MORTAR ANALYSIS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRATIGRAPHY: THE STADT HUYS BLOCK AND SEVEN HANOVER SQUARE SITES Gabriela Figuereo SubmitteD in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Historic Preservation GraDuate ScHool of ArcHitecture, Planning, anD Preservation Columbia University (May, 2019) Table of Contents List of Figures, i-ii Acknowledgements, iii 1. Introduction, 1-4 2. Historic Mortars, 5-22 2.1 History of Mortar in tHe UniteD States, 8-17 2.2 Patterns of Transition, 18-22 3. Early Colonial Building Practices in New York City, 23-31 4. The Stadt Huys Block and Seven Hanover Square Sites, 32-43 4.1 ArcHitectural History, 33-36 4.2 Deposit Types, 37-38 4.3 Excavation Strategy, 38-39 4.4 Mortar Analysis, 39-41 4.5 Data Set, 41-43 5. Methods of Analysis, 41-47 5.1 MetHoDs of Mortar Analysis in tHe Field of ArcHitectural Conservation, 44-46 5.2 MetHoDs of Mortar Analysis in tHe Field of ArcHaeology, 46-48 5.3 ResearcH Design, 48-50 6. Data, 44-79 6.1 SHell Lime BinDers, 51-55 6.2 Rock Lime BinDers, 56-62 6.3 Natural Cement, 63-65 6.4 PortlanD Cement, 66-68 6.5 SanD, 69-71 6.6 SanD GraDation, 72-74 6.7 “Lovelace-Style” Mortars, 75-77 6.8 SHell to Rock Lime Transition, 78-79 7a. Discussion – Premise, 80-86 7b. Discussion – Dating, 87-96 7b.1 EstablisHing a TPQ, 89-91 7b.2 Refining Interpretations, 92-93 7b.3 Connecting Strata THrougH Mortars witH a “HanDwriting,” 94-96 7c. Discussion – Site Formation Processes, 97-101 7c.1 Connecting Strata witH Mortars of tHe Same Construction, 97-99 7c.2 IDentifying Construction EpisoDes in DisturbeD Deposits, 100-101 8. Opportunities for Future Study, 102-109 8.1 ResearcH Questions, 102-103 8.2 Resources, 103-109 9. Conclusion, 110-111 Appendix A - Site Maps, 112-115 Appendix B - Concordance Tables, 116-132 Appendix C - Test Cut Profiles, 134-139 Appendix D - Data Tables, 140-155 Bibliography, 156-158 List of Figures Figure 1: Sample 1132. 54 Figure 2: Sample 1652. 54 Figure 3: Sample 1657. 55 Figure 4: Sample 1766. 55 Figure 5: Sample 256. 60 Figure 6: Sample 201. 61 Figure 7: Sample 689. 61 Figure 8: Sample 242b. 62 Figure 9: Sample 664. 62 Figure 10: Sample 628a. 65 Figure 11: Sample 628b. 65 Figure 12: Sample 1645. 68 Figure 13: Sample 1784. 68 Figure 14: Sample 1799. 71 Figure 15: Sample SSSM. 71 Figure 16: SanD graDation of a 19th century signature. 74 Figure 17: SanD graDation of a 17tH century signature. 74 Figure 18: Sample 1799. 76 Figure 19: Sample 982. 77 Figure 20: SanD extraction of “Lovelace-style” samples. 77 Figure 21: Test Cut J, Lot 28, Seven Hanover. 91 Figure 22: Test Cut CB, Stone Street, StaDt Huys. 93 Figure 23: Sample 256. 99 Figure 24: Sample 242b. 99 Figuereo i Figure 25: Test Cut CA, Stone Street, Stadt Huys. 101 Figure 26: Sample 1648. 105 Figure 27: Sample 1733. 106 Figure 28: Sample 1132c. 106 Figure 29: Mortar sample from tHe Lott House. 107 Figure 30: Mortar sample from tHe Billiou-Stillwell-Perine House. 107 Figure 31: Mortar sample from tHe Treasure House. 108 Figure 32: Mortar sample from tHe Voorlezer’s House. 108 Figure 33: Thin section of mortar sample from tHe Dyckman FarmHouse. 109 Figuereo ii AcknowleDgements I woulD first like to tHank my aDvisor, JoHn WalsH. I coulD never tHank you enougH for your mentorsHip. THank you for pusHing me to accomplisH more tHan I woulD have ever tHougHt was possible. I am also very tHankful for tHe guiDance anD support of my reaDers, Jessica MacLean anD Norman Weiss. I woulD like to tHank tHe Colonial Dames of America for tHeir generous financial support of tHis project. THank you, Caroline McLain, for your personal interest in my researcH. I am very grateful to tHe New York City LanDmarks Preservation Commission for allowing me to analyze tHe materials in tHeir arcHaeological collections. I am especially tHankful for tHe work of Nan A. RotHscHilD anD Diana Wall. THeir deDication has maDe tHis researcH possible. I am honoreD to contribute to tHe stuDy of tHese arcHaeological sites. I am so appreciative of having been able to work at tHe lab of HigHbriDge Materials Consulting, Inc. THank you, HeatHer anD Mike, for always finDing space for me. I woulD also like to tHank tHe following institutions for tHeir support of tHis project: The Historic House Trust of New York City Historic RicHmonD Town National PetrograpHic Service, Inc. THank you to THe Questers for helping to support my acaDemic career at Columbia University. To CHris: THank you for always being a source of ligHt anD support. I especially tHank you for Helping me graDe sanDs for a wHole day. I don’t know wHat I woulD have Done witHout you. To my sisters Laura, StepHanie, anD Monica: THank you for always believing in me. Finally, to my parents anD Abuela: I owe everytHing I have to your love anD support. Thank you. Figuereo iii 1. Introduction New York City has a long History of arcHitectural anD inDustrial innovation, resulting in a diverse urban lanDscape. However, New York’s ricH early History as a Colonial settlement is largely unDerrepresenteD as few builDings remain from tHe 17tH anD 18tH centuries. THis, coupleD witH tHe lack of recorDs on local builDing practices anD early material sources, poses a serious cHallenge to tHe stuDy of New York’s arcHitectural history. For tHese reasons, tHe arcHitectural features uncovereD by arcHaeological excavations offer a unique anD invaluable opportunity to analyze early builDing materials. WHile arcHaeologists often encounter arcHitectural remains, tHey are mainly concerneD witH collecting artifacts tHat contextualize stratifieD Deposits anD place date constraints, anD in tHis process, builDing materials tHat similarly holD informational value are often overlookeD anD discarDeD. CHanging tHis practice requires cHallenging tHe conception of wHat artifacts are “Diagnostic,” meaning cHaracteristic of a particular time perioD or cultural traDition. ArcHaeologists consiDer arcHitectural features, sucH as founDation walls anD cisterns, to be diagnostic because tHey can be dateD to a perioD of construction corroborateD by builDing recorDs. However, loose builDing materials collecteD from witHin a stratifieD layer are not given tHe same consiDeration as otHer artifacts. For example, loose ceramic fragments are consiDereD diagnostic because tHey have iDentifiable cHaracteristics that are representative of a style of a certain perioD or cultural traDition, anD in some cases even a manufacturer’s mark, tHat can offer a date constraint for a stratigrapHic layer. BuilDing materials can be similarly useful for Dating as tHey can be placeD witHin a trajectory of material tecHnology tHat has developeD anD evolveD over time. WHile artifacts Figuereo 1 like ceramics can be dateD anD associateD witH local manufacturers, tHey are portable objects tHat can move tHrougH spaces over time, wHereas builDing materials have tHe aDvantage of being directly associateD witH a construction event. Mortars can be especially useful in tHat tHey cannot be reuseD or importeD, anD so tHey can reflect local hanDiwork anD material sourcing. For tHis reason, mortars Have been useD by botH arcHaeologists anD arcHitectural conservators to date arcHitectural features, anD yet tHere has been little work Done to demonstrate tHe informational value of mortars collecteD from stratifieD arcHaeological deposits. THe central aim of tHis tHesis is to argue for tHe diagnostic capabilities of mortars collecteD from stratifieD deposits, as demonstrateD tHrougH an analysis of tHe mortars collecteD from tHe StaDt Huys Block anD Seven Hanover Square excavations in Lower ManHattan in 1980. TogetHer, tHese sites represent some of tHe earliest anD most continuous history of European development in New York City, witH Deposits Dating back to tHe miD-17tH century settlement of New AmsterDam tHrougH tHe perioD of EnglisH colonization anD later development into tHe 20tH century. Most of tHe builDing materials collecteD from tHis excavation were consiDereD to be non-Diagnostic, anD so tHey were not extensively stuDieD or incorporateD into tHe interpretations of tHe arcHaeological sites. In revisiting tHis discarDeD collection, tHe following researcH objectives will be aDDresseD: 1. To demonstrate the capabilities of mortars as diagnostic tools for archaeological dating. Mortars can be analyzeD to iDentify tHe composition anD source material for tHeir binDers. THey can tHen be assigneD a date range as tHe iDentifieD binDer materials can be correlateD Figuereo 2 to a known history of binDer use. Mortars sampleD from stratifieD arcHaeological deposits offer an aDDitional source of information for tHe arcHaeologist tHat can support or refute previous interpretations. Mortars can also proviDe a date constraint for wHere tHere is no otHer supplementary information, as well as Help to link strata across tHe arcHaeological site. 2. To supplement the history of mortars and binder use in Lower Manhattan from the Colonial period to the Industrial Revolution. THese arcHaeological collections offer an opportunity to investigate little-known transitions in binDer tecHnologies in New York’s early Colonial history, sucH as tHe general sHift from sHell lime to rock lime. THese transitions are well known in New York from tHe InDustrial Revolution onwarD, but tHere is little information from tHe DutcH anD EnglisH colonial perioDs. THis information can be useful for distinguisHing early perioDs of construction in arcHitectural features witH little to no documentation. Goals 1 anD 2 inform eacH otHer, demonstrating how specialists in materials science can benefit from tHe context of arcHaeology anD arcHaeologists can benefit from the interpretations of specialists. Martin Carver, in His work Archaeological Investigation, states, “It is obvious tHat tHe most fruitful working relationsHips between fielD arcHaeologists anD specialists are tHose tHat begin in tHe design stage anD develop tHrougH Dialogue on tHe site itself anD tHen on into tHe lab.”1 By maintaining a dialogue between 1 Carver, 224 Figuereo 3 arcHaeologists anD materials scientists, arcHitectural builDing remains can serve to inform interpretations of cultural influences on tHe built environment.