by Elise Nuding

Introduction/Context

This project was undertaken to investigate the transformation of Rhode Island Hall over 168 years from the “building ...for the reception of geological and physiological specimens” to the building today with its eclectic occupants. This transformation applies to the physical structure of the building- its materiality- but also to the ways in which people have interacted with RI Hall during its existence. In what ways has the changing materiality of the building defined the experiences that people have had within it?

Crucially, the investigation is not confined to the past. Currently, RI Hall is home to the Office of International Programs on the first floor, and Psychological Services on the second floor. There is also one classroom, 201, on the second floor, and more classroom space in the basement with 001 and 002. Also located in the basement are the Writing Fellows Centre, the bathrooms, and some storage space in the form of filing cabinets. A focal part of the investigation is the building as it exists today, in Spring 2008- its last semester of use before being renovated as the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World.

Although there is not a precedent for this investigation, there is existing work that addresses similar architectural issues. Gavin Lucas and Victor Buchli address the issue of archaeology of the present in ‘Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past’, 2001. The chapter entitled ‘The archaeology of alienation: a late twentieth-century British council house’ treats a recently abandoned council house as an archaeological site, examining the material remains of the inhabitants. The materiality provides an understanding of the specific circumstances of the abandonment, and also provides an insight into the social phenomenon of state-funded housing and the realities of the system in Britain. In 2005 a project similar to the RI Hall investigation was begun at Stanford University. ‘The Building 500 Project’ did not fully evolve, but the idea was to blur the archaeologies of past and present in a similar way to Lucas and Buchli. An excavation was begun on the structure that was being transformed from the mechanical engineering building to the new Archaeology Centre. Similar themes of architectural abandonment have been addressed through art. Gordon Matta-Clark created striking effects with his manipulation of abandoned buildings that were demolished soon after he had finished experimenting with them. The photographer Berthold Steinhilber created a series called ‘Ghost Towns of the American West’ that explores abandoned settlements. He photographed the exteriors and interiors of the abandoned buildings with stark lighting that documents the uninhabited and forgotten spaces. All of these projects address similar issues to the Archaeology of Rhode Island Hall, but significantly they all deal with unused buildings. They are abandonment studies. Whilst the documentation of the forgotten spaces in RI Hall is an important aspect of this project, equally important is the documentation of a building that is still being used during the evolution of the project.

Archival Sources

The evolution of the project has been very influenced by the archival resources at my disposal. A focus on photography arose from the extensive collection of photographs at the University Archives, and they have provided valuable insights into the way that the building and the land around it have changed over the years. They provide valuable comparisons with my photographs of the building today, such as providing evidence of the shutters that hung where there are now only the fixtureszx where they used to be. They have also been useful to the architects working on the plans for the new Joukowsky Institute, as they have been interested in emulating the original doors on the West facade of the building. The archival photographs have provided information they otherwise would not have had. The archival documents, particularly the Mason’s Specification, have been similarly useful to the architects. In this way, the archival material on RI Hall is not relegated to the past, playing an important role in the evolution and transformation of the building in 2008. The previous evolutions of the building’s materiality are attested to in the range of architectural plans, whilst the newspaper articles provide glimpses of some events and some people in the building’s history. These add personal stories to the history of the building, such as that of the eccentric professor J.W.P. Jenks. When combined, the archival sources provide a wealth of knowledge on RI Hall that is lost when the various sources are separated and archived individually. They give a greater understanding of the evolution of RI Hall, and of the building that is used by students, faculty and other employees today.

The Archaeology

The materiality of the building is a physical record of the transformations the building has experienced. A lot of evidence of past changes has been eradicated with the renovation of parts of the building, and it is only from archival sources that we know certain transformations occurred. Nevertheless, the materiality reveals the sporadic nature of the transformations in RI Hall. Areas have been renovated when needed, but there has not been a complete renovation on the scale planned for the Joukowsky Institute. Consequently, the building is multi-temporal, and markers of transformation are widespread, and visible. Some of these examples are glaringly obvious, such as the remaining door in 201 to the mezzanine that no longer exists, or the stark contrast between the two sides of the door to the attic. Other markers of transformation are more subtle such as the difference in paint coats or the remaining fixtures for shutters that no longer hang there. The juxtaposition of past and present is seen with the new and old number labels, and with the stark contrast of a twenty-first century light bulb in a nineteenth, or early twentieth century, fixture. The people who have interacted with the building have also left physical markers. Mnemonic traces can be found all over the building, from different amounts of wear on the carpets showing where people have walked, to varnish scraped off the banisters showing where contact with bags or bodies has repeatedly been made.

Record of the building today

These markers of transformation are part of the materiality of the building today that has been recorded in the photolog- spring 2008 and through video footage. The material archive that has been begun is a collection of physical samples of the building, both interior and exterior, that will provide a material record of the building as it was in the Spring semester of 2008. The people interacting with the building today were an important focus of the project. My interactions with the building, and with people occupying the building, were recorded in the notebook- spring 2008. An ethnography of the building documented one student’s experience in the building as she went to class, examining in detail the interactions between a person and the building today. The list of classes held in RI Hall this spring, with some of their syllabi, gives an insight into how and what students were learning this semester. The archive contains information about past professors and classes held in the building, and it provides a comparison with students’ experiences in the building today. One of the most striking differences is in the way that people approach RI Hall, as the orientation of the building has changed with the evolution of the campus.

The transformation that RI Hall has seen over 168 years is dependent on so much more than the physical alterations. The renovations that have changed the building’s layout are significant in themselves, but are also relevant in the context of the changing campus, and the changing use of the building. The function of the building has changed several times since 1840, and this has changed the way people have interacted with it, and the way it is perceived as part of the campus. Today RI Hall has little significance for many students, as it is just another building where they have a class, or where they can investigate Study Abroad options. Many do not know exactly which building it is. This contrasts with its importance in 1840 when it was only the fourth college building, and was dedicated to the sciences. These changes in perception are linked to the physical transformations that have broken up the space in the building for its eclectic set of occupants. The archaeology of RI Hall undertaken this semester has investigated these material transformations, along with how this changing materiality defines the experiences of the people who interact with the building.

Time was a constraint of this project, as the renovations are scheduled to begin over the summer. I would have liked to have a more comprehensive collection of people’s experiences in the building, as the building will not see the same eclectic set of occupants again. I talked to a variety of people, but these interactions were mostly recorded in the notebook- spring 2008 rather than as developed ethnographies. One set of people I would have liked to talk to more were the custodians- the people who maintain the building over the years. This group would have some very different insights from the students or faculty who interact with the building. I also did not have the time to explore the first floor as much as I would have liked. My focus ended up being more on the second floor, with 201 and Psychological Services, than on the Office of International Programs. This again, was a constraint of time, and it is a shame that this part of the building in Spring 2008 was not documented as thoroughly.

Site Report

Home