Institutional Database of Staff Publications Division of Archaeology

Title: Military Sites in Tennessee. Year: 2000 Name(s): Samuel D. Smith Source: Tennessee Historical Quarterly 59(3):140-157.

Division of Archaeology • 1216 Foster Ave. • Cole Bldg #3 • Nashville, TN 37243 Tel: 615-741-1588 • Fax: 615-741-7329 • www.tennessee.gov/environment/section/arch-archaeology Military Sites Archaeology in Tennessee

by Samuel D. Smith

Projects at military sites have played a major role in the development of historical archaeology. The location of

Fort San Fernando de las Barrancas » , a Spanish post from 1 795 to 1797 on the Fourth Bluff, JS YET TO BE FOUND, BUT THIS PLAN DRAWN BY VICTOR COLLOT BASED ON HIS 1 796 RECONNAISSANCE WILL BE A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR INTERPRETATION IF THE SITE IS DISCOVERED. (Mississippi Valley Collection, )

140

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms struction areas produce most reports), military sites opment of historical archaeology as a sep- still held second place, even though they represent a Much opment arate of field arate the field of of early study historical took place of at study the sites work took archaeology that place led to at the as the devel- a sites sep- rather restricted portion of the total number of of American and Canadian military forts.1 In potential sites in Tennessee.6 Tennessee, as well, the subject of the earliest report, Clearly, the trend in favor of military sites as in 1937, documenting a historical site excavation popular candidates for the limited funding available was a portion of the Civil War remains for conducting purely research oriented archaeology at Fort Donelson.2 Like most of Tennessee's early projects shows no signs of changing. The basis for archaeology projects, the vast majority of which this fascination ranges from romanticized notions concerned prehistoric Native American sites, the concerning a "frontier life" carried out behind the work at Fort Donelson was conducted under Federal walls of Tennessee forts to an academic view of mil- sponsorship. Private agency interest in historical itary sites as significant repositories of evidence archaeological research came after the federal pro- reflecting the life ways of different groups of peo- jects of the 1930s, but it too first focused on a mili- ple. Throughout its historic period Tennessee wit- tary theme. By the 1950s, a citizens group called nessed a wide range of military activities, resulting the " Association" was sponsoring in a variety of types of military archaeological sites, archaeological excavations at the site of Fort and these have the potential to provide - through Loudoun, an eighteenth-century post constructed in archaeology - unique evidence about specific lower by British soldiers.3 phases of our past. This article explores the poten- Over the next two decades, projects at military tial of that evidence by examining six phases in the sites continued to play a major role in the develop- 's military sites. ment of historical archaeology. By the late 1970s, the discipline had been largely redefined in terms of Pre-Territorial Military Sites broad scientific goals and objectives, especially the "science of cultural evolution" as defined in Stanley Only a few "military" posts were constructed South's Method and Theory in Historical in the area that is now Tennessee previous to the Archaeology in 1977. South used many examples establishment of the "Territory South of the River drawn from the archaeology of military sites.4 In Ohio." For this and other early phases there are Tennessee, the practice of historical archaeology sometimes problems for distinguishing military mirrored similar trends. A survey of historical posts from civilian posts, but this article does not archaeology reports for Tennessee sites, completed include those defensive works ("forts," "stations," through the year 1980, showed that while the largest and "") constructed by Euro-American category of excavated sites was "domestic sites" settlers. Its focus is on "military" posts that existed (homes, farmsteads, and plantations), the second due to the activities of soldiers, including active largest category was "military sites," accounting for duty militia, who were paid for their services by 29 percent of the total.5 some governmental agency. But in 1980 very little historical archaeology The two earliest constructions that may be con- had taken place in Tennessee; only fifty-nine final sidered military were Fort Prudhomme (1682) and reports for historical site excavations were in exis- (1739) in what is now extreme tence. Over the next fifteen years this number . Both of these were relatively short- increased dramatically as the effects. of various late term posts established by French forces on bluffs 1970s and 1980s environmental laws came into full overlooking the east bank of the . force. By the end of 1995 the total number of exca- The exact location of these sites remains unclear, vation reports for Tennessee historic period sites and they may have been destroyed by subsequent had reached 217. While most of this new work meanders of the river.7 focused on domestic sites (largely because private Excluding a failed attempt to establish a garri- contracting firms conducting federal or state-funded son at an eighteenth-century structure known as "cultural resource management" projects in con- "The Virginia Fort," the next military post in what

141

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 142

Archaeological explorations began at Fort Loudoun in the 1950s, but it was not com- pletely excavated UNTIL THE 1970s, AS TVA PREPARED TO INUNDATE THE SITE UNDER THE Tellico Reservoir. Information from this

WORK, SHOWN HERE IN AN AERIAL VIEW NEAR THE END OF THE EXCAVATION, LED TO A FULL-SIZE REPLICA OF THE FORT BUILT ON HIGHER LAND. AN ARTIST'S RENDERING SHOWS THE ORIGINAL FORT'S

STRUCTURES. (AERIAL VIEW COURTESY OF Authority and drawing COURTESY OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF Environment and Conservation)

is now Tennessee was Fort Loudoun.8 Constructed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and the by British colonial troops, beginning in 1756 during Tennessee Division of Archaeology.10 Following the (1754-1763), it was this final excavation, a full-size replica of Fort established near the heart of the Nation in . Loudoun was built on higher land, and this structure present-dayMonroe County. Their tentative alliance and a modern museum are the focal points for what with the British had failed by 1760, and Cherokee is now Fort Loudoun State Historic Area. besieged and finally destroyed Fort Loudoun. After the demise of Fort Loudoun, Virginia The initial archaeology at Fort Loudoun militia carried out a brief counter offensive against yielded a partial understanding of the fort's overall the Cherokee, and their activities included the con- plan and individual buildings.9 The inundation of struction and short-term occupation, in 1761, of a this site by the construction of Tellico Reservoir in post called Fort Robinson.11 This palisaded and bas- the 1970s led to a complete excavation sponsored tioned structure, which was located near the Long

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Island of groups of settlersthe handled the defenseHolston of the in present day Sullivan County, Southwestmerits Territory's eastern and western (nowconsideration as a military post. Otherwise, ) the settlement areas. vast Soon, how- majority of frontier forts and stations ever,were the federal government beganprivate to take an active settler constructions. There were, however, role in the territory's defense, and itsa involvement few difficult-to-classify posts that may qualify led to two kinds of militaryas activity pre-territorial that produced military sites. One Middle significant archaeological sites.Tennessee example is the site of Martin's , Two years after the establishment of the terri- apparently located in what is now eastern tory, hostilities between Sumner factions of the Creek and County. militia soldiers Cherokeesent tribes and the white settlersfrom had become the east to help defend the Nashville so intensearea that territorial governorbuilt this briefly occupied post in late 1787. The placed majorlarger portions of the Territorial Militia group on was called Evans Battalion; a company "active duty" commanded(meaning in part that these troops by Captain William Martin is credited became eligible with for reimbursement for theirbuilding ser- the blockhouse.12 Two East Tennessee forts that seem to have vices). In connection with this increased state of been military in nature were Fort andreadiness, some small militia posts were con- Eaton's Fort, both in present-day Sullivan County. structed and garrisoned for varying periods of time. Eaton's was initially constructed in 1773 as a fort In the Washington District, a post was established for protection of area settlers, but a large force near of the confluence of the Clinch and Tennessee Virginia militia took it over and rebuilt it at the start rivers and was referred to as the Southwest Point of the Revolutionary war. It remained garrisoned Blockhouse, as or Blockhouses. By 1794 similar posts a militia post with a varying number of soldiers had been established - on the between ca. 1776 to 1784.13 Fort Patrick Henry Little is , Fort Grainger on the said to have been established in 1776 at or near old Tennessee River below Knoxville, and Bull Run Fort Robinson and was also garrisoned until the Blockhouse near the north edge of the Knoxville end of the Revolutionary War. It is described as a settlement.18 three-sided stockaded and bastioned enclosure, In the Mero District, a single militia post was fronting on a high bank of the Holston River. It established at the location commonly called the covered a large area, perhaps three acres, and "Crossing of the Cumberland." A small detachment approximately 2,000 Virginia militia soldiers sent of militiamen commanded by Sampson Williams to thwart British-armed Cherokee raiding parties initiated this post in March 1792. 19 Williams, soon initially occupied it.14 promoted to the rank of Lieutenant, continued to Local settlers using local resources built other command militia soldiers here until early 1794. The East Tennessee Revolutionary war period forts, name commonly applied to this post was the including and Fort Lee, so these Blockhouse at the Crossing of the Cumberland, and examples seem to fall short of a military classifica- there are records showing that its soldiers were eli- tion.15 Regardless of how they are specifically cate- gible for pay for their service, fulfilling the require- gorized, though, all of these early sites, where they ments for a military garrison.20 still exist, are important historical archaeological In mid- 1794, the Blockhouse at the Crossing resources with the potential to help develop a of the Cumberland was replaced with a larger mili- clearer /understanding of a time in Tennessee's tia post, constructed by a large detachment of development that left few written records.16 Washington District militia soldiers sent to the Mero District for that purpose. Small companies of Territorial Militia Posts territorial militia soldiers garrisoned this new post, named , until 1796, then State of In 1790 the area that was to become Tennessee Tennessee militia troops stayed there until mid- was made "The Territory South of the River Ohio," 1797. These "active duty" militiamen were com- shortened to the "."17 Initially, pensated for their service, with most of the privates

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 144

Of the six territorial militia posts in Tennessee, most are now inaccessible. However, much of Fort Blount was excavated in 1989-1994 (view left), and its remains suggest a Spartan existence for the militiamen and federal soldiers who lived there from 1 794 to 1 798. An artist's drawing shows the three permanent buildings within the fortified enclosure. (Tennessee Division of Archaeology) receiving from $17.98 to $19.98 at three month Remains of the Blockhouse at the Crossing of the intervals. In mid- 1797 federal soldiers replaced the Cumberland are apparently submerged under militia.21 Cordell Hull Reservoir. The site of Tellico Perhaps not surprisingly, minor fraud seems to Blockhouse has been excavated, but militia activity have made its way to the frontier with this early at this location was minor compared to the later fed- experiment in territorial military bureaucracy. A eral military garrison (discussed below). The best review of documents concerning Fort Blount information concerning a territorial militia post showed that a few of the soldiers listed on 1795 comes from the site of Fort Blount, in what is now muster rolls were not actually on duty. In later testi- Jackson County. The militia built and maintained mony one individual stated that he was never even Fort Blount from 1794 to 1797, and its subsequent in the militia, but that two men from Captain federal garrison was small and lasted less than a William Gillespie's company persuaded him to sign year, from mid- 1797 until early 1798. Following a power of attorney for such service, and they several years of research concerning its probable location, the site was finally found during a 1989 made assurances it would be of no harm for archaeological exploration project. Grants for addi- me to give a power, that 30 men was tional seasons of work were obtained, and by the allowed to be at Ft. Blount, & they was end of 1994 the excavation of most of the site was desirous to draw the pay, for as many as was complete.23 allowed at that fort, that the pay drawn for The artifact collection from Fort Blount pro- those that did no duty might be divided vides an interesting record for interpreting the daily between the Captain & those that did duty at Ft. Blount. I am ready also to assert that I lives of soldiers and travelers on the edge of was wounded by the fall from a horse & ... Tennessee's early frontier. Compared to later sites, have, ķeen excused from military duty. 22 there is a relative scarcity of more expensive items, with common wares, such as fragments of what are Of the six territorial militia posts, the potential believed to be locally made earthenware food stor- for archaeology is limited due to the inaccessibility age jars, being more frequent. The architectural of some of the sites. There is presently no clear remains also suggest a Spartan life-style, with evi- information on the condition of the sites of Fort dence for no more than three permanent buildings Grainger and Bull Run Blockhouse. The Southwest within a fortified enclosure. The artist rendering of Point Blockhouse site is under Watts Bar Reservoir. this post, based on archaeological data, provides a

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

view of something Test excavations at other locations uncovered many very important for understanding Tennessee's things relevant to theearly early history of north history; without archaeology it would have remained unknown.24 Memphis, but still failed to define an exact site for Another important territorial period military Fort San Fernando.26 post was the short-lived Spanish post, Fort San As is common practice in historical archaeol- Fernando de las Barrancas, established in early ogy, considerable research on Fort San Fernando 1795 on the Fourth , later the site focused on surviving documents. This research of Memphis. Fort San Fernando, constructed under included an investigation of map resources, such as supervision of Don Manuel Gayoso de Lemos, Victor Collot's important view showing Fort San of the Natchez District, represented a last Fernando (which he called Fort des Ecores at attempt on the part of the Spanish government of Margot) in relation to other things on the Fourth and West to control this upper Chickasaw Bluff. Several years after the Fort San portion of the lower Mississippi Valley. The fort Fernando archaeology project, the author learned of was abandoned and destroyed in early 1797.25 the existence of a detailed plan of the "Fort at the In 1980 an archaeological excavation in search Chickasaw Bluffs," which apparently has never of remains of Fort San Fernando was conducted in been published. A copy is included here.27 If any a several-block area of north downtown Memphis. remains of this fort still exist and are ever discov- The traditional site location, Auction Square, failed ered, this map would be an extremely valuable to produce any evidence of Spanish occupation. resource for site interpretation.

The earliest military sites in West Tennessee were built by the French and Spanish. During the territorial period, Fort San Fernando was built at the site which would become Memphis. A plan labeled "Fort at the Chickasaw Bluffs IN 1798" ON THE FRONT AND "A SKETCH OF THE F ORT AT CHICKASAW CLIFFS" ON THE REVERSE GIVES TANTALIZING DETAILS OF THE FORT, WHOSE ACTUAL LOCATION HAS YET TO BE DISCOVERED. (MISSOURI HISTORICAL SOCIETY)

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 146

Early Federal Cantonment, Fort Marr, and Hiwassee Garrison; in Military Posts of the Territorial and Statehood Period Middle Tennessee - Fort Blount, Fort Nash, Butler's Cantonment, and Wilkinson Cantonment; During Tennessee's territorial period, federal and in West Tennessee - Fort Adams (Pike) and officials also dispatched federal soldiers to aid Fort in Pickering. Aside from Fort Blount, primarily the region's defense. This policy was initiated occupied in by militia troops and discussed above, early 1793 when a single company of the "3rd onlySub two of these sites have received any meaning- Legion" arrived in Knoxville, capital of theful archaeological investigation. Southwest Territory.28 These troops were charged The site of Tellico Blockhouse, like Fort with carrying out mandates of the Secretary of War, Loudoun, was extensively excavated during the and they were soon directed to play an active role in attempts to solve the con- stant border disputes between the American settlers and the Native Americans.29 One of the first posts constructed by the federal military was called the Knoxville Barracks.30 At the same time, federal soldiers began to assist or replace the militia troops at Southwest Point Blockhouse, Tellico Blockhouse, Fort Grainger, and Bull Run Blockhouse. These initial garrisons pre- ceded a gradual buildup in numbers of federal troops, which reached a maxi- mum of about 500 to 600 soldiers between 1797 and 1799, including almost the entire Fourth Infantry Regiment, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Butler, which arrived in the summer of 1797. These federal troops constructed several new posts. After 1 800 there was a period of decline in numbers of federal troops, and in 1813 the last remnants of this once substantial force were withdrawn from Tennessee.31 Elsewhere, this early federal mili- tary presence has been treated as a theme referred to as "Early Federal Military Suites in Tennessee."32 This work suggests that there were about six- Several of Tennessee's early military forts were built as part of Cherokee teen extant or in some cases destroyed RELATIONS. TELLICO BLOCKHOUSE (1 794-1807) ON THE LITTLE TENNESSEE RlVER sites: in East Tennessee - Knoxville WAS EXTENSIVELY EXCAVATED IN THE EARLY 1970S, YIELDING NEARLY 80,000 ARTI- FACTS. NO PUNS OR MAPS OF THE FORT ARE KNOWN TO EXIST, BUT THE EXCAVATION Barracks, Southwest Point Block- PROVIDED ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR AN ARTIST'S RENDERING OF HOW THE FORT house^), Tellico Blockhouse, Fort MAY HAVE APPEARED. (AERIAL VIEW COURTESY OF THE McClUNG MUSEUM, Grainger, Bull Run Blockhouse, Fort , and drawing courtesy of Tennessee Department of Southwest Point, Belle Canton, Union Environment and Conservation)

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

early 1970s Indeed, the combinedin use of connectionartifact and docu- with the Tennessee Valley Authority's mentary data pertaining toconstruction the of Tellico Reservoir.33 Perhaps sitebecause led to considerable re-interpretation of its his-of a fire in 1800 that destroyed most of thetory. Formerly all linesSecretary of evidence seemed to indi- of War records, no plans or maps that cate that Fortshow Southwest Point was closed their and appearance are known to exist for any abandonedof in 1807,these when its primary functions, early federal military posts in Tennessee.34 along with those of TellicoThus, Blockhouse, were con- one of the most obvious direct benefits solidatedof and transferredarchaeological to a new post called work at such sites is the below-ground Hiwassee Garrison. As archaeological architectural work at the information recorded during controlled Fort Southwest Point site progressed and the artifactexcavations, which can in turn be used to depict collection grew large, it becamehow obvious that a these places once looked. Tellico Blockhouse, minor but significant initially number of the military buttons constructed in 1794 but modi- fied several found were of twotimes, types not used until 1808. This was perhaps best known for its "Factory" discovery for prompted a renewed trade search of documen- with the Cherokee, constructed in 1796. In tary sources, the including examining accompanying muster rolls for artist rendering, this building Hiwasseeis Garrison,depicted and eventually it was concluded as the one standing alone near the center that portions of of the Fort the Southwest Point facilitylower parade ground. The Tellico had remained in use untilBlockhouse about 1811, apparently as project yielded the largest artifact a kind of depot for military supplies collection being shipped (nearly 80,000 individual items) that down the Tennessee had and other river eversystems.39 been available for studying the material remains As was possible for Tellico Blockhouse, of the a Tennessee military post from this period. several seasons 35 of archaeological At work atapproximately the Fort the same time, how- ever, the Southwest University Point site uncovered enough evidence to of Tennessee sponsored two archaeological produce an image of the buildings, palisadefield lines, schools at the site of Fort Southwest and other structuralPoint components as they inmay have Kingston, Tennessee, and a siz- able collection appeared around 1800.40 also began to emerge from that work.36 The information derived from these collec- The site of Tellico Blockhouse, in Monroe tions soon began to be used in a variety of ways by County, is now maintained as a ruins stabilization researchers, including studies directed toward inter- historic site as part of the larger Fort Loudoun State preting the contrasting material remains associated Historic Area. The City of Kingston, which owns with the different peoples of Tennessee's frontier the property, is developing the site of Fort culture. Throughout the late eighteenth and early Southwest Point as an on-site reconstruction.41 The nineteenth centuries, there were dynamic interactions recreated blockhouse shown in the accompanying between the three major groups, Native Americans, photograph matches the building shown at the American settlers, and federal soldiers.37 extreme right in the artist rendering. The sixteen In the 1980s the Tennessee Division of early federal military sites vary greatly in their Archaeology carried out several additional archaeological seasons potential, but those few that are still of work at Fort Southwest Point, which intact was andcon- have not been excavated are among the structed in 1797 and served as East Tennessee's most significant and endangered historical sites in main headquarters for federal soldiers until 1807.. Tennessee. (From 1801 to 1807 it housed both a federal garri- son and the Cherokee Indian Agency operated by Other Pre-Civil War Military Sites Colonel Return Jonathan Meigs). By the end of 1986, the artifact collection from this site had Between the early 1800s and 1860, infrequent reached a total of nearly 59,000 items, allowing military a activity produced sites with varying degrees number of interesting comparisons to be madeof archaeological potential. These resources include between this collection and the one from the site of an unknown number of Tennessee muster grounds Tellico Blockhouse. 38 and encampment areas used by the volunteer troops

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 148

Excavations at Fort Southwest Point in the 1980s yielded useful information for comparison to Tellico Blockhouse and a NEW INTERPRETATION OF ITS HISTORY. THE EXPLORATION UNCOVERED ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO YIELD AN IMAGE OF THE FORT AND ALLOWED FOR THE ON-SITE RECONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURE 10, A CORNER BLOCKHOUSE. (TENNESSEE DIVISION OF ARCHAEOLOGY) commanded by General John Cocke (East a small army to enforce the removal. These troops Tennessee ) and General (Middle were posted at various points throughout the region Tennessee) who participated in the Creek War of and erected a number of stockade forts for "gather- 1813-1814 and the (1812-1815). Two ing and holding the Indians preparatory to important mobilization and encampment sites men- removal."44 Several of these posts are indicated on at tioned in the scarce literature on this subject are least two maps filed at the National Archives.45 Most Camp Blount in Lincoln County and Camp Ross in were located in what are now Bradley and Polk present day Hamilton County. Though most of Counties, including , Fort Foster, Fort Tennessee's War of 1812 activity involved active- "Morrow" (Fort Marr?), Camp Worth, Camp duty militia soldiers preparing for engagements out- Munroe, and unnamed "forts" at Cleveland, Red side the state, a few federal military soldiers were also periodically encamped in Tennessee. One such federal encampment was adjacent to Nashville.42 An encyclopedic guide to military posts in the United States lists a Camp Armistead, said to have been located in Monroe County from 1832 to 1835 and garrisoned by elements of the Second United States Artillery.43 Presumably its purpose had to do with federal government relations with the , but nothing more is known about it. However, it is clear that substantial numbers of reg- ular federal army soldiers came to Tennessee in con- nection witn the forced removal of the Cherokees. Following ratification of the dubious Treaty of in mid- 1836, troops under the command of General John E. Wool were stationed in the In the 1830s, a number of federal stockade forts were BUILT OR ADAPTED FOR NEW USE FOR GATHERING THE CHEROKEE Cherokee territory of southeast Tennessee to IN"main- SOUTHEAST TENNESSEE FOR REMOVAL TO THE WEST. THE ONLY tain order." After all efforts on the part STRUCTUREof the FROM THESE FORTS TO SURVIVE IS A CORNER BLOCK- Cherokee to prevent their removal had failed, HOUSE from Fort Marr, moved from its original location General Winfield Scott was sent to Tennessee with in 1922. (Tennessee Division of Archaeology)

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Clay, and 1980s whileRoss's it was being destroyed by a majorLanding (Chattanooga). Another source mentions urban construction project. Some staff members a Camp Hetzel, and provides a lengthy discussion from the Tennessee Division of Archaeology con-of Fort Marr, which was an older post adapted ducted a brief salvage investigationfor that included reuse during the removal.46 A blockhouse limited recordingthat of some of the remainswas being part of Fort Marr is still stand- ing in Polk exposed.53 TheCounty, current status of most of the other though not at its original loca- tion. This sites discussed is in this sectiona is uncertain,unique but there architectural resource in Tennessee is an urgent representing need to investigate representative late eighteenth to early nineteenth-century examples while intact sites still remain. federal military activities and needs to be recognized as in great need of a preser- vation plan.47 Civil War Era Military Sites While Tennesseans overwhelmingly supported the Mexican Tennessee was Warsecond only to the statein of 1846-1848, only a little infor- mation exists Virginia in terms of Civil aboutWar military actions, and specific locations that may have been used no phasefor of Tennessee military Mexican history has attracted War military preparations.48 Camp Blount more public interest. In recent was years there has been apparently reused in a manner similar to an increasedits interest War in the physical remainsof of 1812 function,49 and one histor- ical marker those events. Tangible remainsdesignates such as battlefields a Mexican War "Muster Ground" havein received recognitionpresent-day at the national level,54 Hamblen County.50 Possibly the most unusual antebellum while at the state level a number of Civil War era Tennessee military site was the Memphis Navy sites and buildings are open to the public or are Yard.51 This federal construction, located at under consideration for use in tourist development Memphis more for political than practical consider- plans.55 ations, was begun in 1 845 and soon included quar- Most of the private citizen activity concerning ters for naval officers and enlisted men and Tennessee's Civil War sites has been divided numerous buildings devoted to the various between func- two groups - site preservationists and tions inherent in ship building. Partly due to the Civil fail- War relic collectors. Activities of the former ure of Congress to provide continuing usually center on the management of areas with appropriations, the experiment was not a success, some kind of visible remains, often standing "his- and according to one critic: toric" buildings that had some wartime use or asso- ciation. Members of the second group share the The only credible piece of work turned out common goal of finding and collecting items asso- of this novel navy yard was the great iron ciated with the war, usually by the use of metal steamship of war, "Allegheny," which was detectors. The number of individuals that belong to entirely built and equipped here with the this group is uncertain, but it is clear to anyone exception of her hull. This was a most won- familiar with Civil War sites that it is large number derful war vessel! Her speed is said to have of people. been four miles per hour down stream, that Historical archaeologists were late in turning being the ordinary rapidity of the current, to the investigation of Civil War sites as archaeo- and four hours to the mile up stream, and after a brief but entirely unsatisfactory his- logical resources. In the mid-1980s, the statewide torý, having cost the Governrtient nearly site information file maintained by the Tennessee $500,000 she was totally condemned. The Division of Archaeology for cultural resource man- navy yard itself was overtaken by a similar agement purposes contained only a few Civil War fate. . . [in 1854 the property was returned to era military sites. Finally, a realization that these the city of Memphis].52 sites were rapidly disappearing spurred the develop- ment of what became the first in a series of site The site of the Memphis Navy Yard received investigation and recording (site survey) projects minimal archaeological investigation in the late devoted to this theme.

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 150

The first This left only East Tennesseeof to survey, andthese it projects was carried out in Middle was assumedTennessee that this region would also be the most in 1988-1989. Before this survey, only eleven complex. Some relevant survey worksites already com- of Civil War military activity were on record pleted in the Chattanooga for area suggested that thethis region. By the end of the project that number had increased to 143. The Middle number of East Tennessee sites that could be Tennessee survey provided the means for develop- recorded, especially along the Chattanooga to ing the methods and definitions needed for this Virginia kind railroad corridor, would exceed the num- of investigation. Sites were initially located using bers found in any other region of the state.58 A gen- many kinds of documentary sources and assistance eral survey of East Tennessee Civil War era military from informants, and they were recorded in terms sites of was initiated in 1996, and by the end of the one or more "components," such as battlefields, work in this region 188 sites were recorded. encampments, headquarters, military hospitals, and The project focusing on East Tennessee was a range of fortification and earthwork types.56 also The designed with the broader goal of completing a methods employed were readily adaptable to otherstatewide survey, and some additional sites have regions, and the success of the Middle Tennessee been recorded in Middle and West Tennessee. The survey provided the impetus for expanding to final the statewide total for Civil War era military sites level of a statewide survey. through 1999 is 443. This number provides a sug- A similar survey next occurred in West gestion of the magnitude of the impact that the Civil Tennessee. Work in this region required exploring War had on Tennessee, but it definitely understates some new kinds of sources and developing somethe actual number of sites that may once have new component definitions. By the end of fieldwork existed. Even among the sites now on record, in 1993, the West Tennessee sample of recorded preservation varies greatly. Many forces, principally Civil War era military sites was eighty-nine.57 urban development and widespread non-archaeo-

A SERIES OF SURVEYS FOR ClVlL WAR ERA MILITARY SITES ACROSS TENNESSEE HAS RECORDED 443 SITES AS OF 1999. Encampments, some similar to the winter quarters illustrated in this 19th century drawing by Edwin Forbes, NOW ACCOUNT FOR THE MOST NUMEROUS CATEGORY OF SUCH SITES. (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LC-USZ62- 1 4 1 88)

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

logical artifact tion about the day-to-day lives of common collecting, soldiers, are conspiring to make this an incredibly a subject still sparsely treated, compared to military threatened resource. Since 1988 a number battles,of in the Civil Warsites, literature.66 some of them only recently recorded, haveWhile there are Civil War diaries,been photographs, destroyed. Relative to the Civil War, the andgreatest drawings (such as the one shown by Edward challenge for historical archaeol- ogy is to Forbes)find that provide ideas andways images of camp life, to preserve by scientific excava- tion the data the archaeological record forassociated encampments is by far with particular site types - information the largest untapped that source of information. Theonce gone can never be replicated from any onlyother Tennessee report of its kind source.so far completed Though manydemonstrates this potential.67 Thisspecific archaeological types of Civil War mil- itary sites study of havea military encampment site,not one used by been examined through archae- ological Unionexcavation,59 troops involved with the 1863-1864 defense there have been more Tennessee of Knoxville,excavation includes analysis and description of projects for this category than for any other the form and contents of a number military of features that phase. As noted earlier, the first reported were excavated and interpreted historical as the physical site excavation in Tennessee concerned the remains of Fort Donelson. Other remains of the partially below-ground winter huts excavation projects were carried out on this feder- used by the soldiers stationed at this location. The ally-owned site beginning in the 1960s, helping archaeological to photographs of these features pro- establish a trend of using archaeology to investigate vide an enticing look into the past, and a sense of some of the state's larger Civil War fortification what it was like to have been there during the Civil complexes.60 "Fort" projects dominate the work War. Tennessee historical archaeology needs many carried out in the 1970s, 61 the 1980s, 62 and more the such investigations carried out while a range 1990s, 63 and there are at least fourteen excavation of representative Civil War encampment sites can reports concerning these sites. still be found. Another focus is battlefield archaeology.64 One Indeed the entire field of Civil War military study of a portion of the 1 864 Battle of Franklin bat-sites archaeology is in need of some kind of tlefield, adjacent to the state-owned Carter House, enhanced research assistance in Tennessee. The which served as the Union command center, importance of the Civil War in Tennessee's history demonstrated how archaeological methods can add seems clearly understood by all, yet there has been insights into events that may already seem a kind of widespread reluctance to recognize the extremely well documented. Historians had exam- seriousness of the fact that, as the state develops, ined this particular battle in great detail. representative Civil War sites are disappearing at a Nevertheless, careful recording and quantifying of steadily increasing rate. To restate what should now artifacts, especially dropped and impacted bullets, be obvious, these sites are repositories of informa- produced some information about specific battle tion that can never be replaced. Even when sites activities that could not have been known from an cannot be preserved in fact, archaeology provides examination of documents alone.65 methods for recovering and preserving that infor- The work at Franklin demonstrates how histor- mation. When these same sites are lost without ical archaeology can provide information beyond archaeology being conducted, the loss is complete. what is recorded in writing. While similar examples can be cited in connection with fortification remains Post-Civil War Military Sites and battlefields, very little excavation has been con- ducted on what is the largest portion of the Civil Tennessee has an unknown number of post- War archaeological record, that is the remains of Civil War military sites that are more than fifty numerous Union and Confederate encampments, years in age, the minimum age for listing sites or which were occupied for varying lengths of time all buildings in the National Register of Historic Places across the state of Tennessee. All of these are, or at and one standard used for defining things as one time were, repositories of significant informa- "archaeological." Among these are sites associated

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 152 with America's Tullahoma (Coffee County). The nation's only bar- participation in the Spanish American rage balloon training center wasWar located at Camp (1898), World War I (1917-1918), and World Tyson, and the largest inland navalWar operation was at II (1941-1945).68 There has not been a systematic Millington Naval Base. Prisoner of war campssurvey were or excavation concerning any of these periods. established in conjunction with Camps Forrest, More Tyson,than and Campbell, and separately at Crossville,four regiments of Tennesseans served Lawrenceburg,in Tellico thePlains, Memphis, and Spanish-American War, fighting in Manila Nashville. Ofand major importance to the war effort,Cuba. Columbia Arsenal in Maury County, but difficult to classifya in termsgovernment of "military sites," facility built in 1888 and operated are facilities such as theuntil Holston Ordnance Works 1901, was used as a training center for some (Sullivan County), theof Milan Ordnance Centerthese troops. In East Tennessee, two 1898 training (Gibson and Carroll counties), and Tennessee's encampments were established in Knox mostCounty, famous of all war sites, Oak Ridge Camp Wilder (renamed Camp Poland) Reservation and (Anderson and Roane Counties).71Camp (Bob) Taylor.69 Nearly 80,000 Tennesseans were mustered into service for Summary and ConclusionsWorld War I, and at least one large troop mobilization and training ground, Camp Andrew Jackson, The archaeological wasinvestigation of military established near Nashville in 1917. Actual sites playedtraining an important role in the general devel- for almost all of the Tennessee troops, opment of historicalhowever, archaeology in Tennessee. The occurred in , North Carolina, first excavation ofor a military site wasin conducted in France. Park Field near Millington in Shelby theCounty 1930s, with an initially slow increase in num- was used for training pilots.70 World War II activities in Tennessee were com- bers of excavation reports through the 1960s fol- plex and may be difficult to define in terms of lowed by a steady increase from the 1970s to the potential "military sites." Fortunately, in 1992 an 1990s. Site surveys, especially what became a entire issue of the Tennessee Historical Quarterly statewide survey of Civil War era military sites, was devoted to understanding this war's impact on have been instrumental in defining the size and Tennessee, and these articles could serve as a guide nature of the various military site data bases. For the for the assessment of relevant sites. A simple listing entire state there are at least 500 historic period mil- of the more obvious examples will suffice for not- itary sites that have been or could be recorded with ing these potential archeological resources, which some level of meaning. The degree of preservation will no doubt receive more attention in years to of these, however, is diverse, and many of those pre- come. Important World War II training camps viously recorded simply no longer exist as mean- included Camp Forrest (Coffee County), Camp ingful archaeological resources. Tyson (Henry County), and Camp (later Fort) Probably no other category of historic period Campbell (Stewart County, Tennessee, and Trigg sites in Tennessee is more threatened than are mili- and Christian counties, Kentucky). The largest tary sites. As much as any other group, these are troop impact, however, came from the fact that an often locations associated with towns and cities that estimated million soldiers were trained in the state, have been directly affected by Tennessee's urban especially in Middle Tennessee, between 1941 and expansion of the last twenty years. The conse- 1945 during what is collectively referred to as the quences of this expansion for historic sites are fre- "Tennessee Maneuvers." Troops involved in this quently their immediate and total obliteration activity included major elements of the 101st through the force of large earth moving machines. Airborne Division, the U. S. Second Army, and Simultaneously, the hobby of metal detecting has to General George S. Patton, Jr.'s, armored divisions. a large extent also focused on military remains, and Air training facilities were established at Smyrna sites often in no immediate danger of being lost to Army Air Field (Rutherford County), Dyersburg Air development are, nevertheless, being slowly Base (Dyer County), and Northern Field at depleted of their contents. This "eating away" of the

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

archaeological 2. William Wallace Luckett, "Reportrecord on the is in the long run almost as destructive Lower Waterto Battery Magazine"the (Fort significant evidence contained in these sites Donelson as National Battlefield,is 1937).their complete removal. Two avenues 3. Elsworth Brown, Archaeologyexist of Fort for attempting to preserve this legacy. Loudoun: 1955Direct (Vonore, Tenn., 1955). site preservation is the method of choice, and 4. Stanley South,a Method number and Theory in of federal, state, and local agencies are Historical Archaeology already (New York, 1977). doing commendable jobs man- aging some 5. Samuel D. Smith,important Annotated Bibliography public-owned resources. Unfortunately, for Historical Archaeology in Tennessee, because site preservation requires land acquisition, Through 1980 (Tennessee Anthropological or at least preservation easement, which then Association requiresMiscellaneous Paper No. 7, 1981). site management and its associ- ated costs, 6. Thoughonly by 1995 the percentage ofabout military twenty-two "protected" mili- tary sites siteare excavation reports found (N=39) had dropped to in Tennessee. The relatively new Tennessee 18 percent.Wars See Samuel D. Smith, A Biblio-Commission has begun a program dedicated graphicto History of Historicalthese Archaeology in kinds of resources, and it has already achieved Tennessee, (Tennessee Division of Archaeology, some important successes in site preservation.72 Miscellaneous Publication No. 4, 1996).Currently this program offers the best hope 7. Jamesfor E. Roper, The Founding saving of Memphis some of Tennessee's unpro- tected military (Memphis, 1970), 16-19; Johnsites. Brice Harris, Meanwhile, From Old Mobilethere to Fort Assumption is still a tremendous need for the preservation (Nashville, 1959). of information by archaeological recovery in 8. The Virginia those Fort appears on Henry cases where site destruction can- not be avoided. Timberlake's map entitled "A Draught So of the far this has only been done in any meaningful Cherokee Country," labeled "A Fort Built by theway in a few instances where expenditures Virginians 1756 and soon after destroyedof by the state or federal funds caused destruction Indians," Lieut.or Henry Timberline's modification. Memoirs The vast areas of pri- vate development 1756-1765, annotated by Samuel Cole Williams and other activities on private lands are (Marietta,not Georgia, 1948). bound It was intended to by any legal requirements to protect these serve as an aid in recruiting sites, Cherokee warriors and there have been few oppor- tunities to to fight fundagainst the French, but it remainedor conduct archaeological excava- tions in such unused at the time it was situations.burned. The site, in This is clearly where the major challenge what is now Monroe County, was archaeologi-lies for those wishing to avoid the enormous loss that would result from the destruc- cally discovered and tested in the 1970s. It tion of 95 percent of the military site record, this appears that the fort had a more or less square- being the part that is privately owned. How to mod- sided configuration, based on a difficult to inter- ify this potential loss is a question that needs input pret pattern of large support posts. See Richard from everyone interested in the significant historical R. Polhemus, "The Virginia Fort" (University information contained at Tennessee's military sites. of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, unfinished manuscript). 1. On the origins of historical archaeology see 9. Brown, Archaeology at Fort Loudoun: 1955 John L. Cotter, "Beginnings," Historical and Archaeology of Fort Loudoun: 1956-1957 Archaeology 1 (1967): 1-22. Examples of early (Vonore, Tenn., 1958); Peter H. Kunkel, "Final excavations of military sites include J. C. Report of Project Archaeologist Excavations at Harrington, New Light On Washington's Fort Fort Loudoun Between July, 1958 and July Necessity (Richmond, 1957) and Moreau S. 1959" (Knoxville, copy filed at Frank H. Maxwell and Lewis H. Binford, Excavations at McClung Museum, 1959). Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinac City, 10. The 1970s Fort Loudoun archaeology is dis- Michigan, 1959 Season (East Lansing, 1961). cussed in a preliminary report, Carl Kuttruff and

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 154

Beverly Historical Bastian, Information Concerning the Fort "Fort Loudoun Excavations: 1975 Season," Blount-Williamsburg Site, Jackson County,The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Tennessee (Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Papers 1975 , 10 (1977): 1 1-23, and some of the technical data have been Report of Investigations No. 6, 1989), 12-17. reported separately; see: Emanuel Breitburg, 21. Ibid., 18-24. "Bone Discardment Patterns and Meat 22. War Department Collection of Post- Procurement Strategies at British Fort Loudoun Revolutionary War Manuscripts (National (Tennessee), 1756-1760" (M.A. Thesis, Archives Microfilm Copy No. 904, Roll 4), Vanderbilt University, 1983). Unfortunately, a 172-173. long expected final excavation report for this 23. An interim report was completed during the project is still pending. course of the Fort Blount project; see Samuel D. 1 1 . Muriel C. Spoden, Historic Sites of Sullivan Smith, "Summary of Archaeological Work County (Kingsport, 1976), 42-43. Conducted at the Fort Blount- Williamsburg Site 12. William Hall, Early History of the South- and a Discussion of Additional Research west (Nashville, 1968), 17; Walter T. Durham, Objectives" (Tennessee Division of The Great Leap Westward, A History of Sumner Archaeology, 1993). County, Tennessee from its Beginnings to 1805 24. The rendering shown here (drawn by Fred (Gallatin, 1969), 95-96. M. Prouty) will appear with full discussion in a 13. Muriel C. Spoden, "Eaton's Fort" final report by Samuel D. Smith and Benjamin (Tennessee Historical Commission, National C. Nance, entitled An Archaeological Register of Historic Places Information Form, Interpretation of the Site of Fort Blount, a 1993). 1790s Territorial Militia and Federal Military 14. Spoden, Historic Sites of Sullivan County, Post, Jackson County, Tennessee (to be pub- 43-44. lished as a Tennessee Division of Archaeology 15. Max Dixon, The Wataugans (Nashville, "Research Series" report). 1976), 41. 25. Much has been written concerning Fort San 16. The site of one of these posts, Fort Watauga, Fernando, including the following examples: received some brief archaeological testing in Jack D. L. Holmes, "Fort Ferdinand on the the 1970s before it was destroyed for commer- Bluffs: Life on the Spanish-," cial development, see Carl Kuttruff, "Fort West Tennessee Historical Society Papers Watauga" (Tennessee Division of Archaeology, 13(1959): 38-55 and "The Ebb-Tide of Spanish unpublished manuscript, 1979). This informa- Military Power on the Mississippi: Fort San tion was used in designing the replica of Fort Fernando de las Barrancas, 1795-1798," East Watauga that is now a part of the Sycamore Tennessee Historical Society's Publications 36 Shoals State Historic Area. (1964), 23-43; D. C. and Roberta Corbitt, 17. Walter Durham, Before Tennessee: The "Papers from the Spanish Archives Relating to Southwest Territory 1790-1796 (Piney Flats, Tennessee and the ," East 1990). Tennessee Historical Society's Publications 47 18. Samuel D. Smith, ed., Fort Southwest Point (1975), 139-149 and 48 (1976), 127-140; James Archaeological Site, Kingston, Tennessee: A E. Roper, "Fort San Fernando de las Barrancas: Multidisciplinary Interpretation (Tennessee Where Was It Exactly?," West Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Research Series No. Historical Society Papers 24 (1980), 5-27; 9, 1993), 18 and 470; Durham, Before Lawrence and Lucia B. Kinnaird, "San Tennessee, 165. Fernando de las Barrancas: Spain's Last 19. Clarence E. Carter, ed., The Territory South Outpost of Empire," West Tennessee Historical of the River Ohio, 1790-1796 (Washington, Society Papers 35(1981): 25-39. D.C., 1936), IV, 109. 26. Some, if not all, of the fort site was proba- 20. Samuel D. Smith and Stephen T. Rogers, bly destroyed during nineteenth-century

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

changes to Tennessee, the 1982). Memphis bluff line. Samuel D. Smith, "Archaeological 38. Smith, Fort Southwest Point Archaeological Excavations in Search of the Site of Fort San Fernando de las Site, 179-465. Barrancas, Memphis Tennessee" (Tennessee 39. Ibid., 95 and 299-230. Division of Archaeology, 1982). 40. Ibid., 168-178. 27. Little is known concerning the origin of this 41. Another season of work devoted to the map, which is contained in the "William Clark archaeological clearing for reconstruction of Collection" (Box 2, Folder 27) at the Missouri one more Fort Southwest Point building site Historical Society, St. Louis. (Structure 15) was completed in 1996. Jennifer 28. Knoxville Gazette, 3 March 1793. M. Bartlett, "Summary of the 1996 Excavations 29. The role of the federal troops in Tennessee at Fort Southwest Point, Kingston, Tennessee in implementing federal Indian policies, which (40RE119)," (Tennessee Division of changed considerably after 1 796, receives thor- Archaeology, 1997). ough treatment in Luke H. Banker's "Fort 42. Robert E. Corlew, Tennessee, A Short Southwest Point, Kingston, Tennessee: The History (Knoxville, 1981), 138-140; Robert B. Development of a Frontier Post, 1792-1807," Roberts, Encyclopedia of Historic Forts (New (M.A. Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1972). York, 1988), 738 and 746; Tom Kanon, 30. An artist's rendering of the conjectural Tennessee State Library and Archives (personal appearance of this post appears in Durham, communication, 1997). Before Tennessee, following 148. 43. Roberts, Encyclopedia of Historic Forts, 737. 3 1 . Smith, Fort Southwest Point Archaeological 44. Henry T. Malone, Cherokees of the Old Site, 19-20, 43, 105. South (Athens, 1956), 182; James Mooney, 32. Ibid., 467-471; Smith and Nance, An Myths of the Cherokee (Washington, 19th Archaeological Interpretation of the Site of Fort Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1900), 130. Blount, a 1 790s Territorial Militia and Federal Military Post, Jackson County, Tennessee 45. "The Fort-Cass Emigrating Depot," drawn ("pending). by Lieutenant H. Prince, 4th Infantry Regiment, 33. Richard R. Polhemus, Archaeological Camp Worth, July 11th, 1838 (Map CA397, Investigations of the Tellico Blockhouse Site National Archives Record Group 75); "View of (40MR50), A Federal Military and Trade Posts and distances in the , to Complex (University of Tennessee Report of illustrate major general Scott's operations in Investigations No. 26 and Tennessee Valley 1838" (copied and reproduced from an original Authority Publications in Anthropology No. 16, in the National Archives by Ed Townsend, 1979). 1975). 34. Smith, Fort Southwest Point Archaeological 46. E. Raymond Evans, "Fort Marr Blockhouse: Site, 20. The Last Evidence of America's First 35. Polhemus, Archaeological Investigations of Concentration Camps," Journal of Cherokee the Tellico Blockhouse Site, 24. Studies 2(1977): 256-262. 36. Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., ed., 47. A discussion of the general history of this Archaeological Investigations at Fort building is presented in Smith, Fort Southwest Southwest Point (40RE119), Kingston, Point Archaeological Site, 174-176. Tennessee (Department of Anthropology, 48. Corlew, Tennessee, A Short History, 268- University of Tennessee, 1977). 270. 37. One of the best studies concerning these 49. Tom Kanon, Tennessee State Library and ideas is by Thomas B. Ford, "An Analysis of Archives (personal communication, 1997). Anglo-American-Cherokee Culture Contact 50. "1B33, Muster Ground" in Cathy Tudor During the Federal Period, The Hiwassee Tract, Forestor, ed., Tennessee Historical Markers Eastern Tennessee" (M A. Thesis, University of (Tennessee Historical Commission, 1996), 114.

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 156

51. Sources Stringers Ridge-North Chattanooga, discussing Lookout this facility include Stephen Valley, BrownsM. Ferry, Williams Findlay, Island and the "The Memphis Navy Yard, 1845-1854" Tennessee River Gorge" (Chattanooga, (M.A. Thesis, Memphis State University, Alexander Archaeological Consultants, 1995). 1980); Smith, "Archaeological Excavations in Search of the Site of Fort San 59. Military boat wrecks and other underwater Fernando de las Barrancas, Memphis Civil War sites, for example, have been almost Tennessee," 43-48; R. Bruce Council, completely neglected. The only reports con- "Historical Documentation and Site cerning such resources are Jack B. Irion and Reconnaissance of the Memphis Navy YardDavid V. Beard, "Underwater Archaeological Archaeological Site, Memphis, Shelby County, Assessment of Civil War Shipwrecks in Tennessee" (Environmental Planning Office, Kentucky Lake, Benton and Humphries Tennessee Department of Transportation, Counties, Tennessee" (New Orleans, R. 1985). Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., 1993) 52. Goodspeed's History of Shelby County, and Michael Krivor, "Remote-Sensing History of Tennessee (Chicago, 1 887), 87 1 . Investigation and Evaluation of a Potential Civil 53. There is no finished report for this work, but War-Era Train Wreck, , Carter the field data collected during the salvage pro- County, Tennessee" (Memphis, Panamerican ject are on file at the Tennessee Division of Maritime, L. L. C., 1997). Archaeology. 60. Frank Alexander Gould, Jr., "Final Report, 54. Tennessee has four national battlefields Salvage of Civil War Artifacts, Resource Study (Chickamauga-Chattanooga, Fort Donelson, FODO-A-1" (Dover, Fort Donelson National Shiloh, and Stones River) maintained by the Battlefield, 1965); Lee H. Hanson, Jr., , and others are being "Archeological Excavations in the Water assessed by the Civil War Sites Advisory Batteries at Fort Donelson National Military Commission, Civil War Sites Advisory Park, Tennessee" (Division of Archeology, Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Battlefields (Washington, D.C., 1993), 23. National Park Service, 1968); Judy L. Helmet, 55. Tennessee 200, "Tennessee's Civil War "Archeological Testing of Gun Position #7, Heritage Trail" (map and text), in A Path Lower Water Battery, Fort Donelson National Divided, Tennessee s Civil War Years Military Park, Dover, Tennessee" (Tallahassee, (Nashville, 1996); Tennessee now has a Florida, Southeastern Archaeological Center, Tennessee Wars Commission (administratively 1983); John E. Cornelison, Jr., and Scott S. affiliated with the Tennessee Historical Legge, "Report on Archeological Investigations Commission) that focuses mostly on Civil War of Possible Graves, Exterior Earthworks, and site preservation issues. Historic Roads at Fort Donelson National 56. Samuel D. Smith, Fred M. Prouty, and Battlefield, Dover, Tennessee" (Tallahassee, Benjamin C. Nance, A Survey of Civil War Southeastern Archaeological Center, 1993). Period Military Sites in Middle Tennessee 61. Timothy L. Dilliplane, Exploratory (Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Report of Excavations at Fort Granger (Franklin, 1975); Investigations No. 7, 1990). Gerald P. Smith, "Fort Pillow State Park, 57. Fred M. Prouty and Gary L. Barker, A Memphis State University Archaeological Field Survey of Civil War Period Military Sites in School Excavations, July 13 - August 13, 1976" West Tennessee (Tennessee Division of (Department of Anthropology, Memphis State Archaeology, Report of Investigations No. 11, University, 1977); Steven J. Fox, "Archaeology 1996). of Fortress Rosecrans: A Civil War Garrison in 58. Lawrence S. Alexander, "The Chattanooga Middle Tennessee" (Tennessee Historical Campaign: The Civil War History and Commission and National Park Service, 1978). Archaeological Inventory of Moccasin Bend, 62. Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., Archaeological

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Investigations 66. Smith, Prouty, and Nance, A Surveyat of Civil Fort Pillow State Historie Area 1976-1978 (Tennessee Division of War Period Military Sites in Middle Tennessee, Archaeology, Research Series No. 4, 1980); 51. Gerald P. Smith, "Fort Germantown Historie 67. Charles Bentz and Yong W. Kim, eds., The Park: Historie Background, Archaeological Sevierville Hill Site: A Civil War Union Investigations, and Recommendations" (City of Encampment on the Southern Heights of Germantown, Tennessee, 1985) and "Fort Knoxville, Tennessee (Tennessee Germantown: 1986 Excavations" (City of Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous Germantown, Tennessee, 1987). Paper No. 17 and University of Tennessee 63. John E. Cornelison, Jr., "Report on Transportation Center, Report of Investigations Archeological Investigations of Lunette Palmer No. 1, 1993). and Redoubt Brannan, Parts of Fortress 68. Laurence Urdang, ed., The Timetables of Rosecrans, Located at Stones River National American History (New York, 1981), 262, 293- Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee" 294, and 336-344. (Tallahassee, Southeastern Archaeological 69. Corlew, Tennessee, A Short History, 410; Center, 1992) and "Report on Archeological Roberts, Encyclopedia of Historic Forts, 739, Investigations at Redoubt Brannan, Part of 745, and 747. Fortress Rosecrans, Located at Stones River 70. Corlew, Tennessee: A Short History , 440- National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee" 441, Roberts, Encyclopedia of Historic Forts, (Tallahassee, Florida, Southeastern 737. Archaeological Center, 1992); Jack R. 7 1 . Roberts, Encyclopedia of Historic Forts, Bergstresser, Sr., Shari D. Moore, and Susan L. 740-748; Susan L. Gordon, "Home Front Nielsen, "Fort Negley 130 Years Later: An Tennessee: The World War II Experience," Archaeological Assessment" (Tuscaloosa, Tennessee Historical Quarterly 51(1992): 3-18; Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 1994). Ann Toplovich, "The Tennesseean's War: Life 64. Jeffrey L. Brown, "An Archaeological on the Home Front," Tennessee Historical Assessment of Chickamauga and Chattanooga Quarterly 51(1992): 19-50 "3B51, Tennessee National Military Park" (Tallahassee, Maneuvers" in Forestor, ed., Tennessee Southeastern Archaeological Center, 1975); Historical Markers, 239; Ken Fieth, Carl Kuttruff "Excavations on Confederate Metropolitan Nashville Archives (personal Entrenchments, Nashville, Tennessee" communication, 1997). (Tennessee Division of Archaeology, 1989); 72. Tennessee Wars Commission Gazette 1, Lawrence Alexander and R. Bruce Council, (Tennessee Historical Commission, 1996). This "An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed first issue of the Gazette defines many of the Outdoor Drama Amphitheater Site, Moccasin goals and objectives of the Tennessee Wars Bend, Chattanooga, Tennessee" (University of Commission. There is now also an adjunct Tennessee at Chattanooga, 1994); Robert J. organization called the Tennessee Civil War Fryman and Laura B. Reidy '"They Was in Preservation Association, Inc., which was cre- There Sure Enough': A Limited Archaeological ated in part to facilitate the direct acquisition for Assessment of the 1 864 Civil War Battlefield at protection of Civil War sites. Spring Hill, Tennessee" (Atlanta, Garrow & Associates, Inc., 1995). 65. Samuel D. Smith, "Excavation Data for Civil War Era Military Sites in Middle Tennessee," Clarence R. Geier, Jr., and Susan E. Winter, eds., Look to the Earth, Historical Archaeology and the American Civil War (Knoxville, 1994), 60-75.

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms