Maxwell's Field at the Princeton Battlefield is far too important to be lost to development.
By Dr. Ian Burrow
The bulldozers and earth movers of the Institute for Advanced Study have been busy on the Princeton Battlefield National Historic Landmark for many months now. They are leveling a key part of the battleground, known as "Maxwell's Field," for a handful of faculty housing sites.
Until recently, Maxwell's Field was a pristine landscape, undeveloped since George Washington's troops snatched victory from the jaws of defeat during the January 3, 1777 Battle of Princeton.
A quarter of the 22-acre property is now scarred beyond repair as an archeological resource. Whatever might have been left beneath the surface -- potentially providing a wealth of new evidence and information about the battle and Revolutionary War-era military history -- has now been scraped away for housing that could easily have been built elsewhere.
Fortunately for our American history, previous archaeological investigations have been conducted at Maxwell's Field.
Battlefield archaeology is much more than a hunt for musket balls: it is the painstaking investigation of what soldiers were doing over hours or even minutes of intense and deadly activity.
Preserve this part of Princeton Battlefield | Editorial
It's important to understand that archaeology is not the only type of evidence confirming that Maxwell's Field was a key location during the battle. Historical research and landscape analysis also makes this clear.
However, archaeological research both confirms the conclusions of these latter studies, and provides unique information of its own.
Before the bulldozers arrived in late 2015, more than 100 recorded battle artifacts had been found in Maxwell's Field, firstly by avocational archaeologists, and later during professional surveys.
In 2003, after IAS presented its plan to develop Maxwell's Field, the state required a cultural resources survey to be carried out as part of the Land Use Regulation permitting process, leading to the first professional archaeological survey on the land.
Focusing on a 9.8-acre part of Maxwell's Field designated for faculty housing, archaeologists found 41 Revolutionary War artifacts from surface soils within this portion of the property alone. These artifacts included 15 lead balls, 14 grapeshot pieces, lead flint wraps, a short bayonet fragment, a brass ramrod holder and a portion of a cartridge box.
In June 2015, an interim archaeological report was completed by yet another consultant, also funded by IAS. An additional 10 Revolutionary War artifacts related to the Battle of Princeton were identified.
Land sale to Princeton Battlefield brings hope for future
The report noted that, while a considerable amount of archaeological research had been conducted on Maxwell's Field, "these studies only represent a starting point towards developing the archaeological research potential of the Princeton Battlefield." Since then, these archaeologists have monitored IAS earthmoving operations at the site to recover additional material.
The potential for Maxwell's Field to provide additional archaeological information is now lost -- at least on the portion of the property that was so tragically bulldozed by the Institute. Even so, the artifacts already found underscore that Maxwell's Field is indeed an important part of the Princeton battlefield, despite uninformed arguments to the contrary.
The time has come for the Institute to acknowledge the unique history of the National Historic Landmark property it is seeking to develop, and coordinate with preservation organizations to find a mutually beneficial solution to this controversy. It is not too late to save the remainder of this hallowed ground.
I join with many others in affirming that Maxwell's Field should be permanently preserved and managed as a historic landscape, a part of the national patrimony. The best solution would surely be for IAS to transfer the site to the state as an addition to Princeton Battlefield State Park. In return, the municipal, county and state governments should work closely with IAS to identify a viable alternative site that meets the Institute's genuine need for additional housing.
The site is simply too significant for American history to be hidden under houses.
Dr. Ian C. Burrow has 40 years of experience directing cultural resource management projects in the United States and the United Kingdom, with particular expertise in directing archaeological investigations carried out in conjunction with restoration projects. Currently, Dr. Burrow is principal at BurrowIntoHistory. The opinions expressed here are entirely his own.