Story 2 Main

The latest of three walls unearthed in Battery Park. Archaeologists believe they're remnants of the pre-Revolutionary war fort that gave the Battery its name.
by Cardiff de Alejo Garcia and Larrison Campbell
Last December, construction on the underground subway tunnel in Battery Park hit a wall – twice. Workers had stumbled onto fragments of two colonial-era stone wall fragments believed to be part of a gun battery that gave the park its name. The discovery presented challenges for two camps - the archaeologists and conservationists who want the wall fragments preserved and studied for their historical significance, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority, whose construction schedule is temporarily frustrated by the interfering walls. The collision of this modern-day construction project with an 18th century relic evokes a growing problem faced by archaeologists in New York City. To accommodate its relentless focus on economic and social progress – and the ongoing development that inevitably follows – the city has started to care less and less about what can be learned from the underground remnants of its past, say some archaeologists. “What has always been true about New York is that it is focused on the present and the future, and it tends to ignore its past,” said Diana Wall, a professor of archaeology at City College and co-author of Unearthing Gotham, the Archaeology of New York City. “The evidence shows that the city has less interest in its archaeology than before, and I’m not sure what can be done about it.” The solution for the battery walls remains uncertain, but it will probably involve carefully dismantling the walls and then reassembling them at another location for public display. But the solutions to other recent archaeological problems illustrate Wall’s concern. In 1999, city workers renovating City Hall Park unearthed the remains of more than 70 people thought to be 18th century residents of an almshouse. But the Giuliani administration kept the excavation under tight wraps, and the reports detailing the findings have yet to be finished. “The city chose not to publicize [the excavation] and in fact screened off the area with fencing and green tarps,” said Mark Rose, editor-in-chief of Archaeology, a bimonthly publication of the Archaeological Institute of America. “The average New Yorker had no idea what was going on, and that’s unfortunate because it was an opportunity for the public to be engaged in the city’s past.” The same year, when the city spent $85 million restoring the historic Tweed Courthouse, archaeologists found 23 intact skeletons dating to the 19th century interred under the building. The city considered moving the Museum of the City of New York into the courthouse, a proposal favored by the archaeological community because it ensured the legendary building would be accessible to the public and looked after by the museum’s trained staff. Three years later, however, the city instead chose to turn it into office space for the Board of Education and other city agencies – thereby limiting public access and potentially damaging the restoration, said Rose. New York Unearthed, the archaeology wing of the South Street Seaport Museum, used to be home to over two million artifacts – spanning more than 400 years of New York City history. But because of budget cuts and a declining audience, last year the museum decided it could not afford to keep the artifacts and arranged to send them to the New York State Museum in Albany, which it is now in the process of doing. Archaeologists agree that the artifacts will be properly cared for in the state museum, but they lament the loss for the city and its apparent indifference toward losing such valuable objects. “It’s tragic that a city as wealthy as New York can’t find a way to keep its treasures here,” said Diane Dallal, an archaeologist for AKRF, an environmental planning agency. Dallal was the curator at New York Unearthed until her position was eliminated during the cost-cutting. “No one really did care” about the artifacts leaving, said Joan Geismar, the president of Professional Archaeologists in New York City (PANYC), a nonprofit. “It’s a pity, because people don’t understand how important these objects are. They tell us about past life, they’re quite extraordinary-looking and they’re great research tools.” And because New York Unearthed is now used strictly for educational programs promoting archaeology to schoolchildren, there is no centralized location in New York City for archaeologists to study new finds. “One of the things that is lacking in the city is a repository for archaeological collections,” said Arthur Bankoff, Chairman of the Department of Anthropoloy and Archaeology at Brooklyn College and a special adviser to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. “When something is excavated, there’s no place to put the artifacts that are found, and they wind up scattered all over the place.” But New York City may have to take a greater interest in its past – at least more than it has recently shown – if an archaeological repository is to become a reality. For Bankoff, the problem is that people don’t recognize the archaeological potential of the city because they associate it with constant construction and development, not preservation. Nevertheless he is hopeful that development and archaeology can eventually be reconciled, even in New York. “Archaeology doesn’t ever want to stand in the way of development,” he said. “The goal of archaeology is to preserve whatever resources are there, if possible, and if not to make sure that the information they contain about the past isn’t lost. I don’t think there is any reason why both development can’t continue and our knowledge of the past can’t be preserved and expanded at the same time.”
Addendum from the authors Aug. 8, 2006 Our article originally went to press on Friday, March 3, 2006. Recently, NYC24 received an email from Lisi de Bourbon, the communications director at the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). De Bourbon and her colleague, Amanda Sutphin, the LPC and New York City’s chief archaeologist, disagree with the assessment made by some of the people quoted in the article that the city is losing interest in archaeology. Because we were unable to reach Ms. Sutphin prior to our original deadline, we are happy to now include her response to some of the topics covered by the article, and we thank Ms. de Bourbon for providing it along with supporting evidence and some new information. De Bourbon writes that rather than pointing to a lack of interest on the part of the city, “Ms. Sutphin would argue that the City Hall Park and Tweed Courthouse projects actually demonstrate the city’s commitment to archaeology.” Regarding the City Hall Park reconstruction, de Bourbon writes, “After reviewing the proposed reconstruction of City Hall Park, LPC required that archaeology be completed as part of its approval for the park’s reconstruction. The archaeology consisted of testing and monitoring that were conducted over an eight-month period in 1999. The team included several senior archaeologists and a fieldwork crew of about 20 people. There also was a physical anthropological component, which was overseen by the Smithsonian Institution. All of the work was paid for by the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation. CUNY is finalizing the report detailing the findings of this work.” And about the Tweed Courthouse, de Bourbon writes, “Tweed Courthouse is located within the African Burial Ground and the Commons Historic District. As such, the subsurface work had to be reviewed and approved by LPC. The archaeology consisted of testing and monitoring that were conducted over a nine-month period in 2000 and 2001. The team was led by a bio-archaeologist and included about 20 people. All of the work was paid for by the city’s Economic Development Corporation. The final report was completed in June 2003.” De Bourbon provided further comments and information about these topics: New York Unearthed and a city repository Ms. de Bourbon writes, “’New York Unearthed’ was a temporary archaeology exhibit and conservation lab run by the South Street Seaport Museum, a private organization. Indeed, it was a terrific resource and it’s regrettable that the museum limited access and gave the NYC-related archaeological collections to New York State, rather than keeping them here. But given the fact that the city has never had an archaeological repository, it’s unclear how our not having one now indicates that the city cares for archaeology less than it once did.” The MTA’s New South Ferry Station project Ms de Bourbon writes, “The archaeological monitoring of the MTA’s New South Ferry Station project was completed on March 15, 2006. As of that date, four large masonry wall fragments were found and identified by archaeologists. Wall 1 was found in the northern part of Battery Park, and measured the entire width of the tunnel (43 feet), and was 8-feet wide, and 2-feet high.” “Wall 2 was identified just north of the World Trade Center Globe Memorial and measured about 8’ x 7’ x 7.’ Wall 3 was found in the south of the park measuring 90’ long, 8’ wide, and 4’ high and appears to have been constructed through cribbing (wooden land filling devices). Wall 4 was about 120’ long, 8’ wide, and 4’ high. All of the walls were documented by archaeologists and by architectural conservators and then removed.” “All of Wall 1 and portions of Walls 3 and 4 were retained for later reconstruction. One portion of Wall 1 is now on display in Castle Clinton in Battery Park in an exhibit called, “Walls Within Walls” which was unveiled in June 2006. Going forward, the MTA has promised to display a portion of Wall 3 in the new South Ferry Station and one fragment will be put back into Battery Park where it was found.” “While it is known that these walls were part of colonial New York’s fortifications, no definitive conclusions can be drawn until the archaeological analysis and additional research are completed.” “For more information about the initial archaeological potential assessment, the protocols that were used, and information about some of the finds that were, please refer to http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/sft/archaeology.htm” - Cardiff de Alejo Garcia and Larrison Campbell

The latest of three walls unearthed in Battery Park. Archaeologists believe they're remnants of the pre-Revolutionary war fort that gave the Battery its name.

by Cardiff de Alejo Garcia and Larrison Campbell

Last December, construction on the underground subway tunnel in Battery Park hit a wall – twice. Workers had stumbled onto fragments of two colonial-era stone wall fragments believed to be part of a gun battery that gave the park its name.

The discovery presented challenges for two camps - the archaeologists and conservationists who want the wall fragments preserved and studied for their historical significance, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority, whose construction schedule is temporarily frustrated by the interfering walls.

The collision of this modern-day construction project with an 18th century relic evokes a growing problem faced by archaeologists in New York City. To accommodate its relentless focus on economic and social progress – and the ongoing development that inevitably follows – the city has started to care less and less about what can be learned from the underground remnants of its past, say some archaeologists.

“What has always been true about New York is that it is focused on the present and the future, and it tends to ignore its past,” said Diana Wall, a professor of archaeology at City College and co-author of Unearthing Gotham, the Archaeology of New York City. “The evidence shows that the city has less interest in its archaeology than before, and I’m not sure what can be done about it.”

The solution for the battery walls remains uncertain, but it will probably involve carefully dismantling the walls and then reassembling them at another location for public display. But the solutions to other recent archaeological problems illustrate Wall’s concern.

In 1999, city workers renovating City Hall Park unearthed the remains of more than 70 people thought to be 18th century residents of an almshouse. But the Giuliani administration kept the excavation under tight wraps, and the reports detailing the findings have yet to be finished.

“The city chose not to publicize [the excavation] and in fact screened off the area with fencing and green tarps,” said Mark Rose, editor-in-chief of Archaeology, a bimonthly publication of the Archaeological Institute of America. “The average New Yorker had no idea what was going on, and that’s unfortunate because it was an opportunity for the public to be engaged in the city’s past.”

The same year, when the city spent $85 million restoring the historic Tweed Courthouse, archaeologists found 23 intact skeletons dating to the 19th century interred under the building. The city considered moving the Museum of the City of New York into the courthouse, a proposal favored by the archaeological community because it ensured the legendary building would be accessible to the public and looked after by the museum’s trained staff.

Three years later, however, the city instead chose to turn it into office space for the Board of Education and other city agencies – thereby limiting public access and potentially damaging the restoration, said Rose.

New York Unearthed, the archaeology wing of the South Street Seaport Museum, used to be home to over two million artifacts – spanning more than 400 years of New York City history. But because of budget cuts and a declining audience, last year the museum decided it could not afford to keep the artifacts and arranged to send them to the New York State Museum in Albany, which it is now in the process of doing.

Archaeologists agree that the artifacts will be properly cared for in the state museum, but they lament the loss for the city and its apparent indifference toward losing such valuable objects.

“It’s tragic that a city as wealthy as New York can’t find a way to keep its treasures here,” said Diane Dallal, an archaeologist for AKRF, an environmental planning agency. Dallal was the curator at New York Unearthed until her position was eliminated during the cost-cutting.

“No one really did care” about the artifacts leaving, said Joan Geismar, the president of Professional Archaeologists in New York City (PANYC), a nonprofit. “It’s a pity, because people don’t understand how important these objects are. They tell us about past life, they’re quite extraordinary-looking and they’re great research tools.”

And because New York Unearthed is now used strictly for educational programs promoting archaeology to schoolchildren, there is no centralized location in New York City for archaeologists to study new finds.

“One of the things that is lacking in the city is a repository for archaeological collections,” said Arthur Bankoff, Chairman of the Department of Anthropoloy and Archaeology at Brooklyn College and a special adviser to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. “When something is excavated, there’s no place to put the artifacts that are found, and they wind up scattered all over the place.”

But New York City may have to take a greater interest in its past – at least more than it has recently shown – if an archaeological repository is to become a reality. For Bankoff, the problem is that people don’t recognize the archaeological potential of the city because they associate it with constant construction and development, not preservation.

Nevertheless he is hopeful that development and archaeology can eventually be reconciled, even in New York. “Archaeology doesn’t ever want to stand in the way of development,” he said. “The goal of archaeology is to preserve whatever resources are there, if possible, and if not to make sure that the information they contain about the past isn’t lost. I don’t think there is any reason why both development can’t continue and our knowledge of the past can’t be preserved and expanded at the same time.”

Addendum from the authors

Aug. 8, 2006

Our article originally went to press on Friday, March 3, 2006. Recently, NYC24 received an email from Lisi de Bourbon, the communications director at the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). De Bourbon and her colleague, Amanda Sutphin, the LPC and New York City’s chief archaeologist, disagree with the assessment made by some of the people quoted in the article that the city is losing interest in archaeology.

Because we were unable to reach Ms. Sutphin prior to our original deadline, we are happy to now include her response to some of the topics covered by the article, and we thank Ms. de Bourbon for providing it along with supporting evidence and some new information.

De Bourbon writes that rather than pointing to a lack of interest on the part of the city, “Ms. Sutphin would argue that the City Hall Park and Tweed Courthouse projects actually demonstrate the city’s commitment to archaeology.”

Regarding the City Hall Park reconstruction, de Bourbon writes, “After reviewing the proposed reconstruction of City Hall Park, LPC required that archaeology be completed as part of its approval for the park’s reconstruction. The archaeology consisted of testing and monitoring that were conducted over an eight-month period in 1999. The team included several senior archaeologists and a fieldwork crew of about 20 people. There also was a physical anthropological component, which was overseen by the Smithsonian Institution. All of the work was paid for by the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation. CUNY is finalizing the report detailing the findings of this work.”

And about the Tweed Courthouse, de Bourbon writes, “Tweed Courthouse is located within the African Burial Ground and the Commons Historic District. As such, the subsurface work had to be reviewed and approved by LPC. The archaeology consisted of testing and monitoring that were conducted over a nine-month period in 2000 and 2001. The team was led by a bio-archaeologist and included about 20 people. All of the work was paid for by the city’s Economic Development Corporation. The final report was completed in June 2003.”

De Bourbon provided further comments and information about these topics:

New York Unearthed and a city repository

Ms. de Bourbon writes, “’New York Unearthed’ was a temporary archaeology exhibit and conservation lab run by the South Street Seaport Museum, a private organization.

Indeed, it was a terrific resource and it’s regrettable that the museum limited access and gave the NYC-related archaeological collections to New York State, rather than keeping them here. But given the fact that the city has never had an archaeological repository, it’s unclear how our not having one now indicates that the city cares for archaeology less than it once did.”

The MTA’s New South Ferry Station project

Ms de Bourbon writes, “The archaeological monitoring of the MTA’s New South Ferry Station project was completed on March 15, 2006. As of that date, four large masonry wall fragments were found and identified by archaeologists. Wall 1 was found in the northern part of Battery Park, and measured the entire width of the tunnel (43 feet), and was 8-feet wide, and 2-feet high.”

“Wall 2 was identified just north of the World Trade Center Globe Memorial and measured about 8’ x 7’ x 7.’ Wall 3 was found in the south of the park measuring 90’ long, 8’ wide, and 4’ high and appears to have been constructed through cribbing (wooden land filling devices). Wall 4 was about 120’ long, 8’ wide, and 4’ high. All of the walls were documented by archaeologists and by architectural conservators and then removed.”

“All of Wall 1 and portions of Walls 3 and 4 were retained for later reconstruction. One portion of Wall 1 is now on display in Castle Clinton in Battery Park in an exhibit called, “Walls Within Walls” which was unveiled in June 2006. Going forward, the MTA has promised to display a portion of Wall 3 in the new South Ferry Station and one fragment will be put back into Battery Park where it was found.”

“While it is known that these walls were part of colonial New York’s fortifications, no definitive conclusions can be drawn until the archaeological analysis and additional research are completed.”

“For more information about the initial archaeological potential assessment, the protocols that were used, and information about some of the finds that were, please refer to http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/sft/archaeology.htm”

- Cardiff de Alejo Garcia and Larrison Campbell