated a speculative anticipation that the canal would attract an increase in business. As a result of construction density, Westfield’s first fire company and associated equipment were acquired in 1826. The canal’s route was repurposed by the Westfield & Northampton Railroad, which passed through the town’s center in 1865. The Railroad utilized the canal’s route by eventually constructing an elevated berm next to the canal route ca. 1889. It generally followed the route but deviated north and south of the town’s center.
Russell
The town of Russell is located in the Westfield River watershed and was incorporated as an independent town in 1792. Settlement of Russell occurred later than its surrounding towns, probably due to the rugged nature of the landscape and the ample farmlands of Westfield and the Connecticut River Valley to the east. Colonial settlers first began establishing roots in in the area by the late-eighteenth century, with the first meetinghouse being constructed at Russell Pond in 1792 (MHC 1982c). Russell saw slow population growth through the first half of the nineteenth century, with limited industrial development encouraging additional settlement. The 1820s saw the construction of the Westfield River Feeder through the eastern portion of Russell, with its headworks constructed just east of the village of Woronoco. By the latter part
of the nineteenth century, Russell was becoming an important throughway with multiple turnpikes and highways establishing themselves through the town, connecting the Berkshires to the west to Springfield to the east. This improved transportation network, along with the arrival of the railroad and the paper
industry, brought about a population surge not seen in the surrounding mountain towns during this period (MHC 1982c). This growth continued throughout the late industrial period with the construction of a tannery in Russell and the continued development of the areas thriving paper industry. The population
boom of the early 1900s began to slow down following the end World War 2 (MHC 1982c). The paper industry continued to be the driving force of the economy through this period up until the closure of the Westfield River Paper Mill in 1994 and the Strathmore Paper Mill in 1999. Following the abandonment of the paper mills, Russell was left without any real industrial or commercial operations. Today, Russell contains mostly residential development and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
In Russell, the construction of the canal had a minimal effect on population and economic growth. While the nearby location of a shipping route to the Long Island Sound probably had a small impact on the
import and export of goods for the residents of Russell, the limited industry and agriculture taking place in the township at the time meant there was not a large market to take advantage of the route. The booming paper industry was not established until the second half of the nineteenth century and at that
point was shipping goods along the Western Railroad, which was completed through Russell in 1841, and partially utilized the canal’s original towpath to lay its tracks (MHC 1982c). Today, that rail line still exists along this route and areas of the original canal prism can still be observed to the east and north of
the Westfield River.
Southampton
The town of Southampton is located in the Connecticut River Valley and was first incorporated as an independent town in 1775. It was first settled in the mid-eighteenth century by groups expanding out from
the Northampton civic center. Early settlement was established on Town Hill along present-day College Highway, with agricultural development focused along the Manhan River (MHC 1982d). Industrial
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
13
development began in Southampton early on with mining operations occurring just west of Lead Mine Road and lumber being produced at multiple sawmills along the Manhan River throughout the eighteenth
century, some even predating the establishment of a permanent settlement. Despite this early and rapid industrial development, agriculture within the Manhan River Valley continued to be the town’s economic staple throughout the modern day. Mining operations in Southampton continued throughout the early part of the nineteenth century with the addition of sandstone and granite quarrying in the eastern and western parts of town, respectively (MHC 1982d). Sandstone, sourced from these quarries, was used in lock construction along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (MHC 1982d). Improvement of the Manhan River transportation corridor came in the form of the aforementioned Hampshire and Hampden Canal, which was completed in 1835, subsequently abandoned in 1847, and replaced by the Westfield and Northampton Railroad in 1856. By the twentieth century, most of the town’s industrial and manufacturing ventures were abandoned with the closure of the lead mine in 1865. The secondary industrial center in Russellville was also largely abandoned after the formation of three water supply reservoirs in Southampton, the
formation of which dried up much of the Manhan watershed, and with it, water sources for many small mills along the river’s tributaries (MHC 1982d). The end of manufacturing in Southampton was the primary factor in the town’s population decline throughout early twentieth century. A trend that continued
up through the 1950s, when suburban development caused an influx of new residents. Today, Southampton contains mostly residential development and agricultural lands, and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns. When fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. The town of Southampton did see its population spike in the 1830s following a period of canal construction and its initial operation. Similar to Southwick, the canal’s contribution to this growth can be observed through the influx of Irish immigrants, many of whom settled in the area as canal builders in the late 1820s (MHC 1982d). During its operation, a secondary development of industrial activity began to
establish itself along the route, specifically at East Street and College Highway. This settlement center took the name Lockville due to its location around a series of three canal locks near Lyman Pond (Roberts and Friedberg 2000). When in operation, the canal provided a means of exporting the region’s raw
materials down to New Haven, while also supplying this part of the interior with finished goods from the south. Regional agriculture, specifically the tobacco industry, was a likely beneficiary of the canal route and subsequent railroad through Southampton during the first half of the nineteenth century. From the
development of an industrial village and shipping center around Lyman Pond to the evident expansion of tobacco production, it is clear the canal, at least for a short time, had a positive impact on Southampton. Though the financial burden, frequent delays and stoppages, and development of more efficient shipping/transportation methods likely limited its potential and overall impact. The canal’s closure likely impacted the ability of Southampton to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Canal Railroad was completed through the town by 1855. Today, the route of the former railroad has been largely abandoned and most of the former canal area is in a state of disuse. Lockville has been listed in the NRHP, with the locks and original canal prism still visible throughout this district.
Easthampton
Previously, the lands now comprising Easthampton were the traditional territory of the Nipmuc and their
ancestors for many thousands of years. During the Contact Period, these Algonquin-speaking communities were subject to substantial impacts by the influx of European settlement which significantly affected the traditional indigenous lifeway. Historically, the town of Eastampton, originally a part of
Northampton, was first settled by these European immigrants in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Situated within the Connecticut River Valley and bordered by Mount Tom, the town of Easthampton was
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
14
independently incorporated in 1809. Roughly bisected by the Manhan River, Easthampton had ample waterpower sites through the center of town and provided suitable agricultural land for cultivation.
Industrial expansion occurred throughout the nineteenth century, especially around Upper and Lower Mill Ponds (MHC 1982e). The completion of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal and the subsequent railroad further contributed to the growth of industrial enterprises throughout Easthampton, creating an industrial corridor connecting Southampton Center to Northampton. However, following the turn of the twentieth century, manufacturing in the town began to decline, causing massive layoffs and wholesale closures that impacted the local community. Though buoyed slightly by both World Wars, manufacturing in Easthampton would never regain the prominence it had through the previous century. Small agricultural operations and commercial/mercantile business remained the preeminent enterprises in Easthampton. Settlement of the town was focused along Main Street, Union Street, and Cottage Street, the results of which are evident today (MHC 1982e). It was also through the latter portion of the twentieth century where suburban development began to increase, specifically along trolley routes. Increased residential
development and urban expansion has caused a revitalization of Easthampton downtown, with agricultural activities still prominent around the Oxbow.
In Easthampton, the construction of the canal likely impacted the growth in regional industry seen during
this period; however, no direct correlation could be identified. Button manufacturing was a prominent industry in Easthampton through the first half of the nineteenth century, with Williston Button Works employing a large section of its residents (MHC 1982e). These industrial enterprises likely saw benefits of operating in close proximity to shipping lanes such as the canal. With the operation of the Clapp Tavern during the years of canal activity, it is understood that at least some small mercantile industries grew around and benefited directly from this transportation route. One reason cited for the establishment of Williston Seminary School in Easthampton was its proximity to the canal and the ease of transportation for students (Carroll 1984). While the population of Easthampton grew throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, the gradual increase was likely more related to the industrial growth along the Manhan River and Mill Ponds, for which the canals contributions were likely minimal. Settlement through Easthampton continued to be focused along College Highway, south of the canal route, a trend
that existed prior to the canal’s construction. As seen in most of the towns through which the canal traveled, the abandonment of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal and subsequent construction of the Westfield and Northampton Railroad in its place proved far more beneficial. Easthampton saw a rapid
growth in population and its industrial economy in the latter half of the nineteenth century, a direct result of the introduction of the railroad (MHC 1982e). Today, the former canal route through Easthampton has been largely impacted by erosion and development. Some trace remnants of the canal prism and towpath
can still be observed in areas such as, just south of Highland Avenue, paralleling the west side of the Manhan River and north of O’Neill Street, extending to the Northampton border.
Northampton
Northampton is situated within the Connecticut River Valley, with the river itself serving as the town’s eastern boundary. Originally part of the Nonotuck Plantation land grant in 1653, Northampton was independently incorporated in 1883. From its inception, Northampton’s position on the Connecticut River and at the junction of regional transportation routes made the city an important civic and industrial center
in western Massachusetts (MHC 1982f). The abundance of fertile meadowland along the Connecticut River floodplain further reinforced the city as prominent settlement in the valley. By the nineteenth century, the city was well established, having expanded commercial and industrial activity along main
street and the Mill River, as well as the completion of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal shipping lane through the town. Northampton continued its expansion through the nineteenth century with the introduction of the railroad, repurposing much of the previous canal route, and the establishment of
multiple factory village throughout the town, including at Leeds, Florence, and encompassing the Bay State paper mills (MHC 1982f). Civic and commercial growth would continue into the late nineteenth to
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
15
early twentieth century with commercial blocks, a courthouse, a concert hall, railroad stations, a library, hospitals, and Smith College all being constructed. The twentieth century saw continued commercial
growth, and as transportation routes were improved and expanded, the introduction of suburban development throughout the city. Today, Northampton is still a cultural center of educational and commercial development, with expanded suburbanization as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
In Northampton, the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal did, in part, contribute to a period of population growth for the town, with the population growing by over 25 percent between 1820 and 1830, more than double either decade before or after (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The expanded trade network allowed by the operation of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal opening exports in the Long
Island Sound, likely benefitted the growing tobacco industry in Northampton as well as the burgeoning silk production of the 1830s (MHC 1982f). Northampton silk production was considered one of the most extensive in the union during this period (MHC 1982f). Numerous other industries also grew during this time; however, these other manufacturers expanded significantly more following the closure of the canal and the introduction of the railroad. It was also during the years of canal operation that the factory village at Florence was established, likely in part due to the expanded trade network provided by the canal. The
canal’s closure impacted the ability of Northampton to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Westfield and Northampton Railroad was completed through the town by 1856 (MHC 1982f). During the period between the canal’s abandonment and the establishment of the railroad, stagnant water in the open prism increased the spread of disease among the residents of town, with groups raising funds to fill watered sections for sanitary reasons, such as near King Street and State Street. Today, the route through Northampton has been largely filled and built over, with much of the former route now home to commercial blocks or city streets. Areas of the original canal prism and locks can still be observed to the north near the route’s intersection with the Connecticut River.
Previous Canal Documentation
Prior targeted efforts have been made to document segments of the canal. These include the 2002 Michael S. Raber survey in advance of a proposed NRHP nomination (Raber 2002). A pilot study was conducted in 2008 by PAL, on sections of the canal in Southwick and Westfield (PAL 2008). Extensive research and documentation has been completed by independent scholar, Carl E. Walter, culminating in the production of the Walter Hampshire and Hampden Canal Map (Walter 2006). These previous documentation efforts have been mainly completed independently, either within certain townships or concentrated on specific features or areas.
Summary of Carl E. Walter Research
Independent scholar Carl. E Walter has extensively studied the New Haven and Northampton Canal over
a period of more than 20 years. During his research, Walter has walked the former canal route in its entirety on multiple occasions. In doing so, he has not only accumulated a comprehensive knowledge of the canal’s history, design, and course, but also a framework of resources and references to which all
future nominations should refer. From this research, Walter has generated hand-drafted technical drawings depicting the canal’s course
and speculative historic property boundaries (not available to the public at this time); a map of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on USGS topographic quadrangles, including symbology representing present surficial indication of the canal prism and features (Walter 2006); and a digital program that compiles the documentary items collected over years of study via links embedded in a comprehensive canal map (C. Walters, personal communication, 2022) (not available to the public at this time).
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
16
Summary of Raber Associates Report
In 2002, Raber Associates prepared a Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal for a Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination (Raber 2002). Included in this report were a brief engineering and construction summary; a description of the canal route and features; study methodology; mapping, photographs, and descriptions of surficial canal features; and an overview of the proposed historic district boundary and its contents. Survey methodology for this effort relied heavily on previous procedures utilized for the successful nomination of the Farmington Canal in Connecticut to the NRHP.
Completed with the assistance of Carl E. Walter, the Raber study attempted to map the entirety of the canal route and evaluate its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP district, using the previously successful methodology of the Farmington Canal NRHP nomination. The proposed New Haven and Northampton District was defined in the Raber report as a series of discontinuous canal sections, where “both sides of the prism are substantially intact, visually indicating the full profile as well as the course of the canal; and no later intrusions significantly detract from this visual indication” (Raber 2002:4).
Following the completion of his survey, Raber identified 51 discontinuous sections of canal that
conformed to the previously described criteria. Within these sections, Raber also describes 21 remnant engineering features or other structures directly affiliated with canal operation still present along the route.
Summary of PAL Pilot Study
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL), drafted a technical memorandum reviewing what would be required to complete a potential NRHP nomination. In this memorandum, PAL reviewed previous canal studies, presented survey methodologies, and divided the scope of work into four phases, of which only Phases I and II were ever completed (PAL 2006). Following this, PAL completed a pilot study of two areas of the former canal route, one approximately 1,300-foot section in Southwick and another approximately 2,100-foot section in Westfield (PAL 2008). This study was conducted with the goal of providing a reliable means for generating parcel-level mapping of the former canal route, as required for an NRHP nomination. Field documentation of visible historic and archaeological features within each of
the Pilot Study Areas was conducted in 2007. Alternative survey and mapping approaches were completed at the two study areas.
Summary of Other Contributing Research
A collection of historic maps depicting the Hampshire and Hampden Canal were consulted at various
stages of the study to both refine the route mapping and to better contextualize the canal’s location, locally and regionally. Some historical resources served to fill gaps in the mapping where surficial traces of the route no longer exist. Some of the referenced maps include Bailey’s map of Westfield (Bailey
1875), Beers’ Atlases of Hampshire and Hampden Counties (Beers 1870, 1873), Dwight’s plan map of Southampton (Dwight 1830), Jocelyn’s combined map of the Farmington, and Hampshire and Hampden Canals (Jocelyn 1828), aerial imagery of the Congamond Lakes from 1934, and the plan of Congamond Lakes (Parks 1904). Additionally, SWCA consulted other regional canal-related NRHP documents to assist in formulating a framework of how to approach this study. These included the Blackstone Canal Historic District National Register of Historic Places Nomination, Massachusetts (Adams 1995), the Middlesex Canal
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
17
Comprehensive Survey Phase IV Survey Report (Adams and Kierstead 1999), and the Farmington Canal National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form (Raber and Clouette 1984).
Previously Documented Canal Features
The MHC maintains records of these previously documented segments; however, due to the limited details in many of these forms, and/or significant post-recordation alterations to these segments, they serve as only a baseline from which further research was conducted. After review of MHC’s Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth, it was evident that little of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal has been recorded in the form of archaeological sites.
In total, 10 remnant features of the canal are presently on record at the MHC, in the form of Historic Archaeological sites (HA forms), Buildings (numbers below 900), Structures (900 numbers), and Districts (letters) (Table 1). Inconsistency in what type of form should be used for what type of canal feature was an issue addressed during the present survey.
There are three recorded archaeological sites associated with the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. These are the Hampden and Hampshire County Canal site (SOU.HA.5), a 2.4-mile (3.9-km) segment of visible canal prism in northern Southwick; the Feeder Canal site (WSF.HA.4) in Westfield; and the New Haven
and Northampton Canal (NTH.HA.14), an isolated segment of canal prism in Northampton. A fourth archaeological site, the New Haven and Northampton Canal, is recorded as a structure (EAH.900) and is a 0.5-mile segment of canal in Easthampton.
Three additional canal engineering features have been recorded as structures. One of the feature locks associated with the canal has been documented as STH.907 [New Haven-Northampton Canal Lock #22 Remnant]). Stonework associated with the South Manhan River Aqueduct of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal were repurposed for usage by the railroad and have been documented as the Northampton and Westfield Railroad Bridge (STH.906). A marker was established in 1960 on Main Street in Westfield to commemorate the former site of the Westfield Basin of the New Haven and Northampton Canal (WSF.914).
The Connecticut portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal was listed in the NRHP in 1985. Part of the intent of Raber’s work in 2002 was to develop an NRHP nomination for the Massachusetts portion, but there were some insufficiencies in this data, particularly with reference to the level of accuracy of the mapping. None of the individual components of the Massachusetts portion of the canal are presently listed
in the NRHP, although some components have been included as contributing elements in other NRHP districts (STH.90 [New Haven Northampton Canal Storehouse] and STH.907 as part of STH.B [Lockville Historic District], listed in 2001).
Table 1. Canal Features Previously Recorded with the MHC
MHC ID Number Site Name Location Recordation Date Description NR Evaluation
SOU.HA.5 Hampden and Hampshire County Canal
Southwick 1981 Approx. 2.5 mi of abandoned canal prism, paralleling Great Brook; recorded as having fair integrity.
Not evaluated
WSF.HA.4 Feeder Canal
(misnomer) Westfield 1978 Approx. .6 km of abandoned canal prism with adjacent towpath. Stone abutments from former Little River Aqueduct were also observed.
Not evaluated
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
18
MHC ID Number Site Name Location Recordation Date Description NR Evaluation
WSF.914 New Haven and Northampton Canal Marker
Westfield 1960 Bronze plaque indicating the former site of the South Basin. Not evaluated
STH.90 New Haven – Northampton Canal Storehouse
Southampton 1987 Vernacular-style storehouse constructed in 1832 to facilitate the transfer of freight to and from canal boats; converted to residences.
Listed as part of STH.B (Lockville Historic District) in 2001
STH.907 New Haven – Northampton Canal Lock # 22 Remnant
Southampton 1987 Approx. 5 feet by 20 feet of surficial eastern wall from the rebuilt stone-lined chamber of Lock 22; later repurposed as railroad embankment (now abandoned).
Listed as part of STH.B (Lockville Historic District) in 2001
STH.906 Northampton and Westfield Railroad Bridge
Southampton 1987 Railroad trestle supported by dressed stone abutments; stone abutments were repurposed from South Manhan River Aqueduct.
Listed as part of STH.B (Lockville Historic District) in 2001
STH.B Lockville Historic District Southampton 1998 Historic district encompassing the area of canal Locks 20, 21, and 22; District includes STH.90, STH.907, STH.906, and a canal prism remnant.
Listed in 2001
EAH.593 n.d. (Clapp’s Tavern & Warehouse)
Easthampton 1986 Wood-framed, two-story Federal style structure, c. 1810; operated as warehouse and toll collection during canal years.
Not evaluated
EAH.900 New Haven and Northampton Canal
Easthampton/Northampton 1984 Approx. 1.2 km of abandoned canal prism and towpath stretching into Northampton.
Not evaluated
NTH.HA.14 New Haven and Northampton Canal
Northampton 1974 Approx. 400 m of canal prism including the remnants of Lock 31 and 32. Not evaluated
Source: MHC (2022).
Note: n.d = no data
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
In May of 2022, SWCA conducted the field reconnaissance survey, during which the majority of the
former canal route, from the Connecticut border in Southwick to the Connecticut River in Northampton, was traversed on foot and documented.
During this effort, the canal area was divided into segments based on presence or absence of surficial canal remnants (Figure 2). A third distinction, “Repurposed,” was allotted for areas of prism and towpath that have been mostly obscured by subsequent development but where the original design, orientation, and/or course remains discernable. The appearance, approximate dimensions, and present surficial conditions of the canal segments and all canal-related features were recorded, on mapping, in narrative notes, and in tabular format. Representative photographs were also recorded during the effort, the locations of which were also mapped.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
19
Figure 2. Remnant canal prism in Segment 2, facing northeast.
Access to parcels intersected by the expected canal area, as determined by the GIS team’s review, was coordinated by the PVPC on behalf of SWCA, with permission notices disseminated specifically in each township by town representatives. Areas in which SWCA was not permitted access, or otherwise posed a
safety risk to the field crew, were not field verified and existing centerline mapping was utilized.
In total, 78 remnant canal features were identified during the reconnaissance, 69 along the main line and an additional nine along the three feeder canal routes (Table 2). The present physical condition of these
features varies dramatically, with surficial identification of large sections impossible due to numerous factors including but not limited to, erosion, development, filling and leveling, natural phenomena, and removal/destruction. The canal corridor, as depicted, represents the locations of the former canal and its associated features as best can be determined using the available resources and methods. Detailed descriptions of all recorded segments were completed for each town and are located in their corresponding Area Form (Appendix C).
Table 2. Remnant Canal Prism and Features Recorded During Reconnaissance
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Main Line
Canal Prism and Towpath 1 Southwick Well-preserved, rail trail occupies former western towpath; prism is watered
Guard Lock 1 Southwick Visible earthworks with approximately 15 feet of remnant stonework along eastern chamber wall
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
20
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Canal Prism and Towpath 2 Southwick Western towpath is identifiable along southern portion of segment, prism is visible, though moderately eroded, watered
Canal Prism and Towpath 4 Southwick Towpath along western side, visible prism, though partially altered by modern landscaping and erosion
Canal Prism and Towpath 6 Southwick Section repurposed by modern culvert for Point Grove Road, towpath exists along western bank, but only north of Point Grove Road
Canal Prism and Towpath 10 Southwick Visible prism segment with western towpath
Lock 2 10 Southwick Surficial earthworks from original chamber and southern gate sill
Lock 3 10 Southwick Surficial earthworks from original chamber
Lock 4 10 Southwick Only southern half of original lock earthworks is visible; northern portion altered by landscaping efforts
Canal Prism and Towpath 12 Southwick Towpath extant along western embankment heading north to location of change-over bridge where it shifts to the eastern embankment, relatively well-preserved
Lock 6 12 Southwick Surficial earthworks with some areas (approximately 50 feet) of visible stonework from original canal chamber repairs; northern gate and end of lock has been moderately eroded by Great Brook associated wetland
Change-over bridge 12/13 Southwick Bridge abutment earthworks remain extant, with spilled stone in prism center from original stone construction
Canal Prism and Towpath 13 Southwick Towpath extant along eastern embankment heading north, relatively well-preserved
Lock 7 13 Southwick Well-preserved lock features, last remaining lock feature reflecting original timber-lined chamber construction; earthwork remained visible throughout, original stone headers can also be observed, with some timber preservation
Canal Prism and Towpath 15 Southwick Meandering segment with evidence of embankments and eastern towpath; well-preserved
Canal Prism and Towpath 17 Southwick Original eastern towpath presently utilized as Department of Public Works (DPW) access road (Canal Road)
Canal Prism and Towpath 19 Southwick Original eastern towpath presently utilized as DPW access road (Canal Road)
Canal Prism and Towpath 20 Southwick Partially altered, western portion of prism has seen filling from adjacent residential development; original eastern towpath presently utilized as DPW access road (Canal Road)
Canal Prism and Towpath 22 Southwick Towpath identifiable, shifts from eastern embankment to western embankment in the vicinity of aqueduct, no evidence of a change-over bridge.
South Great Brook Aqueduct 22 Southwick Originally spanned approximately 30 feet, remnant stonework from abutments is visible, spilled stone original piers can also be seen deposited in waterway
Potential Basin 22 Southwick Possible turn-around basin location, semi-circle earthworks can be seen just outside southern gate of Lock 8
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
21
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Lock 8 22 Southwick Chamber earthworks remain, some degradation along the chambers eastern wall; no visual evidence of stonework or timbers and neither do the northern and southern sills
Canal Prism and Towpath 24 Southwick Repurposed by DPW road; roadway runs within former prism with towpath along western embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 26 Southwick/ Westfield Repurposed by DPW road; roadway runs within former prism with towpath along western embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 28 Westfield Repurposed as roadside drainage with Shaker Road running along western embankment; towpath now to the east, former change-over bridge probably existed in Segment 27; however, no surficial evidence was located
Canal Prism and Towpath 29 Westfield Altered portions of the eastern towpath cut out for trail access; modern two-track runs through the prism
Canal Prism and Towpath 30 Westfield Well-preserved, two-track runs through prism
Canal Prism 31 Westfield Partially altered segment, eastern towpath removed by residential development, but remainder of original prism is identifiable
Canal Prism and Towpath 33 Westfield Partially altered segment, eastern towpath removed, remainder of original prism identifiable; Small section within Segment 33 was Not Field Verified due to access restrictions
Canal Prism and Towpath 34 Westfield Towpath along eastern embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 36 Westfield ATV trail along interior of prism; towpath remains visible along northern side of prism
Little River Aqueduct 36 Westfield Some stonework from the original eastern abutment remains, western landing not visible; very little surficial evidence of this feature remains
Canal Prism and Towpath 37 Westfield Partially altered, prism is significantly wider than original dimensions due to erosion
Canal Prism and Towpath 42 Westfield West embanking cut into natural hillslope, with visible eastern towpath, moderate erosion has widened original channel
Canal Prism and Towpath 44 Westfield Surficial evidence of eastern towpath; section is watered from Arm Brook Reservoir
Lock 15 44 Westfield Earthworks remain, narrowed chamber visible; northern and southern sill have been eroded by small stream which flows through the canal. Some spilled stone can be seen in stream, unsure if related to original chamber stonework
Canal Prism and Towpath 45 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed; partially filled, with sections of the western embankment likely removed by railroad construction
Canal Prism and Towpath 46 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed
Canal Prism and Towpath 47 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed; some sections of the western embankment not visible
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
22
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Canal Prism and Towpath 48 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed; partially filled, with sections of the western embankment not visible
Canal Prism and Towpath 50 Westfield Surficial evidence of embankments and channel; some erosion from adjacent agricultural activities
Canal Prism and Towpath 52 Westfield/ Southampton Repurposed by subsequent railroad (now abandoned), Root Road built upon original eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 53 Southampton Repurposed by subsequent railroad, towpath switches from eastern bank to western bank most likely within this segment
Canal Prism and Towpath 54 Southampton Relatively well preserved, western towpath observable.
Canal Prism and Towpath 56 Southampton Visual evidence of prism, north end has railroad along original western towpath
Lock 21 57/58 Southampton Partially altered earthworks, southern portion has been washed-out but northern half and northern sill earthworks remain identifiable
Canal Prism and Towpath 58 Southampton Railroad transitions from western towpath into original prism
Canal Prism and Towpath 59 Southampton Repurposed subsequent railroad, with tracks running through original prism and lock feature
Lock 22 59 Southampton Well-preserved, visible stonework chambers eastern wall; original chamber was timber construction later rebuilt with stone
Canal Storehouse 59 Southampton Constructed in 1832 to operate as a goods storehouse and tolls collection; Presently utilized as apartments
Canal Prism and Towpath 60 Southampton Visible canal prism and towpath
South Manhan River Aqueduct 60 Southampton Stone abutments were repurposed for railroad trestle (now abandoned), evidence of stonework remains
Canal Prism and Towpath 61 Southampton Repurposed by subsequent railroad, towpath along eastern embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 63 Southampton Railroad along former eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 65 Southampton Identifiable eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 67 Southampton High banks through this stretch, visible eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 69 Southampton Some minor impacts from agricultural usage, prism and towpath remain discernable
Canal Prism and Towpath 71 Southampton Reclaimed by natural drainage, original earthworks remain identifiable
Canal Prism and Towpath 73 Southampton Some erosion, channel has high banks through section; eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 75 Easthampton Approximately 210 feet of remnant prism surrounded by areas of significant washout
Canal Prism and Towpath 77 Eastampton Fragmented prism, agricultural activities has significantly impacted former channel and western embankment, eastern embankment remains prominent through most of segment
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
23
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Clapp’s Tavern and Warehouse 77 Easthampton Wood-framed, two-story Federal style structure, c. 1810
Canal Prism and Towpath 78 Easthampton Eastern towpath visible
Canal Prism and Towpath 80 Easthampton/ Northampton Eastern towpath now utilized as walking trail
Canal Prism and Towpath 84 Northampton Former eastern towpath contains rail trail
Canal Prism and Towpath 90 Northampton Visible canal prism and towpath
Lock 31 91 Northampton Stonework from original construction can be observed here, although surrounding earthworks have largely eroded
Canal Prism and Towpath 92 Northampton Watered; reclaimed by Slough Brook
Lock 32 92 Northampton Stonework along eastern and western walls can be observed, with earthworks remaining around most of the chamber, northern and southern sills also partially visible.
Salmon Brook Feeder
Feeder Canal Prism A-2 Southwick Constructed in 1830, segment contains visible prism with east and west embankment
Little River Feeder
Feeder Canal Prism B-2 Westfield Small segment; moderately eroded, but remains identifiable
Westfield River Feeder
Feeder Canal Prism C-1 Russell Evidence of original northern terminus altered by Westfield River; parallel railroad
Feeder Canal Prism C-4 Westfield Prism presently utilized by logging access road
Feeder Canal Prism C-6 Westfield Runs along hilltop, partially visible prism with both embankments
Moose Meadow Brook Culvert C-6 Westfield Discernable stone abutment at eastern landing, with additional scattered stone along the brook’s western bank
Feeder Canal Prism C-7 Westfield Altered segment, western embankment has been impacted by residential development
Feeder Canal Prism C-9 Westfield Relatively well-preserved segment
Feeder Canal Prism C-11 Westfield Surficial evidence of prism
SUMMARY OF WORK
In all, SWCA field staff were able to conduct a walkover reconnaissance of roughly 90 percent of the former Hampshire and Hampden Canal. SWCA GIS personnel used this collected field data, in conjunction with historical mapping and references, as well as the Walter Map (Walter 2006) to accurately depict the former canal’s course, on parcel-level mapping, as it operated through
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
24
Massachusetts. During this effort, SWCA staff assessed the surficial conditions of the canal as it exists on the landscape today. MHC Area Forms were also completed as part of this study, describing the canal
area within the bounds of each of the six townships, the route’s impacts on the towns individually, as well as detailing the physical presence canal engineering had, and still has, on the land. Segments and features lacking any present surficial indications were plotted as best could be determined using the available resources and methods, including historical resources, previously conducted studies, Carl E. Walter’s extensive canal research, and a general understanding of canal engineering practices.
One thing that was evident following the field reconnaissance was the amount of degradation that has occurred since the Raber Associates survey. Areas of canal prism described in the Raber report as being relatively well-preserved or clearly identifiable upon walkover were either significantly altered by erosion
and natural phenomena or, in some instance, obscured. Newer developments have been constructed along major transportation routes through many of the participating townships as populations grow and urban centers expand, with many of these routes located on the periphery of the former canal area, directly or indirectly effecting its preservation.
Following the completion of the GIS map review and field verification, 78 remnant canal segments and/or features were recorded and mapped, with others lacking any remaining surficial remnants plotted using
other means. In all, approximately 34 percent of the original canal prism contains surficial remnants still identifiable today, with the remaining 66 percent being a combination of altered or obscured by post-canal impacts (46%), repurposed by subsequent engineering (9%), or not field verified (11%). Of the original 32 canal locks and two guard locks, 12 still contain surficial, identifiable traces of the former engineering. Surficial evidence of the majority of the 12 original aqueducts and culverts constructed to ferry the canal over larger waterways have been completely removed, with much of the stone used in their construction repurposed for subsequent engineering efforts. In terms of other remnant canal-related features documented during the course of this survey, only abutments of a former towpath change-over bridge and the eroded earthworks of a potential basin in Southwick were observed. In addition to the above-mentioned engineering features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and traversal bridges may have been present along the route through Massachusetts, any surficial evidence of which has since been altered/obscured.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant on the local, state, and national level, being eligible for listing, in its entirety, in the NRHP under criteria A, C, and D. Under Criteria A and C, the
Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area reflects engineering design, economic efforts, and industrial and transportation improvements undertaken during the Canal Era (c. 1800–1850) of the northeastern United States and further exacerbated by the success of the Erie Canal, completed in 1825. The canal area embodies the entirety of the engineering endeavor that was the Hampshire and Hampden Canal whose individual components may lack distinction independent of the whole. The area also reflects the widespread enthusiasm for canal construction seen during the titular Canal Era. Under Criteria D, the
Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and as of yet unrecorded archaeological components extant below the ground surface. These undocumented components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment.
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
While this effort assessed the surficial presence, or lack thereof, of canal engineering features along the former route, further research will be required to ascertain the integrity of certain segments or features as
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
25
defined by the National Park Service in How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service 1990). The present project includes extensive historical research and provides
accurate mapping and field data on the present condition of the canal, with an initial statement of significance. We anticipate that additional work will be needed to complete the NRHP nomination. This next step will need to explore the canal’s impact and design within the context of the greater Canal Era of the northeastern United States, as well as describe the significance of the entire endeavor in both its engineering scope and socioeconomic impacts on the region. It is also recommended that a finalized list of all potential areas, properties, and archaeological sites contributing to the proposed district be compiled and evaluated using defined NRHP selection criteria.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
26
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Virginia H. 1995 Blackstone Canal Historic District National Register of Historic Places Nomination,
Blackstone, Millville, Uxbridge, Worcester, Massachusetts. On file, MHC, Boston.
Adams, Virginia H., and Matthew A. Kierstead, 1999 Middlesex Canal Comprehensive Survey Phase IV Survey Report. PAL Report No. 0989
submitted to the Middlesex Canal Association. On file, MHC, Boston.
Bailey, O. H. 1875 Westfield 1875. O.H. Bailey & Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Beers, F.W. 1870 Atlas of Hampden County, Massachusetts. F.W. Beers and Company, New York, New York.
1873 Atlas of Hampshire County, Massachusetts. F.W. Beers and Company, New York, New York.
Camposeo, James Mark 1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847).
Historical Journal of Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
Carroll, William F.
1984 Documentation of the New Haven and Northampton Canal in Easthampton EAH.900. Form
F – Structure. On file with the MHC, Boston.
Dwight, Justus
1830 A Plan of Southampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Historical Survey.
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th
Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Jocelyn, Nathaniel 1828 Map Exhibiting the Farmington, and Hampshire & Hampden Canals: together with the line
of their proposed continuation through the Valley of the Connecticut River to Canada. N. & J. J. Jocelyn, New Haven.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1982a MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Southwick. MHC, Boston.
1982b MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Westfield. MHC, Boston.
1982c MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Russell. MHC, Boston.
1982d MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Southampton. MHC, Boston.
1982e MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Reports: Easthampton. MHC, Boston.
1982f MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Reports: Northampton. MHC, Boston.
2021 Bibliography of Archaeological Survey & Mitigation Reports: Massachusetts. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, Massachusetts.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
27
2022 Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth. On file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Massachusetts Archives Building, Boston. Also
available at: http://maps.mhc-macris.net/. Accessed 2022.
MassGIS (Bureau of Geographic Information) 2022 MassGIS Data: Property Tax Parcels. Available at: https://www.mass.gov/info-
details/massgis-data-property-tax-parcels#downloads-. Accessed August 2022.
National Park Service 1990 National Register Bulletin––How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, National Register of Historic Places, History and Education, Washington, D.C.
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 2013 Westfield Center Historic District, Westfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts. National Register #13000441.
Parks, Oren E. 1904 Plan of Congamond Lakes & Vicinity, Southwick, Mass., & Suffield, Conn. showing properties of The Congamond Ice Company of New York City. Westfield, Massachusetts.
Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL) 2006 Technical Memorandum: New Haven and Northampton Canal, Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, Northampton, and Russell, Preliminary Scoping for Pilot Study. PAL NO. 2017. On file, MHC, Boston, Massachusetts. 2008 Phase I and II Products – Pilot Study Areas, New Haven and Northampton Canal, Southwick
and Westfield, Massachusetts. On file, MHC, Boston, Massachusetts. Raber, Michael S. 2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file MHC, Boston. Raber, Michael S., and Bruce Clouette 1984 Farmington Canal National Register of Historic Places Inventory–Nomination Form. On file
Connecticut Historical Commission, Hartford. Roberts, Norene A., and Betsy Friedberg
2000 Lockville Historic District National Register Nomination. On file, MHC, Boston.
U.S. Census Bureau 2020 U.S. Decennial Census Data. Available at: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table. Accessed
November 2022.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file, Connecticut Historical Society,
Hartford.