sign in sign up
<<
Home , Fort Stanwix, John Bull, Liberty Island, Statue of Liberty

OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS IN FIELD ARCHEOLOGY NUMBER 3

The Ground Beneath Her Feet: The Archeology of , of Liberty National , , New York

ARCHEOLOGY GROUP NORTHEAST REGION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Ground Beneath Her Feet: The Archeology of , National Monument, New York, New York

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE EDITOR OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS IN FIELD ARCHEOLOGY NUMBER 3

The Ground Beneath Her Feet: The Archeology of Liberty Island, Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York, New York

William A. Griswold Editor

CONTRIBUTORS

William A. Griswold

Tonya Baroody Largy

Lucinda McWeeney

David Perry

Dorothy Richter

Sarah Whitcher

ARCHEOLOGY GROUP NORTHEAST REGION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2003 Contents

LIST OF FIGURES v 7 WHAT DOES IT ALL LIST OF TABLES v MEAN? 53

SUMMARY vi William Griswold

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii 8 WHY BOTHER DOING 1. HOW IT ALL GOT THE ARCHEOLOGY? 57 STARTED 1 William Griswold William Griswold GLOSSARY 61 2. YOU MEAN THE ISLAND HAS BEEN USED FOR THE PAST THOUSAND YEARS? 5

William Griswold

3. THE EARLY ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH 17

William Griswold

4. THE HARD SCIENCE BEHIND THE MOST RECENT EXCAVATIONS 23

Dorothy Richter

5. DIGGING INTO MORE THAN DIRT 29

Flora by Lucinda McWeeney, Perry, and Tonya Largy Fauna by Tonya Largy Artifacts by William Griswold

6 WHAT ABOUT THOSE BUILDINGS 39

Fauna by Tonya Largy and Sarah Whitcher Artifacts by William Griswold LIST OF FIGURES 6.2 Location of units excavated in 2000 41 2.1 Map showing the location of Liberty Island 6 6.3 Overlays of various maps and test pit locations at the 2.2 1766 Map of the island North end of the island 43 (Courtesy of the National Archives) 10 6.4 A portion of the 1766 map overlaid by the geophysical 2.3 Photograph of Fort Wood testing map and the 2000 in 1865 12 excavations 45

2.4 Photograph of the island 6.5 Two military buttons found in 1933 13 during the excavations 49

3.1 Photograph of the 1960s 6.6 Tobacco Pipe fragments construction of the AMI 18 found during the excavations 50

3.2 Photograph of the 1985 excavations 19 LIST OF TABLES

3.3 Illustration of Feature 1 from 2.1 Prehistoric Periods of the the 1985 excavations 20 Lower Hudson Valley 7

3.4 Projectile point found during the 1985 excavations 21

4.1 Example of a feature detected by GPR 25

4.2 Map showing the results of the geophysical survey 26

5.1 Map showing the location of the units tested 31

5.2 Photograph of the midden as exposed in 1999 32

5.3 Photomicrographs of parenchymatous tissue samples 34

5.4 Photograph of a Woodland ceramic fragment 36

6.1 Arial photograph of the island during the 1940 demolition 40 Summary

This book has been written to inform the history of the island. In keeping with the public about the information gathered from goals of the National Park Service’s mission the recently completed three-year of public education, this book has been archeological project on Liberty Island, New written for a general audience. York, NY. The first year, or more accurately While individual goals were established the first season, of the project was devoted prior to each season, the overall goals for the to thorough, but not exhaustive, project were to develop baseline documentary investigation of the island. archeological data for the island to assist During this time, numerous libraries and park managers in decision-making and to archives were visited in an attempt to collect update the archeological information as much information as possible about the available about the island to inform the island’s history and prehistory. Excavations public. The collection of baseline were conducted on a prehistoric shell information is seen as the starting point for midden during the second year. This shell later research rather than the ending point midden had first been identified in 1985 for the three-year study. during the restoration of the statue. Along with the excavation of the shell midden a geophysical survey was conducted on approximately 2/3 of the island. Several non-invasive prospecting techniques were used to identify buried archeological resources on the island including Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic Induction (EM) and Magnetometer. The final year of the project was dedicated to ground truthing, or verifying, the results of the geophysical survey. The data collected from the archaeological investigations on the island, made famous by the erection of Auguste Bertholdi’s “Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World,” add additional insight concerning the use of the island during its prehistoric and historic past. Until now, the history and prehistory of the island have rested in the shadows of the much more well-known statue. This book attempts to remedy this situation and to communicate the equally interesting prehistory and early Acknowledgments

The editor would like to acknowledge Finally, I would like to thank those several people who were instrumental in the individuals who aided me in excavating the success of this project. The key individual site, processing the artifacts, and cataloging for getting the project started was Diana the plethora of materials. Included among Pardue, Chief of Museum Services. Her these are Jesse Ponz, Priscilla Brendler, enthusiasm, encouragement, and prompt Natalie Liberace, and Mary Troy, Ann support were always appreciated. Also Chancey, May Faulk, Emily Lindveit, among the management at Liberty Island, I Weston Davies and Frederica Dimmick. would like to thank Diane Dayson, Several of the contributors to this Superintendent, Cynthia Young, Deputy draft report deserve recognition for Superintendent (now acting Superintendent), operating with academic expertise under the Frank Mills, Deputy Superintendent, Walter constraining government time schedule. I Fleming, Deputy Chief of Maintenance and would personally like to thank Dr. Lucinda Peter O’Dougherty, Chief, Maintenance McWeeney, Dr. David Perry, and Dr. Sarah Division. Museum staff who aided us in our Whitcher for their contributions to this investigations included Judith Giuriceo, report. I would also like to thank Dr. Curator of Exhibits and Media, Geraldine Elizabeth Chilton for her help in identifying Santoro, Curator of Collections, Stephen the prehistoric ceramics. Dr. Gerald Kelso Keane, Registrar, Sydney Onikul, Museum also deserves recognition for his earlier Technician, Kathy Garofalo, Museum work on the pollen of Liberty Island. Tonya Technician, Eugene Kuziw, Park Ranger, Largy deserves special recognition for her and Ruby Hopkins, Personnel Officer. multiple contributions to this book. Her The editor would also like to extend involvement on the 1985, 1999 and 2000 a gesture of thanks to the Building and seasons generated consistency for the Utilities crew on Liberty, chief among them project. I would also like to thank Sarah Jeff Marrazzo, B&U Foreman, who Peabody Turnbaugh who did the editing for generously shared their shop with us so that the technical brief that we published in we could store our equipment. We also owe 2002. Some of the chapters that Sarah did a debt of gratitude to the Park Police who her wordsmithing wonders on have been shared their residence with us as a incorporated in part in the present book. laboratory so that washing, sorting and Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. flotation could be done. Steven Pendery for his useful comments on Logistically, working on an island is this book. Don Marquis, retired Social a trying experience. Unlike working on Studies Department Head at Nashua High most sites, if you need something, or forget School in Nashua, New Hampshire and my something, you can not simply go and get it. wife Robyn Griswold, deserve special A round trip boat ride could take as much as thanks for helping me to focus the writing of two hours. We would like to thank the the text and the organization of the book. captains and staff of Liberty IV and the Tonya Largy would like to thank the Circle Line boats for transportation each many scientists that contributed to the faunal day, and for making those special analysis over the last 14 years. In the allowances for unscheduled trips. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Department of Icthyology, Harvard College, graciously examined the pelican University, Dr. Melanie L. J. Stiassny, bones at my request. I benefited greatly from Assistant Curator, and Mr. Karsten E. discussions with Dr. Frank Dirrigl, Jr., Hartel, Curatorial Associate, assisted with University of Connecticut. Dr. Richard H. fish identifications. Mr. Peter Burns helped Meadow, Director of the Zooarchaeology in identification of fish bone from the 1999 Laboratory, Peabody Museum, Harvard excavation. Mr. Jose Rosado, Department of University, offered work and storage space Herpetology, aided the identification of as well as immeasurable support and advice, salamander bones in 1999. In the as always. Finally, I thank Mr. Dick Ping Department of Malacology, David Backus, Hsu, retired NPS Northeast Regional Curatorial Assistant, identified gastropods Archeologist, for the opportunity both to from the 1985 excavation, and in 1999, Mr. participate in the 1985 fieldwork and to Adam J. Baldinger, Curatorial Associate, study that material. I also thank Dr. William assisted with bivalve identifications. Dr. A. Griswold, National Park Service Raymond Paynter, Department of Archeologist and Project Manager for the Ornithology, also offered advice and use of 1999 excavation, for the opportunity to his department's comparative collection. Dr. finally assist in the analysis and reporting of David C. Parris, Curator, Bureau of Science, both data sets. While acknowledging State Museum, shared assistance from those listed, I fully accept unpublished faunal data from the Pennell responsibility for any errors or omissions in site in Little Egg Harbor Township, Ocean data. , New Jersey. Dr. Thomas Amorosi, Department of Anthropology, Hunter CHAPTER ONE HOW IT ALL GOT STARTED

William Griswold, Ph.D.

National Park Service, Northeast Archeology Group

In 1992 the National Park Service began a CRPP programs have funds attached to them and program to record all of the archeological both are often used to fund archeological work resources within parks. Known as the SAIP within the NPS. The three years, or more program, which stands for the Systemwide accurately three seasons, worth of work on the Archeological Inventory Program, it is intended island, have been funded from both SAIP and to be a long-term effort to collect basic CRPP sources. archeological information on parks within the Much of the archeological information NPS system. The guidebook written for the that had been collected before 1992 at Liberty program states: Island had been the result of compliance-related research. Section 106 of the National Historic “The goal is to conduct Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates that Federal systematic, scientific research to Agencies take into account the effects of their locate, evaluate, and document actions on properties within their care that are in, archeological resources under or eligible for, inclusion in the National NPS stewardship. Whether the Register. For archeologists this means that purpose is to make resources Federal Agencies must assess the impact that available for enjoyment by the any ground-disturbing project may have on the people or to conserve them archeological deposits. unimpaired for future For example, let’s say that XYZ park is generations, the most proposing to dig a trench to put in a new fundamental step is to know the telephone line. Part of the park’s legal resources. Resulting information requirements then are to figure out what damage about the location, the installation of this utility will have on the characteristics, and significance archeological resources. In order to do that, of archeological resources will archeologists will dig holes along the path of the enable planners and managers to proposed utility and try to figure out what, if make better informed, more anything, was there and how it will be impacted effective, and less costly by the proposed disturbance. Also known as decisions about park compliance, this type of research often leaves management, operations, and archeologists with a great deal of data on one development.” area of a site and virtually no information on other areas. Before the SAIP program was The SAIP program is part of a much begun, often what was known about a site was larger Cultural Resource Preservation Program the sum-total of compliance projects. This often (CRPP). The CRPP, as the name implies, is a resulted in a one-sided presentation of data to program to manage, not only archeological the public. resources, but all cultural resources within the To counter the one-sided presentation of National Park Service including cultural data, the SAIP and CRPP projects began to fund landscapes, structures, museum objects, and a more systematic collection of data on sites ethnographic resources. Both the SAIP and the within parks. For a little more than a decade

1 now, these programs have been funding much of remote sensing survey of approximately 2/3 of the basic archeological data collection in parks. the island, and the excavation of numerous test- Since all of the projects submitted compete for pits to verify the remote-sensing results. limited dollars, we were very lucky in obtaining In 1999, excavation of the earlier the funds to conduct various stages of research discovered prehistoric site was begun. The on the island. The Liberty Island project is one excavation of a utility trench in 1985, during of the first sites in the northern part of the restoration of the statue, had sliced through a Northeast Region to have the full range of shell midden. A shell midden is an archeological archeological information collected on it through term used to describe a trash heap made the use of the two funding programs. primarily of shell and shell fragments from Publications on the results of work on other sites clams, , scallops, etc. that represents the within the northern part of the Northeast Region final stages of food procurement. In other words, are expected to follow. it is what remains after you have eaten your There are several types of studies seafood meal. Dick Ping Hsu, then Regional described in the NPS-28 (the National Park Archeologist, recruited several individuals to aid Service’s Cultural Resource Management in the examination and documentation of the Guidelines) to collect basic archeological site. However, only three days were given to the information. The first is the Archeological initial investigations. Nevertheless, soil, shell, Overview and Assessment (OA). This and pollen samples were collected, and very document, as defined in NPS-28, is written to preliminary analysis was begun. Budgetary identify and evaluate potential archeological constraints limited the amount of fieldwork that resources through a thorough investigation of was done during the 1985 investigations. the existing records, documents, and reports. Likewise, money was not available for the The four-part purpose of the OA for Liberty flotation or pollen analysis to be written up, or Island, done in 1998, was to: (1) add to the for the site report to be prepared. earlier archeological and historical research; (2) Funding was obtained to complete the identify archeological sites that could be analysis and to document the site more damaged by construction or maintenance thoroughly. There were four goals for the 1999 projects; (3) synthesize archeological and project. The first goal was to complete the documentary data about the site; and (4) identify analysis of the 1985 research on the fauna areas for additional research. After several (animal and fish bones and shells) and flora months of research, an OA was completed for (plant remains) obtained from flotation. Liberty Island in 1998. Flotation, as will be discussed in more detail in Another type of study used to collect later chapters, is a process used to separate small basic information within a park is the Site bits of plant and animal remains for Identification Study (Site ID). The purpose of a identification and analysis. The second goal site identification study is to gather additional involved limited excavation of additional test information about a site through fieldwork. The pits within the midden. These limited site identification study can take many forms. excavations were conducted to recover While it is most often conducted following the additional samples needed to complete the Overview and Assessment, the site identification faunal and floral analysis. The third goal of the study can involve focused archeological work on 1999 project was to define the size of the site, so a known site, a geophysical survey of a site, or that it could be protected from any further survey work designed to locate additional disturbance. Production of a report summarizing archeological sites. Other variations are also all of the 1985 and 1999 research results was the seen in the site identification study. fourth goal. A technical brief, written for We were lucky enough to have all three scholars, describing the results of both the 1985 types of identification studies funded and and 1999 archeological projects was published conducted on Liberty Island. The Site IDs for limited distribution in 2002. conducted on Liberty Island included an Another component of the 1999 investigation of a prehistoric shell midden, a investigations involved a remote-sensing survey

2 of the island. The remote sensing investigations the chapters included in this book. This has been used equipment that did not disturb the ground done for several reasons, but most importantly but gave us an idea of what archeological for readability. resources might be buried in different areas of the island. The remote sensing investigations Sources and Further Reading were conducted on approximately 8 of the nearly 13 acres of the island; the modern 20th-century The National Park Service has produced landfills which expanded the island were not several booklets and manuals, which detail the included in the geophysical component. The various archeological programs. These equipment used included Ground Penetrating documents, used by NPS archeologists, provide Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic Induction (EM), standards for doing federal archeology. The and a Magnetometer. most important of these documents include NPS- The archeological excavations 28, Cultural Resources Management Guidelines, completed during May and June of 2000 were Release Number 4 (U.S. Department of the done to verify, or ground-truth, the results of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, remote sensing investigations. In our opinion D.C. 1994) and the Systemwide Archeological this step was necessary because the remote Inventory Program (U.S. Department of the sensing equipment is not always accurate. In Interior, National Park Service, Washington, several cases, remote sensing equipment has D.C. 1992). Several web sites are also available provided either false positives (identified to the public for various NPS excavations. These features and deposits which do not exist) or false can be found by browsing at the main NPS web negatives (features and deposits which do exist site, www.nps.gov but are not detected by geophysical This general-interest book is not the first investigations). Fifty-five 0.5 x 0.5 meter test book to be published on the Liberty Island pits were excavated on Liberty Island, some to project. In 2002, we published a scholarly investigate anomalies identified by the remote volume on the shell midden excavations. This sensing and others to assess areas where book, edited by William Griswold, is titled anomalies were not noted. The results of these Archeology of a Prehistoric Shell Midden, investigations were presented in a 2001 report. Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York The following chapters will expand (Archeology Branch, Northeast Region, upon the various stages of research outlined here National Park Service, Department of the and reveal what we have uncovered from the Interior 2002). It was distributed to interested ground surrounding the statue. While written scholars and university libraries throughout the with a scholarly audience in mind, this region. monograph is intended not only for the scholar, but also for the educated layman, in keeping with the NPS mission of public education. In some cases, I have taken a heavy hand in editing

3 CHAPTER TWO

YOU MEAN THE ISLAND HAS BEEN USED FOR THE PAST THOUSAND YEARS?

William Griswold

National Park Service, Northeast Archeology Group

The geographic location of Liberty Island, moraines are visible just to the south on formerly Bedloe’s Island, greatly affected its and . Presently, use and development. This was true for both Liberty Island is relatively flat due to the prehistoric, or era before Europeans modern construction and landscape changes. arrived, and the historic periods. I will The whole island presently conforms to an attempt to briefly summarize the prehistory NPS landscape design that, with some and history of Liberty Island in this chapter. alterations, began in the 1930s. Mid-18th- Brief summaries are necessary to understand century maps, however, give some the archeological discoveries that will be indication as to what the original island discussed later. Because archeological might have looked like prior to modern information is generally broad-based, alterations. These early maps were not, summaries of the prehistoric periods will however, drawn to the standards of modern involve more that the island itself. maps, but they do denote high spots, low Archeological information from the Lower spots, and buildings. The original natural Hudson Valley, New York, New , elevations probably no more than 15 to and even the Northeast will be discussed. 20 feet above mean sea level. With the advent of European settlement, As an island in , more specific information is available for Liberty straddles two different Liberty Island. The ’ rich and colorful environmental systems. It is near the end of history is also briefly discussed. the 350-mile long , one of the major waterways into the interior of the country. The Hudson River starts at a small THE ENVIRONMENT lake in the Adirondacks and is fed by many different tributaries on its southward journey Liberty Island is a small 12.7-acre before it flows into the Atlantic Ocean. island in New York Harbor. As a remnant of Liberty Island is part of the Lower Hudson last glacial age, it is composed of sand and Valley environment, but is practically at the small stones deposited as the glaciers mouth of the Hudson River. retreated. The last glacial advance, during Liberty Island is also a harbor island the Wisconsin Glaciation, covered this and, as such, is part of the coastal landscape. portion of the harbor with terminal Surrounded by relatively shallow waters, moraines, large hills made of scoured and Liberty Island and neighboring churned material that mark the furthest were very early on known as two of the advance of the glaciers. These terminal three “Oyster Islands” in “Oyster Bay”

5 Figure 2.1 Map showing the location of Liberty Island. indicating some of the shellfish which could would have supported a variety of large be found there. The third island is now animals (fauna) and plants (flora). The rate submerged. The mixing of fresh water from at which the sea level rose varied through the Hudson and the salt water from the time, however, according to Kardas and Atlantic, creates an in the harbor, an Larrabee, Ellis and Liberty Islands would ideal environment for many fish, shellfish, have started out as low hills on the animals and birds. mainland. As sea levels gradually rose due Liberty Island was not always an to the melting of the glaciers, Liberty and island. The glaciers that covered the harbor Ellis Islands would have been gradually reached their maximum expansion sometime enveloped in a marsh and only recently around 20,000 years ago. According to (geologically speaking) would Liberty Kardas and Larrabee, two scholars who Island have become an island in the true wrote an assessment of the geology and sense of the word. paleoenvironment of neighboring Ellis The entire surface of the island has Island, overall sea level dropped some 300 been redone several times during its history. to 400 feet during glaciation. The As a result all of the native plants and continental shelf exposed by the glaciers animals have long since vanished.

6 Therefore, it is difficult to determine what following section briefly summarizes the once might have been there. However, prehistoric periods in the area. following the retreat of the glaciers, Liberty Island and the lands of the Lower Hudson were covered by stands of various types of Paleo-Indian Period hardwood forests that in turn supported a wide variety of large and small forest The term “Paleo-Indian” denotes animals like deer, raccoon, fox, and turkey the era of the earliest human occupation in just to name a few. This area of the the New World (Table 2.1). Both the timing continent would have offered numerous of the migration(s) and the route(s) that the resources to people when they first earliest immigrants took are contested appeared. issues, especially in light of recent discoveries made in South America. In THE PREHISTORY addition to the migration of people over the Bering Land Bridge during the last While many visitors journey to glaciation, possible other routes include both Liberty Island, most don’t realize that many the Pacific Rim, via Japan and China, and things happened on the island before the the North Atlantic. These ancient Statue of Liberty was built. Some visitors newcomers quickly spread out over the arrive on the island with the mistaken belief Western Hemisphere and hunted animals that the island was built for the statue. The and gathered plants to survive. Fluted

Period Dates

Paleo-Indian 12,000 BP – 10,000 BP

Early Archaic 10,000 BP – 8,000 BP

Middle Archaic 8,000 BP – 6,000 BP

Late Archaic 6,000 BP – 3,000 BP

Early Woodland 3,000 BP – 2,000 BP

Middle Woodland 2,000 BP- 1,000 BP

Late Woodland 1,000 BP – 400 BP

Contact Period Post 400 BP

Table 2.1 Prehistoric Periods of the Lower Hudson Valley

7 projectile points known as Clovis, so named hunt and gather. Archeologists generally because of the stone flaking technique that break down the Archaic period further into left a “flute” on the obverse and reverse Early (10,000–8,000 BP), Middle (8,000– sides, are characteristic artifacts from the 6,000 BP), and Late (6,000–3,000 BP) period. While radiocarbon dates have been subperiods. As with the Paleo-Indian period, obtained for a couple of sites in the the Early and Middle Archaic are not well Northeast prior to 12,000 years ago, or known within the region. 12,000 before present (BP) in archeological Assessments of the Archaic lingo, most scholars prefer a date of about environment by McWeeney and Kellogg 12,000 BP for human entry into the show that the climate fluctuated. Forests northeastern . continued to dominate the landscape of the The environment of the Paleo- Northeast and these forests continued to Indian period was different than the present attract various large and small animals. environment. Contrary to some earlier Archeological discoveries suggests that both portrayals, McWeeney and Kellogg argue Paleo-Indian and earlier Archaic economies that the glaciers had been gone for several were mainly based on the hunting and thousand years before man first arrived on gathering of interior food resources with the scene about 12,000 years ago. When specialized camps located around inland humans first arrived they found a mosaic of lakes and river falls. Raw site numbers, in forests which supported numerous plants conjunction with artifact numbers, suggest and animals. Liberty Island, as well as other that a more favorable environment in the islands in New York Harbor, was still Northeast supported a much larger attached to the mainland at this time. population in the Late Archaic. While The archeological evidence for the agriculture and plant domestication was Paleo-Indian Period in southern New York occurring in other parts of the Western is fragmentary and incomplete. The fact that Hemisphere, the Northeast did not Paleo-Indian artifacts have been found in participate in this transformation at this the area indicates that time. Native were in the region, but we Hunting and gathering was not don’t have a great deal of information like limited to the land. Marine resources were we do for later periods. The rising ocean also gathered, with shell fish constituting an levels have undoubtedly covered up many important archeological resource of the sites which are either below sea level or period. Shell middens are the leftovers from covered up by drowned river valleys. harvesting shellfish, and in the case of the Research into the Paleo-Indian period is Lower Hudson Valley, they are usually however, continuing and the data acquired made up of oyster shell. That is not to say, about the period is becoming much more however, that are the only shells in interdisciplinary, allowing information to be the midden. Other types of shell (clam, gathered from a variety of sources. cohog, etc.) are also found along with a variety of other things like plant remnants and animal bones. These middens vary in The Archaic Period time, size, depth, and composition. All of the calcium contained in the shells helps to The fluted points that characterize neutralize the acids in the soils and the earlier Paleo-Indian period have preserves artifacts and ecofacts. Ecofacts disappeared by the time the Archaic period are products of the environment, like seeds begins approximately 10,000 years ago. The and nutshells, that are preserved in the Native Americans, however, continued to archeological record. Analysis of the shell

8 middens not only offers insight into the terrestrial, oceanic, estuarine, and riverine eating habits of the Native Americans, but resources at different times of the year. also can add information about where they Perhaps this availability of resources settled, when they moved, what they did forestalled the development of domesticates when at the sites, what they traded, and that was occurring elsewhere. Without a where they got raw materials. For these need, the movement to cultivation and the reasons, shell middens represent a very reliance upon a staple crop simply may not valuable source of information to have been necessary in this coastal area. archeologists.

The Woodland Period The Contact Period

Dramatic changes in technology, While European contact actually subsistence, and settlements mark the happened in the 16th century with Woodland period (3,000 – 400 BP). The Verazzano, it was the Dutch who first settled Liberty Island shell midden dates to this in the area. The Dutch came to the New time period. In the Northeast, as elsewhere, World looking for a Northwest passage the widespread use of ceramics has defined through the continent, hoping to capitalize the Woodland period. According to Ritchie, on the silks, spices, and other exotics that the earliest Northeast pottery type, called lay to the east in the Old World. Earlier Vinette I, appeared on Long Island around repeated attempts had failed, but the Dutch 3,000 BP. Changes in vessel types, used Henry Hudson in 1609 to again attempt composition, and decoration are now used to to find a passage. While his efforts were separate and classify the divisions within the ultimately unsuccessful, Hudson did manage Woodland period instead of projectile to give the a place in the New points. Most scholars break down the period World. With the advent of the Contact into three sub-periods: Early Woodland, period our ability to tell the tale of the past 3,000 – 2,000 BP; Middle Woodland, 2,000 improves. - 1,000 BP; and Late Woodland, 1,000 – 400 Many groups of Native Americans BP. The bow and arrow appeared during this inhabited the area through which Hudson time and became a very effective hunting traveled. Furs and pelts acquired from the weapon. Later in the Woodland period, Indians were extraordinarily important items plants, most notably corn but also beans, for European markets. In exchange for these squash, and sunflower, were domesticated. furs and pelts the Europeans traded a variety Cultivation of crops became increasingly of houseware, hunting and personal important in people’s diets, at least for those adornment items. in the inland areas. The people in the interior regions of the Northeast became at least THE HISTORY semi-settled if not sedentary during this period, and trade flourished. Several individuals have written Neither Vinette-type ceramics nor detailed summaries of the history of domesticated plants have been recovered Bedloe’s Island, now known as Liberty from the Liberty Island site, to date. Island. I am greatly indebted to them for However, analyses of other material doing the footwork for the research. The suggests that the Liberty Island shell midden following summary is drawn directly from site is representative of coastal sites of this Levine’s History of Bedloe’s Island, Stokes’ period. The inhabitants of the region around The Iconography of Island, New York Harbor could draw upon Pitkin’s “Summary Structural History of

9 Fort Wood,” and Means’ “Fort Wood and original homeland’s lack of support of the Bedloe’s Island” all of which are cited at the colonists, Bedloo changed allegiances to end of the chapter. Readers interested in England after the occupation in 1664. more detail than this summary provides are Before that time, however, he had aspired to encouraged to consult these works. several Dutch military and governmental appointments. The Colonial Period — Bedloe’s Island, After Isaack Bedloo’s death, the 1609–1794 island passed down to his daughter Mary Bedlow Smith. Smith, after acquiring legal Nicholls first granted the interest in the island from her siblings, went island known today as Liberty Island to a through a form of bankruptcy and sold the Captain Needham on December 23, 1667. island to Adolph Philipse and Henry Lane, Needham then sold it to Isaac Bedloo. New York merchants, in 1732. Isaack Bedloo (a.k.a Isaac, Isaacq Bedloe, During Philipse’s and Lane’s Bedlow), a merchant and shipowner, was the ownership the City commandeered the first owner of the island when it was under island as a station to prevent English control. Disappointed with his smallpox from being brought into the

Figure 2.2 1766 Map of the Island (Courtesy of the National Archives)

10 colony. On January 22, 1746, Archibald view of , , Kennedy, Earl of Cassiles, purchased the Ellis Island, and the New Jersey shore. The island. Kennedy was appointed collector and Corporation of New York opened receiver general of the Port of New York, an discussions in 1794 as to whether or not office that he held more than 40 years, from Bedloe’s Island should be granted to the 1722 to 1763. He is said to have bought the State of New York for the purpose of island to use as a summer residence. erecting fortifications to defend the city. Kennedy was responsible for recording These negotiations contained a stipulation these early deed transactions. that when the island was no longer used for By 1753 Bedloe’s Island had a fortification it should revert back to the “Dwelling-House and Light-House” on it Corporation. Slightly later, in 1796, the and supported a variety of food sources. French, who had earlier been granted use of Beginning around 1756 the island was again the island, were asked to leave. For a while used as a quarantine station. Aldermen were the island then served a dual purpose, part as later sent from the Corporation of New York a fort and part as a pest house. The island to buy Bedloe’s Island from Kennedy for was finally delivered to the State of New not more than 1,000 pounds and to erect York on November 2, 1796. upon it a pest house, or quarantine station. Colonel Jonathan Williams, The island was finally sold to the city on superintendent of West Point and chief of February 18, 1758, with payments made on the U.S. Army Engineers, was appointed in June 20, July 20, September 19, and 1807 to survey the defense needs of New November 13, 1759 for the erection of the York Harbor. Several people realized that pest house. the defense system for New York Harbor The island was leased periodically was inadequate to repel an organized attack. to various tenants for the next few years President Thomas Jefferson approved the when not being occupied as a quarantine plan to fortify the harbor that Williams, Vice station. Shortly thereafter, the British used President George Clinton, and Secretary of the island to house Tory refugees during the War Henry Dearborn proposed, and Revolution. As tension between the Williams was instructed to carry it out. In American colonists and the British mounted 1814, war-governor Daniel Tompkins the rebels attacked the island, burned the named these fortifications Fort Wood in buildings, and made off with the British memory of Eleazer Wood, “a distinguished entrenching tools in April of 1776. hero in the Battle of Fort Erie”. Following the Revolution, the Corporation These constructions survived the rented the island to various tenants when it without being attacked. was not serving as a quarantine station. The However, years of neglect had taken their French are noted to have erected buildings toll on the constructions by 1820, and the here in the 1790s, but no information was fortifications were described in an Army found concerning their type or report to be in ruinous condition. Drawings configuration. made in 1839 illustrate that the scarp had suffered substantial deterioration, with some The Coastal Defense Period, 1794–1877 breaches in the fortifications evident. These same illustrations revealed that the After the Revolution, people fortifications were earthen at the core, faced realized the strategic importance of Bedloe’s with masonry. Island for the defense of New York City Beginning in 1844 many changes Harbor. Situated as it was within New York were made in the fort according to Pitkin. Harbor, Bedloe’s Island provided a clear The scarp and main gate were repaired; the

11 Figure 2.3 Photograph of Fort Wood in 1865. sallyport was rebuilt; a new magazine, represented a joint effort by the two nations, drawbridge, and armaments were added; and with providing the statue and the the water magazine was greatly expanded. United States erecting the pedestal on which After 1851, Fort Wood also served as a it would stand. recruiting depot and ordinance depot. In the A presidential proclamation following 80 years numerous structures declared the Statue of Liberty a national developed all over the island. monument on October 15, 1924. The War In 1877 the island was selected as Department, however, continued to the site for the erection of Auguste administer the remainder of the island. In Bartholdi’s statue of “Liberty Enlightening 1933 the Statue of Liberty National the World.” The Statue of Liberty was a gift Monument was transferred to the from the people of France to the people of Department of the Interior, National Park the United States in recognition of the Service. Control over the rest of the island centennial of independence and the alliance was consolidated with that of the statue on between France and America during the September 7, 1937. It was at this time that . The monument the entirety of Liberty Island was first

12 Figure 2.4. Photograph of the island in 1933. conceptualized as a background for the French, and Americans. It is fortuitous that statue. Norman T. Newton, a National Park the island and the statue are, in addition to Service landscape architect, designed the being one of the jewels of the island’s 1937 master plan, which began to National Park Service, also a World be implemented the same year. In Heritage Site, denoting the site’s importance subsequent years the island’s landscape was to the world. transformed, and all of the structures from the Fort Wood period were torn down to implement the landscape design. The Sources and Further Reading buildings present at the northern end of the island are support buildings and residential Numerous books, articles, papers units dating from the 1940’s and 1950’s. and manuscripts were read for the Several alterations have taken place over the development of this chapter. Most of these past 65 years of National Park Service are highly scientific, but will provide ownership, but Newton’s overall design valuable information to the individual concept for the island remains. wanting more, detailed information on the As one can see, Liberty Island has a selected topics. Most of the information rich history. At some point in time, the used in this chapter comes from these island was used by various groups including scholarly works. Susan Kardas and Edward the Native Americans, Dutch, British, Larrabee’s “Report of Archeological

13 Resources Probability and Significance and development for the New York City area. Recommendations for Protection, Ferry Slip Unearthing Gotham probably provides the and Approach Channel, Ellis Island,” best information on what was happening on prepared specifically for the National Park Liberty Island because of its close proximity Service in 1976 evaluated Ellis and Liberty to the island. I would be remiss if I didn’t Island’s paleoenvironment and geological mention any of the often groundbreaking development. This manuscript along with works by Dena Dincauze. Dincauze’s Robert Funk’s 1976 Recent Contributions to prolific publications can be found in Hudson Valley Prehistory, New York State numerous books and journals. Several Museum, Memoir 22 were used to construct important journal articles have also been the Environment section of this chapter. For published that provide a regional perspective the latest paleoenvironmental information on prehistoric development. These include readers should see Lucinda McWeeney’s Lucy Lavin’s article “Coastal Adaptations in and Douglas Kellogg’s article “Early and Southern and Southern New Middle Holocene Climate Changes and York,” Archeology of Eastern North Settlement Patterns along the Eastern Coast America 16:101-120 (1988), and K. of North America” in Archaeology of Lightfoot, O Lindauer, and L. Wick’s 1984 Eastern North America 29:187-212 (2001). “Coastal New York Settlement Patterns: A This article was used for much of the Perspective from Shelter Island,” (Man in paleoenvironmental information in this the Northeast 30:59-82 (1984), and H.F. chapter. The interested reader is also Schaper’s “Shell Middens in the Lower encouraged to read the entire issue of Hudson Valley,” New York State Discovering Archaeology 2 (2000) which Archaeological Association Bulletin 98: 13- contains several articles on possible 24 (1989). If the reader is interested in migration routes to the New World. reading more concerning the controversy Several books have been written with excavating a shell midden, they should that provide very good summaries of read the different perspectives presented by Northeastern prehistory as reflected through Dena Dincause and Bruce Borque in the archeology. The classic work is William Review of Archaeology 17(1) (1998); J. K. Ritchie’s, The Archaeology of New York Stein’s book (ed.), Deciphering a Shell State (Purple Mountain Press, New York Midden (Academic Press, New York et. al., reprinted 1994). Ritchie’s work provides a 1992) contains an extensive bibliography on detailed regional and chronological shell middens. development for different groups as In addition to the regional expressed through the archeological summaries mentioned above, several remains. Another book that provides a more scholars have written summaries based on regional perspective on the development of site excavations. Several books are prehistory is The Archaeological Northeast, especially important when looking at edited by Mary Ann Levine, Kenneth E. Liberty Island. These include David Sassaman, and Michael S. Nassanney Bernstein’s Prehistoric Subsistence on the (Bergin & Garvey: Westport, Connecticut Southern New England Coast: The Record and London 1999). Anne-Marie Cantwell’s from Narragansett Bay (Academic Press, and Diana diZerega Wall’s new book, Inc. New York, et.al. 1993), Cheryl Unearthing Gotham: The Archaeology of Claassen’s Dogan Point: A Shell Matrix Site New York City, (Yale University Press, New in the Lower Hudson Valley. (Occasional Haven and London 2001) provides a Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, readable account of the prehistoric No. 14, 1995), and Bruce Borque’s Diversity

14 and Complexity in Prehistoric Maritime Societies: A Gulf of Perspective (Plenum: New York and London 1995). Numerous important summary articles have been written about the Contact period and the Native American groups encountered by the Europeans. The classic source for information on these groups comes from the Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15, the Northeast edited by Bruce G. Trigger (Smithsonian Institution: Washington 1978). Chapters by Brasser, Goddard and Salwen are particularly informative for the greater New York City area. H. C. Kraft’s 1991 article, The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Lower Hudson Valley and Neighboring Regions: Essays in Honor of Louis A. Brennan, (Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology No. 11) is also an important source of information. As mentioned in the chapter, several detailed studies have been done on the history of Liberty Island. Unfortunately, these works are all in manuscript form and are not commercially available. These include G. S. Mean’s 1934 “Fort Wood and Bedloe’s Island,” in History of the Statue of Liberty, B. Levine’s 1952 “History of Bedloe’s Island,” unpublished Master’s Thesis, , and Thomas Pitkin’s 1956 “Summary Structural History of Fort Wood.”

15 CHAPTER THREE THE EARLY ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

William Griswold

National Park Service, Northeast Archeology Group

Prior to the initiation of the current Museum of Immigration has moved to Ellis archeological investigations very little Island. archeology had been done at the site. While John Cotter took numerous under NPS control since 1937, only three photographs and prepared a short report archeological projects took place on the documenting his work. The photographs in island. The earliest was conducted by John the collection include eighteen color and Cotter, who observed the excavation of the forty-one black and white pictures of the fill between the walls of Fort Wood and the Manhattan skyline and the construction pedestal of the statue in the early 1960s. activities happening on Liberty Island. An More than twenty years separated Cotter’s unsigned four-page report, presumably work and the next archeological project written by Cotter was also found which conducted by Dick Hsu in 1985. Hsu and described the who, what, when, why, where, three other individuals performed only a few and how of the new construction. Cotter days of salvage excavation on a Woodland made two trips to the site between period shell midden when it was discovered November and December of 1961. The goal in 1985. Before beginning the current of the project was written by Cotter on the project, I also did work on the island in 1997 first page of the report. It was to “to salvage for a compliance project. The three test pits a small collection of artifacts and a excavated for the project observed disturbed minimum of data which would otherwise deposits and will not be discussed further. have been lost” and collecting artifacts and This chapter will instead concentrate on taking photographs of the site. He tried “to Cotter’s and Hsu’s excavations and what relate structures with elements of Fort Wood was learned by them. and the previous quarantine station which occupied the site as referred to in historian Thomas Pitkin’s historical report”. John Cotter’s Excavations (1961-1963) The photographs clearly illustrate the dismal conditions under which the John Cotter intermittently monitored artifacts were collected. Large-scale earth construction-related excavations at the moving equipment was brought in to remove Statue of Liberty between 1961 and 1963. the fill deposited between the statue’s During this time, the fill that had been pedestal and the ramparts of Fort Wood. The dumped between the stone walls of Fort photographs clearly show that the bulldozers Wood and the base of the pedestal for the used for the project were on tracks, statue was removed. This was done for the compounding the damage done to any construction of the American Museum of archeological deposit. This work was Immigration (AMI). Since then, the accomplished in just about a month’s time.

17 Figure 3.1 Photograph of the 1960s construction of the AMI.

Large earthen ramps were built over the Dick Hsu’s Excavations (1985) walls of Fort Wood to remove the fill rather than breaching the fortifications. Archeological excavations were Cotter notes the general location of done in 1985 on the of the main the collected items. Undoubtedly, all he approach to the statue along a utility trench could do was to walk around the area being excavated for the restoration of the Statue of excavated and look for artifacts and try to Liberty. Dick Hsu, then North Atlantic identify the general location of the artifacts. Regional Archeologist, gathered a small He attributed the fill in the pedestal area group of people to help investigate a shell above the 20-foot level (above sea level) to a midden, located during construction. The mid- to late-nineteenth-century date. project was poorly funded, and the crew Artifacts found within the fill at spent only three days at the site. approximately the 17-foot level, in the The strategy for the three-day vicinity of the old barracks dated to the first investigation was to collect samples from a half of the nineteenth century according to pre-midden pit feature, gather artifacts from Cotter. This seems to agree with the the feature and the midden, and to sample historical documents. The artifacts from shells and soil from exposed strata within Cotter’s investigations are now stored in the the midden. Hsu concluded in his report Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island museum. that:

18 Figure 3.2 Photograph of the 1985 excavations.

19 The exact extent of the to the Statue were constructed midden could not be in the 1940's. Over feature 1, determined; along the axis of the midden was the trench (north-south) the approximately 15 centimeters midden measured thick. approximately 25 meters and east-west at least 5 meters. Much of the effort of the 1985 The thickest portion of the excavations was focused on the examination midden,approximately eight of a pre-midden pit feature. Hsu comments: meters south of the north end, was approximately 0.5 meter The feature was truncated by thick. At the north and south the trench; therefore the margins the midden tapered to exact size, shape and less than 10 centimeters thick. orientation couldn't be Assuming the original determined. Projecting from configuration of the midden the remnant portion, the total was relatively symmetrical, feature was probably 1 to 1.5 the western (1/2) portion may meters in diameter at the top still be intact but the eastern and tapered to approximately (1/3) portion was destroyed 0.3 meters at the bottom. Fill when the promenade and walk in the feature was leading from the landing dock distinctively darker in profile

Figure 3.3 Illustration of Feature 1 from the 1985 excavations

20 but less so while excavating. Following the excavations, Tonya Near the bottom of the pit, Largy analyzed the plant and animal remains several ceramic sherds, bird that were recovered by the flotation process. bones, and fish scales were However, money was not available for an recovered. Four charcoal in-depth examination of the material in samples from four separate areas within the feature were recovered. The shell midden extended over the top of the feature.”

Charcoal samples were collected from the feature and were radiocarbon dated. Tonya Largy identified the charcoal from Feature 1 as burned hickory wood and the average radiocarbon date for the samples was about 1000 BP. Numerous bags of soil were collected from Feature 1 and from the layers of the midden. Afterward, some of the samples were floated in a flotation tank. Flotation is a process used to separate smaller plant and animal remains from the Figure 3.4 Projectile point found during the soil. To float a sample of soil, an 1985 excavations. archeologist will pour the sample into a flotation tank filled with water. The flotation 1985. Tonya had to wait until 1999 to tank contains screens to catch the heavier complete the analysis of the flotation materials that are not dissolved by the water. samples recovered in 1985. This is known as the heavy fraction. While The lack of archeological much of the separated material sinks to the investigations at Liberty Island, prior to the bottom and is caught by the screens, some current project, is typical for many parks in material floats to the top of the water. This the region. Some of the parks have had a material, known as the light fraction, is great deal of research done on them (Minute skimmed off the top. The light fraction Man NHP, Colonial NHP), but most have usually contains bits of charcoal, carbonized had only a moderate amount of archeology seeds, and other lighter-than-water done, at best. The earlier archeological work materials. Both the heavy fraction and the done on Liberty Island only hinted at the light fraction are sorted and the small plant archeological potential of the island. and animal remains are identified by a The following chapters discuss our specialist. This process allows an most recent work on the island. The goal of archeologist to gather information about this work was to try and understand what layers and features that are typically lost archeological resources might be left on the when soils are sifted using the standard ¼” island, appraise their research potential, and hardware mesh screens. The material to figure out how to protect them from recovered by flotation typically passes right future damage. It has taken several seasons through the screens during excavation. of work and hundreds of hours of

21 investigation and analysis to get to our current level of understanding. However, we now believe that we can accurately discuss the remaining archeological resources on the island. The remaining chapters attempt to explain why we believe this.

Sources and Further Reading

Both of the reports discussed in this chapter were prepared by the excavators as short internal memos. They were certainly never intended for commercial publication. While a copy of John Cotter’s “Report on Archeological Observations At the American Museum of Immigration Foundation Area, 1962-1963” can be requested from the park, a copy of Dick Hsu’s report “Progress Summary Shell Midden Liberty Island, N.Y.” can be found in the appendix of William Griswold’s (ed.) Archeology of a Prehistoric Shell Midden, Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York (Archeology Branch, Northeast Region, National Park Service, 2002).

22 CHAPTER FOUR THE HARD SCIENCE BEHIND THE MOST RECENT EXCAVATIONS

Dorothy Richter

Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. Salem, New Hampshire.

Archeological excavation is a destructive accurate reflection of the buried process. Once an area has been excavated, it archeological deposits. can never be put back together exactly as it was. Believe it or not, the best way to curate METHODS artifacts and features is to leave them in the ground. Archeologists have therefore begun To conduct the geophysical survey, to utilize technology from other disciplines 8 acres of the island were staked out in 10- to aid them in detecting what may be buried meter square units using conventional beneath the surface of the ground. This surveying equipment. To do this, the technology, also known as remote sensing, archeologists used very accurate electronic was used on Liberty Island to aid the surveying equipment so that the grid could archeologists in evaluating the possible be re-established over the island when archeological remains. In many cases, non- needed. A survey was necessary so that invasive remote sensing or geophysical when an anomaly was identified by the instruments allow geophysicists and geophysicists it could later be located by an archeologists to get a relatively good idea of archeologist using the grid coordinates. It is features and deposits below the ground similar to laying a sheet of graph paper over surface. The results from a geophysical a map of the island and marking out an X-Y survey are then often used to guide future grid at the intersection of all the lines. When investigations. the geophysicists conducted their Three different types of geophysical investigations they further subdivided these instruments were used to investigate 10-meter grids into meter units. All of this approximately 8 of the 12 acres of Liberty was done to accurately control the location Island. The area of the island that had been of the geophysical investigations so that created by landfilling operations in the 20th- many of the anomalies could be investigated century was excluded from the survey. archeologically. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), The initial sweep of the island used Electromagnetic Induction (EM) and all of the instruments and data collection Magnetometry were the chosen for use on was done at 3 meter intervals. Following the the island. Each of these instruments conclusion of the initial sweep, Ground provides different information to the Penetrating Radar (thought to be the most geophysicist of what may lay below the accurate of the geophysical instruments) was surface. In many cases when used in used to provide more detailed information combination, these instruments provide an on three areas of the island. These three

23 areas of the island then had GPR data are displayed on a monitor or on paper what collection narrowed down to 1-meter the geophysicist is seeing is the differences intervals. in travel time as the signal goes through the Most archeological artifacts do not various strata of soil. If the soils don’t produce unique geophysical signatures, and contain differences in their conductive the archeological significance of any of the properties, the GPR is not going to record a buried features cannot usually be determined difference in the stratification of the soil. on the basis of the geophysical data alone. The maximum depth to which GPR signals Sites such as Liberty Island have a long can penetrate depends on the electrical history of occupation and re-working of the properties of the soils. Clay minerals and/or landscape, further complicating the brackish water in the ground, for example, interpretation of geophysical results. pacify the GPR signal, so reflections are not Detection and identification must be received from materials at greater depths. distinguished. Detection as used in The GPR signal penetration at geophysical surveys, is the recognition that Liberty Island was generally very good, an object or feature is present in the ground. except in the areas of concrete and some Identification refers to determining that the local areas with high electrical conductivity. object is a small boulder or a stone We estimated the potential depth of implement formerly used to grind grain, a investigation by the GPR survey was about former depression filled with Colonial trash, 3 m below ground surface. However, most remnants of a building foundation, etc. of the GPR records show reflections Objects of archeological significance do not corresponding to 1.5 to 2.3 meters, judged to always have distinctive characteristics that be an adequate depth for archeological allow them to be distinguished from objects purposes. The GPR signal penetration was of no archeological significance on the basis generally better on the of the island of their geophysical signatures. In general, than on the west side of the island. geophysics is an excellent tool for detection of buried features. However, with minor Electromagnetic Induction Survey exceptions, if used by itself is poor for the identification and determination of Electromagnetic induction surveys archeological significance of such features. measure the electrical conductivity of the earth. A transmitter causes electrical Ground Penetrating Radar Survey currents to flow into the ground. Metal objects will distort the electrical currents. A Ground Penetrating Radar or GPR receiver then measures the electrical works by projecting an electromagnetic currents and notes any distortions that have signal into the ground though an antenna occurred. Buried metal objects, including that is dragged across a site. The signal is tools, weapons, household utensils, etc., can then deflected by various strata and objects then be detected and their locations mapped. and returns to the surface where it is picked One important feature of the EM up by a receiver. The reflected signal instruments is that they can detect non- appears as a profile radar image of the ferrous metal objects that do not show up in subsurface immediately below the antenna. a magnetic survey. Metal objects on the Many things affect the GPR signal surface (manhole covers, metal edging, light once it has been projected into the ground. posts, etc) will often obscure the signature of The ability of the soil to conduct and reflect metal objects buried beneath them. This is the signal is probably the most important. why it is important to use several different When the signals return to the receiver and detection methods on a site. Geophysicists

24 Figure 4.1 Example of a feature detected by GPR. often use EM surveys to quickly assess large objects containing iron including artifacts sites so as to identify areas for more detailed containing small amounts of iron, like brick. investigation with other methods (commonly In this way magnetometers are similar to ground penetrating radar). metal detectors. The magnetometers used by The conductivity for most of the geophysicists are, however, much more survey area on Liberty Island was relatively sensitive and accurate than traditional metal low, and is typical of sands and soils in the detectors. northeastern United States. Most, but not all, Unfortunately, magnetometers are of the very high values of apparent affected by all ferrous objects, even ones conductivity are attributed to observed above ground. In particular, objects such as surface objects, including concrete in dumpsters, small metal buildings, and extensive areas of the island, air vehicles, can so influence the magnetic field conditioning exhaust vents, metallic edging that buried iron objects can be missed. In around trees, and several possible subsurface areas near above ground ferrous objects, the utilities. Most of the low amplitude magnetic data must be supplemented by data anomalies were interpreted to be due to from other geophysical instruments to scattered small, metallic subsurface objects. identify buried objects. Most, but not all of the high values Magnetic Survey of the total magnetic field and/or magnetic gradient anomalies are attributed to A magnetometer is used to identify observed surface objects or materials magnetic (i.e. ferrous) objects buried in the believed to containing iron (reinforced earth. Magnetometers can locate most concrete).

25 Figure 4.2 Map showing the results of the geophysical survey.

26 The Integrated Interpretation building foundations. However, as time and money permit, additional geophysical The major advantage to using all studies can be done on the island. These three techniques (GPR, EM, and studies can fill in the gaps of the wider magnetometry) is that each instrument spaced transects or more intensively explore provides a separate but complimentary data any of the many anomalies. Although no set. Combining all three data sets provides building foundations were detected, the data much more accurate results than using only recovered through this survey provides one geophysical method. archeologists and park managers with a Based on the combined results of great deal of information about what lies the three geophysical methods, many below the ground surface of Liberty Island. subsurface features were detected and located within the depth of interest for the survey (approximately 1 ½ meters below Summary and Further Reading the ground surface). These include: There are several good introductory journal articles written primarily to educate x Possible utilities the archeologist in geophysical methods. x Unidentified buried objects (UBO’s), While these may be a little technical for the some of which are metal layman, these will provide at least an x Flat reflectors due to stratigraphic introduction to the field of changes or possibly former structures archeogeophysics. Recommended articles x Areas of fill containing small objects include: Julia King, Bruce Bevan, and Possible filled depressions Robert J. Hurry, “The Reliability of x Disturbed ground and filled former Geophysical Surveys at Historic-Period excavations containing UBO’s Cemeteries: An Example from the Plains x Possible sand dune Cemetery, Mechanicsville, Maryland.” Historical Archaeology 27(3):4-16 (1993) or Jeffrey Wynn “A Review of Geophysical The shell midden on the west-side Methods Used in Archaeology,” of the island did not provide a geophysical (Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, “signature” on any of the instruments. A 1 (3): 245-257 (1984). For the more brave signature would have provided characteristic at-heart, there is an excellent summary of signs of its existence and aided in the techniques written for a scholarly audience identification of other shell middens on the by John Weymouth, “Geophysical Methods island. Without a signature, the geophysical of Archaeological Site Surveying,” team could not provide information on other (Advances in Archaeological Method and shell middens that may be on the island. Theory, Vol. 9, in Michael Schiffer (ed.) pp. The data collected from the GPR 311-395 (1986). There are also a couple of were examined to see if any of the books out on the topic including Lawrence reflections might correlate with any of the B. Conyers and Dean Goodman, Ground- earlier buildings noted in the Overview and Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Assessment (OA). If you will recall, a large Archaeologists, (Altamira Press, Walnut number of earlier maps were discovered Creek, London, and New Delhi, 1997) or A. during the background research phase of the Vogel and G.N. Tsokas, Geophysical project. No reflective patterns could be Exploration of Archaeological Sites, matched to any of the earlier buildings or (Braunschweig, Ger., Vieweg 1993).

27 CHAPTER FIVE DIGGING INTO MORE THAN DIRT

William Griswold Tonya Largy Lucinda McWeeney David Perry

In 1999 we began excavating in the of oyster shell, and a dark sand stratum area where the shell midden had been below the shell) this method of separation discovered in 1985. Very little time was and recording provided adequate control for devoted to the examination of the midden in the limited amount of exposure done in 1985. The 1999 excavations were conducted 1999. All measurements were done in to complete the analysis of the 1985 metric. research, explore additional parts of the When excavating, an archeologist midden, define the site boundaries, and tries to peel apart the various layers like one produce a report summarizing the research sees in a cake. Normally, an archeologist on the shell midden. follows a last in first out methodology, i.e. the latest strata or feature that was deposited METHODS is the first taken out. Strata refer to layers, usually horizontal while features refer to We used the same grid that had been manmade construction that usually can’t be set up for the geophysical investigations. taken back to the lab. A feature might be a Although there has been some controversy wall, pit, posthole, well, cistern, building over how to excavate a shell midden, we foundation, etc. Some strata are thick and at chose to use conventional excavation times can represent the accumulation of methodology for the small exposure that we material over a substantial period of time, did in 1999. Archeology is a destructive sometimes a hundred or more years. process. Once you excavate a test unit, you Because of this, thick strata were further can never go and put all of the soil back as divided into 10-cm arbitrary levels. In some you found it. It is therefore extremely cases, while a layer may look homogenous, important that an archeologist records the artifacts in the top level represent a everything that he or she does during the different time period than the artifacts in the excavation. Everything that was done was bottom level. recorded on field forms. The field forms All excavation was done by hand, provided places for recording information and collected artifacts were bagged and on provenience, soil color and type, artifacts tagged according to their location or recovered, and the excavator’s interpretation provenience. The provenience of an artifact for every stratum and every level in all units. simply means its three dimensional location. The forms also provided a space for the In our case the provenience information illustration of vertical soil profiles from the included the unit coordinate, the stratum or sides of the unit as well as plan views (bird’s feature that it was collected from, and a eye views) of the bottoms of the units. Since depth measurement of the deposit. Artifacts only two stratigraphic deposits were were collected as they were encountered observed in the 1985 photographs (a stratum during the excavation. Screening was also

29 done to collect artifacts that may not have commonly recovered artifacts from these been seen by the archeologist during layers were brick, coal, and cinder excavation. Screening involves pouring the fragments. These artifacts indicate just how excavated soil into a box that contains a ¼” pervasive the construction and demolition of hardware mesh screen. The screen is then buildings was on Liberty Island. shaken and the artifacts are picked out and The midden, labeled Feature 9 for put in the bag containing the materials the 1999 excavations, varied in thickness collected during excavation. These artifacts from a few centimeters to just over one-half were then washed on rainy days and brought meter. Once the midden was reached two back to our lab in Lowell, Massachusetts, 12” x 12” plastic bags were filled with soil where they were conserved, cataloged and from each level. One 12” x 12” bag of shells stored before being returned to the park. In was also kept for every level. The shell from many cases samples of the excavated soils the midden was not washed or brushed and were saved for flotation. neither was any material (except for bone) Flotation had previously been done collected from the prehistoric levels of on some of the soil samples retrieved from Feature 9. This should allow future research the 1985 salvage excavations. Most of the to be done upon these materials as 1985 material was floated using a specially techniques improve and new types of designed flotation tank. However, we soon analysis are introduced. learned that we could obtain better results The soil matrix mixed with the using simpler equipment. We made this shells was composed of black organic silty assessment by adding 50 poppy seeds to the sand. Numerous shells were collected from samples and counting the number of seeds the two and a half meters of exposed that were recovered. While the recovery rate deposit. More will be said about the was still relatively low, largely because the composition of the shell and other fauna numerous shell fragments hid many of the obtained from the excavations in later seeds, the rate was still higher than that chapters. obtained from the traditional flotation tank While a few small features were and the process could be done in a fraction discovered below the shell midden stratum, of the time. This streamlined equipment none of these features even approached the consisted of a new five gallon plastic bucket, importance of Feature 1 discovered in 1985. two geological sieves (1mm and 2mm), and With the possible exception of Features 11 a fine brine shrimp fishnet. and 12 (possible a post hole and post mold) the features discovered during the 1999 season could not even be certified as having been constructed, i.e. they may have been THE PREHISTORIC MIDDEN the result of natural bioturbation agents. DEPOSITS Bioturbation is a word that archeologists use to describe elements like tree roots, small A total of sixteen 0.5 x 0.5 meter burrowing animals, insects, worms, etc., test pits were excavated during the 1999 which move things around in the ground. season of which a portion of the prehistoric The excavation of Feature 9 revealed only a shell midden was exposed in four of the handful of artifacts. A few ceramic units. Three of the four units where the fragments were uncovered as were a few midden was located were opened up into lithic fragments. A Levanna point uncovered larger 1 x 1 meter units. All of the units during the 1985 excavation was the only excavated contained various layers of projectile point uncovered from an historic period materials. The most archeological context.

30 Figure 5.1 Map showing the location of the units tested.

31 Overall, the 1999 excavations defined the and importance for illuminating the extent of the remaining shell midden. The prehistory of the area, it can be protected midden is restricted to an area of from any future disturbance. approximately 20 meters long (N-S) x 15 meters wide (E-W), or 300 square meters in area. This measurement denotes the THE RESULTS – FILLING OUT maximum lateral extent of the midden if it THE PREHISTORIC PICTURE were square. Most likely, the midden is not square and additional excavations may be In order to discover information able to more tightly define its boundaries. about the diet and ecology of the Native Realistically, the midden is probably no Americans who used Liberty Island, a more than 200 square meters in area, but a detailed analysis of the flotation fractions safety margin has been added to protect the were undertaken. This type of analysis midden from any future construction-related requires the work of specialists who know, disturbance. It is hazardous to speculate on and have worked with, the plants and its original size, but much of the midden was animals of the Northeast. Many of these cut away during earlier construction specialists have spent years acquiring the activities at the site. However, now that we background knowledge necessary to know about the midden including its size undertake these types of analyses.

Figure 5.2 Photograph of the midden as exposed in 1999.

32 Flora level. The presence of hickory was to be expected, since larger burned fragments of by Lucinda McWeeney, David Perry, and hickory wood were submitted for Tonya Largy radiocarbon analysis. The analysis of the wood from the The interpretation of archeological 1999 samples showed to be the most plant remains recovered by flotation is not dominant wood with lesser amounts of elm an easy task, especially in the case of wild and juniper. Oak wood is well recognized plant foods. Before people began to cultivate for providing a steady, hot fire. The acorn plants, they relied heavily on wild plants for production from trees suggested by the food. Carbonized seeds from fruits and presence of the oak charcoal would certainly berries and carbonized nutshell are the most have provided a food resource for the people common plant remains preserved in the and the animals they hunted. archeological record. These materials are usually preserved by accidentally falling Seeds and Nuts into a fire during food preparation or by deliberately being discarded and charred in Seeds and nut remains are usually the food processing cycle. However, these recovered from archeological deposits the same items can also be carbonized by same way as wood charcoal, namely through blowing into a fire or by being caught in a flotation. Most of the seeds and nuts are then generalized “burn” over an area. Sometimes examined under a microscope to make a these fires are the result of man and positive identification. As with wood sometimes they are the result of natural charcoal, the images observed with the events, like a forest fire. Archeologists try to microscope are compared to standard look at the context of the finds to determine references for identification. whether the seed or nutshell is a result of No charred seeds or pits were found cultural or natural events. in either the 1985 or the 1999 Liberty Island samples. Some uncharred seeds were Wood Charcoal identified. These are thought to have been introduced through bioturbation because The identification of charred wood acids in the soil work to decompose from archeological sites requires the use of uncharred plant material. low- and high-power reflected light Nutshell, specifically hickory microscopes. Before identification can take nutshell, was found in abundance. This may place, thin sections are snapped and be due to preservation factors and may not mounted on glass slides. Thin sections, as signal its importance in the diet. In other the name implies, are very thin slices of the words, charred hickory nutshell is very hard material being examined. The charred wood and preserves well in the archeological samples observed under the microscope are record, something that not all other nutshell then compared to images of previously does. Except for the charred hickory identified materials available in reference nutshell, the seed/fruit remains from the manuals. This allows the researcher to Liberty Island midden site do not indicate identify the genus and sometimes the specie the intensive collection of any single of the sample. botanical resource. A concentration of Trees identified from the 1985 hickory nutshell in the shell layer from the samples included hickory, oak, and conifer. 1985 excavations may indicate that nuts may Some other deciduous trees were observed, have been gathered contemporaneously with but could not be identified to the species the shellfish. A late summer/fall season of

33 gathering may be inferred from the therefore difficult to identify. For this concentration of nutshell. reason, fragments larger than 2 mm were selected for analysis. Once promising fragments had been isolated, they were Parenchymatous Tissues mounted on a standard metal stub used for analysis under a Scanning Electron The identification of soft plant Microscope (SEM). The images observed tissues was also done on the Liberty Island under the SEM are then compared to known samples. Soft tissues make up most plants images and identifications are made. with the exception of wood from trees, and Five fragments of probable seeds or fruits. That is, vegetative tissues parenchymatous tissues were isolated from include the leaves, stems, twigs, roots, and one of the botanical samples taken at the storage organs of plants. Most of the plant Liberty Island midden. Parenchymatous vanishes when the plant dies. However, if tissue was seen in many of the samples, but the plant is burned, some small charred parts only these five were examined under SEM. may survive and can be identified. Examples of water-lily and flowering rush Parenchymatous tissue analysis, or soft plant were identified from the five fragments. tissue identification, is a process that allows The floral analysis obtained from archeologists to look at a class of material the 1985 and 1999 flotation samples which is only now coming to the forefront of generated a rich assortment of plants and archeological research. trees important to the Native Americans The size of fragments selected can during the Woodland and possibly Contact vary greatly. Sometimes only a very small periods. The analysis of the faunal fragment is needed. Fragments less than assemblage also indicates that a diverse set 2mm in size are difficult to slice and of animals and fish were being exploited.

Figure 5.3 Photomicrographs of parenchymatous tissue samples

34 Fauna Molluscs by Tonya Largy Large amounts of molluscs, or shellfish, were recovered from the 1999 The high pH encountered in shell flotation samples. Eastern oyster was the middens preserves bone in the normally most numerous, followed by soft-shell clam. acidic soils of northeastern North Very small fragments of ribbed mussel were America. Preservation of all the bones present in every sample, and miniscule originally deposited in a midden is, slipper shell, were also present. Numerous however, incomplete. Dogs and types of gastropods, or univalves, were also scavengers such as crows and herring identified from the samples, all of which are gulls have ample opportunity to carry off believed to be land and brackish water freshly discarded food or other animal marine snails that might be found in a remains. A decade of personal observation marsh. of an open-air “midden” created with Largy kitchen scraps, including bone, Mammal demonstrates how quickly crows can remove the remains of a meal. Smaller, Twenty-one mammal bones were lightweight bones from birds like chicken recovered in all. Identified taxa include are carried off immediately, certainly by cow/ox, deer, dog, and rodent. Other fauna, the next morning. Heavier steak or chop while recovered, could not be identified to bones may be left or carried to nearby the particular taxa. Preservation of mammal locations, presumably by squirrels whose bone, including one domesticated species gnaw marks have been later observed. (cow/ox), is likely due to relatively recent Therefore, a faunal assemblage provides deposition and incorporation into the shell only a sample of species that a site’s layer as a result of bioturbation. inhabitants used. Analysis was carried out using the Bird comparative collections of the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Peabody Five bird taxa were present Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, including bobwhite quail, canvasback duck, Massachusetts, and the collections of the an immature pelican, bay duck, and a ornithology, herpetology, molluscan, and surface-feeding duck, whose exact taxa ichthyology departments of the Museum could not be identified. Most of the bird of Comparative Zoology, Harvard bones were recovered from Feature 1 in University. Vertebrate fauna included 1985. mammal, bird, fish, salamander, and turtle. Mammal, bird, and larger fish Fish bones were field collected while salamander, turtle, and numerous smaller A total of 74 fish bones were fish, mammal, and bird bones were recovered. Most were fragmentary and recovered through flotation. Most of the unidentifiable, but three taxa were identified larger fragments can be identified as to among the more complete specimens genus and/or species, but most fragments including oyster toadfish, white perch, and from the flotation samples were extremely an individual from the cod family. The small in size and proved to be majority of the fish bone was recovered by unidentifiable. flotation although none was large enough to

35 identify. Flotation serves to eliminate One ceramic sherd from the 1985 recovery bias by showing that small fish excavation of Feature 1 (Cat. No. STLI- were utilized, assuming their remains 29681) was identified as a cord-marked, represent subsistence. The presence of small crushed quartz tempered fragment from the fish in the midden suggests this resource Middle Woodland period. One additional was a smaller dietary component, sherd (Cat. No. STLI-29723) and one supplementing shellfish, bird, and mammal. projectile point (Cat. No. STLI –29724) were found in the western profile of the Amphibia midden. Chilton identified the undecorated shell-tempered ceramic as belonging to the Salamander vertebrae identified as Middle Woodland Period. A jasper Levanna Plethodon sp. were recovered by flotation. point, made from a flake was also recovered These are likely naturally intrusive into the during the 1985 excavations. midden, but subsistence cannot be ruled out. Chilton additionally identified the ceramics recovered from the 1999 Reptiles excavations as belonging to the Middle, Late, and very Late Woodland, possibly Turtles are represented by two even the Contact Period. The ceramic carapace/plastron fragments recovered by fragments dating to the Middle and Late flotation of samples from the 1999 units. Woodland Period included Cat. Nos. STLI- These are very small fragments and bear no 30630 and STLI-30631. The very Late diagnostic . However, they are the Woodland/Contact Period ceramics included first turtle remains to be recovered on Cat. No. STLI-30500. These findings Liberty Island. suggest that the shell midden is a multi- component site, beginning in the Middle Woodland period and possibly continuing Artifacts through the Contact period. by William Griswold

It was rather disappointing that more prehistoric artifacts were not discovered during the 1985 or the 1999 excavations. The archeologists who discovered and excavated Feature 1 in 1985 were extraordinarily lucky to find this feature and be given the chance to sample and date it. No lithic tools were recovered during the 1999 excavations and insufficient charcoal samples large enough to do a standard C-14 analysis were observed Figure 5.4 Photograph of a Woodland during the latest excavation. Only a handful ceramic fragment of ceramics were found and the only projectile point was discovered in 1985. Dr. Elizabeth Chilton from the University of By undertaking controlled Massachusetts at Amherst aided us in the excavations like these, we can gather an identification of the small number of understanding of what their environment artifacts.

36 was like and how Native Americans used Oxford, 1990)., J. G. Hather, “The their environment to meet their needs. Identification of Charred Archaeological Archeologists interpret what they find. But Remains of Vegetative Parenchymatous most of what we as humans do leaves no Tissue” in Journal of Archaeological visible trace. It is very difficult to interpret Science 18:661-675 (1991), and A.n beliefs, friendships, feelings, etc. However, Archaeobotanical Guide to Root and Tuber by understanding a person’s environment Identification, (Oxbow, Oxford 1993), R. B. and how they used resources in it, we come Hoadley, Identifying Wood: Accurate that much closer to understanding the people Results with Simple Tools, (The Taunton we study. Press, Newtown, Connecticut 1990), Lucinda McWeeney, “What Lies Lurking Below the Soil: Beyond the Sources and Further Reading Archaeobotanical View of Flotation Samples (Mycorrhizal sclerotia)”, North There are several good textbooks on American Archaeologist 10(3):227-230 field methods in archeology. The classic one (1989). Other equally important works that the editor of this volume used during his include D. E. Moerman, Native American school days is Martha Joukowsky’s, A Ethnobotany, (Timber Press, Portland 1998), Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: D. Pearsall, Paleoethnobotany (Academic Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Press, New York 1989); F. H. Archaeologists (Englewood Cliffs, New Schweingruber, Microscopic Wood Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc 1980). Another Anatomy. 3rd Edition. (Swiss Federal good one is T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape K. L. Feder Field methods in Archaeology Research, Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 1978) (Mountain View, Calif, Mayfield Publishing and Anatomy of European Woods (Paul 1997). Many others exist and are equally Haupt Publisher, Berne and Stuttgart, well-written. These books will provide the Birmsdorf, Switzerland 1990). interested reader the background For faunal identifications, references information on field methodology. consulted included Henry Bigelow and Numerous reference works were William Schroeder, Fishes of the Gulf of consulted by the various authors to aid in the Maine (Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and identification of faunal, floral, and material Wildlife Service, Volume 53, USDA, culture items. For paleobotanical Washington, 1953), S. C. Bishop, Handbook identifications, references included R. M. of Salamanders (Cornell University Press, Burns and B. H. Honkala, Silvics of North Ithaca, New York 1943), , .Birds America, Vol. I: Conifers & VoL II: of the New York State Area. (Dover Hardwoods (Agricultural Handbook 654, Publications, Inc., New York, 1975 reprint, USDA, Forest Service, Washington, D. C, first published in 1964, A. J. McClane (ed), 1990), F. Couplan, The Encyclopedia of McLane’s Standard Fishing Encyclopedia, Edible Plants of North America (Keats (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, Publishing, New Caanan, Connecticut, 1965), Edward Migdalski, Salt Water Game 1998), J. K. Crellin and J. Philpott, Fishes (The Ronald Press Company, New Reference guide to Medicinal Plants: York 1958); Chandler Robbins, Bertel Herbal Medicine Past and Present (Duke Bruun, and Herbert Zim, Birds of North University Press, Durham, 1989), K. Esau, America (Golden Press, New York. Holt, Anatomy of Seed Plants (John Wiley & Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1983). Sons, New York, 1966), A. Fahn, Plant Information on the medieval warm Anatomy, Fourth Edition (Pergarnon Press, period can be found in H. Lamb, “The Early

37 Medieval Warm Epoch and its Sequel” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 1: 13-37 (1965). Numerous specialists were also consulted for the various identifications. Acknowledgments to these individuals can be found at the front of the book. Many of these individuals identified remains, which were not easily identifiable in books or articles.

38 CHAPTER SIX WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS?

William Griswold

National Park Service, Northeast Archeology Group

The maps gathered for the initial research It was the changes done in the showed that, at least during the historic 1930s-1950s and in the 1980s that have had period, buildings went up and came down the biggest impact upon the archeology of with great speed. Landscape alterations that the island. While photographs and drawings appeared on one map were absent from exist for some of these changes, they do not maps drawn just a few years later. Buildings document all changes affecting the also appeared in photographs that were archeological landscape, nor can they never illustrated on maps. The maps always be trusted. In many cases the “as- obtained through the research project, while built” drawings are either unavailable or relatively numerous compared with other unreliable. It was because so many changes sites, only provide a snap shot of what was have taken place on Liberty Island within on the island during a particular year. the twentieth century that have not been Clearly, Liberty Island was a dynamic place, documented that our options for constantly undergoing changes in archeological investigation were limited. It appearance. was difficult to determine what remained At no time was the change more and what had long since vanished. The dramatic than when the entire island was chosen option was to conduct a geophysical placed under the control of the National survey of the island and follow the Park Service. A master plan was developed geophysical investigations with soon after control of the island was given to archeological testing. the Park Service in 1937. This master plan While records documenting all of began to be implemented in the late 1930s. the disturbances on the island were not Building demolition and landscape design available, certain historical documents continued into the 1940s, but progress provided hints as to what may be found. slowed as the United States entered World Carole Perrault’s 1984 compilation provided War II. Following the war, work continued many primary source documents illustrating to complete the master plan. By the mid- and discussing the major landscape 1950s, the majority of the master plan had alterations on the island between 1871 and been accomplished. Later, just as Ms. 1956. One of the most important visual Liberty was about to celebrate her first records illustrating the changes that took century, restoration work was begun on the place on the island is a Pictorial Report for statue and the island. The 1980s restoration 1940. This document provides 39 work attempted to restore the statue’s photographs illustrating the various changes appearance and made numerous changes to that took place on the island between the landscape of the island. November 1, 1939 through December 1940

39 Figure 6.1 Arial photograph of the island during the 1940s demolition. as a result of the WPA. During this time 8 building and Building #21 began under the buildings were demolished and eight of new project.” It is doubtful then, that twelve acres of the island were graded. anything archeological remains on these two Walkways, steps, and retaining walls were buildings. also constructed around the island and construction was begun on the administration and concessions buildings. LOCATION OF TEST PITS The photographs provide an excellent visual record of the demolition work. The same surveying equipment used The difficulty in using this for the previous work was used in 2000 to document is that many of the figure labels stake out the various test pits. Small, object are ambiguous. For example one photograph oriented anomalies were not chosen for labeled March 29, 1940 reads “The investigation. Rather the work of the 2000 basement walls remained until March when season concentrated on the evaluation of work began under the new project.” The large anomalies such as the confirmation of following photograph, taken on June 1, stratigraphic horizons, former structures, 1940, is labeled “The basement was filled to filled depressions, and dipping subgrade.” Questions arise as to what reflectors.Previous experience has taught me happened to the walls and floor of the that geophysical investigations, while building. Were the walls removed? Did the technologically advanced, are not always basement have a stone/concrete or earthen reliable. As a result, test pits were placed floor? If it had a constructed floor, was the both inside and outside the anomalies floor removed? Some of the figure labels identified by the geophysicists. This mention the removal of basements. For provided comparative data inside and example a figure label on a photograph outside the anomalies. While slightly more taken on March 22, 1940 reads “The than seventy test pits were laid out, only removal of the basements of the hospital fifty-five were excavated. This was because

40 stratification in many of the units was very photos of the island throughout the last 100 deep and time consuming to excavate. + years show how quickly landscape and building alterations are made. These THE RESULTS alterations, no doubt, account for much of what was uncovered during the 2000 The plethora of strata uncovered excavations. While some of these deposits during excavation on Liberty Island, make it were large in extent, many were very small. difficult to interpret. The multitude of Most of the changes are suspected to be

Figure 6.2 Location of units excavated in 2000.

41 relatively innocuous layers associated with The North end of the island either the construction or destruction of a building or the creation of the formal The north end of the island was one landscape connected with the park. Many of of the most fruitful areas for accessible these layers do not require interpretation, archeological resources. Most of the maps and in many cases may not be open to were not helpful in interpreting the strata or interpretation, especially given the small artifacts found. However, the 1936 map size of the exposure. Most of the artifacts provides some information for interpreting recovered from the deposits lend little the strata found and has been reproduced information about their deposition. Coal, with the overlays as Figure 6.3. A cement brick fragments, and mortar fragments were floor to an undocumented building was by far the most numerous artifacts found in two adjacent units (N352 E162 and recovered. N 352 E 170). Since the 1900 map of the Several maps, gathered from various island shows the location of this cement sources and entered into a GIS program, floor to be in a tidal zone, it must post date have been included with this chapter. 1900. Remnants of other buildings were Geographical Information System or GIS also found. While the bottom of unit N352 referes to computer programs that allow E175 was never reached, several of the people to view geographic information. GIS strata were clearly construction fill, probably was very useful for this project, because all in Building 15, according to the 1937 map. of the maps gathered during the initial The Non-Commissioned Officer’s Quarters, research could be scanned and layered in a as the building is described in the 1937 file. By doing this, we were able to look at Master Plan, was a two-story brick building the overlays of various maps. The composite housing two families. No mention is made maps developed from these sources were of a basement, even though the entries for then used to make some interpretations. other buildings contain references to a There are, however, certain problems basement. The sloping nature of the fill inherent with using these maps. evident in these deposits, along with the Most of these maps were drawn coarse nature of the material encountered in without the accuracy available in modern them (brick, limestone, etc.) leads one to surveys. Errors are common when one map believe that these deposits represent the is laid on top of another. None of the maps filling of a building, with at least a crawl match exactly. At times some of the maps space below. must be stretched or twisted. While these While the location of N367 E170 maps generally conform to one another, seems to be just south of the location of the errors of a few meters are not uncommon. radio tower building (Building 22) on the Therefore, one must always be mindful of 1936 map, the coarse fill, the concrete, and this when using the maps to interpret the the large voids seem to indicate that this is excavations. what remains of the building. The building Another problem with the maps is is described in the 1937 Master Plan as a they represent the configuration of the island one-story brick building with an attic and a at one point in time. We don’t have a map basement. This radio tower building was that shows all of the buildings and all of the supposedly established in 1905 or 1906 changes that happened to the island. In total, according to the 1937 Master Plan. we have representations of the island at The hard-packed earth encountered approximately 20 points in time. In reality, in N368 E161 (Stratum 3) and N372 E161 many, if not most, of the changes of the (Stratum 3) are probably the result of the island are not represented. compression of soil from the radio tower

42 and radio tower pad resting on top of them. Building and remnants of buildings The date of the tower, according to the were not the only archeological resources master plan is uncertain. The lower stratum found. Examples of some of the material within the unit, contained brick with “S & F used to construct walkways (pea-gravel and Co.” impressed upon them, a local brick coal ash) were also found in some of the making company operating in the late units (N352 E162, N352 E155), indicating nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. that some vestiges of the earlier pre-NPS The location of N352 E183 appears landscape still exist. to be just outside of the Non-Commissioned Officer’s Quarters, described above. It appears to be underneath a porch on the The east side of the island back of the house. Stratum 4 in N352 E183 was described as medium density gravel. An extensive earlier ground surface Gravel is commonly used below porches for was found in 12 of the 16 units excavated drainage. (Figure 6.2). This earlier ground surface was

Figure 6.3 Overlays of various maps and test pit locations at the North end of the island

43 composed primarily of very compacted clay confirmed in any of the units excavated on but contained few artifacts. It was at least 30 the west side during the 2000 season. The cms lower than the current ground surface in viewing of the various historic maps in almost all of the units, but seems to be more ArcView shows that much of this part of the deeply buried to the east. This compact island is composed of fill. The 2000 stratum is probably the reason for the excavations confirmed this. geophysical anomaly. While testing An earlier ground surface was also confirmed the existence of the anomaly well found on the west side of the island, and is inside the defined area, the earlier ground no doubt the geophysical anomaly identified surface was also found in units outside of by Hager-Richter. Like the former ground the defined boundary. Figure 6.2 indicates surface identified on the eastern side of the that this earlier ground surface was found in island, this compacted clay layer contained numerous units where, until 1939-1940, few artifacts to date the deposit. However, there was an Officer’s Quarters building, a Figure 6.3 clearly shows the former ground building which had a basement. Therefore, surface extending over the area formerly the earlier ground surface must post-date the occupied by the Non-commissioned destruction and backfilling of the building. It Officer’s Quarters building (Number 21). is very likely, then that this is the earlier According to a 1940 photograph, this ground surface is connected with the park building had a basement. Even the very deep and likely deposited between 1940 and excavation of N215 E120 did not find the 1985. bottom of the basement at 1.5 meters below In many of the excavated units, the surface. The former ground surface must excavation and coring proved inconclusive then post-date the destruction of the building in determining what was sandy fill and what and its subsequent filling. It was probably was true geological subsoil or naturally the previous ground surface between 1940 deposited sand. It seems, however, that true and 1985. A reddish colored clay loam had geological subsoil was confined to four units been deposited over the area as part of the (N185 E250, N190 E235, N195 E213, and 1980’s rehabilitation of the statue. N195 E235). The elevation associated with the subsoil in these units indicates a The south end of the island moderate slope from approximately 1.0- meter to .13 meters over approximately 7.5 Subsoil was located in several of the meters. The slope in the subsoil is probably units immediately around the outside responsible for the geophysical anomaly. perimeter of the fort walls (N70 E195, N105 Hager-Richter defined the area around two E225, N105 E230, N152 E120, N152 E125, of the units as “possible fill areas with and N175 E211). It was unusual that the dipping reflectors.” The dipping reflectors geophysical testing did not locate the ditch probably relate to the slope of the subsoil. It surrounding the fort. However, further seems then that the sand found in the other research in 2000 indicated that in 1904 the units was fill. War Department had graded away the counterscarp down to the bottom of the ditch to provide fill for building construction on The west side of the island the north end of the island. This explains why relatively modern material was found It was clear from the excavations on top of the subsoil near the fort walls. conducted in 1999 that the subsoil sloped A large rubble fill deposit was rather dramatically from east to west, encountered in N105 E235 and N105 E245. beginning at the hedgerow. Subsoil was not This rubble fill, and the fact that subsoil was

44 never reached within either of these units, within the midden deposit are more may indicate that it is fill within a building. reminiscent of military consumption than No structure in this position was found on household consumption. In some cases a any of the historic maps. An earlier ground relatively thick deposit of sand was spread surface was likewise detected sporadically over the historic midden deposits. It is across the area. Undoubtedly, this ground logical to conclude that the thick sand layer surface probably dates to the same period as is the spoil from the excavation of the ditch the other ground surfaces found across the around Fort Wood. Several fortification site, namely 1940-1985. features would have been created using the By far the most interesting spoil including a counterscarp and a glacis discovery this season was the continuation (see glossary). The remaining sand deposits of the historic midden deposits, first are likely the only remnants of these features uncovered in the 1999 season. These with most of the soil used to construct them deposits contain artifacts of a late being relocated to the northern end of the eighteenth/very early nineteenth-century island. date, and thus predate the construction of Fort Wood. They were deposited on top of ADDING TO THE HISTORY the prehistoric midden deposits previously discussed. The results of the analysis of the During the 1999 excavations on the faunal material collected from the 1999 prehistoric shell midden, deposits from a excavations indicate that the animal remains late 18th/early 19th-century midden were also

Figure 6.4 A portion of the 1766 map overlaid by the geophysical testing map and the 2000 excavations.

45 discovered. These midden deposits overlay smaller bones that would have passed the prehistoric shell midden and were spread through the screen. out over a much larger area. A variety of late Analysis was carried out primarily eighteenth/early nineteenth century ceramics by Sarah Whitcher, Research Assistant, were discovered including several examples Zooarchaeology Laboratory of the Peabody of pearlware and creamware. More will be Museum, Harvard University, working in said later about the ceramics and the other conjunction with Tonya Largy. artifacts found in this historic midden Identifications were made using the deposit. Field collected fauna recovered comparative collection of the from the historic midden deposits, however, Zooarchaeology Laboratory, supplemented provides unique insight into the early dietary by mammal, bird and fish collections in the habits of the early military inhabitants. Harvard Museum of Natural History. Dr. Douglas Causey, Senior Vertebrate Fauna Biologist was especially helpful with bird identifications. Mr. Peter Burns, also on by Tonya Barody Largy and Sarah E. staff at the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Whitcher, Ph.D. assisted with the identification of fish bone. Bone was examined both with and without a The faunal remains analyzed here microscope. A microscope was used to were collected from several test units identify chop/cut/saw marks, burning, and excavated in the historic midden in 1999. gnawing by carnivores or rodents. The primary goal of this portion of the Just under 400 bones were project was to identify and analyze the examined during the analysis of the 1999 fauna. A secondary goal of the analysis was Liberty Island collection. Because of the to see if the faunal pattern was more likely small size of many of the faunal fragments, the result of domestic or military few were identified to the genus/species consumption. In other words, were the bones level. Of the identified bones, 22 were cattle, the result of meals eaten by the residents of 11 were sheep/goat, 2 were pig, 7 were the island, or by the soldiers? If you will birds, 2 were deer, and 5 were fish. While all recall from Chapter 2, Liberty Island was of the faunal remains could not be precisely home to both residents and soldiers during identified, most could be placed into a the later 18th/early 19th-century. The taxonomic class (eg. mammal, bird, fish). archeologists could not precisely date the midden deposit because too few artifacts Domestic Mammals were found. These deposits were however covered by a sand deposit, of varying Cattle constituted the largest number thickness, believed to be from the of identifiable remains. While the sample excavation of the ditch surrounding Fort size is relatively small, many things can still Wood built for the War of 1812. be said about the dietary habits of the people The analyzed assemblage comes who ate them. For example, studies have from soil sifted through the standard ¼ inch shown that cattle provide the highest quality hardware cloth. As a result, many of the of beef between 1.5 to 3 years of age. Age small fish bones were not present. Bulk soil can be inferred on bones based on a few key samples were collected during the 1999 indicators like the fusion of the long bones. season, but flotation has not yet been done Long bones, like a person’s upper arm or for these deposits. When analyzed these upper leg, are actually unfused when a bulk samples may provide additional data on person is young. When a person matures, the

46 ends of the bones, known as epiphyses, another location in the vicinity, or even grow together or fuse with the long shaft of before the meat was purchased. the bone, known as the diaphysis. The same happens in mammals. The calculated ages Wild Mammals for the Liberty Island cattle bones suggest that at least some of the animals were The only bones of wild mammals outside the prime age for butchery. The found in the historic midden were two foot inhabitants of the island responsible for the bones of white-tailed deer. A few of the deposition of the bones ate a few cattle unidentified bones may be from a deer, but younger than 1.5 years and a few older than the fragments could not be identified with 3 years. certainty. Almost certainly, venison would An analysis of body parts can also have been transported to the island. Given tell us something about food preferences and the small size of the island (about 8 acres at diet. The only animal from Liberty Island this time), there would have been for which body part analysis is possible is insufficient habitat for a permanent herd. cattle. The overwhelming majority (91%) of However, deer are known to swim between the bones are from high meat-yielding body islands to browse and this animal may have parts (back, ribs, and upper limbs). Head and been captured while browsing on the island. foot bones, low meat-yield areas, constitute It is more likely, however, that portions of only a small percentage of the remains (9%). deer were brought in for food in much the This pattern indicates that the same way that beef cuts were supplied to the midden contains food refuse, rather than people living on the island. butchery refuse, in which case we would expect to find many more head and foot Birds bones. However, it is still not clear how the meat was obtained. The large number of Only 3% of all the bones from the high meat-yielding bones and near absence historic midden were identified as bird. of head and foot refuse suggests that the Two types of birds were represented in the meat was obtained already butchered. On analyzed fauna: chicken and Tundra swan the other hand, butchery may have taken (Cygnus columbianus). Native Tundra place somewhere else on the island. swans are not commonly seen in the Body part analysis also suggests that northeast but were more numerous in earlier upper forelimb bones (scapula, humerus, times. In fact, the Tundra Swan may have radius/ulna) are nearly twice as numerous as frequently visited the mid-Atlantic coast in hindlimb bones (pelvis, femur, tibia). This the 17th and 18th centuries during the Little may indicate a dietary preference for Ice Age, when cooler temperatures forelimb cuts, and is further support for the prevailed. meat being obtained in a butchered form (rather than butchered on the site). Fish Other than cattle, no other taxa had enough bones to make a statistically valid A total of 36 fish bones were comparison. However, it is interesting to identified, but only five bones (2%) are note that the majority of sheep/goat bones identified to the species. Four bones were are upper limb and back bones, with a few identified as striped bass, and one bone was ankle bones and one tooth. As in cattle, there from a Red drum. Both striped bass and red were no toe bones suggesting that these drum would have been available in the were removed in butchery that was either at marketplace or caught in the harbor.

47 DISCUSSION cattle. Pig and deer were equally represented while chicken, fish and wild Although the 1999 excavation of the birds were represented along with several historic midden on Liberty Island resulted in wild mammals and reptiles. The strong a relatively small sample of bone, trends are presence of deer and other wild mammals unmistakable. Clearly, the dominant species can be explained by the fort’s location in a in the assemblage is cattle with lesser rural, forested area with a rich resource base representations of sheep/goat and pigs. during the period of occupation. Domestic and wild species are both A faunal assemblage from the mid- represented. Shellfish were also gathered Fort Fillmore, New Mexico, and eaten by these people, but none of the analyzed by Parmalee also provides shellfish were analyzed. It was clear, comparable data to ours from Liberty Island. however, from the 1999 excavations that Parmalee found that the main source of food shellfish were also part of the diet. was beef, with sheep/goat and pig in small It is unknown when the house was numbers. Interestingly, he suggested that built, but by 1753 there was a house and a pork might have been brought in as cured on the island and a variety of meat, explaining the near absence of pig food sources were available to the residents. bones (even though texts indicate that the An advertisement, listed in Stokes, to rent occupants of the fort ate bacon). Parmalee the property in the 18th-century illustrates also found an absence of head and foot some of the rich dietary resources that the bones, which he attributed to slaughter island offered. occurring at a different location (and that the fort did not have its own herds). “Bedloe’s Island, The military probably also brought alias Love Island”, if offered in beef quarters to Liberty Island since the to let, “together with the island would not provide enough space for Dwelling-House and Light- cattle, although pigs and chickens might be House, being finely situated kept easily. The above advertisement to rent for a Tavern, where all kind of the house offers only the potential for Garden Stuff, Poultry, &c raising poultry and garden produce. It also may be easily raised for the mentions the island “abounds with English Shipping, outward bound and rabbits”. Presumably, pigs also could be from whence any Quantity of kept. The absence of rabbit bones in the pickled Oysters may be assemblage suggests the rabbits were transported; it abounds with completely gone by the time the midden was English Rabbits” deposited. The overwhelming number of cattle One way to evaluate the patterning bones points away from a domestic context seen in the Liberty Island historic faunal for these bones. Domestic contexts would assemblage is to look at other sites where likely find more pigs, sheep/goats, and comparable faunal analysis has been done. chickens. For example, the most numerous , a and taxon represented at the Spencer-Pierce- Revolutionary War site in Rome, New York Little Farm in Newbury, Massachusetts was had excavation done on it in the early 1970s pig followed by cattle, sheep/goat, by Lee Hanson and Dick Hsu. The results of pigeon/rock dove, and chicken. these investigations are available in the book Additionally, a domestic context would entitled Casemates and Cannonballs. The likely produce butchery discard (in the form Fort Stanwix assemblage was dominated by of head and foot bones), especially from

48 smaller domestic mammals and birds. ground-truthing the geophysical However, it is possible that butchery refuse investigations took place. was deposited elsewhere and was not Several interesting military buttons retrieved in this excavation. were found during the 2000 excavations. Both Parmalee’s and Hanson and Since I am not an expert in the identification Hsu’s results from military contexts parallel of buttons, I turned to Hughes’ and Lester’s our results from Liberty Island and present a the Big Book of Buttons. By using this good argument for an association with the reference manual, I was able to identify late 18th/early 19th-century military several buttons. One (STLI-33053) was an occupation. The bones could either be the infantry officer’s button. While no exact food remains of British soldiers during the parallels could be found for this button, Revolution or American soldiers when the Hughes and Lester illustrate one on page island was fortified in 1794. 716 with many similar features. Another one (STLI-35162) contains an eagle clutching The Artifacts branches with a “US” in the middle. The words “United States Infantry” are depicted By William Griswold in raised lettering around the edge on the obverse of the button. No date or Several noteworthy artifacts were manufacturer could be assigned to this found during both the 1999 and 2000 button. Still another button (STLI-33832 not seasons. While the 1999 season concentrated illustrated) was identified by Hughes and on uncovering the prehistoric resources of Lester as a Light Artillery button dating the island some historic artifacts were also between 1808 and 1814. They go on to uncovered. However, many more historic describe the light artillery as being created artifacts were discovered in 2000, when in 1808 and absorbed into the regular

Figure 6.5 Two military buttons found during the excavations.

49 regimental structure of the army in 1821 contexts for their importance in identifying (716-717). children in the archeological record. Several tobacco pipe fragments However, marbles were not solely restricted were also found during the excavations. to children. Adults often used them as These were all made of kaolin, a white clay. gaming pieces. The context in which STLI- One important characteristic of tobacco 34652 was found was not as informative as pipes, both stems and bowls, is that they if it had been found on a regular domestic undergo regular changes in design and site where we could infer the user, the status

Figure 6.6 Tobacco pipe fragments found during the excavations. construction. One bowl fragment (STLI- of the user’s family, etc. Without further 34924) was decorated by a raised, molded study (trace element analysis) it is weave pattern on the exterior. Another two impossible to tell the origin of this marble. fragments (STLI-33313 and STLI-33934) Several ceramic fragments were contained either the full or partial rendering found during the 2000 excavations that of the name “PETER DORNI” with deserve comment. Attribution of origin is “PETER” in raised molding on one side of tentative for several of these ceramics. Three the stem and “DORNI” on the other. examples (STLI-35051) collected on the Identical examples have been found and surface at the north end of the island appear published elsewhere. According to Omwake, to come from the same vessel and contain Peter Dorni was a widely-imitated French both shell and grit temper. They appear to be pipemaker ca. 1850 whose pipes were poorly made European ceramics. Another exported to the US. fragment (STLI-35077) is much more One small, round clay marble refined and appears to be of European (STLI-34652) was excavated from N352 origin, possibly Dutch, although this E162. Marbles have been noted in other attribution is very tentative. This fragment

50 also came from the northern end of the Stanwix National Monument, Rome, New island. One prehistoric ceramic fragment York. (Publications in Archeology 14. U.S. (STLI-35222) is shell tempered with fiber or Department of the Interior, National Park grass impressions evident. It is a product of Service, Washington, D.C. 1975); David incomplete or uncontrolled firing as the Landon, Feeding Colonial Boston: a interior and exterior sides are reddish brown Zooarchaeologal Study. Historical in color while the body of the fragment is Archaeology 30 (1):1-153 black. It is notable that this fragment was (1996); Paul W. Parmalee, Food animals found mixed in with historic period deposits utilized by the garrison stationed at Fort on the northern end of the island. Fillmore, New Mexico 1851-1862. El Carole Perrault in her 1984 Palacio. 74 (2):43-45 (1967); I. A. Silver, compendium cites a 1904 letter from G. C. “The ageing of domestic animals” in Science Burnell, Captain, Signal Corps, U.S.A to the and Archaeology, edited by D. Brothwell Adjutant General, Department of the East, and E. Higgs, pp. 283-302. (Thames & Governor’s Island, N.Y. In this letter, Hudson, London 1969). Burnell indicates that “a certain amount of Two sources used for the filling will be required on [the north] end of identification of the historic artifacts were E. the Island. To provide dirt for this purpose Hughes and M. Lester, The Big book of and generally improve the grounds it is Buttons (second printing), (J.S. McCarthy recommended that the counterscarp and Company, Augusta, Maine, 1991) and H. glacis on the north side of the Statue be cut Geiger Omwake, “Analysis of 19th century down to the level of the moat.” This is White Kaolin Pipe Fragments from the Mero precisely the area where the prehistoric and Site, Door County, Wisconsin,” in early historic middens are located. I would Wisconsin Archaeologist 26 (N.S.), No. 2 argue that the early material that was located (1965). on the north end of the island has been Background information on the relocated from its original position near the development of the island, at least for the location of the midden. purposes of this chapter comes from two As one can see, Liberty Island has sources. Carole Perrault’s, “The Statue of been slow to reveal her past. Archeological Liberty and Liberty Island: A Chronicle of excavation has illustrated that key spots on the Physical Conditions and Appearance of the island have enormous potential for the Island, 1871-1956” Manuscript on file at illuminating the past, while other areas tell the National Park Service, Northeast us little that we don’t already know. Cultural Resources Center, Lowell, Separating the wheat from the chaff, Massachusetts (1984), I. N. P. Stokes, The however, is what archeology is all about. Iconography of Manhattan Island (New Continued archeological projects on the York: Robert Dodd 1928) and the island will inevitably reveal additional Pictorial Report for 1940. information about the cultural land use practices on the island.

Sources and Further Reading

Several sources were consulted for the interpretation of the faunal remains. These included, Lee Hanson and Dick Ping Hsu, Casemates and Cannonballs: Archaeological Investigations at Fort

51 CHAPTER SEVEN WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

William Griswold

National Park Service, Northeast Archeology Group

THE PREHISTORIC MIDDEN DEPOSITS The ceramic fragments found within the shell midden during the 1999 season, Given the amount of construction activity clearly show that the shell midden was that has taken place on Liberty Island, it is formed as a result of shellfish exploitation difficult for many to believe that an during several prehistoric periods, beginning archeological resource as valuable as a in the Middle Woodland, continuing through prehistoric shell midden could still be the Late Woodland, and possibly even preserved, although other prehistoric sites extending into the Contact period. Since the have been found in equally unlikely shells of the midden were deposited over contexts. The prehistoric shell midden was Feature 1 (1985) it is assumed that the C-14 not only preserved, but yielded a plethora of dates obtained from the feature represent the information concerning Native American earliest prehistoric dates for this portion of life, especially as it unfolded in the last two the site. However, we can’t rule out that millennium. It was likely preserved due to older areas of the midden may have existed, the original topography of the island; but have been destroyed during construction according to the 1766 map, the site seems to activities at the site. We may find some be in a depressed area of the island. older material on the island someday, but for The radiocarbon dates taken from now the oldest prehistoric deposits seem the pre-midden Feature 1 suggest a radio- date back just about 1000 years ago. carbon date of approximately 1000 years While oyster remains account for ago. This correlates to the end of the Middle the largest percentage of identified molluscs Woodland Period or the beginning of the in the site, Largy’s analysis indicates that Late Woodland Period. Radiocarbon dates numerous other shellfish, fin fish, mammal, have not been done on the shell from the bird, reptiles, and amphibia are represented site. This date of corresponds to a time when within the shell midden. These include peoples were heavily utilizing coastal softshell clam, ribbed mussel, slipper shell, a resources throughout the Northeast coastal host of identified univalves, deer, dog, region. These studies, as well as the data rodents, several unidentifiable large, from the Liberty Island site, indicate that a medium, and small mammals, bobwhite wide diversity of food resources was quail, canvasback duck, bay duck, other available to the Native American population. duck, an immature pelican, oyster toadfish, It seems that plant domestication was much white perch, cod-family fish, salamander, more important on the interior where and turtle. Some identified taxa, i.e. cow, are resources were more limited. intrusive into the earlier deposits.

53 Largy has cogently argued fauna and flora. The lack of any long-term elsewhere that the discovery of a features connected with the midden seem to fledgling/nestling pelican bone may indicate indicate that the forays to Liberty Island a climatic warming. The bones of the were just short-term trips and that the Native pelican were found in Feature 1 (1985) and Americans may not have lived on the island the charcoal in the feature has been for long periods. Another possible radiocarbon dated to the end of the Middle interpretation may be that Native Americans Woodland/beginning of the Late Woodland. did live on the island, but those features These birds do not normally nest this far which would be associated with long-term north. For these birds to nest this far north, habitation have been destroyed. the temperature would have been warmer The discovery of a jasper Levanna than at present. Lucinda McWeeney and projectile point during the 1985 excavations David Perry have additionally noted that indicates that the Native Americans were around A.D. 1000 the “Little Climatic utilizing regional (area available and not Warming Period” was occurring and had island available) resources for their lithic allowed several trees to extend their tools; the only raw materials available on the northern range into the coastal New York site are those materials that wash up on and Connecticut regions. shore. While a small number of flakes were Several species of flora are also uncovered during the 1999 season, lithic represented in the midden. Wood fragments production or reduction seems to have been oak, elm, juniper, and possibly other a relatively minor activity on the site. coniferous and deciduous trees. A relatively It must again be pointed out that the large number of charred hickory nutshell formation processes on shell middens are indicates the choice of this nut as for food. complex. While it can not unequivocally be Parenchymatous tissue analysis also stated that all of the flora and fauna species identified water lily and flowering rush, two identified in the analysis of the midden freshwater plants. This discovery raises come from human exploitation of those some interesting questions, especially since species, the analysis suggests a diverse diet, the earliest maps of the island show no fresh utilizing numerous estuarine, riverine, and water source. The most reasonable terrestrial resources. conclusion is that these plants were brought to the island when the shellfish were collected, indicating that these people were THE HISTORIC DEPOSITS likely making multiple stops for the procurement of various resources during The discovery of a large deposit of their hunting and gathering forays. An late eighteenth/early nineteenth century alternate suggestion is that the plants were midden material during the 1999 and 2000 growing in a nearby freshwater pond now seasons is indeed surprising. It is very likely inundated by saltwater. that the material contained within the In addition to being used during midden predates the construction of Fort several of the prehistoric periods, the Wood, since a deposit of sand of varying evidence also shows that the island was thickness, covers the midden deposits and is likely used during several seasons of the believed to be related to the construction of year. Not all of the flora and fauna identified the ditch and the glacis around Fort Wood. from the excavations are available during The design and construction of Fort Wood one season. It seems, however, that the late in the early nineteenth century was part of a summer/fall season was an important time to larger harbor defense plan developed and come to Liberty Island to collect various overseen by Col. Jonathan Williams.

54 The evidence garnered from the buildings on the east and west sides of the faunal analysis conducted on the bones island was often buried much deeper and recovered from the midden suggests that the consisted primarily of sand. Some of the fauna were left by soldiers. The fact that the basements of these buildings, including the remains consist primarily of cow remains floors, may be preserved but are buried and the fact that only certain parts of the deeper than 3 meters. If you will remember, cow were found illustrate this point. The 3 meters is the approximate lower-end limit question then remains, what soldiers and for many of the geophysical investigations. from where. Liberty Island was fortified and Investigating archeological deposits or occupied before the Fort Wood fortifications features on the island that are buried 3 were constructed. The presence of meters or more is logistically difficult. creamware, pearlware, and a variety of Usually, a large area must be opened and the imported stoneware and probable glacis sides of the excavation must be supported to deposits covering the midden necessarily prevent collapse. limit the time of deposit to between 1760 One should also consider the value and 1808. During this time the British of an excavation designed to search for the occupied the island during part of the deeply buried remains of Fort Wood Revolution and housed Tory refugees and buildings. The photographs taken during the later in the 1790s the Americans constructed demolition of many of the buildings show earthen fortifications on the island. The all of the above ground portion of the walls remains contained in the midden could be dismantled with only the footprint of the from either group. The only way to really building remaining. Based on the limited clarify the situation is to do more excavations that we did in these buildings, it excavation. seems that, if they were filled, they may have been filled with rather clean fill. In The Fort Wood Remains other words, if someone were to excavate in these old buildings, they may find the The excavations conducted in 2000 cement floor of the building and perhaps a showed that at least some fragments of the few artifacts dating to the time of the buildings from the Fort Wood period demolition of the building. This may or may remain. The area at the north end of the not be a valuable archeological endeavor. island, which is currently off limits to the The construction of many of these buildings, visitors, seems especially promising. The however, would certainly have destroyed 2000 excavations in this area document the any earlier deposits or artifacts that would remains of buildings and the filling of some have been buried below the footprint. of the foundations and basements with debris. This debris encountered within the Early Statue of Liberty Deposits foundations is probably from the walls having been pushed into the foundations as During the 2000 excavations several much of the rubble fill encountered in the deposits were discovered which date to the excavations was very course. Often this first official landscape design (1930s) of the rubble consisted of whole bricks with the island. In many cases, these deposits were mortar still adhering to them, sometimes composed of densely packed clay. Few joined with other bricks. artifacts were discovered during the The area at the north end of the excavation of these deposits. While island would be a good place to investigate relatively young, these deposits may have because the remains are fairly close to the National Register Significance because of surface. The fill encountered within the their association with Norman Newton, an

55 early renowned National Park Service Landscape Architect.

Sources and Further Reading

Most of the information contained in this chapter comes from unpublished excavation reports. One monograph has come out, however, that discusses the discoveries made when the shell midden was excavated. This book, intended primarily for scholars, was edited by William Griswold and is titled, Archeology of a Prehistoric Shell Midden, Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York (Archeology Branch, Northeast Region, National Park Service, 2002). A limited number of copies were printed for distribution. This volume, however, contains contributions by Lucinda McWeeney, David Perry, and Tonya Largy that discuss the discoveries in great detail.

56 CHAPTER EIGHT WHY BOTHER TO DO PROJECTS LIKE THIS ONE?

William Griswold

National Park Service, Northeast Archeology Group

FEDERAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS accords the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Thomas King in his book Cultural Resource The wording of Section 106 is Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide, designed to include anything that is either in discusses the evolution of cultural resource the National Register or eligible for the preservation laws and their applicability to National Register. Properties qualify for the federal properties. For almost a century now, National Register or become eligible for the the Federal Government has passed laws to National Register if it is associated with a protect cultural resources on Federal Lands, specific important historical event(s) beginning in 1906 with the passage of the (Criteria A), or with a specific important . Since then, Congress has historical person or persons (Criteria B). A enacted numerous laws to regulate the property can also qualify if it is management of cultural and archeological characteristic of a particular type of resources. Included among the most construction (Criteria C) or if it contains important laws are the Archeological significant research potential (Criteria D). In Resources Protection Act (ARPA), The other words most NPS sites qualify. Abandoned Shipwrecks Act, The Native In order to “assess the effects of American Graves Protection and their actions” the NPS units work with Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and The various specialists who are set up as National Historical Preservation Act advisors to the parks. These specialists (NHPA), just to name a few. include archeologists, landscape architects, The last one mentioned, The historic architects, collection curators, National Historical Preservation Act historians, and ethnologists who aid the park (NHPA) was enacted by Congress in 1966 in evaluating their proposed actions. and has been amended several times since External organizations also aid the parks in then. This one is probably the most evaluating various projects. The three most important act to concern us here. One of the important external agencies are the State most important parts of the act, at least for Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the archeological purposes, is Section 106. To Tribal Historic Preservation Officer paraphrase King and the act, Section 106 (THPO), and the Advisory Council on requires federal agencies to take into Historic Preservation (ACHP). This review account the effects of their actions on any process, while at times seemingly district, site, building, structure or object cumbersome, protects cultural resources that is either in or that is eligible for entry in from ill-conceived activities. The process is the National Register. The section also not designed to completely protect

57 archeological or cultural resources from all archeological resources that, without us, damages, or to deter all proposed would not have a voice. construction plans. It simply forces mangers NPS-28, the guidelines developed to think about what effect their actions may for management of cultural resources within have on the resources that they are charged the National Park Service, defines the to care for. obligation of cultural resource managers. To get back to the question at hand, why bother to do projects like this one? One The National Park Service answer is simple, the more information that is steward of many of we have about a park the better we can America’s most important design projects and the better we can protect cultural, natural, and those valuable cultural resources. In most recreational resources. It is cases it also saves money in the long run. charged to preserve them Almost without exception it is easier to unimpaired for the redesign a project in its conceptual stage to enjoyment of present and minimize ground disturbance or avoid a future generations. All park known archeological resource than it is to management activities stem mitigate the effects on an archeological site from these resources. If they or resource during construction. are degraded or lost, so is the essence of the park.

CULTURAL RESOURCE Almost every park in the STEWARDSHIP national park system has cultural resources, just as Another way to answer the question nearly all parks have flora of why bother to do projects like this one, and fauna. Unlike healthy compels a discussion about stewardship. ecosystems, though, the Stewardship, as commonly defined, denotes material evidence of past care and protection of something without human activities is finite actually owning it. None of the units within and nonrenewable. Such the NPS are “individually owned or tangible resources begin to operated” to borrow a phrase from the deteriorate almost from the franchising establishments. These units have moment of their creation. been chosen by Congress to have some Once lost they cannot be merit to the American people as a whole. recovered. In keeping with The units within the NPS are then owned the NPS organic act of 1916 collectively by the American people. The and varied historic NPS is simply the federal organization preservation laws, park established to manage and care for them. management activities must Many of the people involved in the reflect awareness of the NPS, and especially those charged with irreplaceable nature of these managing cultural resources really do material resources. consider themselves as stewards. We are simply trying to manage, care for, and protect the resources within our charge for Archeologists, and cultural resource people to enjoy now, and in the future. Most managers alike, realize that National Park of us take our job very seriously and try to Service sites are for the enjoyment of represent the non-renewable cultural and everyone. One of the reasons that people

58 travel to NPS sites is to learn about a place, puzzle. For example, in this book I have not and part of the NPS’s mission is to educate even mentioned the underwater the public about the place. The NPS archeological resources of the island. These employs hundreds of interpreters, historians, resources are undoubtedly present, and when archeologists, ethnologists, curators, exhibit money becomes available for a proper design specialists, etc. who attempt to bring assessment, the information will greatly add the public the most accurate information to our knowledge about the island. In a about a site. However, the information that similar vein, the geophysical study we were communicating to the public about concentrated on the deposits within the archeological resources at a site, was approximately 2.5 meters of the surface of often biased toward a few areas of the park the island. Undoubtedly, there are that had been investigated or toward the archeological remains on the island that are information derived from compliance buried below 2.5 meters. Borings, done with projects. To truly understand the archeology a drilling rig, additional geophysical studies, of a site, one needs to look at the site as a or deep trenching may illuminate the whole. So then if we ask the question again, deposits below 2.5 meters. In addition to why bother to do projects like this one? The these studies, continued archeological answer is to fulfill part of our mission and investigations done in compliance with provide the public with the best and most Section 106 of the National Historic accurate information about a site. Preservation Act will also bring to light additional information about the former uses Whew, I’m glad the archeology is all done of the island. In summary, I see the research for this site! presented in this book as a starting point for continued research on Liberty Island rather Actually it’s not. Archeology than an ending for the previous research. attempts to tell a story about mankind. It Much work remains to be done on the does so with fragmentary information. The island. information is fragmentary because not everything makes it into the archeological Sources and Further Reading record and many things that do enter the archeological record never make it out. Thomas F. King’s book, Cultural Think of the archeology of Liberty Island as Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory a 1,000-piece puzzle. The work that we have Guide (AltaMira, Walnut Creek, CA et.al., done over the last three years has allowed us 1998) provides an excellent discussion of to put maybe 50 pieces of the puzzle the laws protecting cultural resources within together. We can begin to visualize an image the United States. Another book by King of the picture depicted by the puzzle, but the titled Federal Planning and Historic Places: picture is still vague and undefined. Most of the Section 106 Process (AltaMira, Walnut these pieces that have been placed are Creek, CA et. al. 2000) provides additional scattered across the puzzle, so that it is information concerning federal planning and difficult to tell what the picture is showing. the laws which govern it. It is only by putting together more pieces of Several manuals and volumes have the puzzle that we begin to understand the been produced for internal National Park archeology of the site. As new pieces of the Service use which discus how we approach puzzle are added, theories, beliefs, and cultural resources. The most important is history of the island will be transformed. NPS-28, Cultural Resources Management Additional archeological work is Guideline, Release Number 4. U.S. needed to continue to reveal the image in the Department of the Interior, National Park

59 Service, Washington, D.C. This manual was written to promote uniform guidelines to cultural resources across the service.

60 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Anatomical pertaining to the structure of Compliance a shortened form of plants or animals archeological excavations conducted to fulfill requirements for Section 106 of the Archaic Period the time period from National Historic Preservation Act. approximately 10,000 – 3,000 BP marked by a hunting gathering adaptation, but without Contact Period refers to the time when the use of ceramics. contact occurred between Europeans and Native American groups; can vary in time Archeological Overview and Assessment from place to place, but occurs in the area (OA) is a document produced in the NPS around Liberty Island at the beginning of the which summarizes the archeological seventeenth-century. information currently available about a site, critiques excavations that have taken place Counterscarp refers to the side/slope of a in the past, and provides direction for fortification ditch furthest away from the research to be conducted at the site in the actual fortification; opposite the scarp or future side/slope of a fortification ditch nearest the fortification. Archeology/Archaeology – The study of mankind through the examination of Cultural Resource Preservation Program material remains, usually recovered through (CRPP) refers to a program within the NPS excavation. that provides money for various cultural resource projects; projects are evaluated by Artifacts refers to any object that has been committee on an annual or semi-annual modified for use by humans. basis and projects are competitively selected. Artillery refers to either the guns or cannons that fire projectiles or the troops Ecofacts are things connected with the who use them. environment that have been used by humans but have not been modified from their Bioturbation natural agents like roots, natural state i.e. seeds, bones, etc. worms, and bugs that move things around in the soil. Electromagnetic Induction (EM) a method of geophysical investigation in which the BP Before Present; term used most often variations are noted on an electromagnetic with Radiocarbon dates or sequences current introduced into the ground; established through Radiocarbon dating and patterning of the variation reflects burial of actually refers to a mid-twentieth century metallic including non-ferrous objects. date corresponding to a time before nuclear testing began. Electronic Total Station surveying instrument where everything is Carbon 14 dating method of dating electronically calculated from by use of a developed by Willard Libey in the late laser. 1940s which dates certain categories of material by assessing the amount of Fauna as used in this book, refers to animal radioactive carbon left and comparing it to bones. known decay rates.

61 Feature is something created by man which Magazine a room where munitions are kept for one reason or another cannot be taken back to the lab i.e. a pit, a building Magnetometer geophysical testing foundation, a midden, etc. instrument that detects the presence of ferrous objects or items that contain ferrous Flora plants or parts of plants components.

Flotation a process in which water is used Microscopy refers to microscopic to separate small artifacts and ecofacts from examination of materials. the soil for later analysis. Midden refuse disposal heap or area. Genus/Species terms refers to the classification of living things into a family National Register an organization that and sub-family maintains a list of important historical places and evaluates new places for listing. Geophysical Survey non-invasive equipment used to locate buried artifacts or Paleoecology / Paleoenvironment the study features of ancient environments

GIS Geographical Information System or Paleoethnobotany the study of plants used GIS are computer programs which allow an by man that survive in the archeological individual to view and manage information record. geographically; ArcView, the GIS program widely used in the NPS allows users to view Paleo-Indian Period refers to the earliest maps and databases in different layers to period of human habitation in the New look for geographical patterns World characterized by fluted projectile points. Glacis a sloping approach leading to the counterscarp Parenchymatous Tissue Analysis a relatively new technique for Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) a paleoethnobotanists that involves the method of geophysical investigation in identification of plants through the which a radar signal is introduced into the examination of the soft tissues that are left ground and a profile of the ground can be behind. viewed; different antennae frequencies allow the profile of the ground to be examined at Pest House is an old term referring to a different depths; this method is arguably the structure, or in this case a structure and an most accurate of the geophysical methods. island, used to quarantine individuals.

Hearth a feature where burning or cooking Photomicrographs refers to photographs has occurred. made from the microscopes.

Infantry the foot soldiers of the army Pollen Analysis is a technique used to investigate the paleoenvironment through an Lithic stone modified by man; may refer to analysis of the relative frequencies of a tool or a by-product of tool production various types of pollen grains.

62 Prehistory simply means before history, development of agriculture in some areas of which in our case means before the arrival the Northeast. of the Europeans to North America. WPA Work Projects Administration was an Sallyport a gateway into the fort. organization developed during the of the 1930 to conduct and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) a develop public works projects. type of microscope that permits examination of materials at the molecular level.

Scarp the side of a ditch, usually sloping, closest to the main fortifications; see opposite counterscarp

Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act is the section requiring managers to assess the impacts of various projects on the resources either in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

Shell Midden – a trash heap made of shells or shell fragments that are the physical remains of food collection activities.

Site Identification Study can be one of several different types of projects, but is one that is designed to gather information about a site or a suspected site through archeological fieldwork.

Systematic Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP) a NPS program designed for the long-term systematic collection of archeological information about a site or park.

Taphonomic Process refers to processes that happen to archeological materials and sites after they have been buried; numerous changes happen to materials once they have entered the archeological record.

Woodland Period is the latest Prehistoric Period dating from about 3,000-400 B.P. and is marked by the introduction of ceramics. Numerous other changes happen during this time period including the

63