23preservationplanning.pdf

Patricia

M.

Samford

In

arecentarticle

on

campus

planning, the journal Architecture

summarized

some

of the currentissues

facing

academic

institutions,forecasting that indicators ofdecliningenrollmentinthe1990shave

made

college administrators eager to

improve

their facilities as a

means

of attracting students

(Anonymous

1991:37). This

improvement

oftenentailstheconstruction of

new

buildings, particularlyscience

and

technologycenters.

While

monographs and

articles

on

universityplanning generally stress the

need

for master plans

which

take into account factors such as projected growth, costs, effectiveland

management,

visualuniqueness,and

trans-portation

(Dober

1992,

Freeman

et al., 1992, Junker 1990), preservationplanningoften receiveslittle

more

than lip service. Pointing out this obvious oversight,

Stephen

Chambers

(1990) has addressed the need for

preservingstructures,greenspaces

and

archaeological resources ofhistoricalsignificancein his recentarticle

on

university preservation planning.

While

structures

deemed

tobe ofhistoricsignificancetoacademic insti-tutionsare

more

likelytoreceiveconsiderationby

uni-versity planners, archaeological resources are rarely

givenanyattention.

Preservationplanning

became

an important concept

in the early 1980s, under

encouragement

by federal agencies concerned withcultural resource planningat thestate level(HeritageConservation

and

Recreation

Service, 1980).

The

model

outlined by the Heritage Conservation

and

Recreation Service called for the creationofstateresourceprotection plans

which

iden-tify important cultural resources, formulate research

Patricia

Samford

iscurrentlyenrolledasa graduate stu-dentin thedoctoral

program

inAnthropologyatthe Uni-versityof North Carolinaat

Chapel

Hill.Priortothis,she

was

astaffarchaeologist forthe Colonial Williamsburg Foundationin Williamsburg, Virginia.

objectives,

and

createoperatingplans

which

make

spe-cific

recommendations

for

managing

these resources1

.

Although

intendedforabroaderlevelof planning, the

same model

couldbeappliedtopreservationplanning

ata universitylevel. This paperwill demonstrate

how

this

approach

could be applied at the University of

North

Carolinaat

Chapel

Hill,by

showing

howa

project currently

underway

there could be

expanded

into a preservationplanforarchaeological resources

on

Uni-versity-ownedland.

The

Bicentennial

Project

Between

thefallof1993

and

thespringof1994, the University of

North

Carolina at

Chapel

Hill will be celebratingitsBicentennialObservance,

commemorat-ing its position as the nation's first public university.

While

many

peopleareawareof the historical impor-tance of visible

campus

symbols, such as the Davie Poplar

and

the

Old

Well,fewrealizethatagreatdealof this history lies buried beneath university soil as

ar-chaeologicalsites.

One

project currently

underway on

campus

illustrates the importance of identifying,

re-cording

and

protecting the University's archaeological resources. This multi-phaseproject,conducted bythe Research Laboratoriesof

Anthropology

inconjunction withtheBicentennialObservance,

began

withthe

iden-tification ofpotential sites through preliminary

back-ground

researchofhistoricalsources.Early

maps

ofthe campus,universityrecords,secondary sourcematerials

and

oral history2

were

used toprovidea"shortlist"of potential sitesofarchaeological interest (Steponaitis, 1991).

As

a result, fifteen potential areas of interest

whichidentifyimportantculturalresources,formulate research objectives,

and

create operating plans

which

make

specific

recommendations

for

managing

these resources

were

located, largelywithin the confines of the

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

SITES

ON

THE

UNC

CAMPUS

Of

the archaeological sites discovered during pre-liminarytesting,threehave

been

chosenfor

more

exten-sive examination. In-depth

background

research has

been

conductedforthese threesites, recovering

infor-mation which

revealsthe closeconnection

between

the University

and

the

community

of

Chapel

Hill.

The

villageof

Chapel

Hill

was

charteredbyanactof the

General

Assembly

of

North

Carolina in 1789 in

conjunction with thefoundingofthe University of

North

Carolina.

The

locationof the university

was

planned alongthe

summit

ofa highplateau

and

the buildings includedinthefirst

campus

plan

were

organized

around

an

open

green.

While

virtuallyallofthesefirstplanned buildingsstillsurvive

and

some

haverecently

been

re-storedto theiroriginalappearance,others surviveonly

as archaeological sites.

One

of these

was

known

as

Steward'sHall.Thisbuilding,

which

stoodinthevicinity

of

New

East

and

Davie,

was

the University'sfirstdining hall.

Renowned among

the studentsforitsterriblefood

and

cockroaches, Steward's Hall

was

dismantled

and

moved

in1847.

A

secondareafor

which

excavation has

been

plannedisin

McCorkle

Place. It isbelieved that

artifacts

and

architectural remains associatedwith an

encampment

of

Union

troopsat the close of theCivil

War

may

be found

there.

The

site that is currently scheduled for the

most

extensive excavation,however,istheformerlocationof theEagleHotel. Originallyconstructed

between

1793

and

1797 asa tavern,this building,duringitslifetime,

served primarilyas

accommodations

for visitorstothe

campus

and

aslodgingsforuniversity students.Taverns

were an

important feature of life in 18th

and

19th century towns,servingascentersof

communication and

socializing, as wellas places

where

lodging, food

and

drinkcouldbe providedtotravelers

and

residents.

The

Eagle Hotel

became

particularly

renowned under

the ownership of Miss

Nancy

Hilliard. Inaddition to run-ning a successful boarding

house

for students, Miss Hilliard

was

alsohostess toPresident

James

Polk

when

he returnedto the

campus

to give the

commencement

addressin1847.

A

special

annex was

added

tothe hotel

to

house

the president

and

hisparty(Figure1). Afterits

demise

by fire in 1921, the site of the Eagle Hotel

remained

largely untouched, providng archaeologists with

an

idealopportunityforexcavation.Testinghere has revealed possible evidence ofthe fire, as well as

pottery

and

glassdating

from

thelate18th

and

early19th centuries.

Excavations

on one

or

more

of these propertieswill

begininthefallof1993,

under

the supervisionofDr.

Vin

Steponaitis, director of the

Research

Laboratories of Anthropology.

inspection ofareas believed to contain sites

was

also

conductedaspart of thefirstphaseofinvestigation.

The

second phase ofthe projectinvolvedsoil auger-ing

and

testexcavationsatthe locationsidentified inthe

first phase of research.

Not

onlydid this aid in

more

preciselydeterminingthe locations of thesites,butalso

their soil stratigraphy

and

general condition. In

some

instances, testingallowedcertainareastoberuledoutas

potential locationsforfutureexcavation

due

to

damage

incurredthrough

more

recent construction or landscap-ing.

As

a result of the soil augering

and

testing, the

originallistoffifteensites

was narrowed

down

tothree sites

which

are currentlyunderconsiderationfor

more

intensive archaeological excavation.

More

complete

documentary

research has

been

undertaken for these threesites,focusing

on

recoveringinformationdetailing

physicalandfunctionalchangestothe propertiesthrough time,aswellastherolestheyplayedinthe historyof the

university.

The

thirdphaseofthisproject,

which

willbegininthe

fallof1993

and

continue throughthe followingspring, willbethe excavationof

one

or

more

of thesesites.

The

excavationswillbe run bythefaculty, staff

and

graduate students ofthe Research Laboratories of

Anthropol-ogy.Sincethe investigationswillbeheldinconjunction withatwo-semesterclass inhistoricalarchaeology, the excavatorswillconsist primarilyof

UNC

students,

sup-plemented

withlocalvolunteers. (See

box

atleft)

Development

of

a

Comprehensive

Archaeological Preservation

Plan

While

thisbicentennial project

was

notinitially con-ceived of in terms of a

comprehensive

preservation planningtool forUniversity of

North

Carolinaland, it

couldeasilyserveasaspringboardfordeveloping such aplan,withthecrucialfirststepbeingthe creation of a

comprehensive

listofarchaeologicalsites. This inven-tory

would encompass

not onlythe

immediate

campus, but University-owned lands such as the

Mason

Farm

Tract locatedsouthofcampus.

While

archivalresearch

would

identifya large

number

of thesitesdatingforward

from

the time of the first

European

settlement in the areainthe18th century, referencestoprehistoricsites,

as well as

some

historic period sites,

would

not be containedwithindocuments. Therefore,the

documen-tary research

would

have tobe

supplemented

withan archaeologicalreconnaissancesurvey,

which

consistsof placingsmall shoveltestholes orsoilaugersat

system-atic intervals over the property in question.

Such

a survey

would

serve thedualpurpose oflocating

undocu-mented

sites, aswellasverifying thepresenceof

docu-mented

archaeological resources.

More

extensive test-ingatlocations

which

containsites

would

provide

infor-mation

on

sitefunction, dating,

and

boundaries,aswell

remains ofbuilding foundations, trashpits

and

burials. Identifying

and

evaluating university-owned

archaeo-logical sites, however, is onlyan important first step.

Merely knowing where

archaeologicalsitesare located does not provide for their protection. This inventory

would

be used in conjunction with other sources of information, such asprimary

and

secondaryhistorical

documents,oralhistories

and

sitepredictive

models

to

developaresearchdesign outlining archaeological pres-ervationneeds

and

research.

The

formulation ofsucha research design could be used to evaluate the signifi-cance ofvarious typesofsites.

For

example,

archaeo-logicalexcavationtodate

may

haveyielded a large

body

ofinformation aboutcertaintypesofsites,while

much

lessis

known

aboutothers. Prioritizingthesitesbased

on

this

and

otherfactors will simplifydecision-making processesinsituations

where

some

archaeologicalsites

may

need

to be sacrificed in order to save others.

A

preservation plan

would

provide archaeologists

and

planners witha

framework

fordecision-makingabout archaeologicalresources

on academic

property.

A

plansuchasthis,however,cannot

work

inisolation

from

otherprocedures orplanswithin theuniversity.

To

date,relationships

between

archaeologists

and

planners havegenerally

been

uneasyatbest

and

attimes

adversar-ial.Additionally,

some

plannersstillremainobliviousto

archaeology. Archaeologists

may

appear in the latter

stagesoftheplanningprocess

and

areperceivedas

ob-structionistsstandinginthepathof

development

plans.

As

aresult,

some

planners

and

developersresist

working

with archaeologists. Archaeologists, too,are often

in-sensitive totheneeds ofplanners.Thisdoes nothaveto

be thecase. Archaeologistswill

need

to

work

in close conjunction with otherdepartments,such as

develop-ment

and

facilities maintenance, toformulate

and

im-plement

aneffectivestrategyfor

managing

archaeologi-calresources.Ifbothpartiestookthetimetolearnthe objectives

and

work

methods

of the other,

some

prob-lems couldbe avpoded.

The

sometimes

practiced policyof

two

or threeday notification in advance of ground-disturbing activity, while providingarchaeologistswiththeopportunityto

record archaeological resources as they are being de-stroyed,isnotasatisfactory

arrangement

foreitherthe archaeologist or the planner.

When

important

archaeo-logical remains are encountered, costly construction delays often ensue while archaeologists record their findings. Archaeological sitesare a

nonrenewable

re-source-once

theyhave

been

disturbed or destroyed, the information

which

theycontained can neverbe

recon-structed.

Developing

researchstrategies

which

canbest address questions to be asked of the archaeological resources requiresadvanceplanning.

When

taken into consideration during planning phases, protecting or recovering archaeological information can usuallybe

accomplishedatlittleor

no

costtothedevelopers. Thiscouldbeaccomplished byinvolving archaeolo-gistsintheplanning phases of development. Thisinitial involvementgenerally

opens

severaloptionsfor

nego-tiation

between

planners

and

archaeologists. In

some

instances, utility routes or building positions can be altered to take locations of archaeological sites into account. Ifconstruction plans cannot be altered, in-volvement in the initial stages of planningallows

ar-chaeologists time toformulate

and

implement

strate-gies forrecovering archaeological informationwell in advanceofactualconstruction.

An

importantstep

would

be plotting the locations ofall

known

archaeological sites

and

archaeologicallysensitiveareas

on

abase

map

which would

be used byplanners. Additionally, atten-dance byauniversity-affiliatedarchaeologistat facilities planningmeetings

would

bea

way

tobegin

implementa-tionofthisprocess.Thisprocedurehas

been

used

suc-cessfully for

some

years in a large

outdoor

museum

settingbytheColonialWilliamsburg Foundation.

As

a result, a productive

working

relationship has evolved

between

the

Department

ofArchitecture

and

Engineer-ing

and

the

Department

ofArchaeological Research. Archaeologicalsitelocationsareconsideredafactor in

development

planning

and

iffuture

work

cannot allow

forthe in-place preservationof asite,

enough

timeexists forplanning

and

executing therecovery ofits

informa-tion.

Preservation Planning:

Two

examples

from

UNC-CH

Two

recentexamplesatthe UniversityofNorthCarolina

at

Chapel

Hill

show

how

different approaches to the preservationofUniversity archaeological resourcescan have very different results.

The

Mason Farm

tract, locatedsouth of

campus

is thecurrent location of the Finley

Golf

Course and

the

North

Carolina Botanical Gardens.

Although

asystematicarchaeologicalsurvey ofthis property has not

been

conducted to date, the

Mason Farm

propertyisvery archaeologicallysensitive,

withnine

known

archaeologicalsiteslocated withinor adjacent to theproperty (Ward, 1992a). In the 1940s, Research Laboratoriesof

Anthropology

DirectorJoffre

Coe

partially excavated

one

of these sites (310r4d). There, the excavations revealed a prehistoric Native

American

villagecontainingsignificantpitfeaturesdating

from

theperiod

AD

1000-1400 (Ward, 1992a).

Some-timein the 1980s, asewerline

was

placedthrough this

known

site,causing the destructionof

unknown

amounts

ofarchaeological information.

Although

thesite

loca-tion

was on

fileatthe

North

Carolina Divisionof Ar-chives

and

History,the environmental review process

failedtoprotectthisimportantsite.Bettercooperation

A

second example, however,illustrates

how

commu-nicationandcooperationbetween departments canresult in satisfactory results for all parties involved.

During

planning stages for the construction ofa

new

green-house

on

the

Mason

Farm

property, the staffof the

North

Carolina Botanical

Gardens

contacted the

Re-search Laboratories about determiningthe existenceof anyarchaeologicalsites

on

the

proposed

building loca-tion. Priortoconstruction, theResearch Laboratories of

Anthropology

inspected the

proposed

location

and

foundnosignificantarchaeologicalremains(Ward,1992b).

The

costof

implementing

a preservationplanissure

tobe an importantconcern.

With

risingcosts

and

declin-ing enrollment, university administrators can argue convincingly that excavating archaeologicalsitesmight not bethe

most

effective use of university funds.

How-ever,whilethe benefitsofapreservationplan

would

be

immense

interms of educational

and

public relations

opportunities, the costto universities forthe

develop-ment

of such a plan can be negligible.

Much

of the

proposed

archaeological reconnaissance survey

and

background

researchcouldbeaccomplishedin conjunc-tion with class requirements, providing educational opportunitiestostudentsaswell ascreatingan

impor-tant database. In addition to providing information aboutthe historyofthe universityinquestion,and,

more

broadly,aboutlocal

and

regionaldevelopment, preser-vationplanning couldbea potentiallyvaluable public

relationstool fortheuniversity.

The

placementofplanned excavations,in

some

of the

most

public areas

on

campus,

make them

anidealopportunitytoeducatethefaculty,

students,visitors

and

the publicabout archaeology

and

theimportanceof preservingarchaeological resources. Local historical societies are awealth of information

and

in

many

casescould providevolunteersforresearch or excavation.

As

discussed previously,

working

with archaeologists well in advance ofactual construction

willalsoavoidexpensivedelays.

Although

subsequent university

development

will

have

damaged

and

in

many

casesdestroyedtheseearly

archaeologicalremains,

numerous

archaeological proj-ects in even the heaviest developed urban areas have

shown

thatsignificantarchaeologicalresourcescanstill exist3 It isalmostcertain thatimportantarchaeological resources,notonly relatingtothe historyof the univer-sity,buttothe early historyof

Chapel

Hill,havealready

been

lostthroughconstruction

and

othersimilar

dam-age.

For

example,thearea of

Chapel

Hillfirstsettledby

European-Americans

is believed to have

been

atthe present locationoftheCarolinaInn.

The

creationofan inventorythrougharchivalresearch

and

archaeological

testing

would

provide

some

indicationof

what

resources have

been

lostinthisfashion.

The

focus ofuniversity preservationplanning need not

and

should notberestrictedtothe historyofthe

uni-versity.Inthecaseofthe Universityof

North

Carolinaat

Chapel

Hill,aswith

many

otheruniversities,the appear-ance oftheareabeforetheestablishment ofthe Univer-sity

would

alsobe ofinterest. Inthe late 18th century,

thisarea

was

known

as

New

Hope

Chapel

Hill

and

the only

known

development

in the areaat thattime

con-sisted of a mill, blacksmith

shop and

a chapel ofthe

Church

of

England

(Battle, 1907:27).Collegesin

colo-nial America, while

modelled

after English medieval

universities,

were

often placedin

remote

areas,

where

towns

and

cities

grew

up around

them. This differed

from

theirEnglishcounterparts,

which

were

foundedin establishedurbanareas(Turner1984:4).

The

effectsof

American

universities

on

the growth

and

development

ofthesurroundingareaisaninteresting

and

important topic of research, since an "awareness of history

and

cultureisnotmerelya nicetyinplanning,it isbasicto

understandingthe

community"

(Hartley 1993:30).

The

importance of understandingthegrowth

and

develop-ment

ofthe universityisanintegralkey to understand-ingthe

town

of

Chapel

Hill,sinceit

was

inconjunction withthe University that the

town

appeared.

Conclusion

As

the firstpublic, state-supported universityinthe nation, the University of

North

Carolinatrulyoccupies a unique position

among

academic

institutions.

At

a time ofincreased likelihoodoffuture

campus

develop-ment, university officials cannot afford to ignore its

important

and nonrenewable

archaeological resources. Thisyearofbicentennialobservances,

when

the history ofthe universityis atthe forefront, isanideal time to

begin thinking about the assessment

and

long-term preservation of theuniversity'sarchaeologicalresources.

A

properly conceived

and

executed preservation plan

thatincludes the responsible

management

of

archaeo-logicalresourcescan bebeneficialfortheinstitution,its

students

and

the surrounding

community.

The

time

seems

ripe for developing a university-wide

program

that could potentiallybe extended to other

campuses

within the University of

North

Carolinasystem.cp

References

Anonymous. AcademicExcellence.Architecture.Volume80,No.1,

January1991.p.37.

Battle,

Kemp

Plummer. Historyofthe Universityof NorthCarolina, VolumeI. Raleigh:Edwardsand BroughtonPrintingCompany, 1907.

Cames-McNaughton,Linda."SummaryofResearchNotesfor

Bicen-tennialArchaeologyProject."Unpublished manuscript onfileat ResearchLaboratories ofAnthropology, University ofNorth

Carolina,ChapelHill,1991.

Chambers, StephenL. "EstablishingaHistoricPreservation

Frame-workWithinCampusManagementandPfenning.",Planningfor

HigherEducation,Volume18,No.4,1990. pp.3-18.

Freeman, Alan Charles, William D'Elia and Kimberley Woodard. "New Town-Gown Planning.", PlanningforHigherEducation, Volume21, Fall1992.pp.25-31.

Hartley,MichaelO. "PlanningasanHistoricResource: AnExample

from the Western Piedmont of North Carolina.", Carolina Planning,Volume18,No.2,1993.pp.25-30.

Helsper, Hermke.Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. ResourceProtection PlanningProcess. HeritageConservation and RecreationService,Washington

DC,

1980.

Junker,

C

Anthony."Managingthe College'sRealEstate.",Planning

forHigherEducation,Volume19, Fall1990. pp.23-26.

Steponaitis,VincasP."AnArchaeologicalStudyofEarlyCampusLife

inChapelHill." ProjectproposalonfileattheResearch Labo-ratoriesofAnthropology,University ofNorthCarolina,Chapel

Hill,1991.

Turner, PaulVenable. Campus:

An

American PlanningTradition. Cambridge,MA: The

MIT

Press,1984.

Ward,H. Trawick. "A SummaryAssessmentofArchaeologicalSites

inthe Vicinity ofMasonFarm." Unpublishedreportonfileatthe

ResearchLaboratories ofAnthropology, University ofNorth

Carolina,ChapelHill,May1992.

Ward,H.Trawick. LettertoCharlotte A.Jones-Roe, datedOctober

6,1992. LetteronfileattheResearchLaboratories of

Anthro-pology, UniversityofNorthCarolina,ChapelHill,1992.

Notes

1-_{Culturalresourcescan include}

allsites,buildings,structures,

locali-tiesandfeatureswhich have beenmade,alteredorusedbyhumans.

Thispaperaddresses primarily archaeological resources.

2- _William

S. Powell,professor emeritus, of the

UNC-CH

History

Department wasinterviewedonMay23,1991.

3-

_A

recentandimportantexampleofthisisthe large18th-century

African-Americanslavecemeteryrecently excavatedindowntown

Manhattan. Detailsofthisexcavationcanbelocatedinanarticle entitled"Bones andBureaucrats;

New

York'sGreatCemetery