In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ChaptEr six Watch-Fires of a Hundred Circling Camps Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Investigating Civil War Campsites JosEph baliCki introduCtion During the five years of the American Civil War (1861–65) there was a dramatic shift in the cultural and physical landscapes in much of the United States. Where armies where present, landscapes were drastically altered and archeological sites created. These sites range from monolithic fortifications and battlefields to small artifact scatters denoting a lone soldier’s picket duty. As a depositional process, armed conflict created fewer archeological sites than processes associated with the most ubiquitous site type of the war: the military camp. A soldier’s moments in battle were brief compared to time in camp where daily events formed the core of an individual’s military experience. Establishing camps, maintaining camps, constructing buildings, training, and just plain living in camps is what soldiers did most. The experiences of J. C. Williams, 14th Vermont Infantry, are typical (Williams 1864). Williams spent the majority of his nine-month enlistment in an approximately 175 square mile area of Fairfax County, Virginia. In the 87 days before settling into winter quarters, William’s diary contains entries for 12 different camps, and the construction of winter quarters on five separate occasions. On average, not counting overnight marches, a new camp was established every seven days. After 63 days in winter quarters, the 14th was assigned to a permanently garrisoned fortification. It is impossible to estimate the number of archaeological sites created by the armies of the North and South, but clearly soldier encampments are a common site type. Civil War camps are increasingly recognized for what they are: archaeological sites that have the potential for containing significant information to address research questions on a wide range of topics relevant to archaeologists and other Civil War researchers. This chapter presents an overview of camp types, their archaeological signatures, common features, and methods and procedures with which they may be investigated, interpreted, and recorded. Research designs should include a combination of background research, informant interviews, subsurface testing (shovel testing), metal detection, and mechanical stripping. Field procedures should be based on research questions, the nature of the deposits, and potential effects to the site. Fieldwork should be flexible enough to respond to the nature of the archaeological site as it unfolds. For example, one of the most effective methods for locating and investigating campsites is mechanical stripping combined with metal detection; but this is a very heavy-handed approach not appropriate in all cases, particularly where preservation of the site is an option. Viable field methods such as ground-penetrating radar and soil testing are not included only because the author has no firsthand experience with their use on an encampment. There is no one best set of methods and procedures for investigating a camp. Camp typEs In general, Civil War camps consist of permanent camps, winter quarters, and surface camps. This oversimplification provides a beginning framework that can be expanded to include differences between 58 joseph balicki Federals and Confederates, period of war, location, time of year, availability of materials, response to threat, level of training, officer experience, and, possibly , cavalry and infantry camps. The archaeological signature of each camp type varies. Permanent camps are associated with long-term occupations, for example a garrison at a fort. In general , when stationed at permanent camps soldiers lived in barracks or modified their domiciles to be more permanent and hospitable (McBride and Sharp 1991; McBride 1994; Balicki 2000; McBride, Andrews et al. 2003; McBride and McBride 2006). Winter quarters are characterized by the construction of “huts” or “shanties” by the soldiers. Photographic evidence suggests that by the winter of 1863 at least some Federal winter quarters included standardized cabin architecture. Hut architecture shows variability and was not an aspect of soldierly life prescribed by military regulation although established military doctrine dictated camp layout. Nelson (2006) presents an overview of the vernacular forms these domiciles took. Typically, in an effort to gain more protection from the weather, soldiers dug in. By digging shallow depressions and banking earth against the sides of their domiciles, soldiers created better shelter from the elements. Frequently stone, brick, or earthen hearths and fireplaces were constructed. As a result, the archaeological signature of Civil War winter quarters often includes surface features seen as mounds, depressions, platforms, or combinations of the three (Balicki 2006a). These telltale features, regularly laid out in rows, greatly increase the chances of this type of site being found and...

Share