Institutional Database of Staff Publications Tennessee 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 Chickasaw 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, University of Memphis) 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 fortification 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 "Fort Loudoun 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 East Tennessee 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- history of Tennessee'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 "blockhouses") 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- Fort Assumption (1739) in what is now extreme tence. Over the next fifteen years this number West Tennessee. 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 Mississippi River. 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 Tennessee Valley 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 French and Indian War (1754-1763), it was this final excavation, a full-size replica of Fort established near the heart of the Cherokee 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, Middle Tennessee) 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 Blockhouse, 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. North Carolina militia soldiers Cherokeesent tribes and the white settlersfrom had become the east to help defend the Nashville so intensearea that territorial governorbuilt William Blount 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 Patrick Henry 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 - Tellico Blockhouse on the between ca. 1776 to 1784.13 Fort Patrick Henry Little is Tennessee River, 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.