THE HAMMOCK LANDING BATTERY AND THE CONFEDERATE DEFENSES OF

THE APALACHICOLA RIVER, FLORIDA

by

Charles Brian Mabelitini

B.A., The University of Kentucky, 2006

A thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology

College of Arts and Sciences
The University of West Florida
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts

2012
 2012 Charles Brian Mabelitini
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ vii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................1
A. Thesis Statement ........................................................................1
B. Hammock Landing Battery (Neals Bluff) ................................2

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACH........6

A. Research Questions ....................................................................6
B. Theoretical Overview.................................................................7
C. Archival Methods.....................................................................10
D. Field Methods ..........................................................................11
1. Topographic Mapping........................................................11
2. Test Unit Excavation..........................................................13
3. Metal Detection..................................................................15
4. Laboratory Methods ...........................................................15

CHAPTER III. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ........................17

CHAPTER IV. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................25

A. Introduction ..............................................................................25
B. Commerce and Industry ...........................................................27
C. Blockade and River Defenses ..................................................29
D. Apalachicola River Batteries ...................................................38
E. The Hammock Landing Battery.............................................. 47
F. Discussion ................................................................................52

CHAPTER V. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS .....................................56

A. Gun Emplacement 2 .................................................................58
B. Powder Magazine 1..................................................................72
C. Metal Detector Survey .............................................................83
D. Discussion ................................................................................85

CHAPTER VI. 19th CENTURY HISTORIC MATERIALS .................................88

A. Architecture Group ..................................................................89
1. Nails ...................................................................................89
2. Spikes .................................................................................91

iv
 3. Wood ..................................................................................92
B. Arms Group .............................................................................93
C. Miscellaneous Group .............................................................100
D. Discussion ..............................................................................102

CHAPTER VII. COMPARISONS WITH MANUALS AND RESULTS OF

KOCOA ANALYSIS...................................................................105
A. Hammock Landing.................................................................106
1. Gun Emplacement 2 .........................................................107
2. Powder Magazine 1..........................................................114
B. KOCOA Terrain Analysis..................................................... 120
C. Discussion ..............................................................................125

CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................131

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................137

APPENDIXES .................................................................................................................151
A. 8LI334 Artifact Inventory .......................................................152

v
 LIST OF TABLES

1. KOCOA Elements and Examples ..........................................................................10

2. List of Features ......................................................................................................57

3. Pennyweight Measurements for Whole Nails........................................................89

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Location of Liberty County, Florida (Illustration by author, 2011) ........................3

2. Location of Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) (USGS Rock Creek 7.5

Topographic Quadrangle, 1982) (Illustration by author, 2011)...............................4

3. Topographic Map of the Hammock Landing Battery (Florida Public Archaeology

Network, 2010) ......................................................................................................12

4. Overlay of 1936 and 2010 Topographic Maps of the Hammock Landing Battery
in Torreya State Park, Liberty County, Florida (National Park Service 1936;
Florida Public Archaeology Network, 2010) (Illustration by author, 2011) .........14

5. Topographic Map of Battery Gilmer (8GU14) (White 1999:63) ..........................19

6. Topographic Map of Battery Cobb (8GU94) (White 1999:64) .............................19

7. View of Wooden Platform at Confederate Gun Emplacement 17 (8ES126),

Pensacola Naval Air Station (NAS), Florida (Swindell 1976:41) .........................21

8. Location of Pee Dee River Battery (38FL132) (Avery 2008) ...............................23

9. Apalachicola-Chattahoochee River System in 1861 (Turner 1988:4) ...................26

10. Undated Photograph of Captain Theodore Moreno (Mandrell 1988:349) ............34

11. Circa 1862-1863 Map of the Apalachicola River Showing the Locations of Land
Batteries (adapted from George Washington Scott Papers, State Archives of
Florida)...................................................................................................................39

12. Map of Defenses at the Narrows showing Batteries Cobb and Gilmer, and the
Obstructions in the Apalachicola and Virginia Rivers (U.S. War Department
1890[28]2:425) ......................................................................................................44

13. 1862 Map of defenses at the Narrows showing Fields of Fire of the Guns, Drawn
by Corporal R.F. Hosford of Captain Gregorys Company H, 5th Florida Infantry
Regiment (State Archives of Florida) ....................................................................45

vii
14. Map of Lower Apalachicola River (ca. 1863) showing Locations of Iola, Forts
Cobb and Gadsden, and Bloody Bluff (George Washington Scott Papers, State
Archives of Florida) ...............................................................................................46

15. Artistic Rendition of Gun Emplacements 1 and 2 at the Hammock Landing

Battery based on Archaeological Investigations ( David Edwards, 2011) .........48

16. Civil War-Era List of Distances Between Landings from Chattahoochee to

Apalachicola (George Washington Scott Papers, State Archives of Florida) .......53

17. Hammock Landing Battery Site Areas (Illustration by author, 2011) ...................56

18. 1957 Photograph of Gun Emplacement 2 (State Archives of Florida) ..................58

19. Unit 1020N 1000E North Profile Showing General Soil Stratigraphy Across Gun
Emplacement 2 Site Area (Illustration by author, 2011) .......................................59

20. Gun Emplacement 2 Platform Site Map (Illustration by author, 2011) .................60

21. View of Gun Emplacement 2 Platform Facing East (Photo by author, 2010) .......60

22. View of Gun Emplacement 2 Showing Remnants of Sleepers (Features 3, 4, and

5) and Planking (Features 8 and 10) Facing East (Photo by author, 2010) ...........61

23. View of Features 3, 4, and 6 East Bisection (Photo by author, 2010) ...................62

24. West Profile of Feature 6 Bisection (Illustration and photo by author, 2010) .......63

25. Unit 1017N 1000E Planview Showing Features 5 and 10 (Illustration and photo
by author, 2010) .....................................................................................................63

26. Unit 1020N 998E Planview at Bottom of Zone 2 (Illustration and photo by author,
2010) ......................................................................................................................64

27. Unit 1015N 1000E Planview at Bottom of Zone 2 (Illustration and photo by
author, 2010) ..........................................................................................................64

28. Planview of Units 1017N 996E and 1018N 996E Showing Feature 20 (Illustration
and photo by author, 2010) ....................................................................................65

29. Diagram of 32-pounder Gun on Front-Pintle Barbette Carriage Showing Location

of Traversing Pintle (adapted from Peterson 1969:109) ........................................66

30. Photograph Showing Wooden Revetments (Katcher 2001:63) .............................66

31. Unit 1019N 1002E Planview at Top of Zone 2 (Illustration by author, 2011) ......68

viii
32. . Unit 1019N 1000E East Half at Bottom of Zone 2 Showing Bedrock (Photo by
author, 2010) ..........................................................................................................68

33. Unit 1015N 1000E East Profile (Illustration and photo by author, 2010) .............69

34. Unit 1015N 1000E South Profile (Illustration and photo by author, 2010)...........69

35. Unit 1024N 1015E Planview at Top of Zone 2 (Illustration and photo by author,
2010) ......................................................................................................................70

36. Unit 1016N 1004E South Profile of East Extension Across Traverse (Illustration
and photo by author, 2010) ....................................................................................71

37. Unit 1016N 1004E and East Extension Planview Facing South (Photo by author,
2010) ......................................................................................................................71

38. View of Powder Magazine 1 Site Area Facing East (Photo by author, 2010).......72

39. Powder Magazine 1 Site Map (Illustration by author, 2011).................................73

40. View of Powder Magazine 1 Facing North (Photo by author, 2010) ....................73

41. Unit 1004N 1000E North Profile with Detail of Feature 11 (Illustration and photo
by author, 2010) .....................................................................................................74

42. Unit 1004N 1000E Planview (Photo by author, 2010) ..........................................75

43. Units 1005N 1002E and 1004N 1000E Planview Showing Roof at Entrance to
Magazine (Photo by author, 2010).........................................................................76

44. Unit 1004N 1000E West Profile (Illustration and photo by author, 2010)............76

45. Unit 1004N 1000E South Profile (Illustration and photo by author, 2010)...........77

46. Unit 1004N 996E North Profile (Illustration by author, 2011) .............................78

47. Unit 1004N 996E Planview (Illustration and photo by author, 2010) ...................78

48. Feature 11 North Profile (Photo and illustration by author, 2010) ........................80

49. Artistic Rendition of Powder Magazine 1 ( David Edwards, 2011) ...................81

50. Unit 1005N 1000E North Profile Showing Northern Edge of Magazine (Photo by
author, 2010) ..........................................................................................................81

ix
51. Unit 1002N 1000E West Profile Showing Southern Edge of Magazine
(Illustration and photo by author, 2010) ................................................................82

52. Unit 1002N 1000E Planview (Photo by author, 2010) ..........................................82

53. Location of Metal Detected Areas adapted from 1982 USGS Rock Creek 7.5
Topographic Quadrangle (Illustration by author, 2011) ........................................84

54. Artistic Rendition of Construction of Gun Emplacement 2 ( David Edwards,

2011) ......................................................................................................................85

55. Example of Late Machine-Cut Nails Recovered from Site 8LI334 (Photo by
author, 2010) ..........................................................................................................90

56. Traversing Pintle and Associated Sleeper for Front-Pintle Barbette Carriage
Recovered in Gun Emplacement 2 Site Area (Photo by author, 2010) .................91

57. Iron Spike Recovered Near Gun Emplacement 5 (Photo by author, 2010) ...........92

58. Arms Group Artifacts: (a) solid spherical grape shot; (b) unfired American-style
friction primer; (c) fired friction primers; (d) .37-caliber Maynard rifle bullet; (e)
unidentified fired bullet; (f) British-style friction bar igniter (Photo by author,
2010) ......................................................................................................................94

59. Diagram of British Friction Primer (Great Britain War Office 1902:111) ............96

60. Unprovenienced Iron Projectiles Reportedly Recovered by CCC at Gun

Emplacements: (a) solid shot; (b) spherical case shot (Photo by author, 2010) ....99

61. Miscellaneous Group Artifacts: (a) chain links; (b) drive pin; (c) chisel or wedge
fragment; (d) iron hook fragment (Photo by author, 2010) .................................101

62. Example of Wooden Gun Platform and Revetments, Confederate Battery at Dutch
Gap Canal Overlooking the James River, Virginia (Library of Congress Prints and
Photographs Division, Washington DC: LC-B815-53) .......................................110

63. Overlapping Fields of Fire of the Guns at the Hammock Landing Battery
(Illustration by author, 2011) ...............................................................................112

64. Diagram of Coffer-Work Powder Magazine (Mahan 1846)................................115

65. 1862 Plan of Powder Magazine (Duane 1862:262) .............................................116

66. Magazine Construction Proposed by Duane (1862:264) .....................................116

67. Cross-Section of Magazine Construction Proposed by Duane (1862:264) .........117

x
68. Profile of North Wall of Magazine Showing Soils Covering the Entrance (Photo
by author, 2010) ...................................................................................................118

69. View of North and East Wall of Magazine (Photo by author, 2010) ..................118

70. 1827 Survey Plat of T 2N R 7W Showing the Project Area (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management) .......................................................................................................120

71. 1840 Survey Plat of T 2N R 7W Showing the Project Area (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management) .......................................................................................................121

72. 1936 CCC Topographic Map of Earthworks (National Park Service 1936) .......121

73. Defining Features of the Hammock Landing Locale adapted from 1982 USGS
Rock Creek 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle (Illustration by author, 2011) ...........123

74. Detail of 1863 Callahan Map of Military Departments of the South and Gulf
(National Archives Cartographic Section, College Park, Maryland) ..................127

75. Artistic Rendition of Hammock Landing Battery while in Active Operation (

David Edwards, 2011) .........................................................................................130

76. View of Altered Bluff and Limestone Retaining Wall at Gregory House Site
Facing South (Photo by author, 2010) .................................................................133

77. Detail of 1873 Map Showing Hammock Landing Locale and Fort Lee (National
Archives Cartographic Section, College Park, Maryland)...................................134

78. Overlay of 1873 USACE Map and 1982 USGS 7.5 Quadrangle (Illustration by
author, 2011) ........................................................................................................135

xi
 ABSTRACT
THE HAMMOCK LANDING BATTERY AND THE CONFEDERATE DEFENSES OF
THE APALACHICOLA RIVER, FLORIDA
Charles Brian Mabelitini
This historical and archaeological research assesses the construction methods and

geographical placement of the Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) in Liberty County,

Florida. Landscape data and terrain analysis demonstrates the location of the battery

conferred a tactical advantage to the Confederate military. Constructed during the

summer of 1863, the Hammock Landing Battery mounted six heavy guns served by three

powder magazines and was one component in the line of defense to prevent Federal

blockading vessels from reaching the important industrial complex of Columbus,

Georgia. Archaeological investigations allowed a comparison of its construction

techniques with period engineering manuals. Although many of the dimensions of the

excavated structural features differ from the archetype presented in contemporaneous

manuals, they exhibit similar characteristics. Artifacts recovered from the site also shed

light on the labor exerted during construction of the earthworks, as well as the types of

ordnance stores available to Confederate troops in northern Florida.

xii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Thesis Statement

This thesis examines the construction methods of the Hammock Landing Battery

on Neals Bluff (8LI334) in Torreya State Park, and its strategic placement within the

chain of artillery batteries and defensive measures on the Apalachicola River during the

American Civil War through archaeological and historical research. Based on landscape

theory, the location and construction of the Hammock Landing Battery granted the

Confederate military a strategic advantage in the defense and protection of the river.

These advantages are interpreted through landscape data derived from KOCOA analysis.

KOCOA is a principle of military terrain analysis that provides a means to analyze the

tactical importance of defining landscape features that may be either natural or cultural in

origin. Defining features are categorized into Key terrain, Obstacles, Cover and

concealment, Observation and fields of fire, and Avenues of approach and retreat. The

strategic placement of the battery is also interpreted through comparison of the site with

period construction manuals as well as contemporaneous sites that served a similar

function.

This research provides insights into Confederate military engineering and

fortification of the landscape along the river. Through landscape theory and KOCOA

terrain analysis, this research examines the natural and cultural features at the Hammock

Landing locale in an effort to shed light on the military strategy and engineering that

1
influenced the placement of this defensive fortification on the landscape. Specifically,

this approach provides insights into the strategic significance of Hammock Landing to the

Confederate military. This research also compares the construction and placement of the

Hammock Landing Battery to other excavated batteries of the period. Although

archaeological investigations of the defensive measures on the Apalachicola River have

been limited, Batteries Cobb (8GU94) and Gilmer (8GU14) were examined in the 1990s

(White 1999). Comparison with these batteries, as well as with other contemporaneous

batteries that served a similar function, enhances our understanding of the military

strategy, engineering, and construction methods utilized by the Confederacy during the

American Civil War.

Hammock Landing Battery (Neals Bluff)

The Hammock Landing Battery is located on Neals Bluff in present-day Torreya

State Park in Liberty County, Florida (Figure 1), and consists of approximately 9.26 acres

(3.75 ha) of second growth forest atop the steep bluff. The park contains 2,650.28 acres

(2,144.24 upland acres and 506.04 wetland/submerged acres) located approximately 14

miles northeast of Bristol, Florida. Torreya State Park is situated on the east side of the

Apalachicola River and is accessible from State Road 12 and County Road 1641. The

park was established in 1934, and has been open for public recreation since 1939.

Between 1935 and 1942, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) constructed various

recreational facilities throughout the park as part of the New Deal program implemented

by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Adams et al. 1989:35-37). The project area inside the

park is located within township 2 North, range 7 West, section 9.

2
FIGURE 1. Location of Liberty County, Florida (Illustration by author, 2011).

Torreya State Park is located in the Tallahassee Hills physiographic region, and

elevations vary from 50 to 262 ft. above mean sea level (AMSL). The geologic

formations of the Florida panhandle, which includes the study area, are primarily

limestone with some dolomite of the Miocene period. Soils within the study area are

classified within the Lucy-Troup and Brickyard-Wahee-Ochlockonee soil associations

(Lewis 2007).

The Lucy-Troup series is located on hills, ridges, and hillslopes that are highly

dissected in some places and include the top of the bluff that encompasses the Civil War

earthworks in the park. These soils are chiefly nearly level to very steep, somewhat

excessively drained and well drained soils that have a sandy surface layer and a loamy

subsoil. The Brickyard-Wahee-Ochlockonee series consists of primarily nearly level,

very poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained, and moderately well drained soils that

have a loamy surface layer and a loamy or clayey subsoil (Lewis 2007). These soils are

3
found on flood plains and include the area below the bluff that likely includes the historic

location of Hammock Landing.

Throughout the American Civil War, the defense of the Apalachicola River was

of strategic military and economic importance to the Confederacy. The river system is

navigable as far north as Columbus, Georgia, and its security was essential in preventing

Federal blockading vessels positioned at Apalachicola Bay from reaching this important

industrial city. The Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) was one component in this line

of defense (Figure 2). The earthworks consisted of sunken platforms for six guns

connected by traverses, with three powder magazines centrally located within each paired

gun emplacement. These features are well preserved and are currently visible on the

FIGURE 2. Location of Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) (USGS Rock Creek 7.5
Topographic Quadrangle, 1982) (Illustration by author, 2011).

4
ground surface within the park. However, these earthworks have been impacted by

the placement of 20th century hiking trails, and little public interpretation is available to

the parks visitors. Additionally, remnants of a contemporary artillery road are visible in

the rear of the earthwork that likely connected the battery with the river landing.

Although the historic location of the river landing associated with Hammock Landing is

unknown, 20th century river charts depict a modern landing, identified as Coopers

Landing, below the battery at the base of the bluff along the Apalachicola River (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1963, 1978, 1987, 1994).

A May 1864 description of the battery indicates that it was constructed en

barbette (or over the parapet), and was defended by three 18-pounder, two 32-pounder,

and one 24-pounder cannons (Gonzales 1891[35]:468). Military inspection records

indicate that the magazines were poorly constructed, causing them to flood during heavy

rains. As a result, in early 1864, Confederate General Pierre G. T. Beauregard ordered the

magazines to be improved or rebuilt (Beauregard 1891[35]:589). The battery was

garrisoned by five infantry companies of the 1st Georgia Regulars, two companies of the

28th Georgia Siege (Bonauds) Artillery, three companies of the 29th Georgia Cavalry, as

well as the 12th Georgia Volunteer Infantry (Smedlund 1994:191).

In addition to the Confederate artillery emplacements, cultural resources protected

within the park include several native American campsites, middens, a burial mound, the

remains of an antebellum ferry landing and warehouse complex, a 19th to 20th century

African American cemetery, a territorial period federal roadway, a water-powered mill,

and the relocated and reconstructed Jason Gregory house (an 1840s plantation dwelling).

However, this research addresses only the Civil War features in and around Neals Bluff.

5
 CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACH

Research Questions

The research methodologies employed in this project consisted of both

archaeological and historical investigations. This research was directed toward

understanding the construction and history of the earthworks, the histories of the troops

stationed at the battery, as well as a comprehensive narrative of the defensive measures

on the Apalachicola River and the strategic significance of the Apalachicola-

Chattahoochee river system during the American Civil War. Archaeological research

strategies included the creation of an accurate topographic map of the earthworks, soil

core and augur testing, metal detector survey, and the hand excavation of test units in

order to understand the construction methods and appearance of the battery during active

operation. Aspects of landscape theory and terrain analysis were used to interpret the

tactical advantages of the Hammock Landing locale. The incorporation of concepts from

landscape archaeology and KOCOA terrain analysis results in a theoretical framework

that allows this research to address several questions:

1. What was the strategic significance of the physical placement of this battery on

the landscape?

2. How was this site incorporated into the broader context of the Confederate

defensive measures on the river?

6
 3. What construction methods did the engineer utilize, and how closely do they

follow prescribed specifications in available contemporaneous manuals?

4. What was the physical appearance of this battery while in active operation?

5. How do the available historical accounts of this battery correspond to the

archaeological remains?

By addressing these questions, this research contributes to a largely unrecorded

component of Floridas cultural heritage.

Theoretical Overview

Carole L. Crumley defines landscape as the material manifestation of the relation

between humans and the environment (1994:6). John Barrett (1991:8) goes further in his

assertion:

Landscape is thus the entire surface over which people moved and within which

they congregated. That surface was given meaning as people acted upon the world

within the context of the various demands and obligations which acted upon them.

Such actions took place within a certain tempo and at certain locales. Thus

landscape, its form constructed from natural and artificial features, became

culturally meaningful through its routine occupancy.

Archaeological examinations of the meanings and uses in the historic landscape relating

to the American Civil War are a fairly recent phenomenon (Shackel 1994; Winter 1994;

Fryman 2000; Lees 2005). Archaeologists have previously tended to address the human

landscape in terms of demography, social interaction, economic resources, and risks

(Knapp and Ashmore 1999; Anschuetz et al. 2001). However, as Robert J. Fryman points

out, [d]efensive structures represent a component of the built environment reflecting the

7
cultural contexts underlying their construction (Fryman 2000:43). According to Fryman

(2000:43),

Analysis of the placement, construction, occupation, and armaments placed in

the fortifications provides new insights into the cultural factors, such as

perceptions of military engineering and tactics, by which these features were

integrated into their surroundings. Interpretations drawn from the analysis of

fortifications can also provide valuable instruction. Such insights serve to reflect

both the engineers prewar experience and his understanding of the military

ordnance used by the opposing forces.

Fortification and military theory in the United States at the time of the American Civil

War was significantly influenced by the work of West Point engineering professor

Dennis Hart Mahan, whose manual A Treatise on Field Fortification (1846) was the most

widely utilized manual by both Union and Confederate engineers (Fryman 2000). The

placement of the battery atop the steep bluff is consistent with the specifications offered

by Mahan, who stated [r]ough ground breaks the effects of the enemys ricochet and

when it presents bluffs of perpendicular faces towards the enemy it will stop the balls that

strike those parts. Undulating ground hinders the enemy from observing the effects of his

fire (Mahan 1846:xxi-xxii). An archaeological examination of the defensive structures at

Hammock Landing provides insights into the physical and cultural contexts that

influenced the construction and geographical placement of these components of the built

environment.

Further, Maria Nieves Zedeo (2000:108) argues that places are a form of

material culture through human action altering the environment. According to Zedeo,

8
landscapes are not only a product of human behavior, but they also define and constrain

human behavior (2000:107). Since, according to Zedeo, landscapes are results of

human behavior, they exhibit three definable dimensions: formal dimensions (or the

physical characteristics of a landmark), relational dimensions (or the interactive links that

connect landmarks to form the landscape), and historical dimensions (or the links within

the landscape that result from the use and occupation of a landmark) (Zedeo 2000:107).

Zedeo (2000:108) asserts that behavioral landscapes are constructed on the

notion that places are selected and used because they exhibit interaction-specific

capabilities that make them uniquely suited for certain activities. Interaction-specific

capabilities, which Zedeo refers to as performance characteristics, are advantageous

characteristics of a place, such as topography, that augment visual performance (Zedeo

2000:108). In addition to topographical attributes, such as the steep bluff and sharp bend

in the river, the geographical location of Hammock Landing within close proximity to the

District of Middle Florida headquarters approximately 20 miles to the west at Quincy,

Florida, as well as the Pensacola and Georgia Railroad that connected Quincy with

Tallahassee to the east certainly influenced its tactical significance to the Confederate

military (Black 1952:163; Nulty 1990:37). The concept of performance characteristics

allows the Confederate defensive measures and occupation of the Apalachicola River to

be examined within the context of military engineering strategies and the fortification of

the landscape along the river during the American Civil War.

This thesis also utilizes KOCOA analysis to examine the defining terrain features

of the natural and cultural landscape at the Hammock Landing locale that would have

provided a strategic advantage to the Confederate military (Table 1).

9
 TABLE 1
KOCOA ELEMENTS AND EXAMPLES

Element Definition Example

Key Terrain Areas considered favorable High ground, natural
or important to the outcome barriers, bridges road
of a battle or engagement junctions
Observation and Areas that offer good observation/ High ground, hills, ridge
Fields of Fire engagement points tops, tall buildings
Cover and Areas offering protection from Ravines, ditches,
Concealment fire or observation embankments, walls,
buildings
Obstacles Areas that significantly limit troop Rivers, walls, fences,
movement dense vegetation, steep
slopes, ravines,
fortifications
Avenues of Approach Corridors used to move troops Navigable rivers, roads,
and Retreat railroads, creek beds

Note: Adapted from McBride and Lesser, 2010.

According to Zedeo, landscape provides a frame of reference for understanding

human-nature relations at various scales (2000:102). KOCOA analysis in conjunction

with Zedeos concept of performance characteristics provides insight into the strategic

significance of the Hammock Landing locale to the Confederate military. This combined

approach enables further understanding of Confederate military strategy, engineering,

and fortification of the Apalachicola River.

Archival Methods

To accomplish the historical review, archival and literary research was conducted

at the University of West Florida (UWF) John C. Pace Library in Pensacola, Florida; the

Special Collections and Archives at the Florida State University (FSU) Strozier Library

in Tallahassee, Florida; the State Archives of Florida in Tallahassee, Florida; the Liberty

County Clerk of Court in Bristol, Florida; the Gadsden County Clerk of Court in Quincy,

10
Florida; the Georgia Department of Archives and History in Morrow, Georgia; and the

National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC and College Park,

Maryland. Various primary and secondary sources relevant to the project area were

consulted, with an emphasis placed on contemporaneous military documents, including

military correspondence, diaries, and regimental and pension records.

Field Methods

This research was conducted under Archaeological Research Permit 0809.088,

issued by the Florida Department of Historical Resources (DHR) to Dr. William B. Lees,

University of West Florida, and was done in cooperation with the Florida Park Service.

Topographic Mapping

Archaeological research strategies were multifold and included the creation of an

accurate topographic map of the earthworks to the bank of the Apalachicola River in

front of the works, to the bank of an unnamed tributary of Rock Creek behind the works

(Figure 3). Not only was this done in order to show the location of the earthworks on the

landscape, but also the vertical relationship of the works with the surrounding terrain. To

accomplish this task, an arbitrary datum point was established as 1000N, 1000E, and

100Z (elevation) on the southern end of the site between Gun Emplacement 1 and

Powder Magazine 1. However, grid north is not true or magnetic north but is oriented

along the ridge of the bluff. The resulting topographic map was generated through the

collection of data using a Sokkia Set 630R total data station, which was used to record a

series of points across the landscape. The collected data was processed using Surfer

mapping software. Topographic data was collected using the same arbitrary grid used to

record the locations of test units and metal detector probes. This data was georeferenced

11
FIGURE 3. Topographic Map of the Hammock Landing Battery (Florida Public
Archaeology Network, 2010).

12
using a Garmin GPS map 62 handheld global positioning system (GPS) device set to

NAD 1983 UTM datum in order to accurately overlay the resulting maps (Figure 4).

Test Unit Excavation

In order to understand the construction methods of these earthworks, the hand

excavation of 27 test units and 23 features, augmented with judgmentally placed soil

coring and auguring, was employed. Test units were excavated within one section of the

battery (one gun emplacement and its associated central powder magazine) in order to

identify structural features. The placement of the excavated areas was based on the

assumption that by understanding the construction methods of these structures it could be

reasonably inferred that the others at this site were constructed in a similar manner,

thereby leaving the majority of the site undisturbed.

Test units measured 1 x 2 m, and unit coordinates were taken from the southwest

corner of each test unit. Extensions measuring 50 cm x 1 m and 50 cm x 2 m were

judgmentally placed alongside some test units (Units 1016N 1000E and 1002N 1000E) in

order to fully investigate features identified during excavations. Soils from test units were

screened through 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) wire hardware cloth. However, soils confirmed to be

sterile filling episodes were sampled but were not screened.

These excavations were conducted in two site areas that consisted of Gun

Emplacement 2 and Powder Magazine 1. It should be noted that the numerical

designations for these site areas have no historical relevance, but are based on 20th

century interpretations by the Florida Park Service. Structural features and the

archaeological footprint of these earthworks were compared to construction

specifications in available period training manuals in order to examine the construction

13
FIGURE 4. Overlay of 1936 and 2010 Topographic Maps of the Hammock Landing Battery in Torreya State Park, Liberty County,
Florida (National Park Service 1936; Florida Public Archaeology Network, 2010) (Illustration by author, 2011).

14
methods of the works, their adherence to prescribed military planning, as well as to

interpret the physical appearance of these works while in active operation. All

measurements recorded during the archaeological investigations were recorded using

metric units of measurement.

All ground-disturbing activities conducted during this research were accurately

recorded using standard archaeological procedures. The project boundaries were plotted

on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (1982),

sketch maps of each excavated site area, and planviews and profiles of all test units and

features were prepared. Photographs of the site, project area, test units, and features were

also taken.

Metal Detection

Selected portions of the site, including the gun emplacement, and the surrounding

area were swept using metal detectors. Each excavated artifact was given a sequential

number in the field, and the location of each artifact was recorded with the total station. A

Garmin eTrex Legend handheld GPS unit was used to map artifact locations in areas

not accessible to the total station.

A total of 68 metal detector probes were excavated in the project area. Metal

detector probes were circular in shape, measured 30 to 50 cm in diameter, and were

excavated to subsoil. All soils from metal detector probes were screened through 6.35

mm (1/4 in.) wire hardware cloth in order to offset the obvious bias for metal artifacts.

Laboratory Methods

Following the completion of fieldwork, all recovered artifacts were washed,

sorted, catalogued, and analyzed according to standard artifact classification as outlined

15
by the Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR) (2011). Historic artifacts were

assigned to functional groups modified from South (1977). All recovered artifacts and

materials related to this research were conveyed to the Florida Bureau of Archaeological

Research (FBAR) for curation.

16
 CHAPTER III
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
This chapter outlines the results of previous archaeological investigations at the

Neals Bluff locale. Additionally, this chapter presents an overview of archaeological

examinations of contemporaneous artillery batteries, both Union and Confederate, in

Florida and elsewhere. Whereas it would not be practical within the context of this

research to discuss the archaeological interpretations of all investigated Civil War-era

defensive earthworks, these selected examples offer a useful comparison of the types of

construction methods utilized by Civil War-era military engineers, as well as the physical

appearance and geographical placement of the earthworks with those documented at the

Hammock Landing Battery on Neals Bluff (8LI334) in Liberty County, Florida.

Although archaeological examinations of the cultural resources present in the

vicinity of the Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) have been limited, a pedestrian

reconnaissance of the upper basin of the Apalachicola River, that included the Neals

Bluff locale, was conducted by FSU archaeologists George W. Percy and M. Katherine

Jones from 1971 through 1974 (Percy and Jones 1976:105-125). The goal of this research

was to examine prehistoric cultural development in an inland region of Northwest

Florida. As a result of this research design, two prehistoric archaeological sites (8LI53

and 8LI54) were identified in the vicinity of the Civil War earthworks (8LI334) in

Torreya State Park. However, the historical cultural resources present in the study area

were not documented (Percy and Jones 1976).

17
 Previous archaeological investigations of the Confederate defenses of the

Apalachicola River consist of limited test excavations and topographic mapping at

Batteries Gilmer (8GU14) and Cobb (8GU94) in Gulf County, Florida, under the

direction of University of South Florida (USF) archaeologist Nancy Marie White (1999).

These batteries are located deep in the lower Apalachicola River Valley swamp, and are

characterized by mounds constructed from non-local sands that originated 14 miles

upriver. The gun emplacements at both batteries had been erected over wooden trestles

constructed at Columbus, Georgia, and were in place by the end of 1862 (White 1999).

Batteries Gilmer (Figure 5) and Cobb (Figure 6) were occupied for about a year

and a half by the Confederate military before they were abandoned by 13 July 1864

(White 1999). Square-cut pine beams with large metal slats bent at a 45 angle were

located in the old riverbed east of the batteries that may be related to river obstructions

placed by the Confederacy during the Civil War. These rails were determined to extend a

maximum width of 34 m, suggesting they may have been fastened together by a buried

crib structure. Batteries Cobb and Gilmer were originally located along sharp river bends;

however, the obstructions changed the course of the river in the area over time (Turner

1988; White 1999). Diagnostic 19th century materials likely related to the construction of

these batteries included machine-cut nails, a hinge, and a spike. No evidence of any

associated encampments was located (White 1999).

Archaeological research revealed Batteries Cobb and Gilmer were constructed as

mounds on flat, very low ground. Although core samples excavated into the gun platform

at Battery Gilmer did not reveal evidence of the wooden platform that the mound was

constructed upon, some intact portions may be present below 3 m (White 1999).

18
FIGURE 5. Topographic Map of Battery Gilmer (8GU14) (White 1999:63).

FIGURE 6. Topographic Map of Battery Cobb (8GU94) (White 1999:64).

19
However, a core excavated into Battery Cobb indicated whitish soil and decomposing

wood fragments, likely from the wooden platform, at a depth of 3.5 m (White 1999).

In 1975, Florida Department of Archives History and Records Management

(FDAHRM) archaeologist David E. Swindell examined a Civil War-era gun

emplacement (Gun Emplacement 17) in Pensacola, Florida, that was one of three such

Confederate artillery positions in Area 17 at the Pensacola Naval Air Station (NAS)

overlooking Pensacola Bay southwest of Fort Barrancas (Swindell 1976). Although the

recovered artifacts did not result in definitive evidence of whether Gun Emplacement 17

(8ES126) was occupied by Union or Confederate troops, archival materials indicate it

was garrisoned by the Confederate military during the opening years of the war (Swindell

1976). In January 1861, secessionist troops took possession of Forts Barrancas and

McRee on the northern and western shores of the Pensacola Bay and held the mainland

through early May 1862. During this time, Confederate troops constructed numerous

batteries in the vicinity of Fort Barrancas and the navy yard that were directed towards

Fort Pickens, which was held by the Union Army, on the headland of Santa Rosa Island.

Sections of well-preserved wooden planking, and the iron traversing rail associated with

the gun platform were documented at this site.

The rectangular gun emplacement at site 8ES126 measured 4.5 m wide by 6.5 m

long (Swindell 1976). The wooden plank platform was in an excellent state of

preservation (Figure 7) and was determined to measure 4.3 m in width by 5.2 m in length.

Rows of wooden barrels measuring approximately 50 cm in diameter were noted on

either side of the gun platform. Recovered artifacts included an iron spike, barrel band

20
fragments, an iron ring, a padlock, five canister shot, and a cannonball. A 61 cm long,

round iron bolt that may have been part of the gun carriage was also recovered.

Additionally, an iron disc measuring 15 cm in diameter that likely represents a

component of the mounting block, or traversing pintle, was also documented (Swindell

1976). The iron traversing rail was oriented in the shape of a semi-circle and was

identified in situ directly on top of the gun platform. This rail functioned as the track for

the gun carriage. Based on the diameter of the recovered cannonball and the radius of the

traverse track, the platform at Gun Emplacement 17 (8ES126) likely mounted a large

artillery piece on a front pintle carriage (Swindell 1976).

In September 1990, archaeologist David G. Anderson documented Battery

Halleck, a Union mortar battery located in the tidal marshlands of Big Tybee Island in

FIGURE 7. View of Wooden Platform at Confederate Gun Emplacement 17 (8ES126),

Pensacola Naval Air Station (NAS), Florida (Swindell 1976:41).

21
Chatham County, Georgia (Anderson 1997). Constructed during March and early April

1862, Battery Halleck saw action in the siege of Fort Pulaski. The battery is characterized

by three large depressions in a roughly linear arrangement. These depressions measured

approximately 10 m across and were determined to represent left and right mortar

platforms with a central powder magazine. A fourth depression adjacent to the central

feature indicated the presence of a loading room, or antechamber, for the central powder

magazine (Anderson 1997). These excavations did not reveal any diagnostic artifacts

dating to the American Civil War. However, the subterranean powder magazine was

determined to be a little over 9 m (30 ft.) in diameter and was excavated to a depth of 90

cm below ground surface (Anderson 1997).

Research at additional contemporary powder magazines shed light on the range in

architectural styles employed in their construction. In August 1983, a Historic American

Buildings Survey (HABS) assessment was conducted for the powder magazine at Fort

Johnson, South Carolina (McDonald 1983). Although the date of its construction could

not be determined, it was likely built as early as 1800 as part of Fort Moultrie and was

later incorporated into Fort Johnson. The brick and masonry structure was utilized as a

powder magazine by the Confederacy. Fort Johnson was the first defensive work

constructed to defend Charleston harbor from a naval attack, and on 12 April 1861, a

shell from a mortar battery within the fort exploded over Fort Sumter, thus signaling the

opening salvo of the American Civil War (McDonald 1983).

During the Civil War, the Fort Johnson powder magazine was buried beneath a

sand embankment, and an interior brick wall may also have been added during this time

as further protection for the powder stores. The extant powder magazine is constructed of

22
brick and consists of one room with a semi-circular ceiling. The exterior measures

approximately 8.2 m (27 ft.) long by 5.8 m (19 ft.) wide, and the roof is capped in mortar.

Openings consist of a door, a window, and two ventilation slits.

Additionally, archaeological examinations of a Confederate artillery battery

(38FL132) on the Pee Dee River in Florence, South Carolina, were conducted in 2008 by

Mactec under the direction of archaeologist Paul G. Avery. The archaeological survey of

the extant remnants of the earthworks associated with Camp Reliance, also known as Fort

Finger, included systematic metal detector survey as well as detailed topographic

mapping. The artillery battery was constructed in 1862 and mounted two heavy guns for

the purpose of guarding a floating river obstruction (Avery 2008).

The Pee Dee River battery was constructed on the edge of a bluff overlooking a

sharp bend in the river (Figure 8). In addition to providing protection from enemy guns,

this location also served the dual purpose of slowing enemy vessels while bringing them

FIGURE 8. Location of Pee Dee River Battery (38FL132) (Avery 2008).

23
within closer range of the cannon fire. Although the original form of the Pee Dee River

battery was not determined, the gun emplacements were identified by rectangular

depressions connected by a communication trench (or traverse) and two powder

magazines. The magazines were constructed behind the trench, and a very low density of

cultural materials, primarily machine-cut nails, were recovered (Avery 2008).

Further, Gun Emplacement 3 on Battery B (31BW376) at Brunswick Town/Fort

Anderson State Historic Site in Brunswick County, North Carolina, was investigated in

April 2009 by archaeologist John J. Mintz (Beaman 2010:2-5). Fort Anderson is a Civil

War-era earthen fortification located on the west bank of the Cape Fear River. Previous

research at Gun Emplacement 3 uncovered five exploded shells and a Model 1859

Austrian bayonet in the vicinity, and a GPR survey indicated a possible construction

episode associated with the artillery emplacement. Archaeological excavations of the

buried gun platform on Battery B revealed charred wooden planks and support beams, as

well as iron bolts, nails and brick related to the gun platform, which supported a 32-

pounder seacoast cannon (Beaman 2009:12; 2010:2-5). However, very little data is

presently available regarding the structural characteristics of these works.

Additional contemporaneous artillery batteries that bear mention are those at

Alum Bluff, Rickos Bluff, and Fort Gadsden on the Apalachicola River, and the James

River batteries in Virginia (including Batteries Wood, Semmes, and Brooks). William M.

Kelso (2006) also documented an artillery position on the site of James Fort in

Jamestown, Virginia. Likewise, little data is currently available concerning these works.

These selected examples of fortifications, batteries, and magazines provide a range of the

types of construction methods employed by Civil War-era military engineers.

24
 CHAPTER IV

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Introduction

At the onset of the American Civil War, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee river

system was of strategic importance to the Confederacy both militarily and economically.

The Apalachicola River is formed by the confluence of the Chattahoochee and Flint

Rivers at the Florida-Georgia state line and courses southward into the Gulf of Mexico,

while northward the Chattahoochee River forms the boundary between Georgia and

Alabama (Figure 9). Following the seizure by state troops of Fort Pulaski, Georgia, on 3

January 1861 and the Arsenal at Chattahoochee, Florida, three days later, both states had

adopted ordnances of secession from the United States government by the end of that

month. Secessionist troops had also taken possession of Forts Barrancas and McRee, the

Barrancas Barracks, and the navy yard in Pensacola, Florida, as well as the Arsenal at

Augusta, the Oglethorpe Barracks in Savannah, and Fort Jackson in Georgia (United

States War Department [USWD] 1880[1]:318, 331-332). Florida Governor John Milton

asserted, on 16 August 1861, [o]f all places in this State, Apalachicola is most important

to the commercial interests of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida (Milton 1880[1]:471-472).

With the opening of hostilities, the defense of the river system became necessary

to protect Confederate interests against a Union blockading squadron positioned at

Apalachicola Bay in June 1861. The primary importance of defending the Apalachicola

River was to prevent Federal gunboats from reaching the industrial center of Columbus,

25
FIGURE 9. Apalachicola-Chattahoochee River System in 1861 (Turner 1988:4).

26
Georgia (Finegan 1898[53]:237-238). These defensive measures involved obstructing the

river, maintaining land batteries, and constructing vessels to guard shipbuilding and arms

manufacturing installations, lines of communication, and vital agricultural areas against

Union incursions. The earthworks on Neals Bluff in Torreya State Park in Liberty

County, Florida, referred to historically as the Hammock Landing Battery, represent the

remnants of one of these land batteries.

Commerce and Industry

Acts of the Georgia and Florida legislatures had designated both Columbus,

Georgia, and Apalachicola, Florida, as trading centers in 1828 (Turner 1974, 1988:6). As

the head of navigation and the economic headwaters of the area, Columbus, with its

connection to the Montgomery and West Point Railroad, was increasingly becoming an

agricultural and industrial center in the southern states during the antebellum period. In

late 1862, the Chattahoochee River Valley alone was reported to produce annually more

than 100,000 bales of cotton, as well a substantial staple crop of corn, with a total market

value of $25,000,000 (Fannin et al. 1898[52]:373-374). By the beginning of the Civil

War, Columbus had become the second most industrialized area in the Confederacy next

to Richmond, Virginia (Turner 1988:9). A 17 December 1863 Union assessment of the

river underscored its strategic importance to both the Union and the Confederacy.

According to Navy Lieutenant A. F. Crosman, commander of the USS Somerset:

[The] Apalachicola River is navigable during the winter months and in the late

fall, up to the important town of Columbus, Ga., to vessels drawing 7 feet.

Columbus is one of the grand depots and sources of strength of the Confederacy.

Besides 60,000 to 70,000 bales of cotton stored there, filling all the warehouses in

27
 town, three cotton factories, one rolling mill, foundries to cast cannon, machine

shops, and two gun shops are in active operation. The navy yard, where the rebel

gunboat Chattahoochee was built (which gunboat is in the river and waits an

opportunity to get out and prey upon our commerce), and where are three more

gunboats building, is only 150 miles to the southward. From Columbus railroads

diverge, communicating with Montgomery, Ala., Savannah, Ga., Augusta, and

Milledgeville [which was then] the capital of Georgia (Crosman 1903[17]:347-

348).

The navigability of the river, in addition to its proximity and access to the port cities of

Columbus and Apalachicola, enhanced both its military and commercial importance.

From late February to mid-April 1862, more than $4,000,000 of baled cotton awaiting

shipment to England was reported at landings between Apalachicola and Columbus,

including 20,000 bales stored at Eufala, Alabama (Young et al. 1903[53]:219-220;

Finegan 1898[53]:237-238). Confederate Colonel Daniel P. Holland commented on the

importance of the city of Apalachicola to Naval Secretary Stephen R. Mallory on 14

March 1861, that [t]he commercial importance of the city may make it more than a point

of ordinary interest to the United States Government (Holland 1880[1]:450).

Confederate Brigadier-General James H. Trapier reported that Apalachicola was

the largest importing and exporting port in the state, and defense of the river was vital to

the plantations in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, and most importantly the

manufacturing city of Columbus (Trapier 1898[53]:218). A significant advantage of

Columbus was its location at a point where three rail lines converged. An 1861 report of

vessels cleared at the port of Apalachicola indicates the routine shipment of cargoes of

28
turpentine and cotton along the river (Baker 1903[16]:855). For the federal government,

Flag-Officer William Mervine, commander of the Gulf Blockading Squadron, reported

that many of the largest shipments of cotton passed through the port of Apalachicola,

therefore necessitating its safeguarding (Mervine 1903[16]:610). Further, Lieutenant

Crosman stated that [t]he city of Apalachicola is an important strategic point, inasmuch

as its possession insures a base for any operations upon the interior of Georgia and

Alabama (Crosman 1903[17]:347).

Blockade and River Defenses

President Abraham Lincolns April 1861 proclamation of a blockade of all

southern ports cast new light on the influence of commerce, and war translated economic

importance into strategic significance. The Gulf of Mexico, from Cape Florida to the Rio

Grande, was assigned to United States Flag-Officer William Mervine. On 7 June 1861,

USS Montgomery, under the command of T. Darrah Shaw, arrived at Apalachicola Bay,

making it the first port in Florida affected by the Federal blockade (Mahan 1883:4-5;

Mervine 1903[16]:532). On 11 June 1861, Commander Shaw announced the following

terms:

No American coasting vessels are to be allowed to enter or depart from said port

from the time of your arrival on the station. All foreign or neutral vessels now in

the port of Apalachicola will be allowed ten days from the 11th of June, instant,

for their departure All mercantile letters coming to me unsealed will be

forwarded to their destination at the earliest practicable moment (Shaw

1903[16]:544).

29
However, the following day Commander Shaw reported that the squadron was unable to

effectively guard the port. According to Shaw, there are two entrances to the port of

Apalachicola, both of which are used, and it will be impossible for me to command them

at the same time (Shaw 1903[16]:546-547). In response, Naval Secretary Gideon Welles

ordered the war sloop Vincennes to Apalachicola Bay on 13 June 1861 (Welles

1903[16]:547).

By 4 July 1861, the Gulf Squadron consisted of 21 vessels, mounting 282 guns

supported by 3,500 sailors (Mahan 1883:4-5). In early August 1861, Flag-Officer

Mervine concluded that the largest shipments of cotton passed through the ports of

Apalachicola, St. Marks, Mobile, New Orleans, and Galveston, therefore requiring these

points to be the most heavily guarded (Mervine 1903[16]:610-612). Returning from a

scouting expedition to the city of Apalachicola on 18 December 1862, Confederate

Captain C. Thigpen reported three Union gunboats (including the recently captured and

refitted blockade runner G.L. Brockenborough) positioned at the end of the channel, as

well as three additional vessels in West Pass and another in St. Johns Bay (Thigpen

1885[14]:724).

In financial terms, the Federal blockade of southern ports and rivers became a

crucial component in an economic war against the ability of the Confederacy to wage

war. The strangling effectiveness of the blockade is evident in the wartime memoir of

Catherine Cooper Hopley, a British subject, who had been employed as governess by

Florida Governor John Milton during 1862. According to Hopley, all the residents of her

Marianna neighborhood, including Mrs. Milton, collected their old bells, copper kettles,

brass door knobs, and any lead and iron fragments they could acquire, and forwarded

30
them to Columbus, Georgia, to be cast into cannon and other needed implements for the

struggling Confederacy (Hopley 1863:293). As the strategic significance of the blockade

increased, the Confederate response took two forms in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee

area: defending the coast and the interior, and running or raising the blockade off

Apalachicola Bay (Turner 1988:27).

According to Major-General J. F. Gilmer, Chief of the Confederate Engineer

Bureau, batteries and obstructions were constructed to defend the river, which was the

preeminent route of travel from Apalachicola to Columbus (Gilmer 1890[28]:450-451).

The Confederates initial defensive response was the removal of buoys and the

dismantling of lighthouses, and a small garrison with two 6-pounder brass field artillery

pieces was in place at Apalachicola by 10 May 1861 (Ward 1880[1]:466-468; Turner

1988:78). On 22 February 1862, the President of the Bank of Columbus, W. H. Young;

the Mayor of Columbus, John F. Bozeman; and W. H. Wood, a private citizen of

Apalachicola, expressed concern over the meager defense of the city to Secretary of War

Judah P. Benjamin. Their letter informed him that our people are devising some means

of defense, such as selecting a suitable point on the river and with stone loaded boxes

prepared to sink at once in such places as would prove perfect obstructions to navigation

(Young et al. 1903[53]:219-220). Two days later, as a result of the fall of Forts Henry

and Donelson, Secretary of War Benjamin ordered General Robert E. Lee to withdraw

and send to Tennessee all troops employed in the seaboard defense of Florida. According

to Benjamin, [t]he only troops to be retained in Florida are such as may be necessary to

defend the Apalachicola River, as the enemy could by that river at high water send his

gunboats into the very middle of Georgia (Benjamin 1882[6]:398).

31
 By 18 March 1862, the batteries at Apalachicola had been dismantled, and the

guns, carriages, ammunition, and other supplies were loaded onto the steamboat

Marianna en route to Rickos Bluff on the Apalachicola River (Pemberton 1882[6]:407-

409). One week later, on 25 March, Commander H. S. Stellwagen, aboard the USS

Mercedita, reported on a reconnaissance of the city and its abandonment. According to

Stellwagen, [s]ome few soldiers are at Rickols [sic] Bluff, 90 miles up the river, the rest

at Johnsons [sic] Landing, 240 miles. At this latter place they have been five months

building a fine steam gunboat, not yet planked in (Stellwagen 1903[17]:193-194). Rebel

troops had effectively deserted the city, and Apalachicola was firmly under Federal

control by April 1862 (Cushman 1962; Turner 1988). Upon their withdrawal, a small

company of rebel scouts was reportedly stationed some 20 miles upriver near an area of

dismal swamps to monitor Federal activities along the coast (Mitchel [1916]:7).

On 13 May 1862, Major-General John Pemberton informed Georgia Governor

Joseph E. Brown that the guns had been landed at Rickos Bluff, and construction of an

artillery battery was underway. Major Pemberton preferred the site of Fort Gadsden for

the placement of artillery and obstructions, and recommended sinking cribs underlain

with large trees directly under fire of the batteries to hinder river traffic (Pemberton

1885[14]:547-548; Waddy 1885[14]:546-547). By 20 May, Chief Engineer for the State

of Georgia, William R. Boggs, reported to Pemberton I have made a reconnaissance of

the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers with reference to obstructions and defenses.

The river can be readily and effectively obstructed at several points between Iola and the

mouth of the Chipola Rivers, called the Narrows; but these obstructions cannot be

defended by land batteries (Boggs 1885[14]:506). However, he recommended

32
obstructing the river at the Narrows and leaving the site undefended. In April of the same

year, Brigadier-General Joseph Finegan reported that a survey of the Apalachicola River

was planned to identify prospective locations for the placement of land batteries (Finegan

1885[14]:85).

As early as 29 September 1862, Confederate Captain of Engineers Theodore

Moreno (Figure 10), who had been stationed at Pollard, Alabama, was notified of his

assignment to oversee the defense of the Chattahoochee River. However, he was

informed that a replacement would be required should he become unavoidably detained

from that city (Gilmer 1862). On 6 November, General Pierre G. T. Beauregard,

Commander of the District of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, stressed the

importance of obstructing the river, but complained that he had been unable to detach a

competent engineer for the task (Beauregard 1898[52]:374). However, less than two

weeks later, on 18 November, Colonel J. F. Gilmer, Chief of the Engineer Bureau,

notified General Beauregard that Captain Moreno was currently constructing works for

obstructing the channel and batteries for their protection (Gilmer 1898[52]:375).

Nevertheless, by 22 November, obstructions had not yet been placed in the Apalachicola

River, and Brigadier-General Finegan apprised Chief of Staff Thomas Jordan of

preparations made by the Mayor of Columbus, Georgia, with approval of the city council,

for laying such defenses. The Columbus City Council had allocated $3,000 for the

placement of obstructions at Alum Bluff, 22 miles below Chattahoochee, Florida

(Finegan 1885[14]:686; Turner 1988:78).

Florida Governor John Milton objected to the proposal to obstruct the river unless

it should be carried out under the direction of a competent engineer (Finegan

33
1885[14]:686). Citing the impoverished condition of the remaining citizens of the city of

Apalachicola under the blockade, Milton addressed a letter to Confederate President

Jefferson Davis on 11 November 1862, outlining his concerns. According to Milton,

Apalachicola is more easily defended by obstructing the Saint Marks River than

any position on the Chattahoochee River between that place and Columbus it

has been proposed to sink permanent obstructions in Apalachicola River. The

object accomplished would be the destruction of Apalachicola as a commercial

port for the prosperity of Columbus, Ga., provided the river, protecting its right

flank of the enemy in an attack by land upon Columbus, did not involve both

places in ruin if my judgment is not approved for the defenses to be made at

Apalachicola, then let obstructions in the river be protected by batteries, and

removable at the expense of the Confederate Government upon termination of the

war (Milton 1898[53]:267).

FIGURE 10. Undated Photograph of Captain Theodore Moreno (Mandrell 1988:349).

34
Governor Milton withdrew his objections to the obstructions by 24 November 1862, after

learning that their construction was being carried out under the direction of Captain

Moreno, who was a government engineer (Finegan 1885[14]:687). However, his

continued concerns for the long-term economic impact on Florida are evident in a letter

addressed to General Beauregard on 6 November 1863. Milton argued that the pressure to

obstruct the Apalachicola River had been motivated by greed. He suggested that it was

the result of:

a movement made over 20 years ago, to divert commerce via Apalachicola to

Columbus, to railroads to that place from Pensacola and Mobile, and then that the

mighty efforts made by citizens of Georgia and Alabama upon the subject have

been prompted by selfish motives and prejudicial to the best interest of this State

rather than to perfect military defenses (Milton 1898[53]:299).

A significant quantity of the cotton produced in southeastern Alabama was shipped to

market from the port of Apalachicola, and the fears expressed by Governor Milton seem

justified by a statement made on 9 March 1861 by H. E. Owens (a delegate to the

Alabama State Convention), who maintained that Alabama will suffer more than Florida

will if that place [Apalachicola] should fall into enemy hands (Owens 1880[1]:448).

By 10 December 1862, Captain Moreno had been instructed to obstruct two

points on the Apalachicola River: Rock Bluff and the Narrows, as well as the

Chattahoochee River at Fort Gaines (Jordan 1885[14]:707-709). Major A. L. Rives,

Assistant to the Chief Engineer, instructed Moreno that the obstructions:

should consist of a row, or, better still, two parallel rows of square cribs, placed

with salients up and down stream and built up to low-water mark, to which

35
 floating obstructions, consisting of a raft or rafts, should be attached, as an

obstruction to the progress of the enemy in every stage of water. Each of these

cribs should be about 12 feet from its neighbor, and so placed as to protect the

interval in the parallel row, distant say 30 feet (Rives 1885[14]:682).

On 12 December, General Howell Cobb embarked on an expedition with Captain

Moreno and the commissioners from Columbus to make preparations for sinking the

obstructions (Cobb 1885[14]:710).

On 20 December 1862, Georgia Commissioners James M. Chambers and John F.

Bozeman, aboard the boat Indian, reported that the obstructions had been sunk at the

Narrows at 5 oclock the previous evening. They recommended placing 100 to 200

sharpshooters from Alum Bluff in the vicinity supported by the gunboat Chattahoochee

until construction of the battery was completed. They also left 50 enslaved African

Americans to carry out the work under guard of a detachment of 20 men from Alum

Bluff. The commissioners requested that Governor Milton immediately press forward an

additional 50 slaves, with overseers, to assist in the construction of the battery. The guns

from Alum Bluff were also to be sent down (Chambers and Bozeman 1885[14]:731-732).

In a post-war account of his service, Captain Moreno described the obstructions as

consisting of a series of connected boats that had been built in Columbus for the specific

purpose of sinking in the channel. A large chain that he had taken in a daring nighttime

raid from the wharf at Apalachicola was also stretched across the river at that point to

catch floating debris (Moreno n.d.).

The Apalachicola River formed the principal area of the Middle Florida Military

District of the Confederate States of America, and by the time Federal forces had gained

36
control of the port of Apalachicola in the fall of 1862, the river northward was defended

only by a battery of 10 guns at Rickos Bluff, about 50 miles north of the city. A larger

garrison was placed on the Chattahoochee River at Johnstons Landing, 33 miles north of

Chattahoochee, Florida (Withers 1882[6]:432; Turner 1988:49, 75). However, by the end

of the year, the river had been effectively obstructed at the Narrows under the guard of

Batteries Cobb and Gilmer.

Although the exact nature of the obstructions at Alum Bluff and Rock Bluff is

unclear, the latter were in place by 18 November 1862. By early March 1863, piles were

reported to have been driven to obstruct traffic at a fortified bluff, 80 miles from the

mouth of the river in the vicinity of Alum Bluff. Another large chain was reported to

have been extended across the river at Rock Bluff near Hammock Landing. General Cobb

had recommended the river be partially obstructed above the Narrows as it was the only

means of communication with the batteries at that position. (Bailey 1903[17]:381-382;

Cobb 1885[14]:728-741; Turner 1988). Virginia River, a tributary of the Apalachicola

River near the Narrows, was reportedly obstructed by driftwood and fallen timber by late

October 1863, and plans were underway to close Moccasin Creek near that point (Magill

1890[28]:404-405).

Concerning the defensive measures on the river, General Cobb reported to

General Beauregard that the obstructions at the Narrows constituted the main defense of

the river, and should Federal gunboats overtake that point there would be little hope of

successful resistance above (Cobb 1885[14]:728-741). In addition to the placement of

obstructions and pickets on the river, Captain Moreno oversaw the construction of heavy

artillery batteries strategically placed along the eastern bank of the river. Among these are

37
the aforementioned Batteries Cobb and Gilmer near the Narrows, Rickos Bluff , Fort

Gadsden, and Alum Bluff, as well as the Hammock Landing Battery on present-day

Neals Bluff in Torreya State Park (Figure 11).

Apalachicola River Batteries

Following orders for the withdrawal of Confederate troops employed in the

seaboard defense of Florida, 13 cannon and ordnance stores were removed from the city

of Apalachicola to Rickos Bluff, on the east side of the Apalachicola River. The only

troops to be retained in Florida were those necessary to defend the Apalachicola River,

and by 17 March 1862, three companies led by Captains Grace, Attaway, and William T.

Gregory under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel James constituted the garrison at

Rickos Bluff. The brass field pieces of the Milton Artillery, which had been organized

for defense of the Saint Johns River and Jacksonville, were sent to the Chattahoochee

Arsenal. Also during mid-March 1862, Brigadier-General R. F. Floyd informed Florida

Governor John Milton that he had examined the river for possible locations for the

erection of batteries on its eastern bank (Benjamin 1882[6]:398; Floyd 1882[6]:412-413;

Lee 1882[6]:403-404).

Although Major-General Pemberton preferred Fort Gadsden for the placement of

artillery on the river, General Floyd considered its location to be too much exposed.

According to General Floyd, the length and width of the river would allow Federal forces

to attack any batteries erected there from distant positions. For General Floyd, the only

advantage of Fort Gadsden was the thick swamp below its position. His justification for

the decision to fortify Rickos Bluff was that, in addition to possessing a thick swamp, its

location along a sharp bend in the river compels vessels to approach within very short

38
FIGURE 11. Circa 1862-1863 Map of the Apalachicola River Showing the Locations of
Land Batteries (adapted from George Washington Scott Papers, State Archives of
Florida).

39
range of [the] guns in coming up and they must come immediately under them in turning

the point, and again be in short range if they succeed in passing the point (Pemberton

1882 1[6]:407-409; Floyd 1882[6]:412-413).

On 18 April 1862, Brigadier-General Joseph Finegan assumed command of East

and Middle Florida, and the following day reported on the defenses of the Apalachicola

River. According to his report, the only defensive works on the river was a battery of 10

guns at Rickos Bluff, which consisted of two 24-pounders, two 32-pounders (army

pattern), four 32-pounders (short naval guns), and two 32-pounders (rifled guns) mounted

on field carriages (Finegan 1898[53]:237-238). At that time, the battery was garrisoned

by the 1st Special Battalion Florida Infantry, under the command of Colonel Daniel P.

Holland. By the end of May 1862, while plans were underway to obstruct and fortify the

Narrows, Georgia Chief Engineer William R. Boggs requested that two 8-inch

Columbiads with carriages, platforms, and implements be sent to Fort Gadsden. Two

months earlier, Major-General Pemberton had proposed to occupy Fort Gadsden through

the erection of a battery of six field pieces, which apparently had not been carried out.

Fort Gadsden would appear to remain unoccupied until late May or June 1863.

By 1 June 1862, Major-General Pemberton was still proposing to move the guns

from Rickos Bluff to Fort Gadsden (Pemberton 1882[6]:407; Waddy 1885[14]:547).

However, one week later, on 7 June, Brigadier-General Finegan reported that

construction was underway on a battery of seven guns, consisting of four 32-pounder,

two 24-pounder, and one 18-pounder cannon, at Alum Bluff. Although he was unable to

obtain any cannon from Pensacola, he moved the two 32-pounder rifled guns mounted on

siege carriages at Rickos Bluff to the Saint Johns River and replaced them with 18-

40
pounders. According to General Pemberton, the position of Alum Bluff, which is located

between Rickos Bluff and Chattahoochee, Florida, is an elevated one, where a plunging

fire can be had on any vessel attempting to pass (Finegan 1885[14]:553). At the time of

Pembertons report, two guns had already been mounted and the remaining five were set

to be ready in a little over a week. The guns at Alum Bluff were mounted on siege

carriages, and the site was selected to defend the proposed obstructions to be placed at

Rock Bluff (Rives 1885[14]:682).

By 6 October 1862, the Department of East and Middle Florida was divided into

separate departments. General Finegan was assigned to the Department of East Florida,

and General John H. Forney assumed command of the Department of Middle Florida.

The following day, both departments were integrated into the District of South Carolina,

Georgia, and Florida under the command of General Beauregard, and Assistant Adjutant-

General and Inspector-General Samuel Cooper assigned all of Florida east of the

Apalachicola River to General Beauregard; thus placing the land defenses on the river in

his charge. On 10 October, General Finegan was ordered to report to General Beauregard.

However, in late November, Brigadier-General Howell Cobb was assigned to the

command of the Department of Middle Florida with his chief objective being the defense

of the Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola Rivers. His command was expanded to

encompass both sides of the Suwannee and Choctawhatchee Rivers, as well as all the

lands that lay between those points (USWD 1885[14]:1-2; Cooper 1885[14]:630, 688-

689, 735; Randolph 1885[14]:633; Withers 1885[14]:630).

By late September 1862, Captain Theodore Moreno had been placed in charge of

constructing the defenses on the Apalachicola River. Moreno was a brother-in-law of

41
Confederate Naval Secretary Stephen R. Mallory, and began the war as a private in the

Pensacola Guards (which later became Company K of the 1st Florida Volunteers). After

participating in the seizure of Fort Barrancas and the Battle of Santa Rosa Island in 1861,

he was promoted to the rank of Captain of Engineers on 25 September 1862. Although he

was listed as a cadet at West Point in 1844, he graduated from the University of Virginia

in 1855 with a degree in civil engineering. Prior to the war, he served as an engineer in

the construction of the Don Pedro II Railroad in Brazil, and the 1860 United States

Federal Census listed him as a resident of Pensacola, Florida, with the occupation of civil

engineer (Moreno n.d.; Mandrell 1988:101-103, 331-334; National Archives and Records

Administration [NARA] 1819-1867 Register of Cadet Applicants; United States Federal

Census 1860).

In early December 1862, Chief of Staff Thomas Jordan sent the order to General

Cobb for obstructions [to] be constructed in the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers,

with defensive works to cover them at points which cannot be turned by a force thrown

up the Apalachicola by transports supported by gunboats (Jordan 1885 1[14]:707-709).

Captain Moreno had been instructed to erect three batteries, one of three 32-pounder and

one of two 24-pounder guns to defend the obstructions at Rock Bluff. Another battery of

two 32-pounder and one 24 pounder guns was to be constructed to cover the obstructions

at the Narrows (Jordan 1885 1[14]:707-709). A Union intelligence report received on 1

May 1863 by Lieutenant-Commander George U. Morriss, aboard Port Royal in

Apalachicola Bay, from William M. Martin, a mechanic at the Confederate ironworks at

Columbus, Georgia, described the obstructions in the river as consisting of two hulls of

42
old river steamers, rocks, piles, and two chains stretched across the river (Morriss

1903[17]:432-433).

Construction of the batteries was underway by 22 December 1862, and General

Cobb had requested the gunboat Chattahoochee to defend the obstructions until their

completion. Governor Milton provided Captain Moreno with 137 enslaved African

Americans, including many of his own, to carry out the labor. By 10 July 1863, General

Cobb reported that three points on the river would continue to be occupied; Fort

Gadsden, the Narrows, and Hammock Landing. A detachment of infantry and cavalry

units with four field pieces had been stationed at Fort Gadsden after a Federal raiding

party reached that point in May 1863, capturing a small vessel laden with cotton, burning

the cargo and the barge that had transported it around the obstructions (Cobb

1885[14]:728-731, 1890[28]:189-190; Beauregard 1885[14]:736; Moreno 1885[14]:954;

Hopley 1863; Gammon 1948:218).

The works constructed at the Narrows consisted of two earthworks on a low, flat

bank; an upper battery (Battery Gilmer) of two 24-pounder guns and a lower battery

(Battery Cobb) mounting three 32-pounder guns (Figures 12 and 13). A 16 November

1863 inspection report indicates the position was in the charge of Captain Blounts

company of Major A. Bonauds 28th Georgia Artillery Battalion, which had relieved

Captain Crawfords company of the same battalion. Battery Cobb was positioned 600 or

700 yards from the obstructions, and Battery Gilmer was located 600 or 700 yards from

Battery Cobb. The guns at Battery Cobb were mounted en barbette and were separated

by traverses, below which were the magazines. Battery Gilmer was reported to have been

similarly constructed. The obstructions were described as consisting of wooden piles

43
FIGURE 12. 1862 Map of Defenses at the Narrows showing Batteries Cobb and Gilmer,
and the Obstructions in the Apalachicola and Virginia Rivers (U.S. War Department
1890[28]2:425).

44
FIGURE 13. 1862 Map of Defenses at the Narrows showing Fields of Fire of the Guns,
Drawn by Corporal R.F. Hosford of Captain Gregorys Company H, 5th
Florida Infantry Regiment (State Archives of Florida).

locked together, chains stretched across the divers, and a sunken hulk, all covered with

drift-wood (Stanley 1890[28]:506-509). Additional defenses on the river in mid-

November 1863, consisted of a six gun battery at Hammock Landing, and four iron 6-

pounder cannon mounted on field carriages at the mouth of Moccasin Creek near the

Narrows. However, Major M. Stanley ordered two of the 6-pounder guns to be moved to

cover the rear flank at Battery Cobb. By 10 February 1864, the guns at Moccasin Creek

had been removed, and the river defenses had been expanded to include a battalion of

George Washington Scotts cavalry at Rickos Bluff, under the command of Captain A.

45
C. Smith, and Company A of the 2nd Florida Cavalry, commanded by Captain Thigpen,

at Dead Lakes, 90 miles below Chattahoochee, Florida (Stanley 1890[28]:506-509).

The garrison at Rickos Bluff was made up of 87 men armed with 79 Austrian rifles. This

company also sent a picket to Bloody Bluff, which was the nearest picket post on the

river to the Union lines at Apalachicola (Figure 14). The garrison at Dead Lakes was

comprised of 67 men equipped with private arms, including four flintlock Sawyer rifles,

14 Harpers Ferry rifles, nine carbines, four private shotguns, and 29 state shotguns.

However, much of the force stationed on the river was sent toward Lake City during early

FIGURE 14. Map of Lower Apalachicola River (ca. 1863) showing Locations of Iola,
Forts Cobb and Gadsden, and Bloody Bluff (George Washington Scott Papers, State
Archives of Florida).

46
February 1864, and by 3 May, Batteries Cobb, Gilmer, and Hammock Landing were the

only occupied positions remaining (Mayo 1891[35]:584-587; Smith 1891[35]:582-588).

By 12 July 1864, the river defenses were comprised of the battery at Hammock

Landing, Fort Cobb (Batteries Cobb and Gilmer) at the obstructions, and four iron 6-

pounder cannons at Iola. The position at Iola was garrisoned by Company A of the 5th

Florida Cavalry Battalion commanded by Captain W. H. Milton. The guns at this point

are likely those removed from Moccasin Creek. U.S. Captain E. H. Newton, the engineer

in charge at Fort Barrancas in Pensacola, reported on 17 October 1864, that a schooner

anchored 30 miles above the city of Apalachicola was ready to be sunk across the

channel. He noted that obstructions of timber had previously been placed at that point,

but were carried away by the current (Mayo 1891[35]:584-587; Smith 1891[35]:582-

588). The post at the obstructions at the Narrows was to be abandoned, and the armament

from Batteries Cobb and Gilmer (three 32-pounder and two 24-pounder guns) was to be

removed on 13 July 1864, leaving the position at Hammock Landing to be the only

occupied heavy artillery battery remaining on the river (Mayo 1891[35]:584-587).

The Hammock Landing Battery

Construction of the battery at Hammock Landing, which was located 14 miles

below Chattahoochee, had been completed by early July 1863 (Cobb 1890[28]:404-405).

The battery consisted of six guns (two 32-pounders, one 24-pounder, and three 18-

pounders) mounted en barbette on wooden platforms connected by traverses. A powder

magazine was constructed within the traverse between each pair of gun emplacements for

a total of three magazines (Figure 15). An artillery road coursed behind the earthwork

from the southernmost gun emplacement northward to the bank of the river, presumably

47
connecting the battery with the landing (National Park Service 1936). An inspection

report, dated 16 November 1863, indicates the position was garrisoned by five infantry

companies of the 1st Georgia Regulars, under the command of Captain A. A. Franklin

Hill. As early as 26 April 1863, the regiment was ordered to the defense of the

Apalachicola River (Magill 1863). The diary of Sergeant William H. Andrews, Company

M of the 1st Georgia Regulars, indicates the regiment arrived at the Chattahoochee

Arsenal on 8 April 1863. On 15 July of the same year, four companies were sent to Fort

Gadsden while the remainder of the regiment proceeded to Hammock Landing (Andrews

1891:9).

The mid-November 1863 inspection report of Major M. Stanley, Chief of the

Artillery Department of West Florida, points out that the battery remained in a much

unfinished condition, suggesting that the arrival of the 1st Georgia Regulars four months

FIGURE 15. Artistic Rendition of Gun Emplacements 1 and 2 at the Hammock Landing
Battery based on Archaeological Investigations ( David Edwards, 2011).

48
earlier was likely the first garrison to be stationed there. The health of the troops on the

river suffered greatly, and of the five companies at Hammock Landing, numbering

around 160 rank and file, only 39 men were present for duty, including one captain, six

lieutenants, and 32 enlisted men. Present, but sick, were one lieutenant and an additional

18 enlisted men. Sergeant Andrews asserted on 11 August 1863, that [a]t least two-

thirds of the men had been sent off to Macon and Columbus hospitals, sick with the

chills (Andrews 1992:117). At least one soldier, Private L. T. Collins of Company A

28th Georgia Artillery Battalion, was reported to have died of disease at Hammock

Landing on 8 September 1863 (NARA RG109: M266, Roll 95). Regarding the condition

of the battery, Major Stanley noted that Captain Moreno had left two new gun carriages

and chassis upon the bank of the river, and that all of the gun carriages required painting

(Stanley 1890[28]:506-509).

Major Stanley also reported that petty depredations by men of the First Georgia

Regulars were very numerous (Stanley 1890[28]:506-509). According to Sergeant

Andrews, the soldiers oftentimes crossed the river to plunder a large field planted in corn

and pumpkins. The nearest neighbor to the camp was Reverend Joe Talley, a Methodist

minister, who regularly complained to headquarters of losing his hogs. Although the

officers would search the troops quarters, Sergeant Andrews explained that the men

would bury the ill-gotten pork in boxes beneath the plank floors of their tents (Andrews

1992:118-120). Regarding his fellow soldiers, Sergeant Andrews charged that [a] great

many of them are natural born thieves and would steal out of one pocket and put it in the

other (Andrews 1992:120). He described the punishment of a soldier caught stealing a

200 lb. sack of salt. For this act, the offending soldier was forced to march up and down

49
in front of the officers quarters with what the boys call a Jeff Davis uniform, a barrel

with one end out and a hole in the other just large enough to get his head through, pulled

down over him with a card tacked on the barrel in large letters THIEF (Andrews

1992:120).

On 10 September 1863, the 1st Georgia Regulars departed for the Chattahoochee

Arsenal aboard the steamer Swan. The regiment had been reduced to approximately 60

men, most of whom were ill. However, on 10 November 1863, five companies returned

to Hammock Landing. The battery was again inspected on 23 March 1864 by Captain L.

Jaquelin Smith, Assistant Chief of Ordnance, who submitted his report on 10 February.

According to Captain Smith, Companies B and D of Major A. Bonauds 28th Georgia

Artillery Battalion had joined the 1st Georgia Regulars, under Colonel William J. Magill,

at Hammock Landing. The companies of Bonauds battalion were stationed at the

landing, equipped with Austrian rifles, while the 1st Georgia Regulars were reported to

have been stationed nearby. Sergeant Andrews also noted the distinction between the

locations of the encampments of the regiments at the battery. According to Andrews, the

camp of the 28th Georgia Artillery Battalion was located at the landing, with the battery

being just on the hill, whereas the 1st Georgia Regulars were encamped at Camp Linton,

on Mr. Lintons farm, near Hammock Landing. While stationed at the battery, the 1st

Georgia Regulars were drilled on the guns almost daily by Major Bonaud, a Frenchman

whose accent and broken English was often the object of jokes from the Georgians

(NARA RG109: M266, Roll:95, 119; RG109:M861, Roll:13-14; Andrews 1891:9-10;

1992:118-119; Smith 1891[35]:582-588; Smedlund 1994:191).

50
 Captain Smith reported the condition of the battery had improved, and Major

Bonaud had personally attended to the guns. However, the magazines were reported to

have been very poorly constructed, and when it rains at all hard the water flows in and

the magazine floors soon become covered with water (Smith 1891[35]:582-588).

Although the powder appeared to be dry, numerous fuses fixed in the shells had been

damaged. As a result, General Beauregard ordered the magazines to be improved or

rebuilt on 5 April 1864, but the garrison consisting of the 1st Georgia Regulars and 28th

Georgia Artillery Battalion had been ordered to move toward Lake City on 8 February.

On 20 February, both regiments were engaged in the Battle of Olustee, serving as

infantry. A letter written by O. T. Smith, dated 20 February 1864 (the day of the Battle of

Olustee), from Hammock Landing suggests the battery remained occupied. Companies

A, B, and C of the 29th Georgia Cavalry Battalion had arrived at Hammock Landing on

31 December 1863, and most likely remained to guard the river (Andrews 1891:10-11;

1992:123; Beauregard 1891[35]:589; McKinnon 1914; Smedlund 1994:191; NARA

RG109: M861, Roll 13).

Following the Battle of Olustee, the 1st Georgia Regulars and the 28th Georgia

Artillery Battalion were transferred to other assignments, and the 29th Georgia Cavalry

Battalion had been joined at Hammock Landing by the 12th Georgia Heavy Artillery

Volunteer Battalion by 27 March 1864. The same day, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry D.

Capers, in command of the 12th Georgia Battallion, reported from Camp Linton on an

expedition against deserters in Taylor and Lafayette Counties, Florida (Barth

1891[35]:354-355; Capers 1898[53]:316-319; Smedlund 1994:191).

51
 The Hammock Landing Battery was inspected for a third and final time on 12

July 1864. The inspection report of Major George U. Mayo, Assistant Inspector of

Artillery, indicates the armaments mounted at the battery had changed. According to

Major Mayo, two 32-pounder and four 24-pounder guns, all smoothbores, were now

mounted at the battery (Mayo 1891[35]:584-587). During October 1863, proposals were

made to move the guns from Hammock Landing to Fort Gadsden, and from Batteries

Cobb and Gilmer to Hammock Landing. However, both suggestions were met with

opposition, and it is unknown whether or not either was ever carried out (Magill

1890[28]:404-405; Harris 1890[28]:423-424). Major Mayo reported that the guns at

Hammock Landing were not mounted upon proper carriages. According to Mayo, the

carriages were too small, and were in need of painting and repairs. Additionally, the two

gun carriages reportedly left upon the bank on the river in November 1863 were still

lying in the weeds, and the condition of the magazines was described as abominable.

Although the powder was mostly dry, the bags had been badly cut by moths. An excess

of sponges and rammers of improper calibers was also noted. Major Mayo maintained

that [t]he battery has been neglected and needs repair, and in its present condition can

make but a feeble defense, as nothing is in its proper place with but few exceptions

(Mayo 1891[35]:584-587).

Discussion

Because many of the records of the Confederacy were lost or destroyed during

and at the end of the war, the military histories of most of the units are incomplete. The

29th Georgia Cavalry Battalion departed from Hammock Landing on 18 May 1864, and

the duration of the detachment from the 12th Georgia Heavy Artillery Volunteer

52
Battalion is unknown. Although the batteries at the Narrows were abandoned on 13 July

1864, no record of the removal of the garrison and armaments from Hammock Landing

could be located. Likewise, the precise location of the actual river landing associated with

the battery remains unknown. A contemporaneous list of distances between landings on

the river from Chattahoochee to Apalachicola indicates that Hammock Landing was

located on the east side of the river, seven miles south of Aspalaga Landing and one mile

north of Ocheesee Landing to the west (Figure 16). These distances place the river

landing associated with the battery somewhere below the earthworks in present-day

Torreya State Park.

Although the chain of artillery batteries and obstructions on the Apalachicola

River was never tested by Union gunboats, Federal troops surprised a group of

Confederate soldiers at Rickos Bluff by land in January 1865, capturing prisoners and

FIGURE 16. Civil War-Era List of Distances Between Landings from Chattahoochee to
Apalachicola (George Washington Scott Papers, State Archives of Florida).
53
burning supplies (Gibson 1899[8]:411; Turner 1988). Minor skirmishes also occurred at

Fort Gadsden. However, the defenses of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee river system

prevented the capture of the important city of Columbus by sea, and in fact, the

obstructions placed at the Narrows were so sound that they shifted the course of the river

in that area (White et al. 1999). The post-war reminiscences of Cora Mitchel, a citizen of

Apalachicola during the war, indicate the obstructions had caused the river to change

course by 1863. According to Mitchel, the river had utilized a bayou as a means to make

its way around the obstructions, creating a narrow, swift, and dangerous route over what

had once been land (Mitchel [1916]:16, 19-23). Captain Moreno also noted that the

obstructions became so closely interwoven that trees began to grow and in after years

hunters have shot deer on this now solid ground, while the river has had to seek a new

channel elsewhere (Moreno n.d.).

Following the fall of Columbus, Georgia, to Union forces on Easter Sunday, 16

April 1865, the need to defend the Apalachicola River came to an end. One week earlier,

on 9 April 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to

General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, and by the end of May, the Civil

War had come to an end for all practical purposes. Following the war, commerce along

the river system slowly began to rebuild. Citizens who had fled Apalachicola either as a

result of hardships caused by the blockade or its fall to Union forces returned. On 6 June

1865, Union Brigadier-General Alexander Asboth, commanding at Fort Barrancas in

Pensacola, reported that people are returning to Apalachicola from rebeldom as well as

from the North, anxious to resume their former vocations (Asboth 1903[17]:856-857).

Businesses were reopened, and economic contact with Columbus merchants in the cotton

54
trade resumed. Although more than 100,000 bales of cotton were shipped from

Apalachicola in 1866, the renewal of trade along the river system to its pre-war

prominence faced the difficult period of Reconstruction (McPherson 1988; Misulla 2010;

Rogers and Willis 1997).

55
 CHAPTER V
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS
This chapter provides an overview of test unit stratigraphy and features

encountered at the Hammock Landing Battery. Archaeological investigations included a

variety of field techniques designed to gather data on structural features and artifacts

associated with the fortification. These investigations were conducted within two site

areas (Gun Emplacement 2 and Powder Magazine 1) (Figure 17), and included the hand

excavation of 27 1 x 2 m test units and 23 features (Table 2) as well as 68 metal detector

probes across selected portions of the site. The data collected during the course of this

research provides significant insight into the construction and appearance of the battery.

FIGURE 17. Hammock Landing Battery Site Areas (Illustration by author, 2011).

56
 TABLE 2
LIST OF FEATURES

No. Association Type Units (Southwest Corner Datum)

1 PM 1 roof fill 1004N 996E, 1004N 998E, 1005N 998E
1002N 1000E, 1003N 1000E, 1004N 1000E,
1005N 1000E, 1004N 1002E, 1005N 1002E
2 PM 1 builders trench 1004N 996E, 1004N 998E, 1005N 998E,
1005N 1000E, 1005N 1002E, 1002N 1000E
1003N 1000E
3 GE 2 sleeper 1018N 1000E, 1019N 1000E, 1017N 996E,
1019N 996E, 1018N, 998E
4 GE 2 sleeper 1017N 996E, 1017N 998E, 1018N 998E,
1018N 1000E, 1019N 1000E, 1019N 1002E
5 GE 2 sleeper 1016N 998E, 1017N 998E, 1017N 1000E
6 GE 2 sleeper 1018N 996E, 1019N 998E, 1020N 998E,
1019N 1000E, 1020N 1000E
7 GE 2 sleeper 1016N 998E, 1016N 1000E, 1017N 1002E
8 GE 2 plank 1020N 998E, 1019N 998E, 1018N 998E
9 GE 2 plank 1020N 998E, 1019N 998E, 1015N 1000E,
1016N 1000E
10 GE 2 plank 1015N 1000E, 1016N 1000E, 1017N 1000E,
1017N 998E, 1018N 998E, 1019N 998E,
1020N 998E
11 PM 1 magazine 1005N 1000E, 1005N 1002E, 1004N 1002E,
1004N 1004E
12 GE 2 sleeper 1020N 998E
13 GE 2 plank 1020N 998E
14 GE 2 non-cultural 1020N 1000E
15 GE 2 sleeper 1015N 1000E
16 GE 2 traverse 1016N 1004E
17 GE 2 non-cultural 1024N 1015E
18 GE 2 non-cultural 1024N 1015E
19 GE 2 non-cultural 1024N 1015E
20 GE 2 plank 1017N 996E, 1018N 996E
21 GE 2 plank 1017N 996E, 1018N 996E, 1016N 998E
1017N 998E
22 GE 2 plank 1017N 996E, 1018N 996E
23 GE 2 post 1017N 996E, 1018N 996E

Note: PM 1 denotes Powder Magazine 1, and GE 2 denotes Gun Emplacement 2.

57
 Gun Emplacement 2

The Gun Emplacement 2 Site Area is characterized by a rectangular depression

measuring approximately 7 m north-south by 20 m east-west (Figure 18). Although the

area has been affected by erosion, the well-preserved earthwork is visible on the ground

surface along the crest of the bluff. Gun Emplacement 2 is the second platform in the first

paired set of guns at the position. Both guns are connected by a traverse with a central

powder magazine (Powder Magazine 1) that is located approximately 20 m south of the

northern edge of Gun Emplacement 2. The platform for the cannon had been excavated

into the crest of the bluff to construct the parapet and terreplein. A 1 x 4 m trench

comprised of two 1 x 2 m test units was initially excavated (1018N 998E and 1018N

1000E) to determine the nature of the soils and site integrity.

FIGURE 18. 1957 Photograph of Gun Emplacement 2 (State Archives of Florida).

58
 These initial test units revealed structural remnants of the wooden gun platform

(Features 3, 4, 8, and 10). Further excavations revealed the timber flooring of the

platform to be in an excellent state of preservation with a general soil profile across the

site consisting of shallow very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loam (Zone 1) to depths that

ranged from 9 cm below ground surface (cmbs) at its shallowest point in the center of the

gun platform to 60 cmbs along the edge of the slope. These soils were underlain with

yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) clay (Zone 2) at depths of 72 cmbs, and light gray (10YR

7/1) clay and limestone (Zone 3) at depths of 43 to 80 cmbs (Figure 19). A total of 32.25

square meters was excavated within Gun Emplacement 2, including 15 test units west of

the traverse (Figures 20 and 21), one test unit across the traverse, and one additional test

unit in the far eastern end of the gun emplacement near the artillery road.

These excavations revealed seven distinct soil discolorations and intact timber

associated with the gun platform. The wooden gun platform measured 5.8 m (19 ft.)

north-south by 6.2 m (20 ft.) east-west and is distinguished by seven large east-west

oriented sleepers (Features 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 15), overlain by remnants of timber

FIGURE 19. Unit 1020N 1000E North Profile Showing General Soil Stratigraphy Across
Gun Emplacement 2 Site Area (Illustration by author, 2011)

59
FIGURE 20. Gun Emplacement 2 Platform Site Map (Illustration by author, 2011).

FIGURE 21. View of Gun Emplacement 2 Platform Facing East (Photo by author, 2010).

60
flooring aligned perpendicular to the sleepers (Features 8, 9, 10, 13, 20, 21, and 22). The

wooden planks were fastened to the sleepers with square machine-cut nails and were

oriented parallel to the direction of the parapet. The sleepers are characterized by very

dark brown (10YR 2/2) or very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), east-west oriented linear

trenches (Features 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 15) that were positioned perpendicular to the

parapet, and were identified at the interface of Zones 2 and 3. These trenches originally

held large hewn logs, most of which had completely decomposed leaving a dark stain that

intruded into the underlying subsoil and bedrock (Figure 22). The largest of these

features, Feature 4, measured 6.2 m (20 ft.) in length by 40 cm (1.3 ft.) in width, and

functioned as the central support beam of the gun platform. Feature 4 was present in

Units 1017N 996E, 1017N 998E, 1018N 998E, 1018N 1000E, 1019N 1000E, and 1019N

1002E and was flanked by three adjacent and parallel smaller sleepers on both sides.

FIGURE 22. View of Gun Emplacement 2 Showing Remnants of Sleepers (Features 3, 4,

and 5) and Planking (Features 8 and 10) Facing East (Photo by author, 2010).
61
 Feature 3, which was located 40 to 60 cm north of Feature 4, measured 4.52 m

(14.83 ft.) in length by 30 cm (1 ft.) wide. This feature intersected Units 1018N 1000E,

1019N 1000E, 1017N 996E, 1019N 996E, 1018N, and 998E. Similarly, Feature 6 was

positioned 56 cm north of Feature 3 and measured 3.22 m (10.56 ft.) in length by 26 to 34

cm (0.58 in. to 1.11 ft.) in width. Feature 6 extended through Units 1018N 996E, 1019N

998E, 1020N 998E, 1019N 1000E, and 1020N 1000E. Features 3, 4, and 6 were bisected

at their eastern end abutting Feature 10 (a remnant of the plank floor) (Figure 23).

Features 3 and 4 exhibited a thickness of 10 cm, and Feature 6 was determined to be 12

cm thick (Figure 24). These features were roughly triangular in profile (Figure 24).

Feature 4 acted as the central support for the platform and terminated in the

southeast corner of Unit 1019N 1002E. Features 5 and 7 are comparable to Features 3

and 6. Feature 5 was located 70 cm south of Feature 4, and measured 3.4 m (11.15 ft.) in

FIGURE 23. View of Features 3, 4, and 6 East Bisection (Photo by author, 2010).
62
FIGURE 24. West Profile of Feature 6 Bisection (Illustration and photo by author, 2010).

length by 24 cm (9.44 in.) wide (Figure 25). This feature intersected Units 1016N 998E,

1017N 998E, and 1017N 1000E. The squared sleeper associated with this feature was

well-preserved and was collected in its entirety. This largely intact timber measured 2.44

m (8 ft.) long by 12.7 cm (5 in.) thick by 17.78 cm (7 in.) wide. Feature 7 was positioned

60 cm south of Feature 5, and measured 3.64 m (11.94 ft.) in length by 30 cm (11.81 in.)

wide, and extended through Units 1016N 998E, 1016N 1000E, 1017N 1002E.

FIGURE 25. Unit 1017N 1000E Planview Showing Features 5 and 10 (Illustration and
photo by author, 2010).

Features 12 and 15 demarcate the sides (or northern and southern extent) of the

gun platform. Feature 12 was located at the northern edge of Gun Emplacement 2 and

was identified in Unit 1020N 998E (Figure 26). The full length of the feature was not
63
FIGURE 26. Unit 1020N 998E Planview at Bottom of Zone 2 (Illustration and photo by
author, 2010).

determined; however, it measured 20 cm (7.87 in.) in width. Likewise, Feature 15 was

encountered at the southern end of the platform in Unit 1015N 1000E and also measured

20 cm (7.87 in.) wide (Figure 27). The decomposed sleepers associated with Features 3,

6, 7, 12, and 15 likely shared similar dimensions as the timber recovered in Feature 5.

An additional sleeper (Feature 20) that, unlike the aforementioned examples was

positioned parallel to the direction of the parapet, was documented in Units 1017N 996E

and 1018N 996E at the western end of the site area. Feature 20 was 20 to 35 cm (7.87 to

FIGURE 27. Unit 1015N 1000E Planview at Bottom of Zone 2 (Illustration and photo by
author, 2010).

64
13.78 in.) in width, and consisted of a dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clayey sandy loam

builders trench, with a large hewn timber that measured 23 cm in diameter. The top of

the feature was encountered at 55 cmbs and was overlain by Features 3 and 4, which

assisted in anchoring it into position. Feature 20 extended the length of these test units

and continued to the north and south (Figure 28). A large round spike that measured 3 cm

in diameter and tapered at the distal end was recovered in situ. This spike was determined

to be the traversing pintle for the barbette gun carriage and provided a pivot point on

which the wheels of the cannon rotated (Figure 29). Although the entire length of the

sleeper was not exposed, probing indicated it extended the length of the platform.

Feature 23, a 10 cm (or 3.94 in.) square posthole, was identified at the western

edge of the site area along the interior slope of the parapet at the intersection of Units

1017N 996E and 1018N 996E. This feature consisted of very dark grayish brown (10YR

3/2) silt loam. The presence of Feature 23 at the edge of the interior slope of the platform

suggests the walls of the gun emplacement were shored up with wooden revetments

FIGURE 28. Planview of Units 1017N 996E and 1018N 996E Showing Feature 20
(Illustration and photo by author, 2010).

65
FIGURE 29. Diagram of 32-pounder Gun on Front-Pintle Barbette Carriage Showing
Location of Traversing Pintle (adapted from Peterson 1969:109).

(Figure 30). Additionally, segments of preserved wood noted throughout the gun

platform (Features 8, 9, 10, 13, 21, and 22) characterize the archaeological footprint of

the plank floor that was constructed on top of the hewn sleepers. Feature 10 was the best

FIGURE 30. Photograph Showing Wooden Revetments (Katcher 2001:63).

66
preserved of these planks and measured 5.8 m (19 ft.) in length by approximately 20 cm

(8 in.) in width. This feature extended the length of the platform and intersected Units

1015N 1000E, 1016N 1000E, 1017N 1000E, 1017N 998E, 1018N 998E, 1019N 998E,

and 1020N 998E. Only very fragile sections of Features 8, 9, 13, 21, and 22 had survived,

and most of the plank flooring had completely decomposed. Remnants of additional floor

planks were documented in Units 1017N 996E, 1018N 996E, 1016N 998E, 1017N 998E

1018N 998E, 1019N 998E, 1020N 998E, 1015N 1000E, and 1016N 1000E (Figure 20

and Table 2).

A major factor in the construction of the battery is the modification of the bluff.

Initially, it was unclear if the light gray clay and limestone at the base of the gun platform

surrounding the sleepers represented either a prepared surface or naturally occurring

subsoil. As excavations expanded eastward, a distinct break between the light gray

(10YR 7/1) clay soils beneath the gun platform and more grayish brown (10YR 5/2)

sandy clay was noted in Units 1017N 1002E and 1019N 1002E (Figure 31). The eastern

edge of Features 4 and 7 (sleeper supports) were also identified in these units. The

limestone bedrock underlying the light gray clay was also confirmed in Units 1017N

1000E and 1019N 1000E (Figure 32). These excavations revealed that the limestone

bedrock had been quarried out of the crest of the bluff prior to the construction the

terreplein of the gun emplacement.

A 10 cm arbitrary level excavated into Zone 2 at the western half (1 x 1 m) of

Units 1017N 1000E and 1019N 1000E confirmed the underlying stratigraphy to be

comprised of solid white (10YR 8/1) limestone bedrock that had been carved out during

the construction of the earthwork (Figure 32).

67
FIGURE 31. Unit 1019N 1002E Planview at Top of Zone 2 (Illustration by author,
2011).

FIGURE 32. Unit 1019N 1000E East Half at Bottom of Zone 2 Showing Bedrock (Photo
by author, 2010).

68
 Evidence of the alteration of the bluff was further noted in Unit 1015N 1000E

(Figures 33 and 34), as well as in Unit 1024N 1015E at the far eastern end of the site area

near the artillery road (Figure 35). The east wall of Unit 1015N 1000E exhibited a nearly

FIGURE 33. Unit 1015N 1000E East Profile (Illustration and photo by author, 2010).

FIGURE 34. Unit 1015N 1000E South Profile (Illustration and photo by author, 2010).

69
FIGURE 35. Unit 1024N 1015E Planview at Top of Zone 2 (Illustration and photo by
author, 2010).

vertical separation between the darker loamy and clayey soils and the light gray clay and

limestone (Figure 33). This separation was also visible horizontally across the floor of the

test unit (Figure 34). This separation in soils denotes the southern edge of the gun

emplacement and is indicative of the quarrying out of the limestone bedrock during

construction of the battery. A wedge or chisel fragment was recovered along the northern

edge of the gun emplacement in Unit 1020N 1000E that was likely broken and discarded

while breaking up the bedrock during construction of the battery. Further, an outcropping

of limestone (Feature 17) in Unit 1024N 1015E that had been leveled even with the floor

of the emplacement offers added verification for the modification of the bluff (Figure 35).

Unit 1016N 10004E was excavated across the traverse connecting Gun

Emplacement 2 and Gun Emplacement 1 with their central powder magazine (Powder

Magazine 1). The traverse, designated Feature 16, was roughly rectangular. Although the

full dimensions of the traverse were not determined during these investigations, the

excavated portion measured approximately 50 cm wide at its base (Figure 36). The base

of the feature, or the ground surface during the active operation of the battery, was

encountered at 78 cmbs and consisted of very compact light bluish gray (GLEY2 7/10B)
70
FIGURE 36. Unit 1016N 1004E South Profile of East Extension Across Traverse
(Illustration and photo by author, 2010).

sandy clay mottled with white (10YR 8/1) clay and limestone, with brown (10YR 5/3)

loamy silty sand pressed into the surface (Figure 37). The compact nature of these soils is

likely due to trampling from foot traffic through the traverse during its active service. A

single oyster shell was recovered on the floor of the traverse, indicating the Confederate

garrison utilized the natural resources of the area for subsistence.

FIGURE 37. Unit 1016N 1004E and East Extension Planview Facing South (Photo by
author, 2010).

71
 Powder Magazine 1
The Powder Magazine 1 Site Area is characterized by a circular depression

measuring approximately 5 m north-south by 3.3 m east-west (Figure 38). Powder

Magazine 1 is the central magazine that served Gun Emplacements 1 and 2 (Figure 17).

The purpose of the magazine was to store gunpowder and projectiles for the cannon. It

was constructed between the two guns it was meant to serve and was accessible through

an entrance at the center of the traverse. Like the gun emplacements, the crest of the bluff

had been dug out to construct the magazines. The excavated magazine at Hammock

Landing consisted of a subterranean wood-framed structure that was completely encased

in soil, with 7 ft. of earth covering the roof. When the timber roof collapsed, these soils

caved into the interior room of the structure resulting in a basin-shaped depression.

The initial research strategy was to excavate a 1 x 10 m trench (Trench 1), as five

1 x 2 m test units (Units 1004E 996E, 1004N 998E, 1004N 1000E, 1004N 1002N, and

FIGURE 38. View of Powder Magazine 1 Site Area Facing East (Photo by author, 2010).

72
1004N 1004E), oriented east-west, across the center of the depression. Five additional 1 x

2 m units were placed north (Units 1005N 998E, 1005N 1000E, and 1005N 1002) and

south (Units 1002N 1000E, 1003N 1000E, and 1004N 1000E) of Trench 1 to determine

the shape and dimensions of the magazine (Figure 39). The well-preserved interior wall

of the structure revealed remarkable details about its construction (Figure 40).

FIGURE 39. Powder Magazine 1 Site Map (Illustration by author, 2011).

FIGURE 40. View of Powder Magazine 1 Facing North (Photo by author, 2010).
73
 A total of 21 square meters was excavated in Powder Magazine 1 (Figure 39).

These investigations indicate an area measuring 3.26 m (10.69 ft.) wide by 6.2 m (20.34

ft.) long by 3.4 m (11.15 ft.) deep had been carved out of the bluff prior to construction of

the magazine that is characterized by a very compact light gray clay and limestone filled

builders trench. The width of the builders trench measured 56 cm from the edge of the

structure. The interior chamber was approximately 2 m (6.56 ft.) wide by 5 m (16.40 ft.)

in length, and the height of the structure measured 1.53 m (5 ft.) from floor to ceiling.

However, auguring outside the doorway suggested the height at the entrance was 1.37 m

(4.5 ft.), possibly indicating a ramp or stairs. Structural remains of the wall of the

magazine was first encountered in Unit 1004N 1000E (Figure 41).

The remnants of a horizontal plank and vertical support post (Feature 11) in the

north wall of Unit 1004N 1000E suggested that although the roof of the magazine had

FIGURE 41. Unit 1004N 1000E North Profile with Detail of Feature 11 (Illustration and
photo by author, 2010).

74
collapsed, portions of the interior walls have remained largely intact (Figures 41 and 42).

Further excavations revealed additional planks on the floor of the magazine that are likely

either remains of the collapsed roof and/or plank floor (Figure 42). Excavations in Units

1005N 1002E and 1004N 1000E revealed the roof consisted of only one course of ceiling

planks; however, its thickness could not be determined due to deterioration of the wood.

The entrance to the magazine was supported by two 10 cm (3.94 in.) square posts on each

side (Figure 43).

Unit 1004N 1000E fill demonstrates the soils excavated during construction of the

battery had been thrown on top of the magazine to cover the roof (Figures 44 and 45). Fill

soils consisted primarily of displaced yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) clay mottled with gray

(10YR 6/1) and white (10YR 8/1) clay subsoils that extended to a depth of 3.2 m below

ground surface at the southwest corner of the test unit (Figures 44 and 45). These soils

were first encountered in Unit 1004N 996E and are characterized by light gray (10YR

7/2) clay and limestone that was occasionally mottled with strong brown (10YR 5/6) and

FIGURE 42. Unit 1004N 1000E Planview (Photo by author, 2010).

75
FIGURE 43. Units 1005N 1002E and 1004N 1000E Planview Showing Roof at Entrance
to Magazine (Photo by author, 2010).

FIGURE 44. Unit 1004N 1000E West Profile (Photo and Illustration by author, 2010).

76
FIGURE 45. Unit 1004N 1000E South Profile (Photo and Illustration by author, 2010).
77
gray (10YR 6/1) clay (Figures 46 and 47). Initially these deposits were thought to

represent a berm and were designated Feature 1. However, further excavations revealed

them to be deeply occurring soils that were displaced during the construction of the

powder magazine and functioned as the perimeter of the earthen roof. Additionally, two

distinct soil zones were identified at the base of Zone 2 that consisted of a dark grayish

FIGURE 46. Unit 1004N 996E North Profile (Illustration by author, 2011).

FIGURE 47. Unit 1004N 996E Planview (Illustration and photo by author, 2010).
78
brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam buried A soil horizon at the western end of the unit and a

continuation of the light gray mottled clay soils associated with Feature 1 in the eastern

end. This area was designated Feature 2 and was determined to be the western edge of the

builders trench for the structure (Figure 47).

Feature 11, which was an amazingly well-preserved portion of the interior wall of

the powder magazine, was identified in Units 1004N 1000E, 1005N 1000E, 1004N

1002E, and 1005N 1002E. This feature was initially encountered in the north wall of Unit

1004N 1000E and consisted of remnants of a horizontal wooden plank with a vertical

support post. Further excavations into Unit 1005N 1000E revealed this feature to be the

well-preserved structural remnants of the north wall of the magazine (Figure 48). The

excavated section of Feature 11 exhibited a remarkable state of preservation that enabled

an interpretation of the materials and methods used in its construction.

Construction techniques consisted of a subterranean wood-framed structure

composed of square vertical scantlings that measured 13 cm (4 in.) to 16 cm (6 in.) in

width that were placed at intervals of 15 to 25.5 cm (6 to 10 in.) apart (Figure 48). The

difference in the spacing of these vertical posts is likely due to decomposition of the

wood rather than intentional placement. Placed behind these scantlings were horizontal

wooden planks that formed the wall of the structure. Because of decomposition and

fragility of the wood, the width and thickness of these elements was difficult to

determine. However, the top plank measured 25 cm (9.84 in.) in width by 3 cm (1.18 in.)

thick.

Upon further excavation, Feature 11 boundaries were expanded to include all

wooden structural remains of the powder magazine. The entrance to the magazine was

79
identified in Units 1004N 1002E and 1005N 1002E and consisted of square posts that

measured 10 cm (3.94 in.) in diameter. These corner posts were spaced 1.85 m (6 ft.)

apart and were fastened to a large roofing timber (Figure 43).

FIGURE 48. Feature 11 North Profile (Photo and illustration by author, 2010).

80
 The overall dimensions of the magazine (Feature 11) revealed it to be a

rectangular structure that measured approximately 2 m (6.56 ft.) north-south (or side to

side) by 5 m (16.4 ft) east-west (or front to back). The interior of the magazine measured

1.53 m (5 ft.) from floor to ceiling, whereas the height at the entrance was determined to

be 1.37 m (4.5 ft.) (Figure 49). The northern and southern boundaries of the magazine are

characterized by the edges of the builders trench in Units 1005N 1000E and 1002N

1000E (Figures 50 and 51). The northern edge of the builders trench was clearly defined

FIGURE 49. Artistic Rendition of Powder Magazine 1 ( David Edwards, 2011 used
with permission).

FIGURE 50. Unit 1005N 1000E North Profile Showing Northern Edge of Magazine
(Photo by author, 2010).

81
FIGURE 51. Unit 1002N 1000E West Profile Showing Southern Edge of Magazine
(Illustration and photo by author, 2010).

in Unit 1005N 1000E and consisted of a 56 cm (22 in.) mottled white clay and limestone

buffer between the edge of the trench and the wall of the magazine. Similarly, the

southern edge of the builders trench was defined in Unit 1002N 1000E as a linear

separation between the natural and disturbed soils that was visible both horizontally in

profile and vertically in planview (Figures 51 and 52).

FIGURE 52. Unit 1002N 1000E Planview (Photo by author, 2010).

82
Like Gun Emplacement 2, the underlying limestone bedrock had been quarried out of the

crest of the bluff to construct the powder magazine and is evinced by an outcropping of

limestone at the southern edge of the builders trench in Unit 1002N 1000E (Figure 52).

Metal Detector Survey

A metal detector survey was conducted around the battery in an attempt to locate

evidence of any associated encampment within the immediate vicinity. Because of the

low artifact density of the Hammock Landing occupation as revealed during excavations,

metal detection was determined to be the most efficient method to survey the site. The

use of metal detectors has been proven the most effective approach to evaluate Civil War

encampments and battlefields (Corle and Balicki 2006; Lees 1994; McBride and Lesser

2010; McBride 1998; Scott and Hunt 1996; Sterling and Slaughter 2000). Metal detector

probes measured 30 to 50 cm in diameter and were excavated to subsoil. An obvious bias

with metal detecting is its focus on metal artifacts. In order to offset this bias, all soils

from metal detector probes were screened through 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) wire hardware cloth.

A total of 68 metal detector probes were excavated in two areas of the site (Figure

53). Metal detecting was conducted in an approximately 50 x 200 m area directly behind

the works to the western bank of an unnamed tributary of Rock Creek (Area A) and an

approximately 20 x 250 m area at the base of the bluff in front of the works to the eastern

bank of the Apalachicola River (Area B). A moderate density of materials related to the

Civil War-era occupation of the battery was recovered from Metal Detector Area A that

primarily consisted of late machine-cut nails. However, chain links, a drive pin, friction

primers, a large spike, a .37 caliber Maynard carbine bullet, one piece of solid grape shot,

and unidentifiable iron were also recovered.

83
FIGURE 53. Location of Metal Detected Areas adapted from 1982 USGS Rock Creek
7.5 Topographic Quadrangle (Illustration by author, 2011).

All nails from Area A had been pulled and were more densely concentrated in the

area between the rear of Gun Emplacements 2 and 3 and 4 and 5. The pulled nails in

these areas may be from either storage boxes or discarded revetments after the battery

was abandoned as no indication of structures was encountered. Likewise, all friction

primers recovered from Area A had been fired, suggesting the distribution of materials in

this area is likely due to refuse disposal. The presence of fired friction primers behind the

gun emplacements suggests the platforms were likely swept clean of debris, and any

rubbish was tossed down the hill behind the earthworks. It is also possible the fired

primer tubes were deposited behind the battery as a result of being ejected during firing

84
of the guns. No definitive 19th century artifacts were recovered from Metal Detector

Area B. However, one fired lead bullet was collected that was too misshapen due to

impact for accurate identification. Interestingly, no container glass, ceramics, or any

items indicative of a domestic occupation or encampment were recovered.

Discussion

The archaeological investigations at Hammock Landing provide significant

insights into the construction and appearance of the battery. The earthworks had been

carved out of the crest of the bluff and into the underlying limestone bedrock, most likely

by enslaved African Americans. By the time construction of the battery was underway,

Captain Theodore Moreno, chief engineer of the works, had been provided with 137

slaves impressed by Florida Governor John Milton for the erection of river defenses

(Moreno 1885[14]:954) (Figure 54).

FIGURE 54. Artistic Rendition of Construction of Gun Emplacement 2 ( David

Edwards, 2011).
85
 Archaeological excavations revealed the platform in Gun Emplacement 2 to have

been constructed of seven large hewn sleepers that were oriented perpendicular to the

direction of the parapet. Deck planks were then fastened to the sleepers with square

machine-cut nails. Historical documents indicate the artillery at Hammock Landing was

mounted on barbette carriages, which allowed the guns to fire over the parapet (Stanley

1890[28]:506-509). The presence of the iron traversing pintle near the interior slope of

the parapet indicates the cannon in Gun Emplacement 2 was mounted on a front pintle

barbette carriage.

Excavations within Powder Magazine 1 also confirmed the battery had been

quarried into the underlying bedrock. The displaced soils were then used to fill in the

builders trench, with an additional seven feet of earth thrown on top of the wooden roof

of the magazine. The well-preserved interior wall of the structure revealed a boxlike

enclosure constructed of vertical support posts backed with horizontal planking. The

height at the entrance was determined to be at a slightly higher elevation than the interior

chamber. Although this difference in elevation was initially thought to indicate a slight

ramp or stairs, it is most likely the result of a shallow ditch beneath the flooring.

Deterioration of the plank floor and the collapse of the earthen roof resulted in the

archaeological footprint of the interior of the magazine to be at a slightly lower elevation

than the entrance due to the ditch beneath the flooring.

Metal detector survey in and around the battery revealed a low density of arms

and architectural artifacts in the rear of the earthworks. However, no military insignia or

items related to the consumption and storage of foods or liquids were recovered. The

absence of these materials suggests the troops who garrisoned the battery were not

86
encamped in the areas immediately behind or below the earthworks. A comprehensive

discussion of the artifacts related to the Civil War-era occupation of the site is presented

in the following chapter, and the construction techniques employed by Captain Moreno

are discussed in Chapter 7.

87
 CHAPTER VI

19th CENTURY HISTORIC MATERIALS

A total of 227 artifacts, including 215 historic artifacts, were recovered from the

archaeological investigations at the Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334). The following

chapter describes the historic materials associated with the Civil War-era occupation by

functional group. Historic artifacts were assigned to functional groups to facilitate site

interpretation (South 1977). However, slight adjustments were made to Souths (1977)

framework to account for certain artifact types. Artifacts were assigned to the

architecture, arms, and miscellaneous groups. Construction materials, such as nails, were

assigned to the architecture group. However, many of these materials were also used in

the construction of storage boxes and furniture. The arms group is comprised of artifacts

associated with weapons. Artifacts that could not be assigned to one of the

aforementioned functional groups, or could have served multiple functions, were

assigned to the miscellaneous group. An inventory of all recovered artifacts is presented

(Appendix A).

A temporal analysis of historic sites generally includes using mean ceramic dates

(MCD), window glass thickness, and terminus post quem (TPQ) techniques to establish

chronology. However, because of the absence of ceramics and window glass in this

assemblage, this analysis relies on TPQ to establish chronology. The concept of TPQ

suggests the latest manufactured artifact in an archaeological context represents the

earliest date that context could have been deposited (Nol Hume 1969:11).

88
 Architecture Group

This category is comprised of items used in the construction and enhancement of

buildings or structures but were also used in furniture and boxes. Items in this group

consist primarily of nails. Other architectural artifacts include spikes and wood.

Nails

A total of 171 nails (n=97) and nail fragments (n=74) were recovered that ranged

in pennyweight from 6d to 30d (Table 3). Nails were classified by manufacturing

technique where possible. The nail types present at this site include hand wrought (n=3),

late machine-cut (n=135) and unidentifiable (i.e. early or late) machine-cut (n=33) nails.

The unidentifiable machine-cut nails consisted of headless nails or either medial or distal

fragments. However, given the known date range for this site, in conjunction with the

integrity of the archaeological deposits, it is fairly certain that indeterminate nails are

fragmentary late machine-cut nails.

TABLE 3
PENNYWEIGHT MEASUREMENTS FOR WHOLE NAILS

Function Type Small Medium Large Total

Construction 2-5d Construction 6-16d Construction 20+d
Nail Type
Wrought
Late Cut 24 73 97
UID Cut
Total 24 73 97

Wrought nails are the earliest form of nails and were manufactured by hand

(Nelson 1963). Wrought nails taper on all four sides to a point and have irregularly

shaped heads. Generally, hand wrought nails date prior to 1830 (Nelson 1963) but can

extend beyond that date. Machine-cut nails are cut from a sheet of metal and taper on two

89
sides rather than on all four sides like hand wrought nails. The other two sides are

roughly parallel. The earliest machine-cut nails were headed by hand and exhibit a pinch

below the head as well as irregularly shaped heads. Early machine-cut nails were

manufactured from roughly 1815 to the late 1830s. Late machine-cut nails were

completely manufactured by machine and lack the pinching and irregular heads of the

early machine-cut nails (Nelson 1963; Loveday 1983; Cleland 1983:61). Late machine-

cut nails were largely manufactured from the late 1830s until about 1900 (Nelson 1963),

and were the most common type recovered from this site (Figure 55). The unidentifiable

machine-cut nails in this assemblage were either medial or distal fragments, or were so

badly corroded that they could not be divided into early or late categories. However,

given site integrity and provenience, these fragments are most likely late machine-cut.

FIGURE 55. Example of Late Machine-Cut Nails Recovered from Site 8LI334 (Photo by
author, 2010).

90
Spikes

Two large iron spikes were recovered: one that was round in cross-section and

another that was square. The round spike measured 3 cm in diameter, and tapered at the

distal end. This spike was recovered in situ in Feature 20 and was determined to be the

traversing pintle for the barbette gun carriage (Figure 56). The square spike was

FIGURE 56. Traversing Pintle and Associated Sleeper for Front-Pintle Barbette Carriage
Recovered in Gun Emplacement 2 Site Area (Photo by author, 2010).

recovered just north of Gun Emplacement 5 during the metal detector survey (Figure 57).

Similar spikes were documented in situ at Gun Emplacement 17 (8ES126) in Pensacola,

Florida. The spikes at 8ES126 were used to fasten the traversing rail for the gun carriage

to the wooden platform (Swindell 1976). The spike recovered from the Hammock

Landing Battery (8LI334) was broken at its distal end and may have served a similar

function. Removal of the traversing ring is the most plausible explanation for how this

spike became broken and discarded.

91
Figure 57. Iron Spike Recovered Near Gun Emplacement 5 (Photo by author, 2010).

Wood

Analyses of wood specimens used in the construction of the platform in Gun

Emplacement 2 and Powder Magazine 1 indicate these structures were manufactured

exclusively from a resinous soft wood indicative of yellow pine (Amy Mitchell-Cook

2011, pers. comm.). These findings are interesting because the pre-war Artillerists

Manual by United States Brigadier General John Gibbon (1860:194) asserts the platforms

for siege pieces should be manufactured at the arsenals from either yellow pine or oak.

Further, regarding the construction of Battery Cobb on the Apalachicola River, Georgia

State Commissioners J. M. Chambers and J. M. Bozeman (1885[14]:731-732) reported to

Brigadier-General Howell Cobb, commander of the Middle Florida Military District, of

92
their plan to construct the platforms for mounting the guns at the Narrows at Columbus,

Georgia. According to Chambers and Bozeman,

The plan decided on for mounting them is for McAllister to prepare suitable

timber frame work at Columbus (which can be speedily done), take them down

and mount the guns (three) [l]umber, carpenters, and materials are promptly

available only at Columbus (Chambers and Bozeman 1885[14]:732).

Although Battery Cobb was completed prior to the construction of the Hammock

Landing Battery in 1863, both batteries served the same function of preventing Union

gunboats from penetrating Georgia, and reaching the vital manufactories at Columbus.

The specifications offered by Gibbon (1860:194) in conjunction with historical accounts

of gun platforms for Apalachicola River defenses being constructed at Columbus raises

the possibility that the platforms at Hammock Landing were not manufactured locally.

The exclusive use of yellow pine in conjunction with the absence of Torreya taxifolia,

which is known to have been the most prominent tree species in the area during the mid-

19th century (and for which Torreya State Park is named), further bolsters the possibility

the lumber for the construction of the gun platforms and powder magazines was shipped

downriver from Columbus, Georgia.

Arms Group

This category includes items associated with weapons. Friction primers (n=8),

grape shot (n=1), bullets (n=2), and artillery projectiles (n=2) make up this group (Figure

58). Of the two bullets recovered at the site, one was fired and the other was unfired. The

fired bullet is misshapen due to impact and could not be positively identified due to its

93
FIGURE 58. Arms Group Artifacts: (a) solid spherical grape shot; (b) unfired American-
style friction primer; (c) fired friction primers; (d) .37-caliber Maynard rifle bullet; (e)
unidentified fired bullet; (f) British-style friction bar igniter (Photo by author, 2010).

deformed state. However, the dropped bullet was a .37-caliber Maynard carbine bullet

(McKee and Mason 1980:26-27).

The Maynard carbine was widely favored by the Confederate cavalry during the

American Civil War. Historical documents indicate three companies of the 29th Battalion

Georgia Cavalry were encamped at Camp Linton near the Hammock Landing Battery

(Smedlund 1994). This battalion was organized in December 1863 and saw service

primarily in Florida. The presence of Maynard carbines at this site supports historical

accounts of Confederate cavalry troops in the vicinity.

The diameter of the grape shot measured 2.43 in., and weighed 1.9 lbs. This

specimen is a solid shot that most closely corresponds to the specifications for that used

94
in 18-pounder guns (United States Ordnance Department 1850:29). The location of this

item directly behind Gun Emplacement 5 suggests the presence of 18-pounder cannon at

this location. Gun Emplacements 4, 5, and 6 at Hammock Landing are at a lower

elevation than Gun Emplacements 1, 2, and 3. Historical documents indicate two 32-

pounder, one 24-pounder, and three 18-pounder guns were mounted at this position.

Engineering manuals of the period specified the heaviest caliber guns should be mounted

on the highest ground (Mahan 1846). Given the provenience of the grape shot in

conjunction with period specifications, it can be argued the 18-pounder guns were

mounted in Gun Emplacements 4, 5, and 6 at Hammock Landing. It should also be noted

the shape of the depressions associated with Gun Emplacements 4, 5, and 6 are more

rounded than the other gun emplacements at this site (Figure 3).

Friction primers were small copper tubes filled with an explosive material that

were used to ignite the charge in a cannon when pulled by a lanyard attached to a small

ring inserted into the tube (United States War Department 1850:281; Woodhead

1991:295). Two distinct types of friction primers were recovered: two that are more

typical of the U.S. tradition of manufacture (Figure 58) and four friction bars from

primers that are indicative of the British tradition (Figures 58 and 59). The American

primers were ignited by pulling a roughened wire (or slider) across the explosive

material, whereas the British primers utilized a flat brass tab (labeled a friction bar) with

a circular head and jagged igniter (Figure 59) (Babits and Gandulla 2011:64-65).

Although neither type found at Hammock Landing is typical of what was being

manufactured at Selma, Alabama, in 1863 through 1864 (Lawrence E. Babits 2011, elec.

95
FIGURE 59. Diagram of British Friction Primer (Great Britain War Office 1902:111).

comm.), the friction bar primers provide valuable insights into Confederate ordnance

stores during the latter stage of the American Civil War.

Of the more typical primers, one unfired primer was collected from Unit 1019N

1000E in the northeast area of the gun platform. The fired American-style primer, as well

as fired primer tubes that could not be identified as either characteristic of American or

British manufacture due to absence of the igniter, was recovered on the eastern slope of

the bluff behind the battery. The presence of fired primer tubes behind the gun

emplacements suggests the gun platforms were either largely swept clean and the debris

was thrown downhill behind the battery, or the primer tubes were deposited behind the

battery after being ejected from the guns during firing.

The presence of the friction bar primers typical of British manufacture is

interesting because they were either brought in through the Federal blockade or represent

a Confederate copy. Friction bar primers are known to have only been found on

Confederate sites dating to the latter stage of the war between 1864 through 1865

96
(Lawrence E. Babits 2011, elec. comm.). Other than Hammock Landing, this type of

primer has been documented only at Fort Blakeley, Alabama; Selma, Alabama; Batteries

Wood and Semmes on the James River, Virginia; Fort McAllister, Georgia; Mars Bluff,

South Carolina; and possibly Charleston, South Carolina (Babits and Gandulla 2011:65).

The friction bars found at Hammock Landing are from fired primers and were

recovered in Units 1019N 998E, 1017N 1000E, 1020N 1000E, and 1017N 1002E within

the gun platform at Gun Emplacement 2. The location of these friction bars on either side

of the gun platform suggests the gunner could have been standing to the left or right of

the gun when the lanyard was pulled. The presence of only four of these items within the

platform also indicates the floor had likely been kept clean, and these friction bars likely

fell through the gaps separating the wooden planks that supported the gun carriage.

From the outset of the war, Colonel Caleb Huse was dispatched to London,

England, to serve as purchasing-agent for the Confederate Ordnance Department. He

remained in this position for the duration of the war and successfully obtained ordnance

stores for the Confederate military that were shipped through the blockade from agencies

established at Bermuda, Nassau, and Havana; with Wilmington, North Carolina, and

Charleston, South Carolina, being the primary ports of entry (Mallet and Hunt 1911:158-

160). However, as the effectiveness of the blockade improved and the Confederacy lost

possession of the copper mines in Ducktown, Tennessee, in 1863, it became necessary to

aggressively seek domestic manufacture of ordnance and ordnance stores. In addition to

the arsenal at Richmond, Virginia, works had variously been placed at Fayetteville, North

Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Augusta, Savannah, and Macon, Georgia;

Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee; Mount Vernon and Montgomery, Alabama; New

97
Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Little Rock, Arkansas; and San Antonio, Texas. As

the war progressed, some of these were abandoned and others were constructed at

Columbia, South Carolina; Selma, Alabama; and Jackson, Mississippi. Towards the end

of the war, the most important works were those at Atlanta and Selma (Gorgas

1900[3]:986-988; Morton 1900[3]:989-991; Mallet and Hunt 1911:164-166).

An ordnance laboratory for the production of artillery and small-arms ammunition

and articles, particularly percussion caps, friction primers, and pressed bullets, was

decided to be established at Macon, Georgia, by September 1861 (Mallet and Hunt

1911:162). This facility was placed under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel John W.

Mallet, and special machinery was manufactured in England and shipped to the

Confederacy (Mallet and Hunt 1911:162). Colonel Mallet, a British subject, was

appointed superintendant of Confederate Ordnance Laboratories on 11 September 1863,

and among the duties placed under his command was the manufacture of friction primers

(Vandiver 1951:186). During the summer of 1863, Major Josiah Gorgas, Chief of the

Confederate Ordnance Department, sent James H. Burton, who had previously been

employed by both Harpers Ferry and the Enfield rifle factory, to England to purchase

equipment for the Macon armory as well as for Colonel Mallets laboratories. Burton

successfully purchased a large amount of machinery from the Greenwood and Batley

foundry in Leeds, England (Vandiver 1951:188). Following the war, Colonel Mallet

reported that although a large portion of machinery purchased in England for use at his

Macon, Georgia, laboratory had arrived in Bermuda near the end of the war, it was too

late for effective use (Mallet and Hunt 1911:162). Although the origin of the British-style

friction primers recovered from the Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) remains

98
unknown, they either represent items purchased in England and brought in by blockade

runners or possibly friction primers produced domestically at Colonel Mallets Macon,

Georgia, facility using British manufactured machinery.

Additional items included in this study are two spherical iron projectiles

reportedly collected from the battery in the mid-1930s by CCC enrollees during the

establishment of Torreya State Park (Steve Cutshaw 2011, pers. comm.). Both specimens

measured 14.4 cm (5.68 in.) in diameter, and one is solid shot while the other is spherical

case shot (Figure 60). Solid shot (or bolt) projectiles consisted of a solid piece of metal

without any explosive capabilities. On the other hand, case shot projectiles were used

with time fuses. The hollow body was filled with lead or iron objects packed inside the

powder charge that were intended to produce a shotgun-like effect when exploded in the

air (McKee and Mason 1980:92). The solid shot weighed 21.6 lbs., while the spherical

case shot weighed 13.65 lbs. Several small chunks are missing from the solid shot

projectile indicating its true weight was slightly greater.

FIGURE 60. Unprovenienced Iron Projectiles Reportedly Recovered by CCC at Gun

Emplacements: (a) solid shot; (b) spherical case shot (Photo by author, 2010).

99
 Interestingly, Gibbon (1860:165) suggests empty case shot should weigh

approximately half that of solid shot of the same diameter. The diameter of both of these

projectiles, 5.68 in., is exactly that listed by Gibbon (1860) as the diameter for both solid

shot and spherical case shot used by 24-pounder guns. Given the known presence of 24-

pounder artillery mounted at this position in contemporaneous historical documents, it is

more likely than not that these items were left behind by the Confederate troops who

garrisoned the battery at Hammock Landing. Unfortunately, the exact provenience for

these items is not known. Had the context of these projectiles been recorded, the gun

emplacement(s) associated with the 24-pounder artillery carriage(s) could potentially be

identified. Regardless, the presence of these artillery projectiles at this site provides

insight into the types of armaments utilized by the troops who garrisoned this position.

Miscellaneous Group

This category includes miscellaneous hardware, as well as objects that could not

be clearly identified as to function or could serve multiple functions. Items in this

category include the fragmentary distal end of an iron wedge or chisel (n=1), sections of

chain links (n=2), a hand wrought drive pin (n=1), an iron hook fragment (n=1) (Figure

61), and indeterminate iron objects (n=3). These materials correspond temporally with

the Civil War-era occupation of this site.

Although the sections of chain links and the fragmentary iron hook could have

served a variety of purposes, the iron wedge or chisel fragment and the drive pin

undoubtedly relate to the construction of the earthworks. Drive pins were commonly used

as logging tools to move timbers. Prior to constructing the earthwork, the dense forest

100
would have needed to be cleared. This drive pin was likely dropped during this stage of

construction.

Further, archaeological excavations demonstrate the earthworks were carved out

of the crest of the bluff and into the underlying limestone bedrock. Historical documents

indicate enslaved African American laborers likely carried out this work. Florida

Governor John Milton was granted the authority to impress these enslaved persons for

any construction task necessary to the Confederate government in December 1862, and

many of the governors own slaves were involved in the construction of fortifications

(Hopley 1863; Johns 1963:151). During the spring of 1863, more than 50 slaves were

impressed to construct defenses along the Apalachicola River, primarily working from

February through June (Johns 1963:151). Additionally, on 26 May 1863, Captain

Theodore Moreno, chief engineer of the defenses on the Apalachicola River, reported

receiving 137 slaves impressed by Governor Milton for work on the river defenses

(Moreno 1885[14]:954). It was during this time the artillery battery at Hammock Landing

FIGURE 61. Miscellaneous Group Artifacts: (a) chain links; (b) drive pin; (c) chisel or
wedge fragment; (d) iron hook fragment (Photo by author, 2010).

101
was constructed. This wedge or chisel fragment (Figure 61) was likely broken while

quarrying through the limestone bedrock during the construction of Gun Emplacement 2.

Discussion

The goal when analyzing artifact assemblages is two-fold. The first goal is to

determine the age of the site and the length of occupation. The second is to determine site

function, meaning what activities took place at the site. The presence of late machine-cut

nails is indicative of a mid-19th century date for the construction of the cultural features

encountered at this site. The arrangement and orientation of wooden artifacts and features

indicate the presence of a plank platform in the Gun Emplacement 2 Site Area, and a

subterranean wooden structure with horizontal plank walls and square vertical scantlings

in Powder Magazine 1. The high density of unaltered nails in the artifact assemblage

suggests that these structures were largely left to deteriorate in place (Young 1994).

Further, the exclusive use of yellow pine in the construction of the excavated gun

platform and powder magazine suggests the lumber, and possibly the platforms

themselves, were shipped downriver from Columbus, Georgia, rather than processed

locally from trees cleared for the placement of the earthwork.

The presence of Civil War-era armaments corresponds with archival materials

that indicate a military garrison at this site, particularly, the presence of grape shot within

the specifications for an 18-pounder cannon and fired and unfired friction primers

recovered during this research. Artillery projectiles consistent with that utilized by 24-

pounder cannon reportedly collected from the earthworks by the CCC during the 1930s

also correspond with documentary accounts that a heavy artillery battery was positioned

at this locale during the American Civil War. Additionally, the single .37-caliber

102
Maynard carbine bullet provides evidence for Confederate cavalry at this location, as

indicated in historical documents.

Further, the presence of friction primers typical of British manufacture tells a

much larger story. These artifacts provide evidence for the effectiveness of the Federal

blockade. That these items only appear on Confederate sites that date late in the war (ca.

1864 1865) (Babits 2011, elec. comm.), attests to the desperation of the Confederacy to

obtain much needed ordnance supplies during its closing years. It remains unknown

whether these primers were manufactured in England or in the South on machinery

obtained from Britain. However, their presence at this and other contemporaneous sites

suggests that either the primers themselves or the machinery to manufacture them

successfully breached the Federal blockade of the southern coast by the end of 1863 or

early 1864.

Although the garrison consisting of the 1st Georgia Regulars and the 28th Georgia

Artillery Battalion departed from Hammock Landing for the Battle of Olustee in

February 1864, they were relieved by the 29th Georgia Cavalry Battalion and the 12th

Georgia Heavy Artillery Battalion. An inspection of the battery on 12 July of that year

suggests the guns mounted at the battery had also changed, and the three 18-pounder

cannon had been replaced with 24-pounder guns (Mayo 1891[35]2:584-587). The change

in the garrison and armaments following the Battle of Olustee may account for the

presence of the British-style friction primers at Hammock Landing. Given that these

types of friction primers have only been documented on Confederate sites dating to the

latter part of the war between 1864 and 1865 (Lawrence E. Babits 2011, elec. comm.),

and both the typical American and British-style primers were recovered, it is possible that

103
the friction bar primers were brought in with the change in the garrison and armaments in

February 1864.

Interestingly, no personal or kitchen items were recovered. Although the absence

of materials such as ceramics or bottle glass is surprising, this indicates domestic

activities did not occur in the immediate vicinity of the fortification. Therefore, the

absence of these items suggests the troops were not encamped at the battery. Likewise, no

military accoutrements, such as uniform buttons and insignia, were recovered during

these investigations. The absence of these materials combined with the extremely low

density of ammunition is also surprising and suggests metal detector hobbyists have

likely collected the site in the past (Lees 1996). However, any future research should be

directed towards locating the associated encampment(s).

The wedge or chisel fragment recovered near the north wall of Gun Emplacement

2, as well as the drive pin, chain links, and hook fragment, provides material evidence of

the labor exerted in the construction of the battery. Historical accounts indicate enslaved

African Americans, including many of those owned by then Florida Governor John

Milton, were impressed to work on the construction of defenses along the Apalachicola

River (Moreno 1885[14]:954; Hopley 1863; Gammon 1948:218; Johns 1963:151). The

soil stratigraphy observed in the gun platform indicates the natural limestone bedrock

atop the bluff had been carved out during the construction of the battery. The recovered

wedge or chisel fragment was likely deposited during this phase of construction, possibly

by enslaved African American laborers. The Civil War-era artifacts recovered during this

research provide an excellent example of how the historical and archaeological record

can work together to further our understanding of the past.

104
 CHAPTER VII

COMPARISONS WITH MANUALS AND RESULTS OF KOCOA ANALYSIS

As Lawrence E. Babits (2011:113) points out, investigations of earthen

fortifications should incorporate the technical manuals of the period during which they

were constructed. Interpreting the intentions of the engineer of a fieldwork through a

comparison of the archetype presented in contemporaneous manuals with the

archaeological footprint of the actual earthwork will provide a greater understanding of

these often complex structures. In 1861, when the war began, the available fortification

manuals published in the United States included A Complete Treatise on Field

Fortification by Dennis H. Mahan (1846), On Infantry, Camp Duty, Field Fortification,

and Coast Defence by Louis Von Buckholtz (1860), and Elements of Military Art and

Science by Henry W. Halleck (1860). As the war forged ahead, other manuals that

became available included Manual for Engineer Troops by James C. Duane (1862) and

The Army Officers Pocket Companion by William P. Craighil (1863), as well as the

Confederate produced Hand-Book of Field Fortifications and Artillery by Egbert L. Viele

(1861).

The following presents a comparison of the construction methods identified

during the archaeological investigations at the Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) with

specifications in available military engineering manuals contemporaneous with the

American Civil War, specifically the aforementioned works by Mahan (1846), Duane

(1862), Craighil (1863), and Viele (1861). Other works consulted during this research

105
include John Gibbons Artillerists Manual (1860) and the Ordnance Manual (1850)

published by the United States Ordnance Department.

Hammock Landing

According James C. Duane, the term battery is applied to those positions

prepared for the reception of artillery in such a manner as to cover the pieces and

cannoniers from the enemys fire (1862:241). Confederate engineer Egbert L. Viele

further defined a battery as [o]ne or more pieces, or ... the places where the pieces are

fired (1861:66). The Hammock Landing Battery consisted of excavated platforms for six

guns, with three powder magazines centrally located between every two gun

emplacements. The works at Hammock Landing can be defined as a temporary field

fortification (i.e. a work intended to be occupied for a short period of time) since they

were constructed of perishable materials such as soil and wood (Mahan 1846:1).

Alternately, permanent fortifications were constructed of durable materials (such as

stone, brick, and mortar) and were intended for long-term occupation. As Clarence R.

Geier (2003:34) points out, temporary fortifications may become permanent over time,

but were commonly built quickly with materials that could be easily obtained. Further,

Hammock Landing can be described as a direct battery as its parapets were positioned

parallel to the river (or the faces they were intended to attack) (Duane 1862:243).

The general soil profile across the site consisted of shallow very dark brown

(10YR 2/2) loam (Zone 1), underlain with yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) clay (Zone 2),

and light gray (10YR 7/1) clay and limestone (Zone 3). However, alterations to the

natural soil composition at this site due to the structural remnants of the artillery battery

provide evidence for the construction methods utilized in its manufacture. The

106
archaeological footprint of these structural features provides a valuable comparison with

specifications in military engineering manuals of the period (Mahan 1846; Gibbon 1860;

Viele 1861; Duane 1862; Craighil 1863). Taking into account the shallow surface soils

within the excavated section of the battery, the earthwork had been quarried into the

limestone bedrock. The defensive position at Hammock Landing utilized the steep slope

of the bluff for protection against enemy fire and did not adhere to the standard horizontal

contour for a fortification as there was no construction of a ditch, berms, or embrasures.

Embrasures were openings in the parapet through which the cannon was fired. The guns

at Hammock Landing were mounted en barbette, which would have allowed a wider, or

laterally sweeping, range of fire. The position atop the steep bluff would have provided

some protection from incoming fire, and the lateral slopes may have been revetted with

either fascines or gabions (Duane 1862:248, 251).

A key component in the construction of the battery was the modification of the

exterior slope to provide a field of fire for the cannon. Although no exterior ditch or

embrasures were constructed, firing lines for the guns were excavated out of the bluff in

front of the gun emplacements. A fundamental characteristic of the construction methods

utilized in the Hammock Landing Battery is that it was carved out of the bluff rather than

being built up as a mound. The excavated firing lines are significant because they

demonstrate the engineers perception and planning of the intended field of fire of the

guns.

Gun Emplacement 2

Originally published in 1836, Dennis H. Mahans manual A Treatise on Field

Fortification was subsequently reprinted in New York in 1846, 1856, 1861 and 1863 as

107
well as in the Confederacy in 1862. This volume would become the standard instruction

manual for both Union and Confederate engineers (Fryman 2000; Field 2005) and

provides a useful starting point for comparison with the construction methods utilized at

the Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334).

Mahan (1846:52) asserts two types of batteries, the barbette or the embrasure

battery, should be employed to defend an entrenched fortification. Contemporaneous

military inspection records identify the gun emplacements at Hammock Landing as

having been constructed en barbette (Gonzales 1891[35]:468). According to Mahan,

The barbette is a construction by means of which a piece can fire over a parapet.

It consists of a mound of earth, thrown up against the interior slope; the upper

surface of which is level, and two feet nine inches below the interior crest for

guns of small calibre (sic), and four feet for heavy guns. If the barbette is raised

behind a face, its length should be sufficient to allow sixteen-and-a-half to

eighteen feet along the interior crest for each gun; and its depth, or the

perpendicular distance from the foot of the interior slope to the rear, should be

twenty-four feet, for the service of the guns (Mahan 1846:52-53).

The modern surface of the interior slope, or the inner face of the parapet, in the Gun

Emplacement 2 Site Area has experienced erosion, and the interior face at the front of the

gun platform measured around 3.5 ft. Given the fact that erosion has affected the modern

appearance of these earthworks, it is reasonable to infer that the interior crest of Gun

Emplacement 2 likely measured around 4 ft. in depth, which is consistent with the

specifications for heavy guns mounted en barbette offered by Mahan (1846:53). This also

conforms to historical accounts that indicate this battery was defended by heavy artillery.

108
 Duane (1862:242) identifies three types of battery construction based on the

attributes of the terreplein (or the interior ground surface/floor): elevated, half-sunken,

and full-sunken. In elevated batteries the terreplein is formed by the natural ground

surface. Conversely, half-sunken batteries are constructed by forming the parapet

partially from soils excavated from an exterior ditch in front of the battery and partially

from soils removed to form the interior terreplein, which is lowered 2 ft. On the other

hand, full-sunken batteries are characterized by a terreplein excavated to a depth of 3 ft.,

and the absence of an exterior ditch. In batteries of this type, the excavation of the

terreplein would provide sufficient soil to form the parapet, thus making the excavation

of a ditch unnecessary (Duane 1862:242, 254-255). The Hammock Landing Battery was

a full-sunken battery based on the absence of an exterior ditch, and the depth of the

terreplein, which was carved out of the bluff. Construction of the terreplein would have

supplied ample soil to form the parapets, and the steep slope of the bluff face would have

made the excavation of an exterior ditch impractical. However, a field of fire was cut into

the exterior slope in front of the guns.

Features 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, and 23 provide evidence for

the platform, or flooring, upon which the cannon was positioned. Gun platforms could

be manufactured of either wood or stone, and were necessary to prevent the ground

beneath the wheels of the gun carriage from being worn into ruts, causing them to sink

and become unsteady (Mahan 1846:56; Viele 1861:49). Platforms provided a solid

foundation that could keep the wheels of the gun carriage level (Figure 62). According

to Gibbon (1860:194), platforms for siege pieces were manufactured at the arsenals

from either yellow pine or oak. For guns mounted en barbette, the platform could be

109
FIGURE 62. Example of Wooden Gun Platform and Revetments, Confederate Battery
at Dutch Gap Canal Overlooking the James River, Virginia (Library of Congress Prints
and Photographs Division, Washington DC: LC-B815-53).

dispensed with entirely, or if used should nearly cover the barbette (Mahan 1846:58).

Wooden platforms typically consisted of sleepers overlain with perpendicular deck

planks, as was noted in Gun Emplacement 2 (Gibbon 1860:194-196).

Gun platforms were commonly rectangular; however, if a wide field of fire was

desired, a trapezoidal platform was preferred (Mahan 1846:56). According to Mahan

(1846:56-57), the standard dimensions of a rectangular platform should be 10 ft. wide by

17 ft. long for siege guns, and 9 ft. wide by 15 ft. long for field guns. However, Viele

(1861:49) recommended garrison and siege platforms should be 10 ft. wide at the head by

15 ft. long, and 14 ft. wide at the tail. Additionally, Craighil (1862:235) explained that the

dimensions of a barbette placed along a face should be 20 ft. wide by 24 ft. long. Similar

110
to Craighil (1862:235), Duane (1862:255) suggested the terreplein of full-sunken

batteries should measure 20 ft. in width.

Rectangular platforms were comprised of three sleepers, or heavy horizontal

timbers used to distribute loads, 15 or 17 ft. in length, that were placed perpendicular to

the direction of the parapet. After the ground upon which the platform was to be placed

had been rammed and leveled, trenches were made for the sleepers, which were laid flush

with the ground surface and secured with pickets (or stakes) at their sides and ends. The

ground was then solidly packed in the trenches around the sleepers, and 2 x 12 in. planks

measuring 9 or 12 ft. in length were then fastened by nails. In the case of trapezoidal

platforms, five sleepers were required (Mahan 1846:56-58). Remnants of seven sleepers

positioned perpendicular to the direction of the parapet were identified in Gun

Emplacement 2 at Hammock Landing, suggesting that it may have been trapezoidal in

shape. These features are characterized by linear molds (Features 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and

15). Although not collected in the field, the remains of the pickets or stakes were also

noted in Features 3, 4, and 5, and the well preserved sleeper in Feature 5 was recovered in

its entirety. Features 8, 9, 10, 13, 20, 21, and 22 were remnants of the planking that

comprised the floor of the platform. The dimensions of the platform in Gun Emplacement

2 were 19 ft. (5.8 m) wide by 20 ft. (6.2 m) at its longest dimension (Feature 4).

However, the platform would have measured 15 ft. (4.5 m), as recommended by Mahan

(1846:46) and Viele (1861:49), if Features 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 15 are considered to denote

length.

Similarly, the actual width of the Gun Emplacement 2 platform (19 ft.) most

closely matches that recommended by Craighil (1862:235) and Duane (1862:255).

111
Although the dimensions of the platform in Gun Emplacement 2 do not correspond

exactly with those specified in contemporaneous manuals, an explanation may be found

in Gibbons Artillerists Manual (1860). Gibbon (1860:196) asserts that platforms of

larger dimension may be used for guns intended to fire at a fixed target with full charges.

The heavy artillery at Hammock Landing was intended to disrupt river traffic rather than

to be used as anti-personnel weaponry. The placement of the artillery position along a

horseshoe bend in the river would have caused enemy vessels to be virtually stationary

targets. Although no ditch, berms, or embrasures were constructed, the exterior slope of

the bluff was modified to create firing lines for the cannon mounted at the battery. Two

firing lanes were excavated for each gun at the highest elevations (Gun Emplacements 1,

2, and 3) at angles of 30 and 120 degrees, while only one lane was carved out of the bluff

for each cannon at the lowest elevations (Gun Emplacements 4, 5, and 6) at an angle of

30 degrees. The angle of the firing lanes would allow each gun to pivot 90 degrees on the

traversing circle with a maximum angle of fire being 45 degrees to the left or right,

allowing an overlapping field of fire for each gun (Figure 63).

FIGURE 63. Overlapping Fields of Fire of the Guns at the Hammock Landing Battery
(Illustration by author, 2011).

112
 Another feature that provides insight into the construction methods of the

platform documented in Gun Emplacement 2 is the iron traversing pintle (Feature 20) on

which the cannon rotated. As Gibbon (1860:201) points out, the barbette carriage was

meant for use in a fixed position and should not be used for transport unless for very

short distances. The traverse wheels were positioned under the front and rear transoms

(Gibbon 1860:205-206). The chassis of the cannon in Gun Emplacement 2 pivoted on a

pintle that passed through the front transom. According to Gibbon, [t]he front end is

supported on a pintle-plate of iron; through which, and up into the middle of the front

transom, passes a pintle or bolt, which serves as a pivot around which the whole system

moves (1860:204).

In permanent batteries, the pintle and the traverse circle or ring (an iron plate)

would have both been fixed in masonry. However, for temporary batteries such as

Hammock Landing the pintle was attached to a wooden bolster covered by a circular

cast iron plate (United States Ordnance Department 1850:48; Gibbon 1860:204). The

cast iron plate was bolted to a wooden cross and staked firmly into place. A temporary

traverse circle could also be manufactured of plank and fastened to sleepers (Gibbon

1860:204). The dimensions for 18, 24, and 32-pounder artillery carriages, which were

reported to have defended Hammock Landing, measured 9.5 ft. from the center of the

pintle to the front end of the rails of the traversing ring (United States Ordnance

Department 1850:58). The traversing pintle in Gun Emplacement 2 was encountered in

situ and had been driven into a wooden sleeper. Although no evidence of the cast iron

plate or traverse circle was located, these features may have been collected during the

widely popular scrap iron drives of World War I and World War II (Babits 2011:120).

113
 Feature 23, a square post hole, near the interior slope of the parapet provides the

only strong evidence for revetment inside the gun emplacement. According to Craighil

(1862:237), the interior slope of rapidly built works should be revetted. Mahan defines a

revetment as a facing of stone, wood, sods, or any other material, to sustain an

embankment, when it receives a slope steeper than the natural slope (1846:36). For field

works, revetments were recommended only for use in the interior slope of the parapet

(Mahan 1846:36). Feature 23 is the archaeological footprint of a square wooden post that

measured 10 x 10 cm (4 x 4 in.). Mahan (1846:40) specified that plank revetment should

consist of four-inch scantling about three feet apart behind which were nailed boards to

shore up the earthen wall. The location and dimensions of the post hole associated with

Feature 23 is indicative of plank revetment along the interior slope of the parapet.

Powder Magazine 1

Both Mahan (1846) and Duane (1862) offer specifications for the construction of

powder magazines that provide useful comparisons with the excavated magazine at

Hammock Landing. According to Mahan (1846:58), the most important characteristics

that should be addressed in the construction of a magazine are making certain it is placed

in a location least exposed to enemy fire, it is made to be shot proof, and it keeps the

powder secure from moisture. Duane (1862:261) suggests magazines were oftentimes

constructed 15 yards behind, and occasionally at the end, of the parapet. However,

Mahan (1846:58) asserts that they should be located in the traverse or at the foot of a

barbette, and may be built partially below ground if the soils are dry.

Mahan (1846:58-59) identified three types of magazine construction: fascine,

coffer-work, and gabion. According to Mahan, a coffer-work is formed by making

114
frames of six-inch scantling covered on the top and sides by one-and-a-half inch plank

which is termed sheeting (1846:59) (Figure 64). Each frame should measure 6 ft. high

by 6 ft. wide and consist of two uprights (stanchions) and a cap-sill fastened by nails. The

flooring should consist of joists and boards, with a shallow ditch underneath to allow

drainage for any water that may leak in (Mahan 1846:58-59). According to Mahan

(1846:58), the dimensions of the magazine should be about 6 ft. high by 6 ft. wide, with

the length determined by the quantity of ammunition it was meant to hold. The mouth, or

entrance, should be covered by a splinter proof shelter constructed of 6 by 10 in.

scantling covered by a minimum of 2 ft. of soil or sod. The roof was then to be covered

with hides or tarpaulins to protect against leakage (Mahan 1846:59).

FIGURE 64. Diagram of Coffer-Work Powder Magazine (Mahan 1846).

Alternately, the construction methods offered by Duane (1862:262) specify a

covered entrance that should be turned away from the enemy, and a passage that exhibits

a change of direction in order to decrease the chance of shell fragments entering the

magazine (Figure 65). According to Duane (1862:261-262), 4 ft. of soil should be

excavated for the mining frames, stanchions, and ground sill. The magazine may be

115
FIGURE 65. 1862 Plan of Powder Magazine (Duane 1862:262).

placed deeper if the condition of the soil is favorable. Once the excavation was

accomplished, the roof was to be strengthened with timber or fascines and the whole

must be covered with earth to the depth of 7 ft. (Duane 1862:261). For protection from

moisture entering the magazine, a tarpaulin should be placed over the first 2 ft. of soil,

followed by the remainder of the earthen roof (Duane 1862:261-262) (Figures 66 and

67).

FIGURE 66. Magazine Construction Proposed by Duane (1862:264).

116
FIGURE 67. Cross-Section of Magazine Construction Proposed by Duane (1862:264).

The excavated powder magazine at Hammock Landing was a subterranean

rectangular wood framed structure that was located in the traverse between Gun

Emplacements 1 and 2, with the entrance facing away from the incoming fire of enemy

gunboats. Archaeological investigations indicate this magazine was a coffer-work (or

boxlike) enclosure constructed of vertical support posts, or scantlings, that measured

between 5 to 6 in. wide, and were backed with 10 in. horizontal wood planking, or

sheeting (Figures 68 and 69), as specified by Mahan (1846:59). The dimensions of the

magazine were determined to be approximately 6.5 ft. wide by 16.5 ft. long, and 5 ft.

high, and the height of the entrance was determined to be a little over 4 ft.

Although the actual dimensions of the magazine differ from the exact

specifications offered by Mahan (1846) and Duane (1862), the construction methods are

strikingly similar. The magazine was made to be shot proof by a covering of 7 ft. of soil

atop the roof, as outlined by Duane (1862:261). This covering was designed to serve the

dual purpose of protection from incoming fire, as well as to prevent rainwater from

117
FIGURE 68. Profile of North Wall of Magazine Showing Soils Covering the Entrance
(Photo by author, 2010).

FIGURE 69. View of North and East Wall of Magazine (Photo by author, 2010).

118
seeping in. These soils consisted primarily of dense clay and broken limestone. The

profile above the north wall, which is marked by sloping soils, provides evidence for a

splinter proof shelter at the entrance as described by Mahan (1846:59) and illustrated by

Duane (1862:264). However, contrary to the example proposed by Duane (1862:262),

which exhibits a change in direction, the magazine at Hammock Landing was

rectangular.

The primary flaw with the construction of the magazines at Hammock Landing,

as noted in the inspection records, was that they were prone to leakage of rainwater

(Mayo 1891[35]:587). Although some precautions to prevent leaking, such as covering

the roof with 7 ft. of soil, were taken (Duane 1862:261), archaeological investigations

revealed a slight variation in height from the entrance to the interior chamber, which

ostensibly would have allowed water to flow into the storage area. However, this

difference in elevation is likely due to a shallow ditch beneath the flooring, as suggested

by Mahan (1846:58-59), that would have resulted in the height of the archaeological

footprint at the entrance to appear higher than the interior of the structure if the plank

flooring had decomposed. Although no physical remains of hides or tarpaulins were

recovered, these items are highly perishable and would not be expected to preserve.

However, military records indicate that tarpaulins were ordered to cover the leaking

magazines (Beauregard 1891[35]:589). Based on the archaeological remains of the roof,

the ceiling was constructed of only one, or possibly two, courses of planking, which

undoubtedly contributed to the seepage of rainwater and the need for added tarpaulins.

The construction of the roof suggests that while the order to improve the magazines may

have been executed, any efforts to rebuild them were never carried out.

119
 KOCOA Terrain Analysis

KOCOA analysis was used to examine the defining terrain features within and

around the Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) in order to classify them into one or

more of the five terrain elements: Key terrain, Obstacles, Cover and concealment,

Observation and fields of fire, and Avenues of approach and retreat. Due to the absence

of Civil War era military maps of this area, 19th century survey plats (Figures 70 and 71),

modern USGS maps, and the 1936 topographic map of the earthworks (Figure 72) were

used to identify these terrain features. The battery was strategically located atop the steep

bluff along a horseshoe bend in the river. Although historical documents indicate a

military encampment in the vicinity, the location of this installation is presently

FIGURE 70. 1827 Survey Plat of T 2N R 7W Showing the Project Area (U.S. Bureau of
Land Management).

120
FIGURE 71. 1840 Survey Plat of T 2N R 7W Showing the Project Area (U.S. Bureau of
Land Management).

Figure 72. 1936 CCC Topographic Map of Earthworks (National Park Service 1936).

121
unknown. Therefore, the terrain features in the immediate vicinity of Neals Bluff on the

eastern bank of the river were utilized as the boundaries for this analysis. The defining

terrain features at the Neals Bluff locale are outlined below (Figure 73).

The Key Terrain features consist of high ground, the artillery road, and potential

river landings. Areas of high ground vital to the defense of this position include the

earthworks themselves, which contribute to multiple elements in this analysis, and high

ground to the south, southwest, and east of the earthworks. Although the battery was

positioned atop the bluff, the tactical advantage of this location was the bend in the river

that would force vessels to slow down while also bringing them in closer range of the

artillery fire. The higher ground to the southwest of the artillery position, as well the

higher ground to the south and east, would have placed the battery at a significant

disadvantage if those locations had fallen under enemy control. It is likely that these areas

were protected by pickets or some other form of military occupation during the active

operation of the battery. The higher ground southwest of the earthwork also allows for

observation as it would provide a view of any vessels ascending the river from the

blockaded port at Apalachicola. Other Key Terrain features include the artillery road

which ran from the rear of the earthwork to the bank of the river, possibly to the landing.

There are two locations suitable for river landings, one northeast and the other southwest,

of the battery. Control of these areas would assist in the prevention of a land attack on the

position.

The Observation and Fields of Fire locations are similar to the Key Terrain

features. The earthwork would have allowed each artillery emplacement an excellent

view of the river and field of fire to the west. The elevated position would have allowed a

122
FIGURE 73. Defining Features of the Hammock Landing Locale adapted from 1982
USGS Rock Creek 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle (Illustration by author, 2011).
123
plunging fire on enemy vessels, and each artillery piece would have possessed a field of

fire that overlapped with the adjacent guns. Other areas that would have offered key

observation points are the aforementioned high ground southwest of the battery, and the

bluff and lowlands further southwest at the neck of the horseshoe bend in the river. The

view from these areas would have been essential in alerting the artillery garrison of

approaching enemy vessels.

The primary points of cover and concealment would have included the ravines

and creeks, the dense forest, and the Confederate earthworks. If the trees had not been

cleared on the bluffs, slopes, and ridges in the immediate vicinity of the fortification, the

entire area could be considered suitable cover and concealment terrain. The artillery

position atop the bluff would have also provided cover from incoming fire from enemy

vessels. Given the principal threat to the position was from Union gunboats, the

earthworks and the bluffs would have provided the best cover and concealment.

The obstacles in and around the Hammock Landing Battery include the steep

bluff below the battery, and the swampy lowlands to the north and south. The slope of the

bluff was a key element in the defensive strategy of the position. Combined with the

wetlands along the riverbank, the steep bluff would have made a land attack on the

battery difficult. Another obstruction in the vicinity of Hammock Landing was a heavy

chain intentionally laid across the river to disrupt traffic. Although the exact location of

this obstruction is unknown, it was placed near Rock Bluff just south of the battery.

Additionally, given the availability of forest, abattis constructed from felled trees may

have been used to obstruct any enemy approach.

124
 The principal avenue of approach would have been the Apalachicola River. The

main objective of the battery was to prevent Union gunboats from ascending the river and

reaching the important industrial complex at Columbus, Georgia (Turner 1988). Since the

closest Union force was the blockading squadron located at Apalachicola Bay, their only

approach would include ascending river from the south. In order for enemy vessels to

reach Hammock Landing, they would first have to clear the defenses below this position.

A road also ran east of the battery from the eastern bank of Apalachicola Bay northward

to the arsenal at Chattahoochee, Florida. Although this road is depicted on an 1863 Union

map of a portion the Department of the Cumberland showing the South and Gulf Coast,

its exact location behind the Hammock Landing earthworks has not been determined.

However, according to this map, the road connected the fortified positions along the

eastern bank of the river (Figure 75) and was another vital avenue of approach that would

require safeguarding.

Discussion

According to Mahan (1846:1), the position of a fortification must be strengthened

by natural agents such as precipices, woods, and rivers. KOCOA terrain analysis

demonstrates the placement of the Hammock Landing Battery atop the steep bluff on the

river conforms to each of these criteria. The position of the battery was well chosen for

observation and defense of the river. The sharp bend would have necessitated enemy

vessels to decrease their speed in order to navigate the turn while simultaneously bringing

them into closer range of the artillery fire. Once inside this bend, it would have been

incredibly difficult for vessels to turn back, thus causing them to be virtually stationary

targets for the overlapping fields of fire of the heavy guns. It should be noted that the

125
sharp bend in the river at Rickos Bluff and the elevated location of Alum Bluff were

cited as being instrumental in the selection of these locations for the placement of

defensive batteries on the river (Floyd 1882[6]:413; Finegan 1885[14]:553).

All locations on the Apalachicola River that offered similar topographical and

geographical attributes, such as a high bluff, a sharp bend in the river, and swampy

lowlands, were occupied by the Confederate military off and on during the war. Although

these locations (the Narrows, Rickos Bluff, Alum Bluff, and Fort Gadsden) provided a

comparable tactical advantage, the Hammock Landing Battery was the only fortified

position to remain occupied after mid-July 1864 (Mayo 1891[35]:584-587). The

proximity to Quincy, Florida, which is only a short distance of roughly 20 miles to the

east, and the arsenal at Chattahoochee, 15 miles to the northeast, undoubtedly influenced

the continued occupation of the post. Hammock Landing was better connected to

transportation and supply networks than any other post on the Apalachicola River.

The headquarters of the Department of Middle Florida was established at Quincy,

and the Pensacola and Florida Railroad connected the town with the state capital at

Tallahassee, and then southward to St. Marks and eastward to Lake City and Jacksonville

(Figure 74) (Black 1952; Nulty 1990:37). The rail line was completed west from

Tallahassee to a point four miles short of Quincy in December 1862, and service to

Quincy began two months later. The line was later extended westward to Aspalaga after

the war (Turner 2003:36; 2008). The primary advantages of being in close contact with

Quincy would have included relatively immediate communication with headquarters, as

well as a means for the quick movement of troops, munitions, and foodstuffs via the

railroad. Not only did Hammock Landing offer equivalent tactical advantages for river

126
defense as the other comparable positions, it provided the added benefit of being near

headquarters and the railroad at Quincy, as well as the arsenal at Chattahoochee.

Zedeo (2000:108) asserts performance characteristics, or interaction-specific

capabilities such as topography, influence the decision to select certain locations for the

construction of places for specific activities. These locales are referred to as behavioral

landscapes (Zedeo 2000:108). The performance characteristics that made Hammock

Landing a desirable location for the placement of a defensive structure are emphasized

FIGURE 74. Detail of 1863 Callahan Map of Military Departments of the South and Gulf
(National Archives Cartographic Section, College Park, Maryland).

127
through the use of KOCOA terrain analysis. Thus, this location was selected for the

placement of a defensive structure based on both geographical and topographical

attributes. Although a few minor skirmishes occurred on the Apalachicola River, the

Hammock Landing Battery was never tested by Union gunboats. The Confederate

defensive measures on the river successfully prevented Federal blockading vessels from

reaching the important industrial complex at Columbus for the duration of the war.

Rather than being constructed as a mound by building up soils, the Hammock

Landing Battery was a full-sunken temporary field fortification that had been carved out

of the steep bluff. The parapets of the guns were directed towards a horseshoe bend in the

river, with overlapping fields of fire. The broad fields of fire of these guns likely accounts

for the construction of wider platforms in the gun emplacements. Although many of the

dimensions of the excavated gun platform and powder magazine differ from the models

presented in contemporaneous engineering manuals, they do exhibit similar

characteristics that fall within the range of design characteristics. These similarities

suggest the chief engineer of these works, Captain Theodore Moreno, had some formal

prewar training in the art of constructing fortifications.

Theodore Moreno entered West Point as a cadet in 1844 (NARA 1817-1867), and

the 1860 United States Federal Census listed his occupation as civil engineer. He was the

younger brother of Angela Moreno, wife of Confederate Naval Secretary Stephen R.

Mallory. By the onset of the Civil War, Captain Moreno had training and many years

experience in the art of engineering works. His background, as well as his familial

connections, certainly aided his appointment to oversee the construction of defenses

along the Apalachicola River.

128
 Differences between the contemporaneous manuals and the actual work indicate

the battery had been hastily constructed. The blockading squadron at Apalachicola Bay

was in place by June 1861, and, by 1862, the Union had taken possession of the city of

Apalachicola (Turner 1988). The loss of the town to Union forces necessitated immediate

defense of the river to prevent Federal gunboats from reaching the interior of Georgia

(Turner 1988:9). Archaeological excavations in Gun Emplacement 2 and Powder

Magazine 1 provide a unique glimpse into the construction of these types of structures.

This research also sheds light on the training and experience of the engineer who oversaw

their construction and provides valuable insights into the appearance of this battery while

in active operation (Figure 75).

129
FIGURE 75. Artistic Rendition of Hammock Landing Battery while in Active Operation ( David Edwards, 2011).

130
 CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As the southernmost peninsular state with more than six thousand miles of coastal

shoreline to defend, as well as a vast land area, a relatively small population, and limited

industry, Florida was arguably the most vulnerable of all seceding states. In 1861, on the

eve of war, one northern newspaper referred to Florida as the smallest tadpole in the

dirty pool of secession (Philadelphia Inquirer 1861). As the first port in the state to be

affected by the Federal blockade, the strategic value of the Apalachicola River was based

upon the commercial importance of the city of Apalachicola and its link to the sea, the

industrial importance of the city of Columbus and its rail connections to the northern

Confederacy, and the agricultural importance of the lands that lay along the rivers

between these two ports (Turner 1988).

The Hammock Landing Battery was one of six artillery batteries constructed by

the Confederacy on the Apalachicola River to protect river trade, and the industrial center

of Columbus, Georgia. This battery was a full-sunken temporary field fortification that

had been carved out of the steep bluff. The parapets of the guns were directed towards a

sharp bend in the river with overlapping fields of fire, and the broad range of fire of these

guns likely accounts for the construction of wider platforms.

Although the results of KOCOA analysis at the Hammock Landing locale sheds

light on the inherent topographical advantages in the immediate vicinity of the position, a

few potential drawbacks of the site were also revealed. These consist of high ground to

131
the south, southwest, and east, the bluff and lowlands southwest of the battery, as well as

prospective areas for boat landings on the riverbank above and below the earthworks.

Additional strategic characteristics of the position were its proximity to roads and the

railroad. Although the location of the river landing historically associated with the battery

is unknown, 20th century river charts indicate the area southwest of the battery was

known as Coopers Landing during the 20th century (USACE 1963, 1978, 1987, 1994).

Historical accounts suggest the 28th Georgia Siege Artillery Battalion were

encamped at the landing just below the battery (Andrews 1992). Metal detector survey

around the site of Coopers Landing did not reveal any evidence of a military

encampment in this area. However, the area on the riverbank northeast of the battery

corresponds most closely with historical descriptions of the location of the landing and

encampment. This area was not surveyed during the course of this research.

The higher ground southwest of the battery is the present-day location of the Jason

Gregory House (8LI14). The Gregory House is a 1840s plantation dwelling that was

originally located at Ocheesee Landing on the opposite side of the river. The house was

dismantled and reconstructed at its present location by the CCC during the 1930s. In

1972, both the Gregory House and the gun battery were listed on the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP) as site 8LI14; however, they were separated in 1989, and the

battery is now listed as 8LI334. The current site of the Gregory House is at a significantly

higher elevation than the battery. This point would have offered excellent observation

terrain, as well as a commanding position on the battery if it fell under enemy control. It

is very likely that a picket would have been posted at this location. However, prior to

reconstructing the Gregory House, the CCC altered and stabilized the bluff with

132
limestone retaining walls (Figure 76). The surface of the bluff was excavated and leveled

in order to install a storm water drainage system, and the entire area was then covered

with fill dirt (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1999:20-28). Therefore,

because of the extremely disturbed soils, it is unlikely that intact evidence of Civil War

activity remains at this location.

FIGURE 76. View of Altered Bluff and Limestone Retaining Wall at Gregory House Site
Facing South (Photo by author, 2010).

The bluff and lowlands southwest of the battery would have provided a view

down the river of any boats advancing from Apalachicola. The brick masonry piers of an

antebellum Cotton Warehouse (8LI339) are visible just below this point. The warehouse

itself was reportedly utilized by Confederate troops for storage, and it is likely that a

picket post may have been placed in this area. Additionally, the higher ground south and

east of the battery would have been key terrain for the defense of the position in the event

of a land attack from the rear. An 1863 U.S. War Department map depicts a road

133
coursing behind the battery (Figure 74). Although the exact route of this historic roadway

on the modern landscape is not known, but it is reasonable to assume that troops would

have been posted to protect this approach. Historical records indicate at least two

encampments existed in the vicinity of Hammock Landing: one at the landing and

another at Camp Linton near the battery. The post at Camp Linton was likely in the

vicinity of this roadway in the rear of the earthworks, and possibly included one or both

of these rises.

The Hammock Landing Battery (8LI334) exhibits excellent site integrity. Any

further archaeological research should be focused toward identifying the encampment(s)

of the troops who occupied this position. An 1873 USACE map of the Apalachicola

River depicts a location identified as Fort Lee, a short distance northeast of the Hammock

Landing Battery (Figure 77). Archival records suggest the 28th Georgia Artillery

FIGURE 77. Detail of 1873 Map Showing Hammock Landing Locale and Fort Lee
(National Archives Cartographic Section, College Park, Maryland).

134
Battalion were encamped at the landing below the battery, while the remaining regiments

were stationed nearby at Camp Linton. Although a cursory metal detector survey was

conducted around the earthworks that extended southward along the bank of the river, no

investigations were carried out north of the battery. It is unclear whether Fort Lee simply

refers to the remains of the Confederate battery or if it may indicate the location of Camp

Linton. According to local tradition, Fort Lee became a colloquial toponyn for the

Confederate earthworks currently preserved in Torreya State Park (Dale Cox 2011, elec.

comm.).

An overlay of the 1873 USACE map with the 1982 USGS Quadrangle (Figure

78) did not result in an exact correlation with the dimensions of the river that may be a

result of modern advances in cartography or changes in the course of the river through

FIGURE 78. Overlay of 1873 USACE Map and 1982 USGS 7.5 Quadrangle (Illustration
by author, 2011).

135
time. However, it offers a reference point for additional research into the location of the

encampment at the river landing and Camp Linton. Any future archaeological testing

should include a metal detector survey north and northeast of the battery, especially in the

lowlands at the northern base of the bluff, and the vicinity of Fort Lee depicted in the

aforementioned map overlay, in order to possibly identify any archaeological remains of

an encampment in these areas. Identification of the encampment(s) associated with the

battery would potentially provide valuable insights into the use of physical space, as well

as the types of foodstuffs and supplies available to Confederate troops in northwest

Florida under the Federal blockade.

This thesis research contributes important new data to a largely overlooked

component of Floridas cultural heritage. Although Confederate forces had effectively

evacuated the coast by March 1862, the defense of the Apalachicola River remained a

concern throughout the war. As a vital corridor into the interior of Georgia and Alabama,

the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee river system remained occupied in order to prevent

Federal gunboats and blockading vessels from ascending the river and reaching the

industrial complex of Columbus, Georgia. Archaeological and historical research at the

Hammock Landing Battery provides a unique glimpse into the construction techniques

and appearance of Confederate river defenses during the American Civil War.

136
 REFERENCES

Adams, William R., Sidney Johnston and Mildred Fryman

1989 Cultural Resource Survey: New Deal Era Resources in Nine Florida State Parks.
Historic Property Associates, Inc., St. Augustine, Florida.

Anderson, David G.
1997 Test Excavations at Civil War Period Battery Halleck, Fort Pulaski National
Monument, Chatham County, Georgia. Technical Report No. 2, Interagency
Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service,

Andrews, William H.
1891 Diary of W.H. Andrews, 1st Sergeant Company M, 1st Georgia Regulars, from
February 1861 to May 2, 1865. East Atlanta.

1992 Footprints of a Regiment: A Recollection of the 1st Georgia Regulars, 1861-1865.

Longstreet Press, Marietta.
Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richart H. Wilshusen, and Cherie L. Scheick
2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of
Archaeological Research 9(2): 157-211.

Asboth, Alexander
1903 Report, June 6, 1865. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official
Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 17, pp. 856-857. Washington,
DC.

Avery, Paul G.
2008 Addendum to A Cultural Resource Investigation of Pee Dee Electrical Generating
Station, Florence County, South Carolina: Investigations of the Potential Site of Camp
Reliance, Formerly Known as Fort Finger. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.,
Knoxville, Tennessee.

Babits, Lawrence E.
2011 Patterning in Earthen Fortifications. In Historical Archaeology of Military Sites:
Method and Topic, Clarence R. Geier, Lawrence E. Babits, Douglas D. Scott, and David
G. Orr, editors, pp. 113-121. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Babits, Lawrence E. and Stephanie Gandulla

137
2010 CSS Pee Dees Artillery Lessons from Shells and Gun Tables. In ACUA
Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2010, Chris Horrell and Melanie Damour, editors,
pp. 59-67. Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology.

Bailey, Theodorus
1903 Report, March 7, 1863. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official
Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 17, pp. 381-382. Washington,
DC.

Baker, N.
1903 Report of N. Baker, November 24, 1861. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 16,
pp. 855. Washington, DC

Barrett, John C.
1991 Time and Place: The Archaeology of Social Reproduction. In Landscape,
Monuments, and Society: The Prehistory of Cranborn Chase, edited by John C. Barrett,
Richard Bradley, and Martin Green. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

Barth, William G.
1891 Reply to Brigadier-General Gardner, March 13, 1864. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 35, part 2, pp. 354-355. Washington, DC.

Beaman, Thomas E., Jr.

2009 Research Design: Peace College 2009 Archaeological Field School at Brunswick
Town/Fort Anderson State Historic Site. http://www.coe-
foundation.org/images/Project%20Plan.pdf

2010 Fifty Years of Investigating Civil War Features at Brunswick Town/Fort Anderson
State Historic Site (31BW376): Documenting the Archaeology of Conflict Beyond
Restoration and Interpretation. North Carolina Archaeological Society Newsletter 19[4].

Beauregard, Pierre G. T.
1885 Report to Stephen R. Mallory, Secretary of Navy, December 28, 1862. In The
War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14, p. 736. Washington, DC.

1891 Report of General Pierre G. T. Beauregard, April 5, 1864. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 35, part 1, p. 589.

1898 Correspondence, November 6, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation

of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 52 part 2, p.
374. Washington, DC.

138
Benjamin, Judah P.
1882 Letter to Robert E. Lee, February 24, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 6,
p. 398.
Black, Robert C.
1952 Railroads of the Confederacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Boggs, W. R.
1885 Report of Chief Engineer W. R. Boggs, State of Georgia, to Major-General
Pemberton, May 20, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official
Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser.1, vol. 14, p. 506. Washington, DC.

Buckholtz, Louis von

1860 On Infantry, Camp Duty, Field Fortification, and Coast Defence. J.W. Randolph,
Richmond.

Capers, Henry D.
1898 Report to Major J.L. Cross, March 27, 1864. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 53,
pp. 316-318. Washington, DC.

Chambers, J. M., and J. F. Bozeman

1885 State Commissioners Report to General Cobb, December 20, 1862. In The War of
the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate
Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 731-732. Washington, DC.

Cleland, Charles E.
1983 A Computer Compatible System for the Categorization, Enumeration, and
Retrieval of Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Archaeological Material Culture.
Part II. Manual for Identification and Classification. The Museum, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Cobb, Howell
1885 Report of Brigadier General Howell Cobb. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14,
pp. 710, 728-741. Washington, DC.

1890 Report. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the
Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 28, part 2, pp. 189-190, 404-405.
Washington, DC.

Cooper, S.
1885 Reports. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of
the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 630, 688-689. Washington, DC.

Corle, Bryan L. and Joseph L. Balicki

139
2006 Finding Civil War Sites: What Relic Hunters Know, What Archaeologists Should
and Need to Know. In Huts and History: The Historical Archaeology of Military
Encampment during the American Civil War, edited by Clarence R. Geier, David G. Orr,
and Matthew B. Reeves, pp. 55-73. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Craighil, William P.
1863 The Army Officers Pocket Companion. D. Van Nostrand, New York.

Crosman, A. F.
1903 Report, December 17, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the
Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 17, pp. 347-348.
Washington, DC.

Crumley, Carole L.
1994 Cultural Ecology: A Multidimensional Ecological Orientation. In Historical
Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes, edited by Carole L. Crumley,
pp. 1-16. SAR Press, Santa Fe.

Cushman, Joseph O.
1962 The Blockade and Fall of Apalachicola, 1861-1862. The Florida Historical
Quarterly 41(1):38-47.

Duane, James Chatham

1862 Manual for Engineer Troops. D. Van Nostrand, New York.

Fannin, O.P., Allen Gay, John Matthews, Richard B. Hill, and Jas. B. Brown
1898 Committee Report to Secretary of War G.W. Randolph, October 11, 1862. In The
War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 52, part 2, pp. 373-374.

Finegan, Joseph
1885 Report. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the
Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 485, 553, 686-687. Washington, DC.

1898 Report to General S. Cooper, April 19, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 53,
pp. 237-238. Washington, DC.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1999 Torreya State Park Unit Management Plan. State of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee.

Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR)

2011 Module Three: Guidelines for Use by Historic Preservation Professionals.
<http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/compliance/docs/Module3.pdf>. Accessed
March 21.

140
Floyd, R.F.
1882 Letter to Governor Milton, March 17, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 6,
pp. 412-413. Washington, DC.

Fryman, Robert J.
2000 Fortifying the Landscape: An Archaeological Study of Military Engineering and
the Atlanta Campaign. In Archaeological Perspectives on the American Civil War, edited
by Clarence R. Geier and Stephen R. Potter, pp. 43-55. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.

Gammon, William Lamar

1948 Governor John Milton of Florida, Confederate States of America. Masters
Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida.

Geier, Clarence R.
2003 Confederate Fortification and Troop Deployment in a Mountain Landscape: Fort
Edward Johnson and Camp Shenandoah, April 1862. Historical Archaeology 37(3):31-
46.

Gibbon, John
1860 The Artillerists Manual. D. Van Nostrand, New York.

Gibson, William
1899 Letter to Major General Samuel Jones, C.S. Army, March 18, 1865. In The War of
the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate
Armies, ser. 2, vol. 8, p. 411. Washington, DC.

Gilmer, J. F.
1862 War Department Collection of Confederate Records. Record Group 109,
Microfilm 628, Roll 1, p. 451. National Archives and Records Administration,
Washington, DC.

1890 Report to General G.T. Beauregard, October 27, 1863. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser.1, vol. 28, part 2, pp. 450-451. Washington, DC.

1898 Correspondence, November 18, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A

Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 52
part 2, p. 375. Washington DC.

Gonzales, A. J.
1891 Report of Colonel A. J. Gonzales, Chief of Artillery, Department of SC, GA, and
FL, May 3, 1864. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of
the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 35, part 2, p. 468. Washington, DC.

141
Gorgas, Josiah
1900 Report to James A. Seddon, Secretary of War. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 4, vol. 2,
pp. 986-988. Washington, DC.
Great Britain War Office
1902 Treatise on Ammunition, 4th edition. War Office, London.
Halleck, Henry Wager
1860 Elements of Military Art and Science: Or, Course of Instruction in Strategy,
Fortification, Tactics of Battles, &c Embracing the Duties of Staff, Infantry, Cavalry,
Artillery, and Engineers, Adapted to the Use of Volunteers and Militia. Second Edition.
With Critical Notes on the Mexican and Crimean Wars. D. Appleton & Company, New
York.
Harris, D. B.
1890 Report to Brigadier General Thomas Jordan, October 18, 1863. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 28, part 2, pp. 423-424. Washington, DC.

Holland, D. P.
1880 Report to S. R. Mallory, March 14, 1861. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 1,
p. 450. Washington, DC.

Hopley, Catherine Cooper

1863 Life in the South from the Commencement of the War by A Blockaded British
Subject: Being a Small History of those who part in Battles, from a Personal
Acquaintance with them in their own Homes from the Spring of 1860 to August 1862,
Vol. II. Chapman and Hall: London.

Johns, John E.
1963 Florida During the Civil War. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Jordan, Thomas
1885 Report to Brigadier General Howell Cobb, December 10, 1862. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 707-709. Washington, DC.

Katcher, Phillip
2001 American Civil War Artillery 1861 1865: Field and Heavy Artillery. Osprey
Publishing, Ltd: Oxford.

Kelso, William M.
2006 Jamestown: The Buried Truth. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Knapp, A. Bernard and Wendy Ashmore

142
1999 Archaeological Landscape: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In
Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore
and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 1-32. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Lee, Robert E.
1882 Order to Brigadier General J.H. Trapier, March 1, 1862. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 6, pp. 403-404. Washington, DC.

Lees, William B.
1994 When The Shooting Stopped, the War Began. In Look to the Earth: Historical
Archaeology and the American Civil War, edited by Clarence R. Geier, Jr. and Susan E.
Winter, pp. 39-59. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

1996 The Impact of Metal Detectors: Preservation Lessons from the Battlefield. Paper
presented at the Twenty-Ninth Annual Society for Historical Archaeology Conference,
Cincinnati, Ohio.

2005 Oklahomas Civil War Monuments and Memorial Landscapes.

http://uwf.edu/wlees/Monuments.pdf.

Lewis, Douglas
2007 Soil Survey of Liberty County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services.

Loveday, Amos J., Jr.

1983 The Rise and Decline of the American Cut Nail Industry. Greenwood Press,
Westport.

Magill, William J.
1863 War Department of Confederate Records. National Archives and Records
Administration Record Group 109, Microfilm 861, Roll 13. Washington, DC.
1890 Report to Major Lamar Cobb, Assistant Adjutant General, October 8, 1863. The
War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 28, part 2, pp. 404-405. Washington, DC.
Mahan, Dennis Hart
1846 A Treatise on Field Fortification. John Willey, New York.

Mahan, Alfred T.
1883 The Gulf and Inland Waters: The Navy in the Civil War. Books for Libraries
Press, New York.

Mallet, J. W. and O. E. Hunt

143
1911 The Ordnance of the Confederacy. In The Photographic History of the Civil War,
Francis Trevelyan Miller, editor, pp. 156-170. The Review of Reviews, New York.

Mandrell, Regina Moreno Kirchoff

1988 Our Family, Facts, and Fancies: The Moreno and Related Families. Perdido Bay
Press, Pensacola.

Mayo, G. U.
1891 Report of Major G. U. Mayo, Assistant Inspector of Artillery, March 4, 1864. In
The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 35, part 1, pp. 584-587. Washington, DC.

McBride, W. Stephen
1998 Report of Archaeological Survey and Testing at Camp Wildcat, 15LI131, Laurel
County, Kentucky. McBride Preservation Services, Lexington, Kentucky.

McBride, W. Stephen and W. Hunter Lesser

2010 Report of the 2009 Archaeological Survey of Fort Marrow, Camp Elkwater,
46RD694, Randolph County, West Virginia (GA-2255-08-018). McBride Preservation
Services, Lexington, Kentucky.

McDonald, Melissa
1983 Fort Johnson Powder Magazine, James Island, Charleston Harbor, South
Carolina. Historic American Buildings Survey, National Park Service, Washington DC.

McKee, W. Reid and M.E. Mason, Jr.

1980 Civil War Projectiles II: Small Arms and Field Artillery with supplement.
Publisher Press, Inc.

McKinnon, George M.
1914 28th Battalion Georgia Siege Artillery, Company C, Reminiscences (typed) of
George M. McKinnon. Manuscript on file at Georgia State Archives. Civil War
Miscellany, Personal Papers.

McPherson, James M.
1988 Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press, New York.

Mervine, William
1903 Report of Flag-Officer William Mervine, U.S. Navy, Commanding Gulf
Blockading Squadron, Declaration of Blockade of Apalachicola Bay. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies,
ser. 1, vol. 16, pp. 532, 610-612. Washington, DC.

Milton, John

144
1880 Letter to Secretary of War L.P. Walker, August 16, 1861. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 1, pp. 471-472. Washington, DC.
1898 Letters to Jefferson Davis and G.T. Beauregard. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 53,
pp. 267, 299. Washington, DC.

Misulla, Charles A.
2010 Columbus, Georgia 1865: The Last Battle of the Civil War. The University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Mitchel, Cora
[1916] Reminiscences of the Civil War. Snow and Farnham Company, Providence.

Moreno, Theodore
1885 Report of Captain of Engineers Theodore Moreno, C.S. Army, to Major D. B.
Harris, Chief Engineer, May 26, 1863. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the
Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 954.
Washington, DC.

n.d. Membership Record of Mrs. Leon D. Sledge. Being a brief history of the military
career of her father, Maj. Theodore Moreno. Georgia State Archives and History Drawer
65 Box 54. Morrow, Georgia.

Morris, George U.
1903 Report of W. M. Martin, mechanic at Confederate ironworks, Columbus, May 1,
1863. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union
and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 17, pp. 432-433. Washington, DC.

Morton, Richard
1900 Report of Richard Morton, January 1, 1863 to January 1, 1865. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 4, vol. 3, pp. 989-991. Washington, DC.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
1817-1867 Register of Cadet Applicants. Microfilm 2037 Roll 2. Washington, DC.

n.d. War Department Collection of Confederate Records. Record Group 109

Microfilm 266 Roll 95. Washington, DC.

n.d. War Department Collection of Confederate Records. Record Group 109

Microfilm 861 Rolls 13-14. Washington, DC.

National Park Service

1936 Torreya State Park Topographic Map of Gun Emplacement Area. Department of
the Interior, Washington DC.

145
Nelson, Lee H.
1963 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Association for
State and Local History, Technical Leaflet No.15. History News 19(2).

Nol Hume, Ivor

1969 Historical Archaeology. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Nulty, William H.
1990 Confederate Florida. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Owens, H. E.
1880 Letter to Secretary of War L. P. Walker, March 9, 1861. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 1, p. 448. Washington, DC.

Pemberton, John C.
1882 Report to General C. Cooper, March 18, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 6,
pp. 407-409. Washington, DC.

1885 Letter to Joseph E. Brown, Governor of Georgia, May 13, 1862. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 547-548. Washington, DC.

Percy, George W. and M. Katherine Jones

1976 An Archaeological Survey of Upland Locales in Gadsden and Liberty Counties,
Florida. Florida Anthropologist 29[3]:106-125.

Peterson, Harold L.
1969 Round Shot and Rammers. South Bend Replicas, Inc. South Bend, Indiana.

Philadelphia Inquirer
1861 Newspaper. 12 July 1861.

Randolph, G. W.
1885 Secretary of War Report, October 10, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14,
p. 633. Washington, DC.

Rives, A.L.
1885 Letter to Captain Moreno, November 18, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14,
p. 682. Washington, DC.

Rogers, William Warren

146
1986 Outposts on the Gulf: Saint George Island and Apalachicola from Early
Exploration to World War II. University of West Florida Press, Pensacola.

Rogers, William Warren and Lee Willis, III

1997 On the Waters Edge: A Pictorial and Narrative History of Apalachicola and
Franklin County. Donning Company, Virginia Beach.

Scott, Douglas D. and William J. Hunt, Jr.

1996 The Civil War Battle at Monroes Crossroads, Fort Bragg, North Carolina: A
Historical Perspective. Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and
Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Shackel, Paul A.
1994 Memorializing Landscapes and the Civil War in Harpers Ferry. In Look to the
Earth: Historical Archaeology and the American Civil War, edited by Clarence R. Geier
and Susan E. Winter, pp. 256-270. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Shaw, T. Darrah
1903 Orders. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the
Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 16, pp. 544, 546-547. Washington, DC.

Smedlund, William S.
1994 Camp Fires of Georgias Troops, 1861-1865. Kennesaw Mountain Press,
Lithonia.

Smith, L. Jaquelin
1891 Report to Lieut. Col. J. R. Waddy, February 10, 1864. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 35, part 1, pp. 582-588. Washington, DC.

South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stanley, M.
1890 Report of Major M. Stanley, November 16, 1863. The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 28,
part 2, pp. 506-509. Washington, DC.

Stellwagen, H.S.
1903 Report of Commander Stellwagen, March 25, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion:
A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol.
17, pp. 193-194. Washington, DC.

Sterling, Bruce B. and Bernard W. Slaughter

2000 Surveying the Civil War: Methodological Approaches at Antietam Battlefield. In
Archaeological Perspectives on the American Civil War, edited by Clarence R. Geier and

147
Stephen R. Potter, pp.305-322. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Swindell, David E. III

1976 Archaeological Excavations of Gun Emplacement 17(8ES126): A Suspected
Confederate Battery at Pensacola, Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties
Bulletin No. 5. Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Florida
Department of State, Tallahassee.

Thigpen, C.
1885 Report to Captain Moreno, December 18, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14,
p. 724. Washington, DC.

Trapier, J. H.
1898 Report to General S. Cooper, February 10-11, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion:
A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol.
53, p. 218. Washington, DC.

Turner, Maxine
1974 Naval Operations on the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers, 1861-1865. The
Alabama Historical Quarterly 36:1-78.

1988 Navy Gray: A Story of the Confederate Navy on the Chattahoochee and
Apalachicola Rivers. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Turner, Gregg M.
2003 A Short History of Florida Railroads. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.

2008 A Journey into Florida Railroad History. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

1873 Survey of Apalachicola River Index Map. Transmitted with Report to Chief of
Engineers U.S.A., dated September 6th, 1863. Washington, DC.

1963 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
River Chart. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile.

1978 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
River Chart. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile.

1987 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
River Chart. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile.

1994 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
River Chart. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile.

148
United States Bureau of Land Management
1827 Survey Plat of Township 2North R 7West, Florida. Washington, DC.

1840 Survey Plat of Township 2North R 7West, Florida. Washington, DC.

United States Federal Census

1860 United States Federal Census. United States Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

1982 Rock Creek 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle. Washington, DC.

United States Ordnance Department

1850 The Ordnance Manual for the Use of the Officers of the United States Army.
Gideon and Company, Washington.

United States War Department

1850 The Ordnance Manual for the Use of the Officers of the United States Army,
Second Edition. Gideon and Company, Washington, DC.

1880 The Secession of Georgia and Operations in Florida. In The War of the Rebellion:
A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol.
1, pp. 318, 331-332. Washington, DC.

1885 Operations. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of
the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 1-2. Washington, DC.

1890 Map of Defenses at the Narrows showing Batteries Cobb and Gilmer, and the
Obstructions in the Apalachicola and Virginia Rivers ser. 1, vol. 28, part 2, p. 425
Washington, DC.

Vandiver, Frank E.
1951 Makeshifts of Confederate Ordnance. Journal of Southern History 17(2):180-193.

Viele, Egbert L.
1861 Handbook of Field Fortifications and Artillery. J.W. Randolph, Richmond.

Waddy, J. R.
1885 Report to Colonel W. R. Boggs, May 29, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14,
pp. 546-547. Washington, DC.

Ward, George T.
1880 Report. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the
Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 1, pp. 466-468, 547. Washington, DC.

Welles, Gideon

149
1903 Order, June 13, 1861. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official
Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, ser. 1, vol. 16, p. 547. Washington, DC.

White, Nancy Marie

1999 Apalachicola Valley Remote Areas Archaeological Survey, Northwest Florida
Volume 2: Confederate Batteries Gilmer (8Gu14) and Cobb (8Gu94) in the Cutoff
Island of the Lower Apalachicola-Chipola River Valley. Florida Division of Historical
Resources, Tallahassee.

White, Nancy Marie, Joe Knetsch, and B. Calvin Jones

1999 Archaeology, History, Fluvial Geomorphology, and the Mystery Mounds of
Northwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 18(2):142-156.

Winter, Susan E.
1994 Civil War Fortifications and Campgrounds on Maryland Heights, the Citadel of
Harpers Ferry. In Look to the Earth: Historical Archaeology and the American Civil
War, edited by Clarence R. Geier and Susan E. Winter, pp. 101-129. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Withers, J.
1882 Special Orders No. 81, April 7, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation
of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 6, p. 432.
Washington, DC.

1885 Special Orders No. 234, October 7, 1862. In The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, ser. 1, vol. 14,
p. 630. Washington, DC.

Woodhead, Henry (editor)

1991 Echoes of Glory: Arms and Equipment of the Confederacy. Time-Life Books,
Alexandria.

Young, Amy Lambeck

1994 Nailing Down the Pattern. Tennessee Anthropologist 19(1):1-21.

Young, W. H., J. F. Bozeman, and W. T. Wood

1903 Report to Secretary of War J.P. Benjamin, February 22, 1862. In The War of the
Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies,
ser. 1, vol. 53, pp. 219-220. Washington, DC.

Zedeo, Mara Nieves

2000 On What People Make of Places: A Behavioral Cartography. In Social Theory in
Archaeology, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 97-111. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.

150
APPENDIXES

151
 Appendix A

8LI334 Artifact Inventory

152
FS # Context n=
1 1015N 1000E Zone 3
Late machine-cut nail medial fragment 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 10d 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 12d 1

2 1004N 1000E 157 cmbs Ashy Area (Feature 11) Zone 3

Tree knot or possible wooden stake 1

3 1016N 1000E Zone 1

Chert flake 1

4 1019N 998E Zone 1

Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1
Friction Primer Bar British-style, copper 1

5 1017N 1000E Zone 1

Friction Primer Bar British-style, copper 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 30d 1

6 1019N 1000E Zone 1

Friction primer unfired 1

7 1016N 998E Zone 1

Chert flake 1

8 1020N 998E Zone 1

Stone non-cultural 2

9 1018N 996E Zone 1

Chert flake 1
Shark tooth 1

10 1004N 1000E 270 cmbs + augur at 80 cm

Wood and charcoal fragments

153
11 1020N 998E Zone 2
Chert flakes 6
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 8d 1

12 1018N 996E Zone 1

Chert flake 2

13 1019N 998E Zone 2-Top (Feature 6)

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 30d 2

14 1018N 1000E Zone 1

Late machine-cut nail clinched, 30d 1

15 1020N 998E Zone 3-Top

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 30d 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

16 1020N 1000E Zone 1 28 cmbs

Iron wedge/chisel fragment distal fragment 1

17 1020N 1000E Zone 1 30 cmbs

Friction Primer Bar British-style, copper 1

18 1015N 1000E Zone 1

1977 U.S. penny copper 1

19 1017N 1002E Zone 1

Oyster 1
Friction Primer Bar British-style, copper 1

20 1019N 998E Feature 6 East Bisection

Late machine-cut nail clinched, 20d 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 12d 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

21 Feature 3 East Bisection

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 30d 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 2
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

22 1016N 1004E and East Extension Feature 16-Floor 78 cmbs

Oyster shell 1

23 1018N 1000E Feature 4 East Bisection

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 10d 1

154
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 6d 1

24 1017N 1000E Feature 5

Late machine-cut nail clinched, 16d 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment, clinched 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 8d 2
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

25 1020N 998E Bottom of Zone 3 (Feature 12)

Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 1

26 1005N 1000E Top of Feature 11 210 cmbs

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 2
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

27 1004N 1000E Feature 11 320 cmbs

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 1

28 1005N 1000E Feature 11 Powder Magazine North Wall

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 4
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

29 1004N 1004E Feature 11 Post in SW corner

Wood sample 1
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 8
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 8d 3
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 2
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

30 1005N 1002E Feature 11 Wood in NE Corner

Wood sample 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 2
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 10
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 3

31 1002N 1000E 92 cmbs

Unidentified antler? 1

32 Feature 11 Wood along East Wall of Magazine

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 12
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 2
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

155
33 1004N 1002E/1005N 1002E
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 14
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 10d 2
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 8d 2
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 2
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 2

34 1005N 1002E North Wall of Magazine

Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 20d 8
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 8d 1
Late machine-cut nail clinched, 8d 1
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1
Wood sample 1

35 Metal Detector (MD) 1

Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

36 MD 2
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 16d 1

37 MD 3
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

38 MD 4
Friction Primer fired 1

39 MD 5
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

40 MD 6
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 30d 1

41 MD 7
Drive Pin cast iron 1

42 MD 8
Late machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

43 MD 9
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

44 MD 10
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

156
45 MD 11
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 6d 1

46 MD 12
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

47 MD 13
Late machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

48 MD 14
Late machine-cut nail unaltered, 7d 1

49 MD 15
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

50 MD 16
Machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

51 MD 17
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

52 MD 18
Hand wrought nail proximal fragment 1

53 MD 19
Machine-cut nail fragment medial fragment 1

54 MD 20
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

55 MD 21
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

56 MD 22
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 20d 1

57 MD 23
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

58 MD 24
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 8d 1

59 MD 25
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

157
60 MD 26
Grape Shot, 18-pounder 2.46 in; 1.9 lb. 1

61 MD 27
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 10d 1

62 MD 28
Chain link iron 1

63 MD 29
Friction Primer fired 1
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

64 MD 30
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

65 MD 31
Bullet Maynard, .37-caliber 1

66 MD 32
Unidentifiable iron possible wedge 1

67 MD 33
Machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

68 MD 34
Late machine-cut nail clinched, proximal fragment 1

69 MD 35
Iron hook fragmentary 1

70 MD 36
Iron spike traverse rail fastener 1

71 MD 37
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

72 MD 40
Unidentifiable iron 1

73 MD 41
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

74 MD 42
Machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

158
75 MD 43
Machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

76 MD 44
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

77 MD 45
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

78 MD 46
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

79 MD 47
Machine-cut nail distal fragment 1

80 MD 48
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

81 MD 49
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

82 MD 50
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

83 MD 51
Machine-cut nail medial fragment, burned 1

84 MD 52
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

85 MD 53
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

86 MD 54
Hand wrought nail proximal fragment 1

87 MD 55
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

88 MD 56
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 8d 1

89 MD 57
Unidentifiable iron fragmentary 1

159
90 MD 58
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

91 MD 59
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

92 MD 60
Late machine-cut nail pulled, 20d 1

93 MD 61
Shotgun shell paper shell, centerfire, REM-UMC 12
(post 1912) 1

94 MD 62
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

95 MD 63
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

96 MD 64
Late machine-cut nail proximal fragment 1

97 MD 65
Hand wrought nail proximal fragment 1

98 MD 66
Friction Primer fired 1

99 MD 67
Chain link iron 1

100 MD 68
Machine-cut nail medial fragment 1

101 MD 38
Chert flake prehistoric 1

102 MD 39
Bullet lead, fired; indeterminate 1

103 1004N 1000E Feature 11 Wood Plank on Floor

Wood Sample with late machine-cut nail, 20d 1

104 1004N 1000E Feature 11 North Wall Top Plank

Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

160
105 Feature 5
Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

106 Feature 20
Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

107 Feature 11 Post at Southeast Corner of Magazine Entrance

Wood Sample Unable to Sample 1

108 Feature 11 North Wall

Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

109 Feature 11 North Wall

Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine (possibly Larch) 1

110 Feature 11 Floor

Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

111 Feature 22
Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

112 Feature 21
Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

113 Feature 8
Wood Sample indeterminate Southern Yellow Pine 1

114 Feature 10 North Half

Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

115 Feature 10 South Half

Wood Sample Southern Yellow Pine 1

Note: FS# denotes field specimen number for artifact cataloging purposes.

161