PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT 38FL2, THE FLORENCE STOCKADE, FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA By: Paul G. Avery, RPA, and Patrick H. Garrow, RPA With contributions by: Judith A. Sichler, PhD, RPA, Kandace D. Hollenbach, PhD, and Nicholas P. Herrmann, PhD Submitted to: Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 Prepared by: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 1725 Louisville Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 Patrick H. Garrow, RPA Principal Investigator MACTEC Project Number 6671050345 February 2008 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The Florence Stockade, an infamous Confederate prisoner of war camp, received its first prisoners on September 15, 1864. The prison covered approximately 23 acres south of Florence, South Carolina, and would house over 15,000 Union captives before it was abandoned in March of 1865. During this period, 2,800 of the prisoners died. The trenches in which most of them were buried were incorporated into the Florence National Cemetery, now controlled by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, National Cemetery Administration (VA). Today, the Florence National Cemetery contains approximately 9,000 interments and extends south of the original cemetery across National Cemetery Road. With space in the existing cemetery quickly dwindling, the VA planned to expand the cemetery onto a 10-acre tract immediately to the south. Although it was known that the project area was adjacent to the site of the Florence Stockade, it did not encroach on the recorded boundaries of the site, 38FL2. Clearing of the property began in early 2005. The Friends of the Florence Stockade notified the VA and the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the potential historic importance of the proposed expansion area. As a result, TRC was hired by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting (MACTEC) to conduct Phase II archaeological testing of the area, which indicated that the area may have been used in the support of the Stockade in some capacity. Based on the results of the archaeological testing and TRC’s preliminary historical research, MACTEC was contracted by the VA to conduct a Phase III archaeological data recovery on the portion of site 38FL2 lying within the expansion area. Field work began on April 17, 2006 and was completed on August 8, 2006. The field methodology included the removal of the plow zone from nine acres of the 10-acre area, with limited excavation of the remaining acre. Exposed features were then recorded and a sample of them excavated. As a result, 372 previously unrecorded features were identified, for a total of 521 features when combined with those recorded during the Phase II testing. Of these, 179 features were excavated. A wide variety of feature types were recorded, including structures, trenches, privies and slit trenches, wells, pits, posts, trees/disturbances and prehistoric pits. From these features, 5,828 historic and 228 prehistoric artifacts were recovered. Based on the feature types identified and the artifacts recovered, it was apparent that the project area encompassed a portion of the camp of the Confederate soldiers charged with guarding the stockade. This was further indicated by the extensive documentary research conducted during this project. It appears that the eastern end of the camp was encountered, while more of it may extend off of the property to the west. The excavations at the Florence Stockade represented a rare opportunity to examine a relatively undisturbed Confederate camp inhabited for a short period of time by rear-echelon personnel. While a great deal of historical research has focused on the Stockade, this project represents one of the first professional studies of the day-to-day life of the guards. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The success of any major archaeological project is dependent on many people. The excavations at the Florence Stockade were certainly no exception, and the list of individuals and organizations that have contributed is extensive. Ms. Lu Richards of the National Cemetery Administration, Veteran’s Administration, served as our client contact and was vital in coordinating our efforts with the Florence National Cemetery. The onsite staff at the Florence National Cemetery, especially Ms. Elfrieda Robinson and Mr. Wayne Graham, were always interested in our work and were extremely helpful in many ways, from sharing their observations of the site to allowing us the use of their water faucet. Ms. Valerie Marcil of the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, provided clear guidance and valuable advice throughout the project. Her interest and assistance was greatly appreciated. Ms. Fran Knight of the same office reviewed the draft report and greatly improved the manuscript through her comments. The members of the Friends of the Florence Stockade have worked for the preservation of the site for many years and were instrumental in initiating the process that culminated in the current project. Many of the Friends spent time with us in the field and shared their extensive knowledge of the Stockade and its history. I am especially appreciative of the help provided by J.R. and Marshia Fisher, Sandy Kendall, Carl Hill, Ken Howle and Reverend Albert Ledoux. Management of a project such as this is no small task. MACTEC project management was provided by Allen Conger, along with Eduardo Padron and Jerry Archer. A special thanks goes to Roger Franklin, who had the foresight to help our program grow. We were fortunate enough to be assisted by an exceptional heavy equipment operator. John Clauser of Of Grave Concerns has over 30 years of experience as an archaeologist and provided not only his skills as an operator but sage advice when requested. The one thing that a field director must have for a project to be successful is a good crew. Our crew was excellent. They worked extremely hard and did great work through days on end of extreme heat. The crew included Mandy Edwards, Cody Howard, Dan Marcel, Colleen McConnell and Brady Witt. Their contribution can not be overstated. Thanks to the folks in the MACTEC archaeology lab that washed, sorted, catalogued and bagged the artifacts. A special thanks to Chad Caswell who single-handedly processed hundreds of flotation samples and prepared most of the drawings for the report. Dr. Joe Joseph of Newsouth Associates identified the maker of some of the stoneware from the camp and materially aided the artifact analyses. ii Finally, John Mason, Senior Geologist with MACTEC in Knoxville and avid student of Civil War history, shared his extensive library of sources on the material used during the war. His books and his expertise allowed for the identification of many artifacts that might have gone unknown otherwise. His generosity was truly appreciated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 The Archaeology of Civil War Prisons and Encampments ....................................... 3 Site 38FL2.................................................................................................................. 5 Site Description........................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 2. METHODS ............................................................................................... 11 Historical Research .................................................................................................. 11 Field ......................................................................................................................... 11 Laboratory................................................................................................................ 12 Kitchen Group........................................................................................... 13 Architectural Group .................................................................................. 14 Arms Group............................................................................................... 15 Clothing Group ......................................................................................... 15 Personal Group.......................................................................................... 15 Furniture Group......................................................................................... 15 Tobacco Pipe Group.................................................................................. 15 Activities Group........................................................................................ 16 Analysis of Botanical and Faunal Remains ............................................................. 16 Artifact Curation ...................................................................................................... 16 Spatial Data .............................................................................................................. 16 CHAPTER 3. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT................................... 17 Prehistoric