An Archaeological Overview and Assessment of the
Main Unit, Petersburg National Battlefield, Virginia

Chapter Six:  An Assessment of Archaeological and Historic Resources (Part B)

Issues and Concerns

Petersburg became a besieged landscape in 1864 and 1865, one of a very few such examples during the American Civil War.  The military and civilian impacts were thus different and often more devastating than on most battlefields.  It is important that research questions relating to this landscape be framed within both the military and civilian contexts, that they address questions that may be answered by the archaeological record, and recognize that traditional archaeological excavations may not be the best means of answering certain questions of fundamental importance.  For example, larger questions of strategy should be addressed by historical research, while the meaning of ante bellum landscape and of military events may be addressed within the realms of contemporary anthropological theory on landscape (Leone 1982) and military sites (Blades n.d.) and by variable emphases in park development and interpretation.  The particular (one may here read particularistic) details of siege life, earthwork design, and certain tactical concerns may be addressed by traditional excavations, although data from such excavations may certainly by used to inform and question interpretations derived from historical research.  It is anticipated that archaeological excavations would have a larger and fuller role to play in relation to plantation and farm environments, particularly with regards to the development of African-American society.

The problem of distinguishing between features representing small earthworks, encampment hut sites, or natural tree pits—particularly when these features are explored by surface reconnaissance only—must be recognized.  Encampment areas certainly represent areas of potential archaeological interest from the standpoints of general layout, specific hut design and degree of uniformity, but once again questions of broader anthropological relevance may be more difficult to define.  Characteristics of tree pits such as distinctive D-shapes, U-shapes, or semicircles and vertical stratigraphy—deposited as humus and subsoil fell downward from root masses—may be useful in isolating at least some tree pits (Langhor 1993).  However, the presence within a feature of Civil War artifacts in such a densely populated siege area may be coincidental.  A magnetometer survey should be useful for identifying hearths associated with huts, but the absence of a hearth may still indicate an artillery position or associated magazine, since fires would be uncommon or absent within such areas.

Petersburg was a siege landscape, but it was one with separate battle events, such as the following:

These major events were accompanied by a number of smaller actions such as limited attacks on picket lines and nearly continuous artillery and infantry picket fire from stationary earthwork positions.  These actions resulted in the deposition of an immense quantity of military artifacts throughout the Main Unit, particularly between the siege lines.  However, a sufficient degree of spatial overlap between events and of complex spatial movement during events suggests that the distribution of battle debris may not be particularly revealing in terms of adding new perspectives on the interpretation of battles during the siege.

Thematic Contexts, Associated Property Types, and Research Questions

Constituent elements of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR 1991, 1992, 1993) thematic contexts (Table 6.2) and associated property types (Table 6.3) that are represented in the various geographic areas of the Main Unit are listed in the aforementioned tables.

The earliest phases of prehistoric settlement have been identified at a few sites near the Main Unit, but none have been found in this portion of the park as yet.  A prehistoric Late Archaic component has been identified at the Taylor site (central area) and others are highly likely at other locations given their presence on neighboring Fort Lee and the existence of associated landforms such as higher crests, ridges, and slopes above creeks.  Early or Middle Woodland occupation is suggested on the 100 foot terrace bluff near Confederate Battery 5 and is certainly indicated by the Fort Lee site data.  Woodland occupation evidence will probably be found on the lower creek terraces and on the low Chowan Terrace along Harrison Creek at the north end of the park.

The identification of prehistoric resources will be possible using any of a variety of sampling survey techniques, such as the stratified random sample survey used by MAAR Associates at Fort Lee (Opperman and Hanson 1985) or various ones discussed at length in articles in Mueller (1975).

Important research questions related to prehistoric occupation of the landscape include the following:

These questions will obviously be difficult to address solely on the basis of locational data from initial shovel test surveys.  Regardless of whether data are obtained from shovel tests, larger units, or block excavations, all soils should be screened through wire mesh to enhance artifact recovery; if 1/4 inch mesh is used, a consistent proportion of the soils from a unit or level should be screened through finer mesh (1/8 inch or smaller) as a control for the recovery of very small debitage.  Water sieving of some soils from units and levels in addition to features should be undertaken.

Random sample survey and screening of excavated soils will also result in the discovery of historic sites.  Early colonial sites from the seventeenth and early eighteenth century are not likely but certainly are possible in this interior area away from the larger rivers.  However, later eighteenth-century (post-1750) occupation is well documented along the 100-foot terrace bluff and the roads connecting Petersburg with City Point, Prince George Court House, and points to the southeast.  This emerging eighteenth-century landscape of large and wealthy slave plantations was reflected in the Jordan, Friend, Hare, and Taylor sites.  This landscape was maintained until the Civil War, although smaller plantations and farms were constructed on less valuable upland acreage farther away from the Appomattox River.

Important historical and cultural questions that may be addressed on the ante bellum plantation and farm sites include the following:

Post-Civil War domestic occupation resumed at the Friend and Taylor sites and continued into the twentieth century.  Training earthworks, magazines, roads, and encampment areas in the eastern portion of the park are associated with Camp Lee during World War I.  Other evidence of twentieth-century activity is reflected in the subsequent development of Petersburg National Military Park, currently known as Petersburg National Battlefield, and in private residences along Hickory Hill Road that were subsequently incorporated within the park.

Extensive Civil War earthworks reflect the development of military siege engineering in a North American context.  These works include the sensational example of the excavation of mine by Pennsylvania coal workers from the Union lines to a point beneath a Confederate salient.  The explosion of black powder in the mine created the Crater, a landmark of the Petersburg siege.

The earthworks are the most visible evidence of the siege and reflect the preexisting defenses of Petersburg (the Dimmock line), a hastily-prepared Confederate line behind Harrison Creek, the main Confederate line behind Poor Creek, and a range of Union earthworks from the main siege line to secondary earthworks west of Harrison Creek.  Potential research questions focusing on the earthworks include the following:

Battlefields of some of the more dramatic if not always the most strategically significant clashes between Union and Confederate forces are found with the Main Unit.  As mentioned above, the complex and overlapping nature of these engagements may have reduced the interpretive potential of the undoubtedly extensive deposits of fired and unfired bullets and other battle debris.

Encampment areas of Union soldiers appear to be extensive in the area behind the Union siege lines, i.e., between those lines and Harrison Creek.  It is possible to frame a range of questions relating to encampment and hut design and the degree to which these elements reflected military uniformity or regional vernacular traditions, particularly since the soldiers were from various northern and Midwestern states.

The exploration and mapping of encampment and particularly earthworks will be greatly enhanced through the application of remote sensing technology such as ground-penetrating radar, proton magnetometer, and conductivity meters.  The locations and orientations of encampments and earthworks should be accurately determined through the use of global positioning system technology.

Final Thoughts

The current landscape within the Main Unit of Petersburg National Battlefield bears no resemblance to either the ante bellum agricultural setting of domestic houses and cultivated fields or to the stark lines of artillery and infantry earthworks that emerged during the fourth summer of the American Civil War.  Some of the former agricultural fields are open but covered in meadow grass, others are wooded, and only the ruins of one pre-Civil War structure—the brick kitchen foundations at the Taylor site—stand above ground.  Physical traces of the Civil War are more obvious, being manifested in earthworks that are sometimes well preserved and at others completely obliterated above ground.  However, both the domestic and military landscapes are well represented in the archaeological record.

The current landscape in the Main Unit is a memorial one, created by the National Park Service to commemorate the significant military events that occurred between June 1864 and April 1865.  The earthworks themselves, even the well preserved ones, have inevitably become elements of this landscape.  They are currently covered with grasses, which prevent or retard erosion of the original bare earth, but also enable them to present a more gentle, aged appearance.  Selected removal of trees to create viewing vistas, such as the one between the Taylor site and the Crater, have greatly enhanced the ability to perceive the openness of the battlefield and siege lines, but may only be undertaken and maintained in a few areas.

It should be emphasized that the park memorial landscape is just as genuine as the earlier domestic and military ones, provided it is recognized that it represents a modern memorialization of the past and not the past itself.  The earthworks should clearly be preserved, but it is not possible or desirable to return the landscape to its appearance during the Civil War.  The ruins on the Taylor house site should be preserved and signs should interpret this site and the other plantation and farms within the Main Unit, but the pre-Civil War agricultural landscape cannot be restored.