The Value and Treatment of Civil War Military Sites

Abstract

The American Civil War was a defining event in the history of the United States, and scholarly and public interest in the conflict remains high. Archaeological sites from the Civil War can provide valuable data that cannot be gleaned from the archival record or oral history. The archaeological study of battlefields, skirmish sites, earthworks, trenches, camps, and picket posts provides specific details that augment the other data sources. However, the archaeological treatment of Civil War sites-specifically the use of inappropriate methods-continues to be a problem. As many areas of the heartland of the Civil War face growing development pressures, it is imperative that archaeologists reconsider their approaches to Civil War sites.

Metal detecting: An effective tool for archaeological research and community engagement

“…As early as the American Battlefield Protection Program's 7th National Conference on Battlefield Preservation (19-25 April 2004), participants were strongly urged to modify metal-detecting activities to include systematic transect surveys with operators turning 90 degrees to complete a second group of transects (Green, 2009). This was discussed because archaeologists were missing data through poor prospecting form and survey methods, and this sentiment has been noted elsewhere (Balicki, 2011;Connor and Scott, 1998;Espenshade et al, 2002;Jolley, 2007;Sivilich, 1996). The past decade's growth in battlefield archaeology has served as a point of experiment in metal-detecting survey techniques.…”

“…The machines are used to pinpoint distributions of iron, lead, and other metals and thus help to delimit activity areas, dumps, military positions, and general site boundaries. The integration of metal detection and historic archaeological survey continues to grow (e.g., Connor and Scott, 1998;Cornelison, 2000;Drucker and Stine, 1990;Elliott, 2008Elliott, , 2013Elliott and Dean, 2007;Espenshade et al, 2002;Ferguson, 2013;Gregory and Rogerson, 1984;Hana, 2011;Jolley, 2007;Legg, 1989;Legg and Smith, 1989;Scott and Mcfeater, 2011;Smith and Legg, 2004;Smith et al, 2009;Stine, 1999;Stine, 2011;Stine and Selifkoff, 2000;Stine and Stine, 2013), although formal guidelines and best practices are still being formulated. Survey techniques are not created equal within either community of users (avocationalists or archaeologists) nor is equipment.…”

“…Metal detectors have a solid history in helping to define the limits of late-18th century through 20th century military and related domestic sites in historical archaeology when used appropriately (Balicki, 2011; Connor and Scott, 1998; Cornelison, 2000; Elliott, 2008; Elliott and Dean, 2007; Espenshade et al., 2002; Geier et al., 2011; Hana, 2011; Jolley, 2007; Sivilich, 1996; South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2014; Stine and Stine, 2013). As early as the American Battlefield Protection Program’s 7th National Conference on Battlefield Preservation (19–25 April 2004), participants were strongly urged to modify metal-detecting activities to include systematic transect surveys with operators turning 90 degrees to complete a second group of transects (Green, 2009).…”

“…The amount of experience required to make metal detectors an effective research tool on military sites (typically disturbed) is high, and battlefields tend to cover a lot of area (Geier et al., 2011; Espenshade et al., 2002; Jolley, 2007; Sivilich, 1996). Archaeologists in this subfield routinely recruit the assistance of avocationalists who often provide information about artifact distributions on the battlefield in question.…”

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

“…This has particularly been the case in the area of battlefield archaeology, with observations that engaging with such relic hunters (as they are often called in the USA, for example) makes use of their local knowledge as well as their skills, resulting in a greater benefit for archaeological research (e.g. Espenshade et al 2002).…”