An Archeological Overview and Assessment 

of Fort Smith National Historic Site

National Park Service - Midwest Archeological Center
An Archeological Overview and Assessment 

of 

Fort Smith National Historic Site 

 

By 

Roger E. Coleman 

and 

Douglas D. Scott 

Midwest Archeological Center 

Technical Report No. 87 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Midwest Archeological Center 

Lincoln, Nebraska 

2003
This report has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A,

Section 7.18 (a) (1) and, upon recommendation of the Midwest Regional Office

and the Midwest Archeological Center, has been classified as

Available

Making the report available meets the criteria of 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 (a) (1).
 i 

Management Summary 

This overview and assessment revises the 1990 parkwide assessment of archeological resources at 

Fort Smith National Historic Site. An archeological assessment is a document that describes the extent of 

previous archeological investigations in a park and provides substantive data for park planning needs. The 

document serves as a source of information for production of cultural resource management proposals, 

land acquisition, and park development, interpretation, and maintenance activities. 
 ii 

Acknowledgments 

Revising the Fort Smith archeological assessment was made much easier by the quality and completeness of the work of Roger Coleman, who developed the first park assessment in 1990. This revision 

has been aided and guided by Superintendent Bill Black, Curator Emily Lovick, Chief Ranger Peggy Nelson, Park Ranger Tom Wing, and many of the Midwest Archeological Center staff including Center Manger Mark Lynott, Park Program Manager Tom Thiessen, and Archeological Information Management 

Team members Anne Vawser and Matt Dooley. William Hunt provided comments and suggestions based 

on his extensive knowledge of the park. Ann Early and Marian Kuneka of the Arkansas Archeological 

Survey provided immeasurable assistance answering questions and finding resources for me. The Midwest Archeological Center editing crew of Carrol Moxham and John Andresen did their usual quality 

work on the manuscript. 
 iii 

Contents 

Management Summary.................................................................................................................................. i

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ ii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. iv

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1-1

Chapter 2: Environmental Background .................................................................................................... 2-1

Location and Topographic Setting ....................................................................................................... 2-1

Climate ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1

Geology and Pedology ......................................................................................................................... 2-2

Chapter 3: Cultural Background............................................................................................................... 3-1

Prehistoric Occupation ......................................................................................................................... 3-1

Paleoindian Period: 12,000–10,000 BC ......................................................................................... 3-1

Dalton Period: 10,000–7000 BC .................................................................................................... 3-2

Archaic Period: 8000–500 BC ....................................................................................................... 3-2

Woodland Period: 500 BC–AD 1100............................................................................................ 3-2

Mississippi Period: AD 1100–1541 ............................................................................................... 3-2

Historic Occupation.............................................................................................................................. 3-3

Chapter 4: Significance of Archeological Resources ............................................................................... 4-1

Chapter 5: Previous Investigations ........................................................................................................... 5-1

Chapter 6: Archeological Resource Assessment and Potential by Fort Areas ......................................... 6-1

First Fort Smith, Belle Point, and Fort Garden..................................................................................... 6-1

River Frontage...................................................................................................................................... 6-1

Fort Cemetery and Sawmill.................................................................................................................. 6-2

Second Fort Smith and Federal Courthouse......................................................................................... 6-2

Commissary..................................................................................................................................... 6-2

Officers Quarters and Cistern.......................................................................................................... 6-2

Barracks/Courthouse/Jail ................................................................................................................ 6-3

Flagstaff and Lawn Area................................................................................................................. 6-3

Bastion 2 and Laundress Row......................................................................................................... 6-4

Bastion 3 and Gallows .................................................................................................................... 6-4

Bastion 4.......................................................................................................................................... 6-4

Bastion 5.......................................................................................................................................... 6-5

Maintenance Building and Parker Avenue...................................................................................... 6-5

Parking Lot...................................................................................................................................... 6-5

Railroad Rights-of-Way.................................................................................................................. 6-6

Chapter 7: Archeological Resource Recommendations ........................................................................... 7-1

Resource Protection.............................................................................................................................. 7-1

Interpretive Potential and Research Priorities ...................................................................................... 7-2

Fort Smith Parkwide Archeological Inventory Package ...................................................................... 7-3

Prehistoric Native American Occupation of Fort Smith ................................................................. 7-3

Belle Point First Fort Smith Reinvestigation and Analysis............................................................. 7-3

United State Forgecraft Corporation Parcel.................................................................................... 7-4

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 7-4

References Cited ....................................................................................................................................RC-1 
 iv 

Figures ......................................................................................................................................................F-1 

Appendix A: Archeological Resource Assessment by Land Tract ....................................................... A-1 

Tables 

1. Representative profile of Muskogee silt loam .................................................................................... 2-2 

2. Prehistoric cultural chronology of the Ozarks .................................................................................... 3-2 

3. Summary of archeological projects .................................................................................................... 5-2 

Figures 

1. U.S. Army forts of the early and middle 1800s in the western drainage of the Missippippi 

River valley ........................................................................................................................................F-1 

2. Three periods of Federal Government use superimposed on a modern orthophotograph ..................F-2 

3. Plan view of the second Fort Smith, ca. 1840, after Coleman 1990. Designations for bastions, gates, and curtain wall segments ..............................................................................................F-3 

4. Post-military historic features taken from Sanborn insurance maps superimposed on a modern orthophotograph ...........................................................................................................................F-4 

5. Belle Point features and “Coke Hill” squatter sites superimposed on a modern orthophotograph ...................................................................................................................................................F-5 

6. Locations of archeological excavations and test units superimposed on a modern orthophotograph .........................................................................................................................................F-6 

7. Geophysical survey areas and historic feature locations superimposed on a modern orthophotograph .........................................................................................................................................F-7 

8. Archeological sensitivity zones within Fort Smith National Historic Site superimposed on a 

modern orthophotograph ....................................................................................................................F-8 
 1-1 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

This archeological overview and assessment of Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas, revises 

the 1990 parkwide assessment of archeological resources developed by then Park Archeologist Roger 

Coleman. An archeological overview and assessment describes the extent of previous archeological investigations in a park and assesses the quality and quantity of the information as it applies to park management and planning needs. The document serves as a source of information for production of cultural resource management proposals, land acquisition, park development, interpretation, maintenance activities, 

and potential research issues that may be relevant to park interpretation or management issues by serving 

as baseline data for compliance with historic preservation law, policy, and guidance as set forth in Director’s Order 28. The loose-leaf format of this overview and assessment is designed, at the Superintendent’s 

request, to allow for updating by replacing outdated sections with revised pages without the expense of 

major revisions or reprinting the entire volume. 

Fort Smith National Historic Site commemorates the guardian role the military played on what was 

intended to be the permanent Indian Frontier in the first half of the nineteenth century (Figure 1). The site 

also commemorates the role the defunct army post played in bringing law and order to Indian Territory in 

the late nineteenth century. In 1871, at its height as a military post, Fort Smith contained 72 buildings; 

today, only two of these documented structures remain standing. As a result, Fort Smith National Historic 

Site may be realistically described as an archeological park where a large number of cultural resources are 

located below the ground surface. 

The site is officially designated 3SE79 by the Arkansas Archeological Survey. The archeological nature of most of the park’s resources presents unique problems for park development, maintenance, and 

interpretation. The effect of management actions on the archeological remains must be properly evaluated 

and taken into account in management decisions. Former Park Archeologist Roger Coleman developed 

the first parkwide assessment in 1990. His assessment has been a valuable management tool for cultural 

resource management at the park. However, over a decade has passed since Coleman’s assessment, and 

several additional archeological projects and some geophyiscal remote sensing work has been done in the 

park. This revised archeological overview and assessment for Fort Smith National Historic Site maintains 

the majority of Coleman’s work and adds information on the scope and extent of archeological investigations since 1990. In addition, this revision addresses and updates several management issues by: 

(1) defining the park archeological resource base; 

(2) predicting resource distribution; 

(3) determining resource significance; 

(4) offering recommendations to mitigate impacts to significant archeological resources; 

(5) suggesting and recommending archeological research priorities; and 

(6) evaluating each park area with respect to the likelihood that archeological resources are intact 

and/or have maintained integrity. 

Park records were consulted to assess archeological resources at Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

These consist of field notes and completion reports collected from 1958 to the present that are currently 

housed in the field-generated data file in the curatorial facility at Fort Smith National Historic Site. Other 

relevant information, mostly project-specific memoranda, are contained in the park administrative files 

under file codes H-22, cultural resource studies and research, and H-24, archeological and historical data 

recovery programs. Often, for early investigations or for small, routine monitoring projects, this is the 

only source of information available. A file search was also conducted at the Arkansas Archeological Survey offices in Fayetteville and of the Fort Smith files at the Midwest Archeological Center. 

This document assesses the significance of archeological resources in terms of major park themes 

and by the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. It also lists and briefly describes previous 

archeological investigations. Discussions are organized chronologically by project and correspond to the 
 1-2 

format for record storage used in the Fort Smith field-generated data file. Whenever possible, test units are 

shown on the maps accompanying this report. Unfortunately, locations of some test units were not accurately recorded in some early projects and are not displayed in the accompanying figures. 

Coleman (1990) originally synthesized the archeological work by tract corresponding to former land 

owner boundaries. The use-histories of these areas vary markedly and, as a result, each area is characterized by major differences in age of deposits, artifact density, stratification, and subsurface integrity. The 

variation among them demanded that each tract be considered separately in Coleman’s original work. 

Since 1990, the tract concept has fallen into disuse. The information contained in his original assessment 

is still valuable, but it has been reformatted and integrated into the body of this overview and assessment. 

Coleman’s original tract summaries are included here as Appendix A. 

Following the summaries of significant archeological remains, specific recommendations are made 

for archeological resource management of the various surviving fort elements. This document explores 

issues in cultural resource management at Fort Smith National Historic Site by considering potential impacts to the park resource base and recommending parkwide management options to protect significant 

cultural resources. Interpretive potentials of archeological remains and park research priorities are defined. To enhance park management efficiency and to implement park landscape development, a program 

of additional archeological work is recommended. Finally, recommendations are made to improve the 

quality of research in future cultural resource management projects. 
 2-1 

Chapter 2: Environmental Background 

Location and Topographic Setting 

Fort Smith National Historic Site is located at the confluence of the Poteau and Arkansas Rivers in 

the northwestern corner of Sebastian County, Arkansas (Figure 1). The park is a three-sided, 69.83-acre 

tract bounded on the west by the Poteau and Arkansas Rivers and on the remaining two sides by the city 

of Fort Smith. The Union Pacific and Missouri and North Arkansas Railroads cross the park and divide it 

into three geographic sections: the second fort site, a narrow median strip between the railroads, and the 

first fort site on Belle Point. 

The second fort site is the easternmost division of the park (Figure 2) and occurs between elevations 

444.4 and 438.0 ft above mean sea level (AMSL). The area is a relatively high, level surface broken only 

by streets and now partially filled road beds. In places, streets are cut over 4 ft deep. The Missouri and 

North Arkansas Railroad, on the west edge of the second fort site, cuts below grade some 10 ft and separates this area from the railroad median strip. 

The median strip is an elongated section of land created by divergence of the Union Pacific and Missouri and North Arkansas Railroads. The railroad median is aligned on a north-south axis, is over 1,000 ft 

long, and is only 60 ft wide at the widest point. The total area of the median strip is 0.79 acres. Cutting for 

construction of the at-grade railroad tracks has pedestalled the median strip. At the greatest depth, cuts are 

10 ft and 13 ft deep on the east and west sides of the median, respectively. Thus, the area displays much 

topographic variation. Maximum and minimum elevations are 441.5 ft AMSL and 426.3 ft AMSL. The 

highest point on the median occurs roughly in the center, at the site of the former Quartermaster Building. 

From this location, the median strip slopes gradually to the north and south. 

West of the Union Pacific Railroad lies Belle Point, a prominent bluff that overlooks the Poteau and 

Arkansas Rivers. At 442.3 ft AMSL, Belle Point juts some 59 ft above the river. A partially filled borrow 

pit between the riverbank and bluff edge creates an artificially steep slope. Elsewhere, the ground surface 

recedes gradually. To the north and south of Belle Point at 420 ft AMSL are remnants of a river terrace 

(T1), that are small areas within the park boundary. 

Climate 

According to the Koppen-Geiger system of climate classification, Arkansas is characterized by a 

warm temperate climate (Cfa) where precipitation is sufficient in all months and the mean temperature for 

the warmest month is over 71.6°F (Strahler and Strahler 1978:148). Meteorological data summarized over 

a 29-year period (USDA 1975:3) indicate that in Fort Smith, the highest average monthly temperature 

occurs in July (93.6°F). Winters in Fort Smith are relatively mild. January is the coldest month, with an 

average monthly temperature of 49.7°F. Monthly precipitation is greatest in May (4.74 inches), while 

January receives the least (2.38 inches). 

Vegetation 

Fort Smith occurs in the Oak–Hickory Region of the Eastern Deciduous Forest (Braun 1950). The 

typical climax community of the Arkansas Valley is the “Post Oak–Blackjack Oak–Winged Elm–Black 

Hickory Forest” (Foti 1974:25). On the most favorable sites, black oak, red oak and black hickory predominate. In rugged areas or when frequently burned, shortleaf pine is prevalent. With recurrent burning, 

forest is replaced by prairie. In Sebastian County, prairies are commonly small and widely dispersed. 

Dominant prairie grass species include big bluestem, Indian grass, switchgrass, and little bluestem. 

Today, ground cover within the park is primarily mown lawn composed of several grass species. 

These include Bermuda, Johnson, rye, crab, wild oat, wild wheat, nut, and sandbur grasses (Gaines 

1986:19). Fifty-one tree species are known to exist within the park boundary, a number of which are 

post-historic introductions (Gaines 1986:22). 
 2-2 

Trees and shrubs are found as border plantings along former streets in the second fort area and as 

open woodland at Belle Point. A narrow strip of forested land that has reverted to a quasi-natural condition borders the Arkansas River. 

Geology and Pedology 

Fort Smith is located on a soil member of the Leadvale–Taft Association: Muskogee Silt Loam 

(United States Department of Agriguculture 1975:5). Soils of the Muskogee series are formed in stratified 

loamy and clayey sediments on old stream terraces bordering the Arkansas River. Muskogee Silt Loam 

reflects a relatively well-developed solum with distinctive A and B horizons. A representative soil profile 

is described in detail in Table 1. Below these upper-level soils, a relatively unaltered parent material, or C 

horizon, is found. At Fort Smith National Historic Site, the C horizon is composed of fine sands that vary 

in thickness from 11 to 19 ft (Arkansas Laboratories n.d.:1). Sands are encountered at about 435 ft 

AMSL, where they exhibit a yellowish-red coloration caused by water percolating through the overlying 

B3 horizon. With increasing depth, sands assume a tan or blond color. Below the sand lies bedrock of 

Pennsylvanian age. 

Lithology of the Arkansas River Valley consists of intervening layers of shale and sandstone. The uppermost layer is the McAlester Formation, a stratum of shale and weathered shale that varies in thickness 

from 3 to 5 ft. Underlying this shale is the Hartshorne Formation, a hard, gray, micaceous sandstone that 

outcrops (at Belle Point) between 410 and 404 ft AMSL. Underlying these is the Atoka Formation, a red 

sandstone that outcrops north of the Arkansas River and Fort Smith National Historic Site (Arkansas 

Laboratories n.d.:l; Haley and Hendricks 1972:A24–A25). 

Table 1. Representative profile of Muskogee silt loam. 

Level Depth1 Color Texture Structure 

Ap 0–4 Dark Brown Silt Loam Granular 

A2 4–9 Brown Silt Loam Fine Blocky 

B1 9–17 Yellowish Brown Silt Loam Medium Blocky 

B21t 17–27 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loam Medium Blocky 

B22t 27–40 Light Brownish Silty Clay Medium Blocky 

B23t 40–55 Yellowish Red Silty Clay Medium Blocky 

B3 55–72 Reddish Yellow Silty Clay Medium Blocky 

1 inches
 3-1 

Chapter 3: Cultural Background 

Fort Smith National Historic Site is historically and archeologically complex. The park contains a 

multicomponent prehistoric site and two historic military forts (Figures 2–4). The second fort also served 

as a jail and courthouse for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Federal 

use of the site spannned some 79 years, a length of time that, for conceptual purposes, is commonly divided into three periods (e.g., Kyral 1980:4): First Fort (1817–1824), Second Fort (1838–1871), and Judicial (1878–1896). 

Prehistoric Occupation 

Research into the prehistory of the Arkansas River Valley began in the nineteenth century, although 

most studies concentrated on sites south of Little Rock (Thomas 1894; Moore 1908; Palmer 1917). Initial 

archeological investigation of the river valley upstream from Little Rock in the first quarter of the twentieth century focused on the Spiro site near Fort Smith and other sites in the Oklahoma area of the Arkansas 

River (Rogers et al. 1980). It was not until Moorehead’s (1931) survey of the entire length of the Arkansas 

River Valley that the variety and richness of the archeological record along the river was recognized. It 

was also during this period that commercial looting of mounds and cemeteries stimulated archeologists in 

Arkansas and Oklahoma to develop research programs to investigate these important sites. Work by Samuel Dellinger (Dickinson and Dellinger 1942) of the University of Arkansas Museum and Kenneth G. Orr 

of the University of Oklahoma (Orr 1946) resulted in the acquisition of data that have served as the basis 

for identifying regional prehistoric development in the Arkansas River Valley (Brown and Bell 1964; 

Hoffman et al. 1977; Hoffman 1977a, 1977b). 

Following a hiatus due to World War II, research in the Arkansas River Valley resumed. However, the 

work was largely salvage of sites and data as driven by the construction of large reservoirs by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Investigations in the Dardanelle and Ozark Reservoirs and archeological studies for the Arkansas River Navigational Project (Greengo 1957; Caldwell 1958; Hoffman 1977a; Myer 

1969) identified a wide range of archeological sites and helped to fill the gaps in the culture history of the 

Arkansas River Valley. Investigation of the Dardanelle and Ozark Reservoirs continued into the 1980s 

with additional surveys of public use areas, fee-owned lands, and segments of the shoreline of Lake Dardanelle. 

The most recent research in this area has been conducted in response to federal environmental and 

historic preservation legislation requiring cultural resource investigations before the commencement of 

activities that might damage or destroy archeological sites (e.g., Harcourt 1987; Hinkle 1988; Williams 

1986, 1987; Zahn 1985, 1986) 

The cultural sequence of the Arkansas River Valley spans a wide range of time, extending from the 

earliest known prehistoric time period, the Paleoindian period (ca. 12,000–10,500 BP), up to the time of 

Euroamerican settlement in the early nineteenth century (Table 2). The prehistory of the region is described in a number of reports (Bell 1984; Hoffman et al. 1977; Sabo et al. 1982; Trubowitz and Jeter 

1982). Most recently, the Arkansas Archeological Survey has completed a synthesis of the archeological 

literature for the entire region (Sabo et al. 1988). 

The cultural sequence can be divided into two broad occupational eras, prehistoric and historic. The 

prehistoric occupation, in turn, can be divided into five periods: Paleoindian, Dalton, Archaic, Woodland, 

and Mississippi (Table 2). 

Paleoindian Period: 12,000–10,000 BC 

Human occupation in Arkansas began with the Paleoindian period whose inhabitants gathered plant 

foods and hunted large game mammals such as mastodon, as well as smaller species. Although Paleoindian 

settlement patterns can only be hypothesized from the limited data for western Arkansas, sites from this 

period in other areas of North America reflect a settlement pattern composed of base camps and special 
 3-2 

purpose sites, such as animal-processing 

stations and tool manufacturing sites. Artifacts indicative of this period are a variety of 

distinctive lanceolate projectile point types. 

Dalton Period: 10,000–7000 BC 

The Dalton period is considered to be 

contemporary with either a late Paleoindian 

or Early Archaic occupation, in which 

there was a continuation of hunting and 

gathering strategies with an increased dependence on deer, following the extinction 

of large Pleistocene mammals. Nuts, such 

as walnut and hickory, may also have 

formed an important part of the Dalton 

period diet. The artifacts associated with 

the Dalton culture include specific types of 

projectile points and a variety of woodworking tools. Dalton period sites are found 

in both the hilly uplands and terraces or 

natural levees in the alluvial bottomlands. 

Archaic Period: 8000–500 BC 

In general, the Archaic period displays some trends toward a broader subsistence base with the addition of more floral resources, a more sedentary settlement pattern, and possibly an increase in population. 

This period coincides with the Hypsithermal, a time of relatively warmer and/or drier climatic conditions. 

Possibly as a result of this climatic regime, populations were more likely to occupy riverine environments 

and to exploit the mosaic of microenvironments that appear to have developed during this period. 

Woodland Period: 500 BC–AD 1100 

By the beginning of the Woodland period, climatic conditions had reached an approximation of the 

modern climate. The Woodland period is marked by the manufacture of ceramic vessels, construction of 

mounds, an unequal distribution of exotic raw materials and finished goods, and horticultural activity. In 

the Arkansas River Valley region, however, very little is known of Woodland period patterns of prehistoric 

life. However, during this period regionally distinct patterns of cultural activity began to develop, patterns 

that reached their florescence in the following period. Fourche Maline and Evans phase sites have been 

identified, as well as sites of the Gober complex and the Plum Bayou culture (Sabo et al. 1988). In the 

northern Ouachita Mountains, the Fourche Maline phase continued the adaptational pattern of the previous period with the addition of ceramics and changes in artifact type frequencies (Sabo et al. 1988). 

The Gober complex type site, Spinach Patch (3FR1), is located at the confluence of the Mulberry and 

Arkansas Rivers (Hoffman 1977b). One of the primary artifact types associated with this complex is the 

argillite spade. The Plum Bayou culture is located further downstream near Little Rock and is best illustrated by the mounds at Toltec. The Evans phase is defined at the Spiro and Harlan sites, upstream from 

the project area. The Evans phase is based on stylistic changes in ceramic decoration (Sabo et al. 1988). 

Mississippi Period: AD 1100–1541 

The Mississippi period represents several major changes in prehistoric lifeways. Among the many 

technological innovations were the introduction of small projectile points, indicative of the use of the bow, 

and the use of new manufacturing techniques in ceramics. There was also a change in subsistence with the 

shift from incipient horticulture to an economy focused on tropical cultigen (maize) agriculture. ConseTable 2. Prehistoric cultural chronology of the Ozarks. 

Period Phase Date Range, BP 

Paleoindian Paleoindian 12,000–10,500 

Transitional Dalton 10,500–9500 

Archaic Early Archaic 9500–8000 

 Middle Archaic 8000–5000 

 Late Archaic 5000–2500 

Woodland Early Woodland 2500–1800 

 Middle Woodland 1800–1350 

 Late Woodland 1350–1100 

Mississippi Caddo 1100–450 

Neosho 450–300 
 3-3 

quently, a corresponding change occurred in the settlement pattern with a shift from small villages to a 

dispersed pattern of small farmsteads and hamlets around a central ceremonial center. 

In the area of Fort Smith, the Arkansas Valley Caddoan tradition is encompassed by three sequential 

phases: Harlan, Spiro, and Fort Coffee. The Harlan phase is marked by the appearance of regional mortuary mound centers located in the alluvial valleys of the major rivers, around which are sedentary habitation sites (Sabo et al. 1988:108). The Spiro phase marks the florescence of the Mississippi period. During 

this phase, elaborate iconography and evidence of a hierarchical society are quite marked. The Fort Coffee 

phase is the terminal Mississippian phase. Around AD 1400, the elaborate ceremonial centers of the preceding phases were no longer used for mortuary practices. In addition, changes in artifact assemblages 

and suggestions of change in residential patterns indicate other alterations in the cultural adaptations of 

this period (Sabo et al. 1988:113). 

During the 1958–1963 archeological investigations at the site of the first Fort Smith, evidence of a 

substantial prehistoric occupation was brought to light. Beyond a brief description and interpretation of 

recovered remains (Dollar 1966), the prehistoric occupation of the Fort Smith site has never been investigated or formally recorded. The underlying prehistoric site is not listed in the files of the Arkansas Archeological Survey. 

Collections generated from this site reflect a probable extensive multicomponent occupation—at 

least within the circumscribed area of the first fort. The prehistoric occupations indicated by diagnostic 

artifacts in the park collection are Early to Late Archaic and Woodland to Mississippian. 

Historic Occupation 

The historic era begins with the entry of the first Europeans into Arkansas. During the winter of 

1541–1542, members of the De Soto expedition entered Arkansas. These first Europeans brought with 

them distinctive artifacts (i.e., glass beads and bells) and possibly diseases that adversely affected the aboriginal population. There followed a period of exploration and exploitation that brought traders and trappers, primarily French, into Arkansas. 

It was not until after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 that Euroamericans began exploring and settling 

this area. The early settlers were predominately “hunter–herders” (Sabo et al. 1988), who divided their 

time between minimal agricultural activities, tending livestock, and hunting the abundant wildlife. 

Following the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, federal officials promoted the removal of southeastern 

Indians to a “permanent Indian frontier” in the new western possession. In 1809, Osage Indians forfeited 

their traditional hunting territory for resettlement of their eastern neighbors. In a few years, thousands of 

displaced Cherokees occupied land on the White and Arkansas Rivers. Friction developed along the new 

Cherokee-Osage boundary, and clashes between the two nations occurred frequently. To deter further 

hostilities, the United States Government established Fort Smith on the disputed boundary. 

The site of the new fort was Belle Point, a prominent bluff overlooking the Poteau and Arkansas Rivers. On December 25, 1817, Major William Bradford and 64 men of the Rifle Regiment, Company A, 

landed at Belle Point. In eight days, temporary shelters had been hastily erected and work initiated on a 

permanent fortification. Construction progressed slowly. Upon completion, the fort was a simple log 

stockade with four sides of 132 ft each and two blockhouses at opposite angles. Barracks, storehouses, 

shops, a magazine, and a hospital were located within the walls. 

In February 1822, Colonel Matthew Arbuckle and five companies of Seventh United States Infantry 

garrisoned the post. Quarters for the additional troops were erected outside the original fort. Increased 

hostilities between the Osage and Cherokee prompted the additional troop strength. The location of the 

post on the eastern border of the newly redefined Indian Territory, however, was too far removed from the 

arena of hostilities. Consequently, the military departed from Fort Smith in 1824 and established Fort 

Gibson some 60 miles up the Arkansas River (Bearss 1963; Bearss and Gibson 1979:8–42). 
 3-4 

Fort Smith was not forgotten. According to the terms of the treaty of 1825, the Choctaw Indians 

were to settle on lands set aside in Indian Territory, and Fort Smith was to serve as the agency for the 

western Choctaw. In February 1827, Choctaw agent William McClellan found the post buildings in ruinous condition. Four years passed, however, before the government could repair the structures. On April 

26, 1831, Lieutenant Gabriel Rains and a detail of Seventh United States Infantry arrived at the post. Over 

the next few months, Rains labored to repair the public buildings. By August, Choctaw Indians began 

trickling into the area (Haskett 1966:213–228). 

Just east of Fort Smith and adjacent to the Choctaw boundary line, a sizeable civilian community had 

emerged on lands owned by John Rogers. Six taverns dominated the community, the closest only a “few 

paces” from the Choctaw line. Enterprising merchants supplied the emigrating Choctaws with cheap 

whiskey. Many of the displaced tribesmen settled nearby and became a source of sustained exploitation. 

Lieutenant Rains positioned his men on the line to keep peddlers and Choctaws separated. The situation 

worsened so that in March 1833, Captain John Stuart and a company of Seventh Infantry garrisoned the 

post. Stuart’s efforts to control the contraband trade, known as the “Arkansas whiskey war,” met with little success. The merchants operated under Stuart’s very nose. Whiskey smugglers could slip across the 

Indian Territory line almost at will. As a result, Stuart abandoned Fort Smith in June 1834 and established 

Fort Coffee at a more suitable location in Indian Territory (Haskett 1966:213–218; Bearss 1968:143–172). 

As additional tribes were relocated in Indian Territory, fearful residents of the new State of Arkansas 

requested that a permanent military garrison be placed on their western border. Fort Smithites launched a 

successful campaign to regarrison Fort Smith. In 1838, Congress authorized construction of a new fort 

and purchased from John Rogers a 296-acre reservation adjacent to the old fort on Belle Point. 

In the spring of 1839, construction of the new fort began. The design called for a pentagonal-shaped 

fort of stone with a bastion at each angle and enclosing seven acres. Inside the wall, several buildings 

were to be situated around a parade ground including two enlisted mens barracks, two officer’s quarters, 

the commandant’s quarters, a hospital, the quartermaster store, and other buildings. This ambitious plan, 

however, would never be fully realized. 

Because of events of the next six years, the army completed Fort Smith along much different lines. It 

had become apparent to the military that armed warriors would not descend on Arkansas from Indian Territory. Yet, hostilities threatened another frontier, and war with Mexico loomed on the horizon. Fort Smith 

was ideally situated to equip military units marching to the Rio Grande and to supply frontier posts in Indian Territory. Therefore, in 1845, the half-finished post was formally designated as a supply depot. Without a need for defensive capabilities, portions of the fort curtain wall were never raised to the intended 

height of 12 ft. To accommodate the vastly increased supply load, foundations of the incomplete Commandant’s Quarters and one of the enlisted mens barracks (Barracks B) were dismantled and used to convert two bastions into commissary and quartermaster storehouses. A third bastion was transformed into a 

magazine. Upon completion, only two officers quarters and one enlisted mens barracks fronted the parade 

ground. Several other structures including maintenance buildings, stables, laundress quarters, hospital, 

storehouse, and bakehouse were located beyond the fort walls. 

Fort Smith was formally garrisoned in May 1846 and functioned as a supply depot throughout its 

25-year-long occupation by the military. In the pre-Civil War years, national interests focused on westward expansion. New posts were established in Indian Territory, including Fort Towson and Fort Washita, 

which were supplied by the depot at Fort Smith. 

On April 23, 1861, Arkansas State Troops occupied Fort Smith. Until September 1, 1863, when Federal soldiers regarrisoned the post, Fort Smith served the Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi West 

as a major supply base and defensive bastion protecting Southern interests in Arkansas and Indian Territory. During the post-war years, the army again focused efforts on renewed westward expansion. The line 

of frontier posts had moved so far to the west, however, that supply lines from Fort Smith were stretched 

to capacity. The days of Fort Smith as a supply depot were numbered. 
 3-5 

Other problems plagued the post and eventually caused its abandonment. Housing for the troops had 

always been in short supply and on November 24, 1865, Officers Quarters A burned to the ground. Five 

years later on December 20, 1870, Officers Quarters B suffered the same fate. To the military, the role of 

Fort Smith as a supply depot was no longer tenable. On July 19, 1871, the Sixth Infantry marched out of 

the post, the last unit to garrison Fort Smith. Once again, however, the winds of fortune shifted and prolonged the life of the fort. 

In 1872, the United States District Court of the Western District of Arkansas occupied Fort Smith. 

A valuation of property indicated that 27 buildings stood on the former military reserve. Nearly all of 

these were relegated to civilian or federal use. 

The former enlisted mens barracks became the Federal Courthouse and also housed attendant offices. 

A permanent gallows was constructed along the inward side of Bastion 3, or the old Magazine, and the 

Federal Courthouse basement served as a jail. When overcrowding in this makeshift prison, known as 

“hell-on-the-border,” received adverse public attention, a modern prison wing was added to the south end 

of the courthouse. This structure was completed in February 1888. 

The jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Western District of Arkansas was a vast 

area encompassing western Arkansas and the entire Indian Territory of present-day Oklahoma. Here, 

tribal courts had no jurisdiction over non-Indian settlers. This legal detail gave an advantage to the most 

desperate breed of outlaw, who found refuge beyond the pale of justice and could murder and steal with 

little fear of retribution. To bring offenders to justice, a federal marshal and a number of deputies, never 

more than 200 strong, combed this wilderness. When fugitives were apprehended, they were taken to Fort 

Smith for trial. 

Fort Smith is best known for Federal Judge Isaac C. Parker, whom President Ulysses S. Grant appointed to the bench in 1875. During Parker’s 21 years presiding, over 13,000 cases came to trial and 79 

offenders were hanged for their crimes. Parker proved to be a tireless defender of Indian rights and 

through his efforts brought law and order to Indian Territory. As the non-Indian population increased, 

new courts emerged in Indian Territory, gradually reducing Parker’s authority. On March 1, 1895, Congress enacted legislation that limited Parker’s jurisdiction to several counties in western Arkansas. This 

legislation became effective on September 1, 1896. 

Beginning during the time of the Federal Courthouse and continuing into the late nineteenth and 

early twentieth centuries, a series of events occurred that changed the appearance of the historic fort (Figure 4). By the act of February 17, 1883, Congress granted rights-of-way through the former military reservation to the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad. Sometime between May 1886 and February 1889, 

the railroad company removed a portion of the garrison wall to accommodate trackage, effectively separating the Quartermaster Building from the rest of the fort. The Missouri Pacific Railroad soon paralleled 

the St. Louis and San Francisco and also cut through the reservation. 

A May 29, 1896, bill called for lands inside the garrison to be granted to the city of Fort Smith. Although use of the Federal Jail continued as late as 1914, the government transferred the remainder of the 

military reserve to the city. On February 26, 1897, Congress enacted legislation to extend Parker and 

Rogers Avenues, and Third and Second Streets through this property. The Old Fort Reserve Addition was 

surveyed in June and sold to private concerns. The stone wall of the fort was dismantled between July 1, 

1897, and July 1, 1898, after which time streets were extended. By 1900, several large multi-storied brick 

buildings had been built or were under construction, and the Old Fort Reserve Addition emerged as the 

light industrial and warehouse district of Fort Smith. The Courtroom/Jail complex became a civic center 

and housed a variety of city offices and community organizations. Sometime around the turn of the century, Belle Point was densely populated and acquired the name “Coke Hill.” Coke Hill was a squatter settlement and the individual plots of lands were randomly oriented, ignoring the city of Fort Smith’s platted 

lot system (Figure 5). 

Public interest in the old fort increased during the early twentieth century. In 1910, the Old Fort Museum Association occupied the Commissary and used the building as a museum. In 1957, Public Histori-
 3-6 

cal Restorations Incorporated restored the courthouse to its original condition. Local businessmen donated 

funds to purchase private interests on Coke Hill and in 1958 sponsored the first archeological excavation 

at the site. In 1961, the city of Fort Smith donated 11 acres of land containing the site of the first fort, the 

Courtroom/Jail complex, and the Commissary Building to the National Park Service. Since the creation 

of Fort Smith National Historic Site, land holdings of up to 75 acres have been authorized and several 

intrusive streets and post-historic buildings have been removed (Paige 1981:46–66). 
 4-1 

Chapter 4: Significance of Archeological Resources 

Because Fort Smith National Historic Site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, contributing cultural resources are generally regarded as significant. Contributing resources are those falling 

within the historic period of the park, from 1817 to 1896, and that relate to the park interpretive themes 

(Fort Smith National Historic Site Revised Park Themes, November 1999, <www.nps.gov/fosm/park/foia/ 

interpthemes.htm>). The resource management plan (National Park Service 1988) defines known significant resources at Fort Smith National Historic Site as the historic grounds and remaining archeological 

and structural features including the first fort foundation, second fort building foundations, Commissary, 

Courthouse/Jail complex, Cistern, reconstructed Gallows, reconstructed Flagstaff, and a partially reconstructed second fort bastion and curtain wall. This list is expanded here to include all archeological structures and features, known and undiscovered, from the park historic period. All undisturbed historic ground 

levels and their contents are significant for the information they contain. Isolated artifacts in disturbed 

contexts, however, are considered significant only when they are diagnostic of the historic period and occupation (e.g., military accouterments, coins, weapons). Many archeological resources at Fort Smith National Historic Site are unrelated to the park theme, but in broader regional contexts, are nonetheless significant. Federal legislation and National Park Service policies provide general guidelines for assessing 

resource significance. 

The concept of archeological significance varies considerably in definition and application. Common 

criteria for establishing significance include rarity, age, public appreciation, and integrity. It is incumbent 

upon archeologists to specify the frame of reference used in making determinations of significance 

(McGimsey and Davis 1977:31). When legal compliance is involved, the National Historic Preservation 

Act specifies that the criteria used for evaluating significance are those of the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.4, a–d). To be significant, a site or resource must display: 

(a) an association with events that have made a significant contribution to history; 

(b) an association with a person significant to history; 

(c) the reflection of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, master, or 

high artistic values; or 

(d) the ability to yield information important in prehistory or history. 

Criterion d is most applicable for evaluating archeological remains. Nearly all resources, however, 

can yield important information and this general guideline offers no direction for establishing relative significance. Therefore, specific criteria for assessing resource significance are developed at the state level in 

historic preservation plans. In Arkansas, significance is defined in A State Plan for the Conservation of 

Archeological Resources in Arkansas (Raab et al. 1982). Evaluations of significance are based on the 

potential of a specific site or resource to address salient research questions. 

For prehistoric cultural resources, Fort Smith National Historic Site is included in the Middle Arkansas River Valley study unit. The Arkansas River Valley is the least known archeological region in Arkansas (Davis 1982, 1994). In fact, so little is known of this area that no attempt was made to formulate research questions in the original State Plan or its revision. Until significance criteria are established for the 

Arkansas River Valley, all prehistoric remains should be considered significant. Undisturbed sites and deposits and even artifact assemblages in disturbed contexts can yield important information on this poorly 

understood area of the state. 

For historic cultural resources, significance criteria in the State Plan may also be consulted (Stewart-Abernathy and Watkins 1982:OP51–54). This inclusive plan establishes three major study units: the 

Contact period (1500–1840), the European period (1500–1825,) and the Anglo-American period (1780–

2000). For the Contact period, the State Plan recognizes Indian sites with European associations, even in 

disturbed contexts, as significant and worthy of protection. Because of their rarity, Spanish and French 

colonial sites of the European period are considered significant regardless of resource integrity. Anglo-American sites, abundantly represented, are considered potentially significant when they display intact structures, features, or undisturbed subsurface deposits. Significance criteria will undoubtedly change, 

however, as knowledge progresses with an increase in the statewide archeological database. 
 4-2 
 5-1 

Chapter 5: Previous Investigations 

This chapter describes and evaluates previous archeological work at Fort Smith National Historic 

Site by identifying principal investigators, project numbers, dates, and locations; by summarizing the 

methods used and records produced; and by assessing the contributions and reliability of research. 

Archeological investigation at Fort Smith National Historic Site was initiated in 1958 at the site of 

the first Fort Smith (Moore 1963). In 1963, these operations were expanded into a full-scale archeological 

excavation to document surviving structural remains (Dollar 1966). Exploration elsewhere in the park, 

however, has been sporadic and less intensive than at Belle Point. Beyond excavations to document the 

second fort defensive works, most of this later activity consists almost entirely of small-scale test excavations and monitoring efforts for archeological clearance projects. Although geographic coverage within 

the park has been sporadic and large areas remain to be systematically sampled, nearly all land tracts 

within the park have been tested (Figure 6; Appendix A). These projects provide important data for 

evaluating the park archeological resource base. Thirty-three projects conducted at Fort Smith National 

Historic Site are described in this chapter in chronological order as listed in Table 3. 

Many of the following discussions refer to the archeological work conducted on various portions of 

the second fort’s walls and bastions. For simplicity, the park has numbered the wall segments and bastions 

beginning with the north bastion and sequentially as one moves around the fort to the west. For clarity, 

Figure 3 depicts the wall and bastion numbers. All references to work on or near the walls and bastions 

follow this sequence. 

The fort’s soil depositional sequence is also referrred to throughout the following discussions of the 

archeological investigations. For general discussion purposes the fort’s archeological stratigraphy is divided into vertical zones or layers. In Chapter 7 archeological sensitivity zones are also defined. The 

sensitivity zones are horizontal in nature and should not be confused with the vertical archeological and 

soil stratigraphic zones discussed in Chapter 5. 
5-2 

Table 3. Summary of archeological projects. Year Principal Investigator Project Number Investigation Method Report Author, Date, Title Summary of Results 1959 Dollar 1A Testing Dollar, Clyde D., 1960, Interim Report, Old Fort 

Smith Project. 

Locating the first Fort Smith: blockhouse, and two interior w

1963 Moore and 

Dollar 

1B Excavation Moore, Jackson W., 1963, The Archeology of Fort 

Smith 1; Dollar, Clyde D., 1966, The First Fort Smith Report. On file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Delineating first Fort Smith wconstruction details. 

1963 Dollar 1B Monitoring Dollar, Clyde D. 1966 The First Fort Smith Report. Second Fort Smith Wall Sectio

(probably cut away). 

1966 Dollar 2 Research Notes First Fort Smith construction 

analysis of 1A and 1B. 

1978 Anderson 3 Testing Anderson, Bruce, 1979, Archeological Test Excavations for Portions of the Walls of the 2nd Fort, Fort 

Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Second Fort Smith Wall Sectio

1980 Anderson 4 Testing Anderson, Bruce, 1981, Continuing Archeological 

Test Excavations for Portions of the Walls of the 2nd Fort, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas. 

Testing of Wall Section 10 at BBastion 3 or associated wall s

1981 Traylor 5 Testing Traylor, Diane, 1981, Test Excavations for Bastion and 

Wall Foundations of the Second Fort at Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Testing Bastion 2 and Wall SeBastion 4 and 5 and Wall Secttion 3. 

1982 Dollar 6 Testing Dollar, Clyde D. 1983, Archeological Investigation 

and Historical Documentation in the Vicinity of the Old Commissary Building, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, 

Testing of north, east, and souFound several external featureporches. Done in conjunction tures report. 

1983 Dollar 7 Monitoring Coleman, Roger E., 1984, Results of Archeological 

Monitoring for Demolition of the Meek Bottling Plant, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Monitoring of demolition of M

1983 Coleman 8 Excavation Coleman, Roger E., 1983, Excavation of the Flagpole 

Base at the Second Fort, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Documentation of second fort construction. 

1984 Coleman 9 Monitoring Notes Located a well east of the visi

replacement 

1984 Coleman 10 Testing and 

Monitoring 

Coleman, Roger E. 1984, Archeological Monitoring at the Old Commissary Building, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Discovered wall section 1 and and 10 for capping. 
5-3 

Year Principal Investigator Project Number Investigation Method Report Author, Date, Title Summary of Results 1985 Coleman 11 Testing and 

Monitoring 

Coleman, Roger E. 1986, Archeological Testing and Monitoring for Parking Lot Construction, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Delineated and dated fill south 

1986 Coleman 12 Monitoring Coleman, Roger E.1987, Archeological Monitoring for 

Burial of Overhead Telephone Lines and Identification of an Historic Midden, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Identified historic ground leveing telephone line work. 

1987 13 Monitoring Notes Monitored railroad excavation 

disturbed and sterile soils. 

1987-88 Coleman 14 Testing and 

Monitoring 

Coleman, Roger E. 1989, History and Appearance of the Second Fort Cistern, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas. 

Testing to find design details oflow drain. 

1985 Coleman 15A Testing Notes Additional examination of Ba

details for capping work. 

1985 Coleman 15B Testing Notes Additional examination of Ba

details for capping work. 

1986 Coleman 15C Testing Notes Located and delineated Bastio

Sections 1, 2, and 3 and constcapping work. 

1985-88 Coleman 16 Testing, Mitigation, and 

Monitoring 

Coleman, Roger E., 1989, Archeological Investigation for Construction of a Pedestrian Trail and Identification of Laundress Row, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas. 

Identified 67 features and buriroad median strip. 

1988 Coleman 17 Monitoring Coleman, Roger E., August 24, 1988, memorandum. Identified buried ground level 1989 Parrish 18 Testing and 

Monitoring 

Parrish, Jody S., 1989, Archeological Testing and Monitoring for Storm Drain Construction, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Identified fill with depth from 

1989 Parrish 19 Monitoring Notes Recorded a portion of the stra

lawn during removal of a non-

1989 Parrish 20 Monitoring Parrish, Jody S., July 10, 1989, memorandum. Monitored placement of fiber 

tracks. Idenitifed railroad wei

1989 Parrish 21 Monitoring Parrish, Jody S., September 22, 1989, memorandum. Monitored placement of electr1990 Parrish 22 Monitoring Parrish, Jody S., 1990, Video Monitor Installation to 

Commissary. 

Monitored placement of cable monitor, artifact sample collec
5-4 

Year Principal Investigator Project Number Investigation Method Report Author, Date, Title Summary of Results 1990 Parrish 23 Recording Notes Recorded location of circular 

Point. 

1992 Unknown 24 Monitoring Notes Monitored telephone line repl

Found only previously disturb

1993 Barnes 25 Testing Barnes, James E., 1993, An Archeological Survey of 

a Proposed Pedestrian Trail, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Shovel testing and inventory ffoot of deposits on Belle Poin

1994 Phelps 26 Recording NA Recording of concrete post m ? Hayes and 

Lovick 

27 Collecting NA A tornado blew down hundred

The tree throws and root balls facts collected. 

1997–98 Hunt 28 Mitigation Scott, Douglas D. and William J. Hunt, Jr,. 2000, 

Archeological Investigations Conducted in Support of the Fort Smith Barracks/Courthouse/Jail Rehabilitation. 

Mitigation by excavation of thbarracks; trenching and shoveCourthouse/Jail in support of tures in the basement of the baincluding fireplace hearths an

1999 Hunt 29 Testing and 

Monitoring 

Hunt, William J., Jr., 1999, Trip Report Investigation of Archeological Discovery, Commissary Building, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Recorded features, probably pthe Commissary during fire sution. Test and recorded an unkin the Commissary. 

1999 Hunt 30 Monitoring Hunt, William J., Jr., 1999, Trip Report: Archeological 

Monitoring, Fort Smith National Historic Site (FOSM), Sebastian County, Arkansas. 

Monitoring of trenching in assof security system. Several Jurecorded. Also recorded parts foundation to a possible ordnaurban-era features were also r

1999 Nickel and 

Hunt 

31 Geophysical 

Remote Sensing 

Nickel, Robert K. and William J. Hunt, Jr., 2002, Geophysical Surveys of the Perimeter Fortification System at the Site of the Second Fort Smith. 

Geophyiscal work on the wallanomalies associated with suvwalls and bastions. Also noted with building foundations neaSection 9, and outside of Wall 

2000 Lovick 32 Monitoring NA Monitoring of work on the pa

viously disturbed soils. 

2000 Hunt 33 Testing and 

Monitoring 

Hunt, William J., Jr., 2000, Planning and Testing Tree Planting Locations, Fort Smith National Historic Site (FOSM). 

Monitored and tested tree planthe fort. No historic features w
 5-5 

Project Number 1A 

Dollar, Clyde D., 1960. Interim Report, Old Fort Smith Project. On file, Fort Smith National Historic 

Site, File Number IV-56. 

Dates: December 8, 1958 – February 1, 1959 

Location: Tract 01-116 

Principal Investigator: Clyde D. Dollar 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation 

Discussion: Clyde Dollar conducted a test excavation at Belle Point to identify remains of the first 

Fort Smith. To locate the first fort site, Dollar reversed the steps taken by the survey party of 1852, which 

had used the east corner of the fort to establish the initial point of the Choctaw Boundary. During a search 

for the stockade walls, 2-ft-wide test trenches were hand excavated. Ultimately, Dollar located and identified three exterior and two interior fort walls and minimally traced the foundation of the north blockhouse. Trenches were plotted for Dollar by city engineers. Regarding Dollar’s activities, National Park 

Service Archeologist Jackson W. Moore (1963:3) noted that although “he lacked formal archeological 

training, had no engineering equipment, and used disinterested prisoners whose sentences were usually up 

in a few days ... Lt. Dollar’s performance was creditable indeed.” Dollar’s discovery of the first Fort 

Smith was instrumental in the establishment of Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Project Number 1B 

Moore, Jackson W., 1963. The Archeology of Fort Smith 1. National Park Service, Southeast Regional 

Office, Richmond, Virginia. 

Dollar, Clyde D., 1966. The First Fort Smith Report. On file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Dates: August 22, 1962 – May 1, 1963 

Location: Tract 01-116 

Principal Investigator: Jackson W. Moore 

Type of Investigation: Excavation

Discussion: Jackson W. Moore, National Park Service Archeologist, conducted additional investigations at the site of the first Fort Smith to reveal construction details and to determine the appearance of 

fort walls and cabins. Clyde Dollar was hired by the National Park Service to serve as a field assistant for 

the project. Excavators began at the east corner of the fort, identified during the first investigation, and 

delineated all surviving fort walls by trenching. Interiors of room blocks and of the south bastion were 

completely excavated. These activities confirmed the general configuration and dimensions of the fort and 

resulted in the acquisition of artifacts to aid in determining room functions. Excavators identified the post 

Well, situated 100 ft from the northeast corner of the stockade. 

Archeologists gained some construction detail concerning exterior and interior walls, the south 

blockhouse, and the post magazine. Outer stockade walls formed the backs of cabins. Moore identified 

the sally port and the locations and dimensions of many individual room units, except for the northwest 

row of quarters where conflicting evidence resulted in three possible room configurations. Physical evidence indicated that, unlike original plans, the fort had no glacis, no central flagstaff, and no vacant corners. Although artifacts were unprocessed at the time Moore prepared his report, he was able to present a 

brief discussion of recovered objects. 

From March 2, 1964, to June 1966, the National Park Service contracted Clyde D. Dollar to conduct 

historical research, to process artifacts, and to prepare a narrative report describing the results of investigations at Belle Point. According to Dollar (1966:I-1), the purpose of the report was to “arrive at conclusions regarding the physical history of the fort.” Dollar examined the vertical and horizontal distribution 

of artifacts from the first Fort Smith. Perhaps because of post-historic disturbances or the method of data 
 5-6 

retrieval used, meaningful stratigraphic patterning was not apparent to Dollar. The horizontal position of 

artifacts, however, did shed some light on the construction and use-history of the post. Dollar concluded 

that the south blockhouse and rooms on the northeast and southeast walls of the stockade had housed the 

troops. These areas contained the greatest frequency of window pane fragments—adequate lighting and 

ventilation being requisite for healthy living conditions. Conversely, the northwest and southwest walls of 

the fort displayed fewer buttons, personal objects, and window pane fragments and probably contained 

shops and storerooms. Most buildings within the fort, at least at one point in time, seem to have supported 

slate roofs, and an abundance of brick from the vicinity indicates that it may have been used for construction, perhaps in chimney shafts (Dollar 1966:V28–36). 

The methodology guiding the Belle Point excavations of 1958 to 1963 was typical of the archeology 

of that era. The excavations employed arbitrary levels, but the excavators maintained only rudimentary 

vertical control, measured by trowel and shovel depths below surface. Archeologists only selectively collected artifacts. The sample was processed and culled, and only diagnostic artifacts thought to be historic 

were retained for study. Entire artifact categories, including bone, brick, and lithic debris were summarily 

omitted from the analysis and discarded. Objects culled from the sample, estimated to have been 96 percent of the original field collection, were reburied in trash barrels somewhere on Belle Point (Dollar 

1966:7). Dollar notes that lists of all artifacts were prepared before culling. Comprehensive lists or tables, 

however, were not included in his report and they have not been located since. It is likely that natural stratigraphic levels existed and could be used in any future excavations that may be undertaken on this site. 

From 1963 to 1983, the collection was neglected, resulting in the irretrievable loss of nearly all associated provenience information as well as the disappearance of several diagnostic artifacts. In 1983, the 

National Park Service accessioned the Belle Point collection to then-current museum collection standards. 

The field records and Dollar’s (1966) completion report document the Belle Point excavation. The 

report should be used cautiously by researchers. Test units are not numbered on excavation plans and the 

specific site of the post Well was never recorded. A July 1, 1966, review of the document by park historian James N. Haskett (File D2621) makes several relevant criticisms that are reproduced here: “Dollar 

did not utilize available research findings in his study ... many of his archeological findings ... would 

thereby have been much more meaningful. Mr. Dollar occasionally makes assumptions which ... are inaccurate.” Hasket recommended that use of Dollar’s report be limited to the park staff use. 

Project Number 2 

Dollar, Clyde D., unpublished field notes and photographs, Fort Smith File Number IV-55 and Project 

Number 2 in the field-generated data file. 

Date: October 15, 1963 

Location: Tract 01-125 

Principal Investigator: Clyde D. Dollar 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: At the time of this investigation, Tract 01-125, a vacant lot, was owned by the RC Cola 

Bottling Plant. Then housed in the building at the corner of Parker Avenue and Third Street (the present 

park maintenance facility), the bottling company intended to develop the adjacent lot (Tract 01-125) as a 

parking area. On October 15, 1963, cutting for parking lot construction disturbed structural debris in the 

vicinity of the second fort wall. The company manager notified Superintendent Tom Norris of the discovery, and Norris arranged for Clyde Dollar to inspect the area. 

Dollar visited the site and observed that a linear rubble mound varying from 1 to 15 ft wide and from 

2 to 3 ft high, ran diagonally across Tract 01-125. Apparently, this was the remains of Wall Section 6 and 

Bastion 4. Notes and photographs document quantities of construction stone in the area, but no mention 

of an in situ foundation was made. Dollar’s field notes were entered by tape recorder. The tape, on file at 

Fort Smith National Historic Site, has not been transcribed. There are no field maps for this project on file. 
 5-7 

Project Number 3 

Anderson, Bruce, 1979. Archeological Test Excavations for Portions of the Walls of the Second Fort, Fort 

Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, 

Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Dates: September 1–2, 1978 

Location: Tract 01-125 

Principal Investigator: Bruce Anderson 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation 

Discussion: Bruce Anderson, a National Park Service Archeologist from the Southwest Regional 

Office, conducted a two-day test excavation on Tract 01-125 to locate structural remains of Bastion 4 and 

adjoining Wall Sections 6 and 7. Anderson monitored the excavation of two 2-ft-wide backhoe trenches, 

placed to intersect the hypothesized location of structural remains. This work revealed four archeological 

features: Feature 1, believed by Anderson to be the remains of Wall Section 6; Feature 2, a stone concentration thought to be a prepared house floor; and Features 3 and 4, possible disturbed wall foundations. 

Anderson’s work constitutes the first problem-oriented investigation on Tract 01-125 and the entire 

second fort site, yet, his work was limited in scope. It was clear at that time that additional work would be 

needed to verify his tentative findings. Anderson’s activities, however, positively identified surviving 

structural remains, and the questions raised by his work prompted additional investigations at the site. 

Project Number 4 

Anderson, Bruce, 1981. Continuing Archeological Test Excavations for Portions of the Walls of the Second Fort, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, 

Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Dates: March 19–21, 1980 

Location: Tracts 01-104, 01-105, 01-111, 01-138 

Principal Investigator: Bruce Anderson 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation 

Discussion: Bruce Anderson conducted additional investigations at Fort Smith National Historic Site 

to locate remnants of the second fort defensive works. Anderson devoted three days to this project and 

concentrated his efforts in the vicinity of Bastions 1 and 3. Seven test trenches, excavated with a backhoe 

using a 2-ft-wide bucket, were strategically placed to intersect structural remains. In the vicinity of the 

Commissary (Bastion 1), Anderson identified two features: Feature 1, a 13-ft-long segment of Wall Section 10 at its juncture with the Commissary; and Feature 2, a linear rubble concentration marking the former location of Wall Section 10 on the east edge of Tract 01-105. Testing exposed a portion of flagstone 

paving that parallels the right flank of Bastion 1. Efforts to locate Bastion 3 and adjacent Wall Sections 3 

and 4, however, failed to reveal structural remains. Likewise, evidence of the Gallows, once situated at the 

site of Bastion 3, was not encountered. 

Anderson’s work yielded important information regarding the identification and location of the second fort defensive works. He established that at least 13 ft of Wall Section 10 remained intact in Tract 

01-104 and that elsewhere, rubble in a stone remover’s trench marked the former wall location. Past cutting activity in Tracts 01-111 and 01-138 appears to have removed all evidence of Bastion 3, adjacent 

Wall Sections 3, 4, and 5, and the Gallows. A flagstone pavement associated with the Commissary was 

not explored further, and a positive identification of the feature could not be established. 
 5-8 

Project Number 5 

Traylor, Diane, 1981. Test Excavations for Bastion and Wall Foundations of the Second Fort at Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Dates: February 13 – March 31, 1981 

Location: Tracts 01-108, 01-111, 01-114, 01-125, 01-127, 01-138 

Principal Investigator: Diane Traylor 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation

Discussion: Diane Traylor, a National Park Service Archeologist from the Southwest Regional Office, conducted additional investigations at Fort Smith National Historic Site. Her stated purpose, to locate 

walls and bastions and determine “what remained of foundations,” compliments Anderson’s previous investigations. Using a backhoe with a 2-ft-wide bucket, Traylor dug trenches in areas suspected to contain 

the foundations of second fort defensive works. Ultimately, 20 trenches were excavated in six land tracts. 

Traylor identified the remains of Bastion 2 and adjoining Wall Sections 2 and 3, and further explored 

the sites of Bastions 3 and 4. Test trenches in the vicinity of Bastion 3 failed to produce remains of that 

structure or the Gallows, thus confirming Anderson’s previous assessment. One trench excavated along 

the east edge of Tract 01-118 to encounter Wall Section 5 revealed instead a previously undocumented 

building foundation, 54 cm below surface. This feature, obviously not remains of second fort defensive 

works, was not explored further. In an attempt to address unresolved issues regarding the location of Bastion 4, Traylor excavated 12 trenches in that area (Tract 01-125). Feature 1, identified by Anderson as 

remains of Wall Section 6, was re-excavated by Diane Traylor. She observed that stones in Feature 1 were 

not in situ and that the rubble alignment did not represent a fort curtain wall. Traylor’s reanalysis of Feature 2 seemed to confirm Anderson’s original assessment that it was, indeed, the remains of Bastion 4. 

Traylor found a mortared stone alignment conforming to the shape of Bastion 4 with a possible juncture 

point for Wall Section 6. Regarding Features 3 and 4, as defined by Anderson, Traylor found no compelling 

evidence to associate them with fort wall foundations, but offered no other explanations of their function. 

Testing at the site of Bastion 5 was accomplished with difficulty. Demolition of the Speer Hardware 

Building was underway, and construction materials were stockpiled in the adjacent lot (Tract 01-127) over 

the Bastion 5 site. Test units placed between debris piles, however, were sufficient to identify Bastion 5 at 

its juncture with Wall Section 8. Stone at this point appeared at the surface and was exposed by brushing. 

Traylor’s investigation revealed new information concerning the location and integrity of the second 

fort defensive works. She identified intact foundations at Bastion 2 and adjoining Wall Sections 2 and 3, 

and at Bastion 5 and adjoining Wall Section 8. Her efforts resulted in the identification of a previously 

unknown building foundation and clarified the relationship of Feature 1 to Wall Section 6. The project 

concluded without the foundations being completely delineated, and the project methodology made it difficult to assess the remains encountered. Stratigraphic information comparable to more current research 

was not recorded; artifacts were collected, but not interpreted in the report; and an accurate base map with 

trench and feature locations was never prepared. 

Project Number 6 

Dollar, Clyde D., 1983. Archeological Investigation and Historical Documentation in the Vicinity of the 

Old Commissary Building, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Historic Preservation 

Associates, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Dates: August 1, 1982 – September 12, 1982 

Location: Tract 01-104 

Principal Investigator: Clyde D. Dollar 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation 
 5-9 

Discussion: Archeological investigation in the vicinity of the second fort Commissary was undertaken to provide information on external features of the building for an updated historic structure report. 

To accomplish the archeological research, a contract was awarded to Historic Preservation Associates of 

Fayetteville, Arkansas. This agency subcontracted to Tri-Arch Research Associates, also of Fayetteville, 

for the services of Clyde D. Dollar as project director. Dollar, director of Tri-Arch Research Associates 

and history instructor at the University of Arkansas, had previously conducted fieldwork at Fort Smith 

National Historic Site. As stated by Dollar, the specific goals of his work were: to archeologically explore 

the area on each side of the Commissary; to search for structural features associated with the building; to 

recover, study, and preserve all artifacts found in the excavated area; and to expose the footing at the 

southeast corner of the building and determine the cause of settling there. 

Under Dollar’s guidance, a grid system was established on the site and 20 test units were hand excavated within a 30-ft radius of the north, east, and south sides of the Commissary. Soil was removed by 

arbitrary six-inch levels and screened. All artifacts were retained for analysis. 

The investigation revealed evidence for three of four historically documented porches, the locations 

where two curtain walls of the fortification once intersected the building, and a flagstone walk that parallels the east side of the Commissary. Wall Section 10 and the flagstone walk were previously identified 

by Bruce Anderson during Project 4, and they were relocated by Dollar for mapping purposes. Wall Section 1, on the south side or left flank of the Commissary, was marked by a linear trench feature, apparently without in situ construction stone. Two surviving stone piers and one possible post mold from the 

south side of the Commissary are from an 8-x-48-ft porch. A porch of identical dimensions on the north 

side of the building is represented by a stone retaining wall, visible at the surface. This archeological investigation discloses that a set of stone steps once serviced the east end of the porch. Historically, two 

porches existed on the east side of the Commissary. Two post molds identified there relate to the second 

porch, an 8-x-23-ft structure that accessed the second floor of the building. Based on the presence of two 

additional post molds at the southeast corner of the Commissary, Dollar contends that the south and east 

porches may have been connected in a “wrap-around” porch configuration. 

Dollar’s work at the Commissary was a model excavation that employed current methods and standards of research. Data control was excellent. Artifacts were tabulated and presented in the report along 

with a base map of appropriate scale. However, the method of data collection used by Dollar, sadly, skews 

his results and interpretation. By collecting artifacts from arbitrary six-inch levels and crosscutting natural 

stratification present on the site, Dollar ignored culturally relevant information. Thus, the dates he places 

on historic ground levels and associated external features of the Commissary are grossly errant. Dollar’s 

interpretation of the archeological evidence contrasts with the physical history of the Commissary as described by James Ivey, a National Park Service historical archeologist. According to Ivey, “by ... discarding his [Dollar’s] conclusions ... a coherent physical history resulted (Frazier et al. 1987:16). After the 

untimely death of the author, Dollar’s report was finished posthumously. Expectedly, the report contains 

numerous typographical mistakes as well as errors of fact and should be limited to use by the park staff. 

For general research purposes, the archeological section prepared for the 1987 Commissary historic structure report (Frazier et al. 1987) should be used. 

Project Number 7 

Coleman, Roger E., 1984b. Results of Archeological Monitoring for Demolition of the Meek Bottling 

Plant, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Dollar, Clyde D., 1982. The Search for Officers’ Row at Fort Smith, Phase One: Physical and Documentary Evidence. Tri-Arch Research Associates, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Dates: October 17, 1982 – April 15, 1983 

Location: Tracts 01-107, 01-110, 01-139 

Principal Investigator: Clyde D. Dollar 
 5-10

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: Archeological monitoring was conducted by Clyde D. Dollar during demolition of the 

Meek Bottling Plant. This building complex, recently acquired by the National Park Service, overlay portions of the nineteenth-century military fort including part of the parade ground, the Cistern, and Officers 

Row. Although the primary objective of the project was protection of these underlying remains, enough 

information was gathered to approximate the location of Officers Row. Thirty-five features were discovered. Among these are flagstone pavements, segments of Wall Section 1, the garrison Flagstaff, possible 

well and privy locations, and linear rubble concentrations believed to represent former wall lines of Officers Row. Evidence suggests that 1.7 to 1.8 ft and 0.5 ft of fill remain in the basements of Officers Quarters A and B, respectively. Monitoring failed to reveal remains of the Commandant’s Quarters. 

Because of the untimely death of Clyde Dollar, the report was finished by another researcher. Archeologist Roger E. Coleman was contracted to do the work. Using Dollar’s field notes, Coleman produced a substantial report of investigations that contained feature descriptions, artifact tables, and a base 

map. Because of a gap in continuity between the investigators, as Coleman notes, the results must be used 

with caution. 

Project Number 8 

Coleman, Roger E., 1983. Excavation of the Flagpole Base at the Second Fort, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Dates: July 12 – August 19, 1983 

Location: Tract 01-139 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Excavation

Discussion: Clyde D. Dollar discovered the historic Flagstaff shortly before his death. The National 

Park Service decided to reconstruct the Flagstaff as a memorial to Dollar. To obtain necessary construction details, Roger E. Coleman, an anthropology graduate student of Texas A&M University, was contracted by the National Park Service to excavate the Flagstaff base. 

According to Coleman, the purpose of the investigation was to document construction detail, recover 

associated hardware, determine episodes of repair, and reveal the date of construction of the Flagstaff. 

First, Coleman delineated the Flagstaff base and then hand-excavated two opposing quarters of the feature. Clay and brick rubble fill in the feature was not screened, but all artifacts encountered were 

piece-plotted and retained. 

Excavation revealed a well-preserved subterranean wooden structure designed to support the Flagstaff. All components of the support system are constructed of oak and include four massive 1-ft-square, 

18-ft-long beams and eight 4-x-6-inch square, 10-ft-long angled braces. The beams, arranged in two parallel sets joined at the center by half-notching, comprise the Flagstaff base. A 1-ft-square opening occurs 

between the beams, within which the Flagstaff was undoubtedly set. An angled brace is attached to the 

end of each crossbeam by two or three 5-inch spikes. Braces are set at a 45 degree angle and once projected from the ground and attached to the Flagstaff approximately 3 ft above ground surface. The data 

collected during Coleman’s investigation assisted in constructing the accurate reconstruction of the Flagstaff. Associated hardware and diagnostic artifacts were not recovered, making it difficult to determine 

age of the structure. Likewise, an attempt to dendrochronologically date the Flagstaff failed. It is believed, 

however, that the structure was in place by 1846, when the fort was formally garrisoned. 
 5-11

Project Number 9 

Coleman, Roger E., unpublished notes on file as Project Number 9 in the field-collected data file at Fort 

Smith National Historic Site. 

Date: July 18, 1984 

Location: Tract 01-108 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: On July 18, 1984, sidewalk replacement at the east visitor center entrance exposed a 

circular soil discoloration that probably marks the site of a former post Well, documented on the 1870 

Army survey map. The location of the Well was triangulated. 

Following removal of concrete sidewalk at the base of the visitor center steps, two additional steps, 

1.7 ft below extant ground level, were identified. Thus, 1.7 ft of fill has been deposited on the visitor center lawn, probably after 1898, when the configuration of the Courthouse steps are known to have been 

altered. 

Significant historic resources were not adversely affected by sidewalk replacement. Observations 

made during archeological monitoring indicate the presence of extensive fill on Tract 01-108, and the 

likelihood of historic subsurface remains, including a post Well underlying that fill. 

Project Number 10 

Coleman, Roger E., 1984a. Archeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Old Commissary Building, 

Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Dates: September 4–11, 1984 

Location: Tracts 01-104 and 01-105 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation and Monitoring

Discussion: This investigation occurred in conjunction with rehabilitation of the Commissary. 

Archeologist Roger E. Coleman, contracted by Fort Smith National Historic Site, monitored the insertion 

of subsurface utility lines from Second Street to the Commissary and exposed portions of the adjacent 

Wall Sections 1 and 10 to facilitate capping the foundations with stone. To accomplish these objectives, 

eight test trenches were excavated or monitored during the project. Information concerning fort wall 

construction and site stratigraphy were collected that compliment and refine Clyde D. Dollar’s 1983 

investigation (Project Number 6). 

In situ stone exists for both Wall Sections 1 and 10 and is encountered 4 and 9 inches below surface, 

respectively. Some construction techniques vary at different points along the wall, including the width of 

the builder’s trench and the position of the wall within the trench. The original bastion gorge survives intact beneath the flagstone floor of the Commissary. 

Stratigraphic history in the vicinity of the Commissary is complex with 11 distinct soil zones present, 

including two historic ground levels. These buried occupational surfaces occur 22 inches and 29 inches 

below surface. The lowest historic ground level, beyond the fort curtain wall, covers an extensive rubble 

lens that accumulated during fort construction. 

The investigation resulted in the discovery of Wall Sections 1 and 10, making it possible to accurately delineate and cap both wall sections. Monitoring during the insertion of utility lines to the Commissary prevented adverse impacts to significant cultural resources and resulted in new information that resolved issues in interpretation stemming from Dollar’s (1983) investigation (Frazier et al. 1987). 
 5-12

Project Number 11 

Coleman, Roger E., 1986. Archeological Testing and Monitoring for Parking Lot Construction, Fort 

Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, 

Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Dates: June 12–13, 1985 

Location: Tracts 01-111, 01-134, 01-138, 01-139 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation and Monitoring

Discussion: Coleman conducted archeological testing for construction of a new parking lot in a 

2.45-acre tract at the southwest end of the park. This area, known to have contained an extensive ravine 

during the historic occupation of the site, was expected to harbor deep fill deposits. Field methods were 

appropriately designed to sample these deposits. 

A baseline established on the north boundary of the project area was used to lay out test trenches. 

These were oriented perpendicular to the baseline and placed at even 20-ft intervals. A backhoe with a 

2-ft-wide bucket was used to excavate the trenches. Profiles were recorded and, for dating purposes, artifacts were collected by soil zone. 

Eleven test trenches, totaling 600 linear ft, were excavated at the proposed parking lot site. Numerous 

fill episodes, some containing quantities of rubble, were identified. The fill dates anywhere from the late 

1870s to ca. 1947 but is predominantly twentieth century in age. Testing was sufficient to delineate the 

former ravine. It is estimated to have been 285 ft wide and 23 ft deep. 

Two building foundations were identified and delineated in Tract 01-111. A Sanborn insurance map 

reveals that these two building foundations are remnants of the Webber-Ayere’s warehouse complex, constructed ca. 1900 (Figure 4). 

Coleman determined that significant cultural resources would not be adversely affected by proposed 

parking lot construction. Yet, important information concerning park history and development was acquired through the investigation. 

Project Number 12 

Coleman, Roger E., 1987b. Archeological Monitoring for Burial of Overhead Telephone Lines and Identification of an Historic Midden, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park 

Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Date: 1986 

Location: Tracts 01-108, 01-111, 01-124, 01-134, 01-138, 01-144, 01-145 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: To protect undiscovered cultural resources, Coleman monitored the burial of overhead 

telephone lines at Fort Smith National Historic Site. The AT&T Company used a front-end loader with a 

1-ft-wide bucket to excavate over 986 ft of trench along Third Street and Parker Avenue. Monitoring of 

this potentially destructive activity averted impact to a buried historic midden and resulted in increased 

information on the stratigraphic history of the park. 

Most of the trench occurred within sterile fill deposited by the military prior to second fort construction in 1839. In two areas, however, the excavation exposed significant underlying deposits. Area 1 contains a portion of historic ground level over a cinder deposit. Area 1 is located on Forgecraft property 

immediately south of the national historic site. Area 2, located at the corner of Third Street and Parker 

Avenue, contained a 1.4-ft-thick historic midden deposit, at a depth of 2.9 ft below surface. To document 
 5-13

contents and assess significance of the midden, a single 1-x-6-ft test unit was excavated to the base of the 

deposit. This activity resulted in the recovery of 1,681 artifacts. 

Artifact analysis indicates that the midden is from the early civilian community of Fort Smith that 

originally occupied the second fort site from the fall of 1821 until August 1838. The midden is the only 

known resource from this early civilian hamlet and is a significant, contributing resource. Since additional 

work in the area, however, would have impacted remains in overlying ground levels, the deposit was not 

further delineated. To assess the extent of the midden and to protect this resource in the future, Coleman 

recommended that a program of small-bore coring should be implemented. 

Project Number 13 

Coleman, Roger E., unpublished maps and field notes filed as Project Number 13 in the field-generated 

data file at Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Date: July 13, 1987 

Location: Tract 01-151 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: Coleman provided archeological monitoring for excavations conducted by the Missouri 

Pacific Railroad Company. Their purpose, to clean up the railroad right-of-way within the park boundary, 

required the excavation of pits to bury railroad ties and other debris. To prevent historic resources on the 

adjacent railroad median strip from being impacted, Coleman requested that all pits be placed in the ditch 

between the track bed and median strip. Five pits were excavated in this area, all in sterile subsoils. Significant cultural resources were not adversely affected. 

Project Number 14 

Coleman, Roger E., 1989a. History and Appearance of the Second Fort Cistern, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource 

Center, Santa Fe. 

Dates: December 1–5, 16–18, 1987; May 7–10, 1988 

Location: Tracts 01-107 and 01-149 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation and Monitoring

Discussion: As recommended by the resources management plan (National Park Service 1988) for 

Fort Smith National Historic Site and by Dollar (1982), an excavation was undertaken at the historic second fort Cistern to collect essential planning data. Coleman conducted the investigation and tested the 

site of an associated overflow drain. Key issues to be addressed by the investigation included: construction and original appearance of the Cistern, local stratigraphy and historic ground level, the age of the Cistern, and the Cistern’s relationship to Officers Row. 

Cumulatively, 11 days were devoted to the project. Four test units were excavated at the site of the 

Cistern and the overflow drain. Tests were hand excavated. Soil was screened and all artifacts were retained for analysis. A fuel tank adjacent to the Cistern was removed by backhoe. This work was closely 

monitored and formally recorded as a test unit. Ample information was acquired to accurately display 

and interpret the Cistern. 

Physical evidence indicates that the Cistern never had a platform. The crown of the structure jutted 

above the ground surface like an inverted bowl and rose at least 2.6 ft above historic grade. The exterior 

crown surface may have been finished with a durable stucco coating. The Cistern manhole cover probably 

once supported a hand-operated pump or rope and bucket. Investigation of the Cistern drain revealed a 

38-ft-long stone-lined trough. Visible at ground surface, this feature contained only 0.2 ft of fill. Pro-
 5-14

jected alignment of the drain indicates that the structure is an overflow drain from the second fort Cistern. 

The precise relationship of the Cistern to Officers Row could not be established, but the absence of a drain 

inlet for Officers Quarters A suggests that the cistern and overflow drain postdate 1865, when Officers 

Quarters A burned to the ground. Apparently, there is no surviving evidence of the Commandant’s Quarters, and the relationship of the Cistern to Officers Row cannot be determined. 

Coleman recommended that the modern, obtrusive brick platform should be removed and that the 

Cistern crown should be stabilized and displayed. 

Project Number 15A 

Coleman, Roger E., unpublished field records on file at Fort Smith National Historic Site as Project Number 15A in the field-generated data file. 

Dates: May 21 – August 2, 1985 

Location: Tract 01-127 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation 

Discussion: Coleman conducted an investigation at the site of Bastion 5 to supplement previous 

work undertaken there and to acquire essential planning data for capping and outlining the second fort 

defensive works. Specific project goals included the location and delineation of Bastion 5 and adjacent 

Wall Sections 8 and 9. To accomplish these objectives, 2-ft-wide, hand-excavated trenches were placed to 

intersect foundations. Eight test units were excavated to locate and delineate wall and bastion remains. 

After locating Bastion 5, this structure was exposed with two block units separated by a balk wall and 

appropriately designated E1/2 and W1/2. 

Archeological investigation indicates that Bastion 5 is approximately 95 percent complete. Only a 

portion of the gorge and left flank are disturbed, and a short break in the foundation occurs from a city 

storm sewer that crosses through the right and left faces of the structure. Stone is encountered 1.0 ft below 

surface at the gorge and 2.5 ft below surface at the salient angle of the bastion. The excavation revealed an 

unanticipated foundation within the bastion interior. This pentagonal alignment of dry-laid sandstone 

slabs is a footing for the parados, an internal wall to support a second story gun platform or terreplein. 

Evidence of both adjoining wall sections exists in Tract 01-127. Wall Section 8, a 70-ft-long foundation scarcely 1.0 ft below surface, occurs with the tract. On the east end of the tract, a builder’s trench for 

the footing was not apparent, suggesting that this area contains military embankment and holds potential 

for significant buried deposits. Unfortunately for this investigation, almost all of Wall Section 9 had been 

destroyed by construction of the Speer Hardware Building. Only a 2-ft-long segment of Wall Section 9 

survives 3.0 ft below surface, but it is enough to determine its point of juncture with Bastion 5. Although 

historic foundations survive in Tract 01-127, no historic ground level was found, and few historic artifacts 

were recovered during this investigation. 

Project Number 15B 

Coleman, Roger E., unpublished field records on file at Fort Smith National Historic Site as Project Number 15B in the field-generated data file. 

Dates: September 7 – October 21, 1985 

Location: Tract 01-125 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation

Discussion: Coleman conducted additional investigations of the second fort defensive works, this 

time at the site of Bastion 4 and adjacent Wall Sections 6 and 7. Two previous investigations at this site 

identified structural remains thought to represent elements of the defensive works. Bruce Anderson dis-
 5-15

covered two rubble concentrations that he identified as Wall Section 6 (Feature 4) and a possible house 

floor (Feature 2). A second investigation conducted by Diane Traylor yielded conflicting results. She determined that Feature 4 was not Wall Section 6, but offered no alternative identification. Feature 2 was 

redefined and is considered by Traylor to be the foundation of Bastion 4. Coleman's objectives were to 

clarify these unresolved issues resulting from prior investigations, to positively identify Feature 4, and to 

locate and accurately delineate the remains of Bastion 4 and adjacent fort curtain walls. 

Coleman employed cross-trenching in areas suspected to contain structural remains. The 2-ft-wide 

trenches were excavated by hand. A deep cross-trench was used to examine Feature 4 in profile, and grid 

units were opened over the hypothesized remains of Bastion 4. Thirteen test units were excavated and 

enough information was obtained to clarify issues of feature identification. Feature 2 as identified by 

Anderson and Traylor is a 0.5-ft-deep, dry-laid, linear stone arrangement forming an obtuse angle or corner and resembling a bastion foundation. In 1981 Traylor reported that the foundation was mortared. This 

investigation found no evidence of mortar and suggests that the original investigators were in error. The 

“probable wall juncture” identified by Traylor in 1981 was found to be rubble in disturbed topsoil and her 

Feature 2 “bastion foundation” was found to be the remains of the parados or bastion interior wall (supporting the second story terreplein). Nearly all of the bastion scarp wall had been completely removed. 

This investigation identified only a 3-ft-long portion of the bastion gorge, 0.55 ft below surface. A complex arrangement of features, however, occurs within Bastion 4. At least three superimposed features that 

might have abutted the bastion scarp wall are evident. At least two of these features produced nineteenthcentury artifacts and are possibly historic-era privys. 

Feature 4, examined in cross section, is a sandstone rubble concentration between two levels of military embankment. Twenty-three soil zones, all fill episodes, were identified here to a depth greater than 

3.5 ft below surface. The stone rubble follows a sloping contour toward the fort interior. Stone is jumbled 

without mortar and, as Traylor concluded, is unquestionably not the foundation of Wall Section 6. Feature 4 is, however, a by-product of fort wall construction. This linear debris concentration accumulated 

from spot dressing stone during wall construction and its position in profile marks a former construction 

surface. Additional embankment was then placed to fill the fort interior and to strengthen Wall Section 6, 

thus covering Feature 4. Unfortunately for this investigation, the stratigraphic sequence also indicates that 

Wall Section 6 and the historic ground level in Tract 01-125 have been completely removed. 

Project Number 15C 

Coleman, Roger E., unpublished field records on file at Fort Smith National Historic Site as Project Number 15C in the field-generated data file. 

Dates: September 8 – December 5, 1986 

Location: Tracts 01-107 and 01-114 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation

Discussion: Further investigation of the second fort defensive works was undertaken by Coleman. 

To supplement previous investigations and to acquire information for park planning and management 

needs, efforts were concentrated on Bastion 2 and adjacent Wall Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the identification of historic ground levels at these locations. 

Coleman employed a combination of trenching with grid square and block unit excavation to identify 

and expose structural remains, and to sample soil deposits. Four 5-x-5-ft square units were excavated to 

encounter Wall Section 1 and to reveal site deposits on Tract 01-107. At Bastion 2, block units were 

opened over Wall Sections 2 and 3, and over each bastion wall. To maintain stratigraphic control, balk 

walls were left in each block unit. For sampling deposits beyond the fort and bastion walls, a grid system 

was established and seven 5-x-5-ft square units were excavated or partially excavated. A total of 16 test 

units were excavated, providing a wealth of data for planning purposes. 
 5-16

Testing on Tract 01-107 indicates that 180 ft of Wall Section 1 survives intact. While the historic 

ground level is cut away on the fort interior, successive historic ground levels and fill episodes are evident 

on the fort exterior. Historically, exterior fort areas were lower than the fort interior and received more fill 

over time. Test 1 revealed an historic ground level and a substantial trash midden from 2.0 to 3.5 ft below 

surface. Sterile military embankment and possibly unidentified historic resources exist below this. In 

Test 2, ten soil zones were identified including two historic ground levels, wall construction and demolition surfaces, and at least two episodes of military embankment. Previously undocumented structural remains were encountered in this embankment. A dry-laid sandstone wall, set as embankment progressed, 

provides a stabilizing scarp or toe for Wall Section 1. 

Testing on Tract 01-114, the railroad median strip, revealed intact foundation from all sides of Bastion 2. Approximately 134 ft or 67 percent of the structure has survived. The investigation identified remains of both adjoining curtain walls, 27.5 ft of Wall Section 2 and 10.5 ft of Wall Section 3. Construction stone is encountered from 1.1 to 4.4 ft below surface. The bastion interior contains military embankment over construction rubble and marks the former floor level of the building. 

Historic ground levels are present on both interior and exterior fort areas. On the fort interior, historic 

ground level occurs 0.8 ft below surface. Beyond the fort and bastion walls, four historic ground levels 

separated by fill episodes are apparent. Historic ground levels are 0.4, 1.4, 2.8, and 3.2 ft below surface, 

respectively. 

Evidence of external building features were identified. Porch foundations from the 1866–1867 renovation of the Quartermaster Building are evident on both the right face and left flank of the structure (opposite sides). Because of time and funding limitations, however, porches were not delineated. 

Coleman located and delineated Bastion 2 and adjacent Wall Sections 1, 2, and 3, acquiring information for park planning and management needs. Work revealed new insights into construction and use of 

the second Fort Smith. Unfortunately, funding for a final report to synthesize and interpret this information was unavailable and has not been forthcoming. It is essential that all wall and bastion excavations be 

properly reported. 

Project Number 16 

Coleman, Roger E., 1987a. Interim Report: Archeological Investigation for Construction of a Pedestrian 

Trail at Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Coleman, Roger E., 1989b. Archeological Investigation for Construction of a Pedestrian Trail and Identification of Laundress Row, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest 

Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Dates: October 21, 1985 – October 28, 1988 

Locations: Tracts 01-108, 01-114, 01-115, 01-116 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Excavation, Mitigation, Monitoring

Discussion: Archeological investigations were undertaken by Coleman for construction of a pedestrian trail at Fort Smith National Historic Site. The pedestrian trail is a 1,070-ft-long, paved walk that 

crosses three park areas to connect the visitor center and the first fort site: the visitor center lawn, the median strip, and Belle Point. Work occurred sporadically over a four-year period. Cumulatively, from October 21, 1985, to October 28, 1988, seven months were devoted to the field investigation. A five-phase 

excavation procedure that ranged from systematic sampling to controlled excavation of significant remains was used to sample, identify, and assess cultural resources, and to mitigate construction impacts. 

Fieldwork resulted in the excavation of 145 test units accounting for a total excavated area of 3,728 ft2 

(346.3 m2). Sixty-seven archeological features were identified. Buried historic ground levels were encoun-
 5-17

tered in two locations. To mitigate construction impacts, a 3,775-ft2 area of historic ground level and four 

features were excavated or partially excavated, resulting in the acquisition of 43,906 artifacts. 

Significant archeological remains are present on the visitor center lawn (Tract 01-107). These include 

the filled basement of Soldier’s Barracks B (Feature 78), which is an unfinished building of the second 

Fort Smith that was razed in 1846 to provide construction stone for the Quartermaster Building. Fill and 

construction rubble in the former basement is encountered 2.0 ft below surface and one surviving course 

of foundation stone occurs 4.7 ft below surface. Two buried historic ground levels were identified in Tract 

01-107. The lowest ground level, associated with Barracks B, is encountered 1.4 ft below surface and 

dates from ca. 1846–1888. The second ground surface, associated with the 1888 Jail Wing addition, 

occurs 0.8 ft below surface. Both levels contain significant artifacts and possible unidentified structural 

remains. 

Several archeological features are associated with a buried historic ground level on the railroad median strip. This former occupational surface averages 0.4 ft thick and is coextensive with the entire median 

strip area. It is encountered from 0.6 to 3.5 ft below surface and contains abundant artifacts, features, and 

structural remains. Archeological testing revealed eight features associated with the buried historic ground 

level including the fireplace foundation from a barracks of Laundress Row, a prepared drive for the Quartermaster Building, and a dumpsite for the post Blacksmith Shop. 

Cultural deposits on Belle Point are mixed in a disturbed topsoil or Ap horizon that varies from 0.5 to 

1.0 ft thick. Artifacts are abundant here, but most are twentieth century—only 5 percent of all artifacts 

collected are potentially historic. Likewise, most of the 45 subsurface features encountered there are 

twentieth century in age. Archeological monitoring during construction, however, resulted in the identification of a single historic feature associated with the first Fort Smith. Designated Feature 77, this deposit 

is probably a privy or cellar from the first Fort Smith. Encountered 1.4 ft below surface, the feature is 

greater than 3.1 ft deep and contains artifact-bearing fill. 

Investigation for construction of the pedestrian trail sampled previously untested areas of the park 

and defined new archeological resources. Impacts to significant resources were mitigated through a combination of avoidance, excavation, and construction monitoring. Coleman summarized his findings in a 

report of investigation (1989b). Much of the document is devoted to the description of artifacts from the 

buried historic ground level that Coleman believes is an important source of analysis for Fort Smith and 

other nineteenth-century sites. Additionally, the raw data is tabulated with provenience information and 

included with the document in microfiche form. The report outlines eleven research questions to address 

three topics: differences between use of interior fort and exterior fort areas, the identification of Laundress Row, and the definition and delineation of the prehistoric Belle Point site. These research topics are 

addressed with varying degrees of success. Arguments for the identification of Laundress Row are persuasive. The array of analytical techniques used to verify the documented laundering function are convincing but suffer from the absence of tests of significance. 

Project Number 17 

Coleman, Roger E., 1988. Memorandum to Regional Director, Southwest Region. File Code D30, dated 

August 24. On file at Fort Smith National Historic Site and in the field-generated data file as Project 

Number 17. 

Date: August 23, 1988 

Location: Tract 01-113 

Principal Investigator: Roger E. Coleman 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: On August 23, workers of the Fort Smith City Sewer Department closed an active storm 

sewer at Fort Smith National Historic Site. This operation, preliminary to constructing a pedestrian trail 

from the visitor center to Belle Point, occurred at the northernmost manhole on National Park Service 
 5-18

property in Tract 01-113. To prevent impact to significant archeological resources, Roger E. Coleman 

monitored the work. A backhoe with a 27-inch-wide bucket was used to excavate an 8-ft-long trench adjacent to the manhole. The storm sewer, exposed at 6.4 ft below surface, was broken and plugged with concrete to complete the operation. 

Coleman identified a buried historic ground level in the excavation profile. From 2.5 to 3.8 ft below 

surface, an undifferentiated Ap horizon was encountered. Artifacts were not observed in this level, but 

brick and charcoal mottles were evident. Tract 01-113 is the former site of the post garden (Coleman and 

Dollar 1984), an activity or land use that can account for the abnormal thickness (1.3 ft) of the Ap horizon 

as well as the paucity of artifacts. 

Project Number 18 

Parrish, Jody S., 1989. Archeological Testing and Monitoring for Storm Drain Construction, Fort Smith 

National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Dates: April 3–4, 1989 

Location: Tract 01-116 

Principal Investigator: Jody S. Parrish 

Type of Investigation: Test Excavation and Monitoring

Discussion: Parrish conducted an archeological investigation to assess the impact of constructing a 

new storm drain on the south end of Belle Point in Tract 01-116. The storm drain required a 340-ft-long 

trench that ranged from 7 to 12.5 ft deep. Historically, the proposed construction site was occupied by a 

deep ravine that is now partially filled. Parrish’s objectives as outlined in the scope of work were to identify subsurface deposits in the construction right-of-way, define and interpret these deposits, offer recommendations for future park management, assess the significance of deposits encountered, and, if significant, provide a plan for impact mitigation. 

To accomplish her goals, Parrish placed six test trenches at 50-ft intervals perpendicular to the proposed storm drain centerline and excavated them by backhoe. Tests measured 2 ft by 10 ft and were excavated as deep as required to encounter sterile subsoil. Depth of fill encountered by Parrish varied from 1.5 

to 3.5 ft deep. Although mixtures of historic and post-historic artifacts were encountered, most are clearly 

twentieth century in age and signify recent deposition at this location. Parrish recommended that archeological clearance be provided for construction providing that an archeologist monitor all cutting during 

storm drain construction. 

Project Number 19 

Parrish, Jody S., unpublished field notes, slides, and photographs on file at Fort Smith National Historic 

Site in the field-generated data file as Project Number 19. 

Dates: April 3–5, 1989 

Location: Tract 01-108 

Principal Investigator: Jody S. Parrish 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: On April 3, 1989, Parrish monitored the removal of a non-historic flagpole on the east 

lawn of the visitor center in Tract 01-108 (note that the historic second fort Flagstaff is on the other side 

of the Barracks/Courthouse/Jail complex; see Project Number 8). The cavity created by removing the 

square concrete flagpole base measured five feet to a side and four feet deep. Parrish triangulated the location of this disturbance and profiled pit walls to record stratigraphic details. 

Eight soil zones, including a buried historic ground level, were identified. The first four levels are 

identical to those described in an earlier investigation in Tract 01-108 (Project Number 16) with one ex-
 5-19

ception, the absence of a rubble lens overlying the historic ground level (Zone 3). Since this lens was created by throw-out from the Barracks B basement during construction of the Jail Wing in 1888, its absence 

in the more distant flagpole site is explicable. The deep flagpole footing hole also revealed four previously 

unidentified soil zones. Three of these zones, occurring successively in profile, contain construction rubble and might be a former construction surface for the soldiers barracks or possibly fill in an unidentified 

feature. Rubble occurs between 2 and 3.5 ft below surface. In Zone 5, Parrish observed five mortared 

bricks arranged in a linear configuration. Apparently, the lowest soil encountered by Parrish, a mottled 

sandy clay, is another fill episode. Therefore, fill on the courthouse lawn exceeds four feet in depth. 

Project Number 20 

Parrish, Jody S., 1989. Memorandum to Regional Director, Southwest Region. File Code H24 (FOSM), 

dated July 10. Field notes and photographs filed as Project Number 20 in the field-generated data file. 

Dates: May 19–31 and July 7, 1989 

Location: Tract 01-151 

Principal Investigator: Jody S. Parrish 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring 

Discussion: Fiber optic cable was placed through Fort Smith National Historic Site on Tract 01-151, 

in the Missouri Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This activity required excavation of a 1-ft-wide, 5-ft-deep 

trench to house the cable. To prevent impact to unidentified cultural resources, Archeologist Jody S. Parrish monitored this potentially destructive operation. Parrish observed that the cable trench exposed only 

railroad bedding, modern fill, and sterile subsoil. Historic remains were not encountered. 

Project Number 21 

Parrish, Jody S., 1989. Memorandum to Regional Director, Southwest Region. File Code H-24, dated 

September 22. Field notes and photographs filed as Project Number 21. 

Date: September 19, 1989 

Location: Tracts 01-111 and 01-138 

Principal Investigator: Jody S. Parrish 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: On September 19, Parrish monitored the insertion of an electrical line to an audio box in 

the Gallows enclosure. A 0.5-ft-wide, 1-ft-deep trench was excavated by ditchwitch to house the electrical line. Parrish encountered only sandy fill deposited by the National Park Service following removal of 

Parker Avenue. Thus, at least one foot of this recent fill covers Tract 01-111. Significant historic resources were not adversely effected by this project. 

Project Number 22 

Parrish, Jody S., 1990. Video Monitor Installation to Commissary. Memorandum to Regional Archeologist, Southwest Region, Santa Fe. From Archeologist, Fort Smith NHS. File Code H24 (FOSM), dated 

April 13. On file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Dates: April 2–10, 1990 

Location: Tracts 01-104, 01-107, 01-108, 01-139, 01-140 

Principal Investigator: Jody S. Parrish 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: A video monitor was installed in the Commissary that required installing a cable from 

the Courthouse/Jail to the Commissary. Parrish monitored the cable trenching work. The trenching was 

done with a ditchwitch that opened a very narrow exposure. Parrish noted the trenching crossed only one 
 5-20

area where distinct cultural layering occurred. This area is about six feet from the west wall of the Jail 

Wing. She was unable to determine if the levels were related to the Jail Wing construction or to some 

other cultural deposition. She noted the site of Officers Quarters A was also the locale where the Meek 

bottling plant once stood. The trenching passed through this area. Parrish noted modern brick and glass in 

the trench fill in this area. Some isolated artifacts were noted and collected, but no features were encountered. 

Project Number 23 

No reference—an unsigned handwritten note is in the park files that describes a recent feature. 

Date: May 29, 1990 

Location: Tract 01-116 

Principal Investigator: Jody S. Parrish 

Type of Investigation: Documentation of Brick Feature

Discussion: This work is documented by only a handwritten, unsigned note in the park file folder 

describing the unintentional finding of a brick feature along the trail on Belle Point. The feature was exposed by horse traffic during Memorial Day events. The note indicates that the feature is constructed of 

brick and is about 2 ft in diameter with a concrete collar. At a depth of 1.5 ft from the top of the opening 

an iron step was found protruding from the brick. The feature, constructed of soft orange brick, is believed to be a manhole access to a Fort Smith town storm drain. The maintenance staff filled the hole and 

tamped it to ensure there would be no further slumping. 

Project Number 24 

No reference—only unsigned notes, dated 1992, are in the file. 

Dates: August 3–6, 1992 

Location: Tract 01-105 

Principal Investigator: Unknown 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: The telephone system for the Frisco Station was interrupted on August 3, 1992. A telephone line technician dug a hole in what was believed to be a previously disturbed site in the railroad 

right-of-way north of the Commissary to the street. Due to intermittent rains, the trench slumped and 

formed a large pit. The pit fill removal was monitored and was found to be in disturbed fill. 

Project Number 25 

Barnes, James E., 1993. An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Pedestrian Trail, Fort Smith National 

Historic Site. Sponsored Research Program, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Date: October 1, 1993 

Location: Tracts 01-116, 01-131, 01-133, 01-136, 01-148 

Principal Investigator: James E. Barnes 

Type of Investigation: Shovel Testing

Discussion: The Arkansas Archeological Survey undertook a pedestrian inventory and shovel testing 

program along the proposed route of a trail from Highway 64 across Belle Point and joining with another 

trail from the fort. Shovel testing revealed that the top one foot or more of the area had been disturbed by 

early-twentieth-century residences and utility lines. The area had also been bulldozed in 1962 to remove 

the surface remains of these late intrusions. Barnes noted that the portion of the trail along the river was in 

an old floodplain, and recent soil deposition there may be deep enough to bury historic features. Regardless, the potential impact of the trail was determined to be negligible on any nearby historic resources. 
 5-21

Project Number 26 

No reference—an unsigned typewritten note and three photographs are included in the file folder. 

Date: October 10, 1994 

Location: Tract 01-108 

Principal Investigator: Unknown, reported by Acting Chief Ranger James Phelps 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: Trenching for upgrading the telephone line from the Courthouse/Jail to the maintenance 

facility exposed a concrete post mold. The mold is for an approximately 8-inch-square post and was found 

about 12 ft southeast of the Jail Wing addition. No other artifacts or features were noted. The concrete 

appears, in the photographs, to be twentieth century in origin. 

Project Number 27 

No reference, no notes—only oral information from Emily Lovick. 

Date: April 21, 1996 

Location: Tract 01-116 

Principal Investigator: David Hayes 

Type of Investigation: Tornado Damage Clean-Up

Discussion: Buffalo National River Archeologist David Hayes and Fort Smith Curator Emily Lovick 

worked at Fort Smith collecting artifacts from tree throws and root balls after a tornado struck Fort Smith 

on April 21, 1996. Over 200 trees were blown down on Belle Point. The collected material was left in 

the park where it has been subsequently cataloged and curated. The storm inflicted significant damage to 

buildings, trees, and the general infrastructure of the city of Fort Smith. The city Action Center created a 

CAD drawing of the storm damage (City of Fort Smith Action Center, storm96.dwg) that identifies the 

extent of damage to the city’s buildings. The storm and the damage was also extensively reported in the 

Fort Smith Times Record for April 24, May 4, and August 8, 1996. Fort Smith National Historic Site also 

documented the storm damage on video tape (copy on file at Fort Smith National Historic Site) and via 

aerial photography on April 23, 1996 (a series of 12 overlapping 9-x-9-inch images were taken and are on 

file in the park). 

Project Number 28 

Scott, Douglas D. and William J. Hunt, Jr., 2000. Archeological Investigations Conducted in Support of 

the Fort Smith Barracks/Courthouse/Jail Rehabilitation. Technical Report 68. Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Dates: April 3–May 2; October 20–November 4, 1997; August 31–September 3, 1998 

Location: Tract 01-108 

Principal Investigator: William J. Hunt, Jr. 

Type of Investigation: Mitigation by Excavation and Testing

Discussion: Archeological investigations were conducted at Fort Smith National Historic Site as part 

of mitigation measures for site development. Initially Buffalo National River Archeologist David Hayes 

proposed an extensive data recovery effort (Hayes 1996). Hayes later withdrew from the project (email 

from David Hayes to Fort Smith Superintendent Bill Black dated June 6, 1996, copy on file at the Midwest Archeological Center). Subsequently, Midwest Archeological Center archeologists were asked to 

conduct the data recovery efforts, and William Hunt and Douglas Scott were assigned to the project. Hunt 

directed the fieldwork and Scott supervised the artifact processing and cataloging and report writing. 
 5-22

Excavations were undertaken around the exterior of the Courthouse/Jail complex and in the vicinity 

of the Guardhouse site. The Guardhouse site was found to have been destroyed by later Fort Smith town 

building activities. The excavations around the Courthouse/Jail complex recovered evidence of the original galleries and porches that once existed on either side of the original Army-era barracks that was converted to the Federal Courthouse in the late nineteenth century. 

The excavations yielded some interesting architectural details relating to the porches and galleries 

that once existed on the barracks. The years of modification to the structural elements were also documented in the archeological record and were visible as the ditches, drains, trenches, floors, and other alterations to the gallery walls. The artifacts recovered during the excavations also reflect the changes in the 

building’s use and occupation through time. The layers of fill in the gallery yielded a mixed variety of artifacts. Most of the ceramics and non-architectural artifacts reflect the utilitarian nature of the building’s 

occupation. Table service fragments as well as mundane ink bottles demonstrate that the types of artifacts 

discarded by the residents and present in the gallery fill are inexpensive and represent common household 

and institutional assemblages. 

The excavations revealed that the gallery wall openings were filled in and windows and doors added 

to the structure. In subsequent years the porches were removed, and the exterior stairway replaced with 

one of an entirely new design. All of these modifications were reflected in the archeological record. The 

original gallery is represented by remnants of brick flooring, the gallery walls, and porch support columns. The pre-1875 gallery modifications were clearly seen in the remains of the stone flooring and some 

evidence of the gallery wall modifications. Subsequent changes are seen in the fact the entire gallery was 

filled with debris and other fill materials and forgotten. In addition, many alterations to the original gallery floor and wall fabric occurred as water, sewer, and other utility lines breached the walls in many 

places. These modifications to the original configuration might not be documented in the historic record 

or on maps, but they are clearly seen and are part of the building’s archeological record. 

Shovel testing around the building and on the surrounding grounds revealed there is a sheet midden 

or light scatter of trash surrounding the building. The artifacts found in the shovel tests have a wide date 

range, but the majority appear to be associated with the military and early judicial periods. Later occupation of the structure appears to have deposited less material in the surrounding lawns than the earlier eras. 

The 1997 excavations did reconfirm the existence and location of the Well site and a demolished barracks. The excavations corrected some measurement details related to the location of the barracks foundations relative to the Courthouse/Jail complex. 

Additional recordation was done on the interior of the Courthouse/Jail when modern fill was removed during the rehabilitation efforts. The locations of two large fireplaces dating to the original building construction were recorded, as was a later furnace and boileroom feature. 

Project Number 29 

Hunt, William J., Jr., 1999a. Trip Report Investigation of Archeological Discovery, Commissary Building, 

Fort Smith National Historic Site. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park 

Service, Lincoln. 

Dates: February 24–26, 1999 

Location: Tract 01-104 

Principal Investigator: William J. Hunt, Jr. 

Type of Investigation: Discovery Excavation

Discussion: During the installation of a park fire suppression system in the Commissary several features were noted in the exterior trench leading to the building and the finding of a basement in the structure itself. The new water line trench for the fire suppression system runs from the existing water line on 

Second Street, then down the railroad grade, and curves gently until intersecting with the northeast corner 

of the Commissary. No historic-era cultural features were identified within the trench, although several 
 5-23

early-twentieth-century utility lines, railroad ties, and displaced stone slabs and fragments were seen in 

the trench. Some of the underlying slabs appeared to be in situ. They were located 7 ft 9 inches and 5 ft 

10 inches respectively from the Commissary wall and are believed to be remains of the Commissary porch 

footers. A Dickinson Contracting Stemmed projectile point was found at the bottom the 4-ft-deep trench. 

Inside the Commissary’s northeast corner, the flagstone floor had been removed and a hole was dug in 

preparation for placing the fire suppression system lines in the building. Instead of a shallow building foundation as was anticipated, a well-constructed stone-walled cellar or basement was discovered. The dressed 

stone wall continued to a depth of 591⁄2 inches below the foundation sill. A 20-inch-wide builder’s trench 

was found below the basement’s flagstone floor. This work confirmed the accuracy of the historic record 

regarding the presence of a basement in the building. Earlier architectural histories assumed the term 

“basement” referred to the building’s first floor. The basement or cellar had been filled in and covered 

with flagstone at some point in the past as revealed by the construction work and archeological discovery. 

Project Number 30 

Hunt, William J., Jr., 1999b. Trip Report: Archeological Monitoring, Fort Smith National Historic Site 

(FOSM), Sebastian County, Arkansas. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National 

Park Service, Lincoln. 

Date: July 11–26, 1999 

Location: Tracts 01-104, 105, 108, 124 

Principal Investigator: William J. Hunt, Jr. 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: This archeological project was undertaken to monitor trenching associated with the installation of a park security system and the construction of a geothermal heating and cooling system. Hunt 

located and recorded nine features in the course of the work. The trenching work cut though the core of 

the second Fort Smith area thus exposing significant areas where no other archeological work had been 

done. Features 4 and 9 were associated with the Judicial period and probably related to the Jail wing construction. The late-nineteenth- and twentieth-century urban construction episode was well represented by 

concrete remains designated Features 7 and 8. Features 1–3 were stone rubble piles associated with the 

destroyed segment of Wall Section 6 near Bastion 4. Similar rubble piles were found by Anderson (1979), 

Traylor (1981), and Coleman (1984a). Feature 5 is located near the Commissary and was probably a 

porch foundation footer. Other similar features have been recorded by Anderson (1981) and Hunt (1999a). 

Feature 6 was a stone foundation located in the vicinity of Bastion 2, but well inside the curtain walls. The 

foundation is thought to be the partial remains of an 1846-era ordnance building. 

Project Number 31 

Nickel, Robert K. and William J. Hunt, Jr., 2002. Geophysical Surveys of the Perimeter Fortification System at the Site of the Second Fort Smith, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Technical Report No. 85. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Dates: September 13–22, 1999 

Location: Tracts 01-104, 01-105, 01-107, 01-111, 01-114, 01-125–128, 01-140, 01-141 

Principal Investigators: Robert K. Nickel and William J. Hunt, Jr. 

Type of Investigation: Geophysical Remote Sensing Inventory

Discussion: A geophysical remote sensing inventory was undertaken by Nickel and Hunt in all accessible areas of the second fort bastions and curtain or perimeter walls (Figure 7). A multi-instrument 

inventory, using a fluxgate magnetometer, resistivity meter, and ground-penetrating radar was done over 

12 blocks or survey units that encompassed all accessible areas. The inventory effort was highly successful with the identification or confirmation of substantial portions of Bastions 1, 2, and 5 determined to 

remain. 
 5-24

Substantial sections of perimeter Wall Sections 1 and 8 are in place, with portions of Wall Section 2 

near Bastion 2, a small segment of Wall Section 3 also near the same bastion, a small portion of Wall Section 7 and a small portion of Bastion 4 were determined to be present, and a small portion of Wall Section 

10 was found. In addition, a building foundation was found near Bastion 2 that is likely to be the remains 

of an 1846-era ordnance storehouse. A fairly complete stone foundation was found along and outside perimeter Wall Section 9. This feature may be related to the fort Guardhouse. Another foundation was also 

located outside Wall Section 8. This is believed to be a post-fort structure. A radar transect was also done 

informally across the area east of the Courthouse/Jail believed to be the location of the fort Well. An 

anomaly consistent with this identification was found in that locale. 

Project Number 32 

Documentation consists of email correspondence between William Hunt, Bill Black, and Emily Lovick in 

the Midwest Archeological Center Fort Smith Archeology 2000 files. 

Dates: February 4, 8, 9, 23, 2000 

Location: Tract 01-111 

Principal Investigator: Emily Lovick 

Type of Investigation: Monitoring

Discussion: Construction and regrading of the visitors parking lot raised some concerns that historic 

features might be affected by the work. Emily Lovick monitored the effort and found previously disturbed 

soil zones in the construction area. 

Project Number 33 

Hunt, William J., Jr., 2000. Planning and Testing Tree Planting Locations, Fort Smith National Historic 

Site (FOSM). Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln. 

Date: September 5–8, 2000 

Location: Tracts 01-104, 01-105, 01-108, 01-127, 01-128, 01-139, 01-140. 

Principal Investigator: William J. Hunt, Jr. 

Type of Investigation: Testing

Discussion: The park planned to plant trees in various areas of the park that conformed to known 

historic species. Many of the proposed tree planting locations were in areas determined to contain no significant archeological resources. These include areas between the Jail Wing and Gallows (Bastion 3), in 

former street rights-of-way, and on the site of twentieth-century buildings. Sixteen other areas had not 

been previously tested and were thought to have the potential to contain archeological resources. These 

locales were tested using backhoe trenching and hand excavation methods. No Fort or Judicial period 

features were identified. Some concrete foundations and artifactual material associated with the twentieth-century urban occupation of the area were noted. 
 6-1 

Chapter 6: Archeological Resource Assessment and Potential by Fort Areas 

First Fort Smith, Belle Point, and Fort Garden 

Some of the first archeological investigations of Fort Smith were conducted at the site of the 1817-

era fort. Substantial archeological deposits were recovered. Investigations here have encountered the 

foundations of the first Fort Smith—now capped and outlined, the post Well, and a privy or cellar from an 

extrafort structure. 

Only one inventory has been conducted through Belle Point since the 1960s. This inventory was undertaken in conjunction with the development of a new pedestrian trail. The shovel testing effort found 

twentieth-century materials in the upper foot of fill. The area was significantly impacted by bulldozing in 

the early 1960s. Numerous features are present on Belle Point, but most are from the twentieth century 

Coke Hill occupation of the site. Artifacts are quite abundant on Belle Point, but like the features, most 

are recent. Tree throws resulting from the tornado of 1996 reinforced this assumption. Artifacts collected 

from the root balls demonstrated a mix of early-nineteenth-century materials with late-nineteenth- and 

early-twentieth-century items. Artifacts are contained in a 1-ft-thick disturbed topsoil—a product of early 

National Park Service landscaping activity. Thus, no historic ground level is likely to exist on Belle Point. 

Low-lying areas on the north edge of the area, however, do have potential for a buried historic 

ground level. Such a deposit was identified 2.5 ft below surface on the fort garden area. The south edge of 

Belle Point is also a naturally low area. In fact, a ravine identified across the railroad tracks also crosses 

the south end of Belle Point. In this area, however, the ravine received substantially less fill. Deposits here 

are only 1.5 to 3.5 ft deep and contain a mix of historic and post-historic artifacts, signifying recent deposition. 

Recommendations: All ground-disturbing activities conducted at Belle Point must account for the 

presence of significant cultural resources. A multi-instrument geophysical survey of the entire Belle Point 

area is recommended as a means to identify buried archeological features. The area enclosed by the fort 

walls has not been completely excavated, and since foundations were only selectively capped, other subsurface structural remains are present. All earth alteration on the interior of the first Fort Smith should be 

avoided. 

The discovery of the post Well and a first fort cellar or privy establishes the presence of significant 

historic features beyond the walls of the first Fort Smith. The north end of Belle Point may contain a buried historic ground level. To prevent adverse impacts to significant resources, construction activities on 

Belle Point should be restricted to the upper one foot of soil. If this is not possible, an archeological investigation should be conducted to identify and assess adverse impacts on significant cultural resources. If 

avoidance is not possible, a 100-percent excavation of all endangered significant remains should be undertaken. Since fill deposits on the south end are recent, mitigation of construction impacts in this area 

should not be necessary. 

River Frontage 

One archeological investigation associated with a pedestrian trail revealed disturbed soils to a depth 

of at least a foot and twentieth-century deposits. A brief survey of the area also indicates that latenineteenth and early-twentieth-century artifacts are eroding from exposures along the Arkansas River. 

Boat mooring rings mark landing sites at the river’s edge, and one stone monument marking the Choctaw 

Boundary exists in the tract. Therefore, the potential for significant cultural remains exists. 

Recommendations: An archeological investigation should be undertaken on the riverfront to document cultural resources for future management needs. Until cultural resources in this area can be assessed, 

all earth-altering activity should be preceded by archeological testing to determine adverse impacts to significant cultural resources. 
 6-2 

Fort Cemetery and Sawmill 

Although archeological investigation has not been undertaken on these lands, which are owned by 

Forgecraft and the city of Fort Smith, the area is suspected to contain the first fort cemetery and the second fort sawmill (Coleman and Dollar 1984:51–52). The site has been significantly altered by building 

construction, but the extent of cutting and filling cannot be determined without an investigation. 

Recommendations: If the National Park Service acquires this property, an archeological investigation 

should be conducted to determine if the first fort cemetery and second fort sawmill are present. These remains should be identified, delineated, and protected from destruction or impairment. 

Second Fort Smith and Federal Courthouse 

Commissary 

The Commissary lot contains numerous structural remains and significant buried deposits. Intact 

foundations for Wall Sections 1 and 10 occur and are encountered 4 and 9 inches below surface, respectively. Structural remains associated with exterior features of the Commissary include a flagstone walk 

that parallels the right flank of the building (ca. 1.5 ft below surface); two stone piers and a possible post 

mold from the left flank porch (0.73–2.8 ft below surface); buried steps that once serviced the porch on 

the right face of the Commissary (2.6 ft below surface); and two post molds on the right flank that mark a 

former porch at this location (2.0 ft below surface). 

Eleven distinct soil zones, including two historic ground levels, have been identified in the area 

around the Commissary. Within the boundaries of the fort curtain wall, a buried historic ground level is 

encountered 2.0 ft below surface. In extrafort areas where more fill accumulated, two former occupational surfaces are evident. The first historic ground level occurs at 1.8 ft below surface, postdates 1898/9, 

and is associated with the late historic period of the site. The second historic ground level occurs at 2.4 ft 

below surface, overlies the fort wall construction surface, and dates from ca. 1839–1898/9. This historic 

ground level contains significant artifacts and holds potential for the discovery of features and structural 

remains. The interior of the Commissary contains a previously unknown cellar or basement. The cellar fill 

appears to be relatively sterile as far as artifacts are concerned, but its size as well as wall and floor features are relatively unknown. 

Recommendations: Construction activities in the vicinity of the Commissary should be carefully 

planned to avoid known structural remains. To prevent impacts to porches and other external features of 

the Commissary, destructive activity within a 10-ft radius of the building should be avoided whenever 

possible. Because of shallow structural remains, some only 4 inches deep, even superficial work should be 

monitored by an archeologist. Significant buried ground levels, 2.0 ft below surface should be avoided. If 

avoidance is not possible and historic deposits must be disturbed, a 100-percent excavation of the affected 

area should be conducted. 

Officers Quarters and Cistern 

The area containing the Officers Quarters, the Cistern, and Wall Sections 1 and 2 have some significant cultural resources present. The second fort Cistern and 35 subsurface features identified in this area 

relate to possible well and privy locations, and wall lines from Officers Row. Investigations suggest that 

less than 1.7 and 0.5 ft of fill remains in the basements of Officers Quarters A and B, respectively. Evidence for the former Commandant’s Quarters no longer exists, or at least has not been identified by previous investigations. A 100-ft-long segment of Wall Section 1 occurs from 1.5 to 1.8 ft below surface on 

Tract 01-107. 

Although the historic ground level is cut away on the fort interior, significant buried deposits exist in 

extrafort areas including a stone foundation that may be associated with the 1846 ordnance building. Test 

15C-1 yielded a buried historic ground level and historic trash midden from 2.0 to 3.5 ft below surface. At 

3.5 ft below surface, sterile military embankment occurs that might overly significant pre-1839 cultural 

deposits. In Test 15C-2, ten distinct soil zones were recognized. These include two historic ground levels 
 6-3 

and wall construction and demolition surfaces separated by two episodes of military embankment. Historic ground levels in Test 2 are encountered at 0.5 ft and 2.7 ft below surface, respectively. Military embankment at this location is greater than 3.0 ft deep, and pre-1839 remains may occur below it. 

Recommendations: To prevent disturbance to subsurface portions of the second fort Cistern, potentially destructive activity within a 5-ft radius of the Cistern should be avoided. To avoid impacting significant features, structures, and buried historic ground levels, construction should be limited to the upper 0.5 

ft of soil. Activity that extends 0.5 ft or more below surface should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Significant cultural remains identified at this level should be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, a 100-

percent excavation of the affected area is necessary. 

Barracks/Courthouse/Jail 

Landscaping for the Barracks/Courthouse/Jail and visitor center lawn removed between 12 and 18 

inches of soil matrix. Known structures and features include a filled well east of the visitor center entrance and the filled basement of Soldiers Barracks B. Bisected by the 1888 Jail Wing addition, only the 

east and west ends of the former barracks basement survive and are encountered at 1.0 ft or less below 

surface. A sandstone foundation identified near Wall Section 5, about 18 inches below surface, is probably 

the remains of an ordnance shed depicted on an 1870 Army survey map. Additional unidentified features 

may exist in buried historic ground levels. 

Prior to landscaping, the fill on the visitor center lawn exceeded 4 ft in depth, but it is now less than 

30 inches deep. At least eight soil zones are found including two buried historic ground levels. The uppermost ground level is 0.8 ft deep, but is expected to be closer to the surface near the tract edge. The 

lowest historic ground level, dating to ca. 1846–1888, is encountered 1.4 ft below surface. Both levels 

contain historic artifacts and possibly unidentified structural remains. Sterile military embankment underlying the second historic ground level covers the entire east half of the area. In at least one location this 

fill overlies a well-preserved historic trash midden located 3.25 ft below street level. The deposit is believed to have accumulated between the fall of 1821 and August 1838, when the civilian community of 

Fort Smith occupied the site. Potentially, deposits such as this could underlay military embankment elsewhere within the park. 

Recommendations: The potential for significant cultural remains on the visitor center lawn exists at 

any level. A multi-instrument geophysical survey of the entire lawn area is recommended as a means to 

identify buried archeological features. Late prison-related features may occur in Zone 2, a buried historic 

ground level 0.8 ft below surface. Remains of the second fort and early Courthouse undoubtedly occur in 

the buried historic ground level 1.4 ft below surface. Evidence of the early civilian community of Fort 

Smith and possible prehistoric remains will be encountered at an unspecified depth below second fort fill 

(Zone 6). If future earth-altering activities on the visitor center lawn cannot be avoided, impacts should be 

mitigated through data collection. Proposed construction projects should be archeologically investigated 

to prevent impact to structures, features, and historic artifacts. Structural remains should be avoided. All 

impacted areas of historic ground level and features that cannot be avoided should be systematically excavated. 

Flagstaff and Lawn Area 

Archeological monitoring and testing in an abandoned section of Second Street has identified significant cultural remains. The second fort Flagstaff, long covered by street pavement, was found through a 

20-x-20-ft square excavation. The feature is 1.5 ft below surface and consists of a well-preserved wooden 

base for the Flagstaff. Elsewhere, sterile subsurface clays are evident. The presence of other historic features, such as the rubble of the bottling plant, on this former section of parade ground is possible. 

Recommendations: Because of the potential for significant buried features, all work that is conducted 1.5 ft below surface or deeper should be monitored by an archeologist. 
 6-4 

Bastion 2 and Laundress Row 

The railroad median strip has been the subject of intensive investigation for construction of the pedestrian trail, for the capping and outlining of Bastion 2, and for geophysical remote sensing. The area 

contains a buried historic ground level predating ca. 1898/9 that is coextensive with the entire median 

strip area. It is encountered between 0.6 and 3.5 ft below surface and contains abundant artifacts and 

structural remains. These include a fireplace foundation from one building of Laundress Row, the foundation of Bastion 2, and adjoining fort Wall Sections 2 and 3. 

Perhaps more than 75 percent of Bastion 2 is intact and foundation exists on all five sides of the 

structure. Wall Section 2 is represented by a 27.5-ft-long foundation and Wall Section 3 by a 10.5-ft-long 

foundation. Construction stone is encountered from 0.4 to 4.3 ft below surface. Stratification in the vicinity of Bastion 2 is more complex than elsewhere on the median strip. On the bastion interior, extant 

ground surface marks former floor level. Thus, internal features may survive here. The small area of fort 

interior, between Wall Sections 2 and 3, contains numerous levels of military embankment and a single 

historic ground level, ca. 1839–1930, at 0.8 ft below surface. Over time, extrafort areas in the immediate 

vicinity of Bastion 2 received successive layers of fill. 

Four historic ground levels occur here at 0.4, 1.4, 2.8, and 3.2 ft below surface, respectively. Artifacts 

and structural remains are associated with each level. External building features constructed during the 

1866–1867 renovations when the structure was converted to a barracks are encountered at the lowest 

ground level. These include stone piers for full-length porches on the right face and left flank (opposite 

sides) of the structure. 

Recommendations: The railroad median strip contains significant artifact-bearing deposits and structural remains. Bastion 2 and adjacent, related foundations should be avoided. Sensitive archeological deposits occur close to the surface near Bastion 2 (at 0.4 ft below surface) and should not be disturbed. 

Elsewhere, a buried historic ground level occupies the median strip, sloping from 0.6 to 3.5 ft below surface to the south. Earth alteration that would disrupt this level and disturb its contents must be avoided. If 

avoidance is not possible, impacts should be mitigated through data collection. 

Bastion 3 and Gallows 

This former section of Parker Avenue has been intensively investigated for evidence of Bastion 3 and 

the Gallows. Testing encountered sterile subsoil and revealed no evidence of historic structures. Apparently, Parker Avenue had been cut considerably lower than historic grade. A potential exists for the military embankment and pre-1839 cultural deposits to be present on the eastern end of this area. Midden deposits might be encountered here at approximately 3.25 ft below street level. 

Recommendations: Fill placed by the National Park Service has raised the elevation at least a foot 

above former grade. Construction in the first foot of soil will not impact significant cultural resources. 

Because of the potential presence of significant buried deposits, all ground-disturbing work extending 

deeper than one foot should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Bastion 4 

Although disturbed by parking lot construction in 1963, the Bastion 4 area contains significant structural remains. A small portion of the bastion is intact. A 6-ft-long section of the bastion gorge was encountered at 0.55 ft below surface. Intensive testing failed to identify surviving foundations from the 

flanks and faces of Bastion 4 and from adjoining Wall Sections 6 and 7. Significant features, however, do 

occur on the bastion interior. A 17-ft-long section of the parados, an internal foundation to support the 

terreplein, survives. It is a fragile, dry-laid foundation of sandstone slabs. A complex arrangement of pit 

features, possibly privies, also occurs within the former bastion walls. At least three superimposed features exist. They contain historic artifacts and are encountered 0.6 ft below surface. 

Complex stratigraphy is evident in this area. Twenty-three soil zones have been identified. The uppermost deposits are disturbed to 1 ft below surface and a buried historic ground level does not exist. Be-
 6-5 

low this topsoil, sterile military embankment is encountered. Seven distinct levels of this historic fill were 

identified to a depth of 3.5 ft below surface where testing was discontinued. The potential exists for encountering significant prehistoric and historic cultural deposits below this military embankment. A 1-ftthick cinder zone occurs within the embankment as does a linear concentration of sandstone rubble. 

Sandwiched between two layers of embankment, the rubble follows a sloping contour toward the interior 

of the fort, from 0.2 to 2.2 ft below surface. The stone concentration parallels the site of Wall Section 6 

and is probably a former wall construction surface. 

Recommendations: Significant, although incomplete, structural remains and features are present in 

the vicinity of Bastion 4. All activity in this area should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Bastion 5 

Significant structural remains of Bastion 5 were confirmed by archeological and geophysical investigations. Approximately 95 percent complete, only a portion of the gorge and left flank are disturbed, and 

a city storm sewer creates a short break in the right and left faces of the structure. Construction stone in 

the bastion is encountered from 1.0 to 2.5 ft below surface. The parados, on the bastion interior, occurs at 

0.3 ft below surface. This pentagonal arrangement of dry-laid sandstone slabs was intended to support the 

terreplein and might mark the historic ground level at this location. 

Both adjoining fort walls are represented. Wall Section 8, in places only 0.3 ft deep, is completely 

intact. Only a 2-ft-long segment of Wall Section 9 exists at the juncture of Bastion 5. It is 3.0 ft below 

surface. The remainder was destroyed by basement construction for the former Speer Building. The implication also holds for other cultural remains between Bastion 5 and Second Street (e.g., the Guardhouse) 

that appear to have been destroyed by basement excavation. However, geophysical investigations suggest 

there is a foundation present that is exterior to the wall. The ground-penetrating radar footprint indicates it 

may be the same size as the Guardhouse. It is possible the feature is the Guardhouse, and if so, it was constructed outside the fort wall rather than inside as shown on the historic maps. It is also possible that the 

feature as well as one northeast of Wall Section 8 are twentieth-century constructions and unrelated to the 

second Fort Smith. 

Historic ground level apparently does not exist in this area and few historic artifacts were recovered 

there. The southeast portion of the wall area, however, does contain sterile military embankment. Significant buried deposits might occur at an unknown depth below this fill episode. 

Recommendations: Construction activity should avoid known bastion and wall foundations. Since 

the potential for subsurface features and buried deposits exists on the area, all activity in this area should 

be monitored by an archeologist. 

Maintenance Building and Parker Avenue 

Utility excavations between the park maintenance building and Parker Avenue revealed subsurface 

deposits. Although no historic ground level is known to exist here, an extensive military embankment is 

present and extends deeper than 7 ft below surface—at least on the south edge of the tract. The potential 

exists for significant buried deposits below this sterile fill. 

Recommendations: Earth-altering activities may be safely conducted on in this area to a depth of 2 ft. 

If construction will disturb deposits greater than 2 ft below surface, archeological monitoring to identify 

significant remains should be conducted. 

Parking Lot 

The area of the parking lot has been tested and monitored on several occassions. The only structural 

remains encountered include two ca.-1900 building foundations, remnants of the Webber-Ayere’s warehouse complex that occupied the western portion of this area. The northwest corner of this tract had been 

cut for construction of the warehouses, exposing sterile subsurface clays. Elsewhere in the tract, substantial fill deposits occur that date from the late 1870s to ca. 1947 and are predominantly twentieth century in 
 6-6 

age. These deposits are contained in a former ravine, depicted in the 1870 Army survey map. This former 

erosional feature is estimated to have been 285 ft wide and 23 ft deep at this location. 

Recommendations: The building foundations and fill deposits located between Parker and Garland 

Avenues are not deemed significant to the park, but might have significance to the city of Fort Smith. Significant archeological remains are not expected to occur on the surface and potentially significant, older 

deposits are thin, discontinuous, and deeply buried. Mitigation of future construction impacts in this area 

is unnecessary. 

Railroad Rights-of-Way 

The railroad rights-of-way crossing Fort Smith National Historic Site are cut below historic grade. 

The entire length has been investigated, indicating that the railroads are on sterile, subsurface deposits. 

Significant historic resources are very unlikely to be present. 

Recommendations: Mitigative action is not required for construction within the railroad cuts. Any 

potentially destructive activity on the median strip between the railroad cuts, however, should be avoided. 

If avoidance is not possible, excavation or monitoring of the affected deposits should be undertaken as 

appropriate to the project. 
 7-1 

Chapter 7: Archeological Resource Recommendations 

Forty years of archeological research and cultural resource management studies within the park have 

yielded a large amount of data about the presence and absence of archeological resources at Fort Smith. 

Excavations on Belle Point at the first Fort Smith site have yielded an impressive number and variety of 

artifacts as well as delineating the remains of the 1817 fort. Archeological work in and around the second 

Fort Smith has defined remains of bastions, walls, and various structures and features. The various projects also found that post-fort urban development has destroyed some parts of the walls, bastions, and 

other features. While not every archeological element of the fort has been studied in detail, the variety of 

excavation work coupled with utility trench and other project testing and monitoring efforts have allowed 

a significant sample of the subsurface to be examined for the presence and absence of archeological elements of the fort’s past. 

This overview has relied on Coleman’s (1990) earlier assessment and compiled new information to 

assess the current state of knowledge of the park’s archeological resource base. This compiled data set has 

allowed the development of a series of recommendations that reflect this current state of archeological 

knowledge about the park’s subsurface resource condition. Recommendations are presented that identify 

archeological protection zones, zones where some disturbance is present but archeological features may 

be or are present in deeply buried strata, and zones where there is no likelihood of archeological resources 

remaining intact. 

Recommendations are also presented regarding the interpretive and research potential the archeological resources have relative to the park’s overall management strategies and development plans. Finally, 

recommendations are provided for long-term archeological studies that will assist the program management decision-making process. 

Resource Protection 

Most potential impacts to archeological resources at Fort Smith National Historic Site are likely to 

occur as part of park development efforts. Definable impacts to archeological resources can be predicted 

based on parkwide development plans as outlined in the landscape management plan (Gaines 1986) and 

cultural landscape report (Black et al. 1998). Actions defined by these plans that could potentially impact 

archeological resources include development of park facilities (trails, buildings, etc.), burying overhead 

utility lines, street removal, tree removal and planting, and landscaping (cutting and filling). 

The lands within the park have various information potential as described in the recommendations 

for each park area in Chapter 6. Figure 8 was developed to assist management decision-making on potential impacts to archeological resources. Figure 8 illustrates the Fort Smith park lands divided into three 

zones. These zones were developed using the available archeological data to define those areas having 

intact subsurface resources, those areas having the upper levels previously disturbed but having the potential for more deeply buried archeological features, and those areas with so much previous disturbance as 

to have destroyed any archeological remains. 

Zone 1 (high sensitivity) is considered to have the greatest potential to yield archeological information. This area includes all of Belle Point, Bastions 2 and 5, selected wall segments, and the internal fort 

areas containing the Officers Quarters, Cistern, Well, Flagstaff, the Courthouse/Jail, and associated lawn. 

Zone 2 (moderate sensitivity) is considered to have had some previous disturbance. Ground-disturbing 

actions within Zone 2 that are not deeper than one foot below present ground surface do not require any 

archeological work. Ground disturbance below the one-foot level should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Zone 3 (low or no sensitivity) is considered to be so disturbed by previous ground-disturbing actions 

that no archeological work is required up to a depth of 7 ft below present ground surface. Should unexpected archeological deposits or features be found during ground disturbing work in Zones 2 and 3, work 

should cease until the discovery can be evaluated by a qualified archeologist. 
 7-2 

Avoiding impacts to the archeological resources by project design or redesign is always the preferred 

action as stated in National Park Service policy and federal regulations. By way of example, where possible, new utilities should be placed in previously existing utility line corridors or routed along former road 

beds, previously disturbed areas, and locations containing recent fill deposits as defined on the archeological zone map (Figure 8). When ground-disturbing activities are implemented in areas that contain 

intact buried archeological deposits, then appropriate measures should be undertaken to mitigate the project’s impacts to the archeological resource. Mitigation efforts could range from monitoring such work as 

utility trenching, shovel testing as was done for the pedestrian trail on Belle Point, to more comprehensive 

excavation and documentation. The type of archeological investigation required should be developed as 

part of the project planning process and at the earliest possible stage so that compliance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, can proceed in a timely and cost-efficient manner. 

Interpretive Potential and Research Priorities 

Archeological data offer significant research potential and can enhance park interpretation. The purpose of this section is to identify potential research opportunities and interpretive potential of the archeological resource base at Fort Smith National Historic Site. One example is the work of Holly Hampton in 

using the Fort Smith historic base maps as a model developing comparative data layers or themes using a 

Geographic Information System (Hampton and Vawser 2000). 

According to the park management plans and guidance, Fort Smith National Historic Site was established to preserve and interpret the first and second Fort Smith and the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas (National Park Service 1981:17). The management plans call for an integrated 

action plan and recommend specific actions to enhance visitor understanding of park history and to compliment historic resource integrity. These actions include removal of noncontributing features (streets, 

buildings, overhead utility lines), site regrading, planting vegetation, historic structure delineation, and the 

development of walkways and related features in historically accurate locations. Compliance projects 

conducted at Fort Smith National Historic Site have provided a good deal of information about the archeological resource base in many park areas. A comprehensive parkwide survey, however, has never been 

undertaken. Such an investigation is recommended to provide supplemental information for making informed management decisions and for implementing development actions. 

Archeological research should focus on areas most relevant to these overall park management objectives by: 

(1) locating and delineating structural remains; 

(2) acquiring structural data to permit accurate delineation of foundations; 

(3) establishing elevations of former historic grade throughout the park; and 

(4) identifying paths and vegetation. 

A comprehensive parkwide inventory should include: 

(1) multi-instrument geophysical remote sensing inventories to locate and delineate archeological features as well as determine where no features remain intact throughout the park, specifically within 

the Belle Point and the second Fort Smith areas; 

(2) limited testing for verification of remote sensing information and for data recovery; 

(3) a program of auger testing or small-bore coring in areas known to contain historic fill deposits to 

identify and measure buried deposits and former historic ground levels—this work could be undertaken as part of a parkwide inventory effort; 

(4) limited testing to recover data from buried deposits and historic ground levels for dating purposes; 

(5) a reanalysis of the earlier archeological investigations of the second fort defensive works to provide 

a comprehensive view the nature of the archeological resources in the second fort (after geophysical remote sensing and limited testing is completed); and 

(6) further investigations within Officers Row to collect information on the delineation of Officers 

Quarters A and B—previous work has produced inconclusive results. 
 7-3 

The Systemwide Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP) provides the mechanism through which 

funding can be secured to implement such a parkwide inventory and testing effort. The program allows 

for mulityear investigations and reporting to be accomplished for such diverse projects. Project statements 

and justifications need to be placed and prioritized in the park’s Project Management Information System 

(PMIS) project statements. The following statement can be used as the basis for developing a Fort Smith 

SAIP inventory project package. This statement could replace the current PMIS Package 21156 entitled 

Conduct Geophysical Survey. 

Fort Smith Parkwide Archeological Inventory Package 

A four-year parkwide inventory using multi-instrument geophysical remote sensing devices, groundtruthing by test excavation and soil coring, and a reanalysis of unreported data will be undertaken to locate and identify subsurface archeological components of Fort Smith. The work will include Belle Point, 

the site of the first Fort Smith, as well as the second Fort Smith and later Federal Courthouse site. The 

goal of the work is to provide a comprehensive knowledge of the park’s archeological resources that will 

assist in the preservation and interpretation of the Belle Point area and the second Fort Smith complex. 

Knowledge gained from this parkwide inventory will alleviate discrepancies and omissions in the record of the forts’ historic occupation. This, in turn, will provide an accurate picture for park management 

actions and a basis for improved public interpretation and enhancement of visitor experiences. The 

knowledge gained will also contribute to the development of historic contexts for Fort Smith, the mitigation of impacts of resource development, and simplification of archeological compliance with historic 

preservation laws and regulations. The project is identified in the park’s resource management plan. 

Prehistoric Native American Occupation of Fort Smith 

The park currently has a PMIS statement entitled Investigate Prehistoric Native American Occupations scheduled for three phases (PMIS Package 50507). The following statement should be retained in 

the PMIS system. 

The park has scant information on its prehistoric Native American occupations. National Park Service archeologists from the Midwest Archeological Center should conduct archeological investigations on 

the prehistoric Native American occupations of Fort Smith. A multi-year program of research, fieldwork, 

data analysis, and report preparation could be built upon the results of the recent geophysical survey and 

prior archeological investigations. The fairly large prehistoric collection recovered in the 1960s has never 

been analyzed. Since that time there has been sporadic recovery of additional prehistoric artifacts 

throughout the park. The proposed project would allow a thorough investigation of these prehistoric resources and add a significant amount of knowledge for use by park management, interpreters, and visitors. It would also be possible to involve the public in field and laboratory work through a Volunteers-InParks program. 

An improved understanding of these resources is vital as Fort Smith National Historic Site completes 

a new general management plan and a long-range interpretive plan in the next few years. Knowledge 

gained would also contribute to National Park Service cultural resources inventories, the development of 

historic context at Fort Smith, the mitigation of impacts to resources, and the simplification of the archeological clearance process. At the conclusion of the analysis, a pamphlet or small publication would be 

produced to described the work and its results. This should be suitable for public distribution and will assist in interpretation and public outreach. Also, technical knowledge will be gained and results professionally published on prehistoric Native American occupations of the park. 

Belle Point First Fort Smith Reinvestigation and Analysis 

The first Fort Smith archeological investigations were conducted during the late 1950s and early 

1960s. A full analysis of the artifacts recovered has never been accomplished. Despite problems with 

provenience of some of the artifactual material the artifacts have the potential to yield significant information on the lifestyle of the first fort’s occupants. A project to analyze and reinterpret the first Fort Smith 
 7-4 

collection and archeological data is recommended. Such a project would require that limited testing be 

undertaken at the site of first Fort Smith to re-establish the natural and cultural stratigraphic sequence at 

the site. The testing could be undertaken as a separate project or as part of the parkwide archeological inventory. Such a limited testing program could establish not only the natural and cultural stratigraphy at the 

site, but could also be used to determine the full nature and extent of the earlier excavations. It may be 

possible to determine if any of the first Fort Smith still retains archeological integrity. The reanalysis and 

reinterpretation would allow the park management and interpretation proscriptions for Belle Point and the 

first Fort Smith to be re-evaluated accordingly. The following statement may be used in developing a 

PMIS statement for the project. 

A three-year study of the first Fort Smith will be undertaken using data gathered from multiinstrument geophysical remote sensing devices, ground-truthing by test excavation, and reanalysis of artifacts collected in the 1950s and 1960s. The site of the first Fort Smith is a major interpretive theme of the 

park and the goal of the work is to provide a comprehensive knowledge of the site’s archeological condition and potential that will assist the park in future preservation and interpretation of the Belle Point area. 

Knowledge gained from Belle Point and the first Fort Smith will alleviate discrepancies and omissions in the record of the forts’ historic occupation and provide an accurate picture for park management 

actions and a basis for improved public interpretation and enhancement of visitor experiences. The 

knowledge gained will also contribute to the development of historic contexts for Fort Smith, aid in the 

mitigation of impacts of resource development, and simplification of archeological compliance with historic preservation laws and regulations. 

United State Forgecraft Corporation Parcel 

The park’s cultural landscape report (Black et al. 1998:67–68) identified the site of the United State 

Forgecraft plant as an intrusion on the cultural landscape that disrupts the visitors’ view and contemplation of Fort Smith. The parcel is recognized as a potential toxic-waste clean-up site by the State of Arkansas. The Forgecraft parcel is also the possible site of the first Fort Smith Cemetery, a sawmill, and potentially other outbuildings related to both the first and second Fort Smith occupations. Before the toxicwaste issue is abated, consideration should be given to the potential for the site to contain significant cultural features related to the military occupation of Fort Smith. There is also the real possibility that the 

cemetery area may still hold burials from the first Fort Smith era. Any toxic-waste abatement procedure 

should take into account the effect of the clean-up process on the potential archeological resources. It is 

recommended that before any toxic waste abatement begins, a geophysical remote sensing multiinstrument survey be undertaken on the Forgecraft site. 

Conclusions 

Collecting and analyzing the above information is essential to the determination of each individual 

feature as a contributing or non-contributing resource to the significance of Fort Smith. Knowledge of 

feature significance is in turn critical to making informed management decisions when even small-scale 

construction and development activities must be undertaken to provide improved visitor services such as 

new trails, enhancement of the viewshed through vegetative manipulation, and other similar activities. 

Given the extent of the known features, such as the Officers Quarters, the first Fort Smith, and the presence of many structural elements and features across the entire landscape comprising Fort Smith, almost 

any ground-disturbing activity in any location in the park will technically constitute an undertaking. Some 

areas, as delineated in Figure 8, are zones in which previous disturbance has essentially destroyed all archeological features. Park staff should routinely engage the Section 106 compliance process in order to 

seek concurrence from the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer or develop a park-specific programatic memorandum of agreement to define categorical exclusions for routine work. 

Many of the visitors from the immediate area are interested in archeology. One outcome of a parkwide inventory would be a more complete understanding of the prehistory and history of land use in the 

park through time. That history could be told in a variety of means to the visiting public. The artifacts re-
 7-5 

sulting from the inventory may very well aid in presenting a more complete picture of the history to the 

visitor by presenting the physical evidence to them. In turn the data generated by the inventory can be 

used by park interpreters to enhance interpretation through a number of different methods (i.e., exhibits, 

personal presentations, brochures, and publications). 
 7-6 
 RC-1 

References Cited 

Anderson, Bruce 

1979 Archeological Test Excavations for Portions of the Walls of the Second Fort, Fort Smith National 

Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest 

Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

1981 Continuing Archeological Test Excavations for Portions of the Walls of the Second Fort, Fort 

Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional 

Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Arkansas Laboratories 

n.d. Report of Subsurface Soil Investigation and Foundation Recommendations for the Proposed 

Pedestrian Bridge, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Arkansas Laboratories, Inc., Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Barnes, James E. 

1993 An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Pedestrian Trail, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Sponsored Research Program, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Bearss, Edwin C. 

1963 Fort Smith, 1838–1871. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

1968 The Arkansas Whiskey War: A Fort Smith Case Study. Journal of the West VII:143–172. 

Bearss, Edwin C., and A. M. Gibson 

1979 Fort Smith: Little Gibraltar on the Arkansas. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Bell, Robert E. (editor) 

1984 Prehistory of Oklahoma. Academic Press Inc., New York. 

Black, Bill, Juliet Galonska, and Joe Crystal 

1998 Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Smith National Historic Site. Fort Smith National Historic 

Site and Denver Service Center, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. 

Braun, E. L. 

1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafner Publishing, New York. 

Brown, James A., and R. E. Bell 

1964 The First Annual Report of Caddoan Archeology, Spiro Focus Research. University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman. 

Caldwell, Joseph 

1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological 

Association Memoir No. 88. 

Coleman, Roger E. 

1983 Excavation of the Flagpole Base at the Second Fort, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Report on file, Fort 

Smith National Historic Site. 

1984a Archeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Old Commissary Building, Fort Smith 

National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

1984b Results of Archeological Monitoring for Demolition of the Meek Bottling Plant, Fort Smith 

National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

1986 Archeological Testing and Monitoring for Parking Lot Construction, Fort Smith National 

Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest 

Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 
 RC-2 

Coleman, Roger E., continued 

1987a Interim Report: Archeological Investigation for Construction of a Pedestrian Trail at Fort 

Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional 

Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

1987b Archeological Monitoring for Burial of Overhead Telephone Lines and Identification of an 

Historic Midden, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, 

Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

1989a History and Appearance of the Second Fort Cistern, Fort Smith National Historic Site, 

Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, 

Santa Fe. 

1989b Archeological Investigation for Construction of a Pedestrian Trail and Identification of 

Laundress Row, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest 

Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

1990 Archeological Assessment for Fort Smith National Historic Site. Fort Smith National Historic 

Site, National Park Service, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Coleman, Roger E., and Clyde D. Dollar 

1984 Historic Landscape at the Fort Smith National Historic Site (1817–1896), Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

Davis, Hester A. (editor) 

1982 A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 21. Arkansas Archeological Survey, University of Arkansas, 

Fayetteville. 

1994 A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 21. Arkansas Archeological Survey, University of Arkansas, 

Fayetteville. 

Dickinson, Samuel D., and Samuel C. Dellinger 

1942 Pottery from the Ozark Bluff Shelters. American Antiquity 7(3):276–311. 

Dollar, Clyde D. 

1960 Interim Report, Old Fort Smith Project. Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site, File IV-56. 

1966 The First Fort Smith Report. Report on file, Fort Smith National Historic Site. 

1982 The Search for Officers’ Row at Fort Smith, Phase One: Physical and Documentary Evidence. 

Tri-Arch Research Associates, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

1983 Archeological Investigation and Historical Documentation in the Vicinity of the Old Commissary 

Building, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Historic Preservation Associates, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Foti, Thomas L. 

1974 Natural Divisions of Arkansas. In Arkansas Natural Area Plan, pp. 11–34. Arkansas Department of Planning, Little Rock. 

Frazier, C. Craig, James E. Ivey, and Roger E. Coleman 

1987 Historic Structure Report, Restore Historic Commissary Building to 1897, Fort Smith National 

Historic Site, Arkansas. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center. 

Gaines, David 

1986 Landscape Management Plan, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National 

Park Service, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
 RC-3 

Greengo, Robert 

1957 Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of the Dardanelle Reservoir, Arkansas. Smithsonian 

Institution River Basin Surveys Papers, Lincoln. 

Haley, Boyd R., and Thomas A. Hendricks 

1972 Geology of the Van Buren and Lavaca Quadrangles, Arkansas-Oklahoma. Information Circular 

20-1. Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Hampton, Holly, and Anne Wolley Vawser 

2000 Guidelines for Historic Base Maps in GIS: A Model Using Fort Smith. Midwest Archeolgical 

Center, National Park Service, Lincoln. 

Harcourt, James P. 

1987 An Archaeological Survey for Cultural Resources of the Proposed Federal No. 1-4 Well Lateral 

Pipeline, Fort Chafee Military Reservation, Sebastian County, Arkansas. On file, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

Haskett, James 

1966 The Final Chapter in the Story of the First Fort Smith. Arkansas Historical Quarterly

XXV:213–228. 

Hayes, David Dixon 

1996 Archeological Data Recovery and Monitoring for Installation of Utilities and Regrading Around 

Courthouse/Jail, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Sebastian County, Arkansas. Park Paper 

FOSM-01, Division of Interpretation, Buffalo National River, National Park Service, Harrison, 

Arkansas. 

Hinkle, Kathleen A. 

1988 An Archeological Survey of the Proposed Greenwood Wastewater Facility, Sebastian County, 

Arkansas. On file, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

Hoffman, Michael P. 

1977a The Kinead-Mainard Site, 3PU2: A Late Prehistoric Quapaw Phase Site Near Little Rock. 

Arkansas Archeologist 16-18:1–41. 

1977b An Archeological Survey of the Ozark Reservoir in West-Central Arkansas. In Ozark Reservoir 

Papers: Archeology in West-Central Arkansas 1965–1970, by M. Hoffman, N. Myer, D. Printup, and 

C. Bond, pp. 1–44. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 10. Arkansas Archeological 

Survey, Fayetteville. 

Hoffman, Michael P., Nancy E. Myer, Dan Printup, and Clell L. Bond 

1977 Ozark Reservoir Papers: Archeology in West-Central Arkansas, 1965–1970. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 10. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

Hunt, William J., Jr. 

1999a Trip Report Investigation of Archeological Discovery, Commissary Building, Fort Smith 

National Historic Site. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

Lincoln. 

1999b Trip Report: Archeological Monitoring, Fort Smith National Historic Site (FOSM), Sebastian 

County, Arkansas. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

Lincoln. 

2000 Planning and Testing Tree Planting Locations, Fort Smith National Historic Site (FOSM). 

Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln. 

Kyral, JoAnn 

1980 Fort Smith National Historic Site, Arkansas: Statement for Management. United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 
 RC-4 

McGimsey, Charles R. III, and Hester A. Davis (editors) 

1977 The Management of Archeological Resources: The Airlie House Report. Special Publication of 

the Society for American Archaeology. 

Moore, Clarence B. 

1908 Certain Mounds of Arkansas and Mississippi. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia 13:481–600. 

Moore, Jackson W. 

1963 The Archeology of Fort Smith 1. National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, Richmond, 

Virginia. 

Moorehead, Warren G. 

1931 Archaeology of the Arkansas River Valley. Yale University Press, New Haven. 

Myer, Nancy E. 

1969 Salvage Excavations in Four Sites in the Arkansas River Navigation Project Areas, Arkansas. 

University of Arkansas Museum, Fayetteville. 

National Park Service 

1981 Fort Smith National Historic Site General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan/Interpretive Plan. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

1988 Resources Management Plan for Fort Smith National Historic Site. National Park Service, Fort 

Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Nickel, Robert K., and William J. Hunt, Jr. 

2002 Geophysical Surveys of the Perimeter Fortification System at the Site of the Second Fort Smith, 

Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Technical Report No. 85. Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln. 

Orr, Kenneth G. 

1946 The Archeological Situation of Spiro, Oklahoma: A Preliminary Report. American Antiquity

11:288–296. 

Paige, John C. 

1981 Historic Structure Report and Furnishing Study, Courthouse and Jail Wing, Historical Data 

Section, Fort Smith National Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center. 

Palmer, Edward 

1917 Arkansaw Mounds. Arkansas Historical Association Publication 4:390–440. 

Parrish, Jody S. 

1989 Archeological Testing and Monitoring for Storm Drain Construction, Fort Smith National 

Historic Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest 

Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

1990 Memorandum to Regional Archeologist, Southwest Region, Santa Fe. Subject: Video Monitor 

Installation to Commissary. File Code H24 (FOSM), dated April 13. On file, Fort Smith National 

Historic Site. 

Raab, L. Mark, Gayle Fritz, Daniel Wolfman, Robert H. Ray, and George Sabo III 

1982 The Arkansas Ozarks. In A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in 

Arkansas, edited by Hester A. Davis. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 21. Arkansas 

Archeological Survey, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 
 RC-5 

Rogers, J. Daniel, Doug Heffington, and Rusty Greaves 

1980 Spiro Archeology: 1979 Excavations. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past No. 6. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman. 

Sabo III, George, David B. Waddell, and John H. House 

1982 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Ozark–St. Francis National Forests, Arkansas. Project 

No. 497. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

Sabo, George, Ann M. Early, Jerome C. Rose, Barbara A. Burnett, Louis Vogele, Jr., and James P. Harcourt 

1988 Human Adaptation in the Ozark and Quachita Mountains. Arkansas Archeological Survey, 

Fayetteville. 

Scott, Douglas D., and William J. Hunt, Jr. 

2000 Archeological Investigations Conducted in Support of the Fort Smith Barracks/Courthouse/Jail 

Rehabilitation. Technical Report 68. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln. 

Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C., and Beverly Watkins 

1982 Historical Archeology. In A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in 

Arkansas, edited by Hester A. Davis, pp. HA51–97. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research 

Series 21. Arkansas Archeological Survey, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 

Strahler, Arthur N., and Alan H. Strahler 

1978 Modern Physical Geography. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Taylor, Robert A. 

1987 An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Sand Barge Unloading Dock and Associated City Lots in 

Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. Report No. 87-6. Spears Professional, Environmental, & 

Archeological Research Service, West Fork, Arkansas. 

Traylor, Diane 

1981 Test Excavations for Bastion and Wall Foundations of the Second Fort at Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe. 

Thomas, Cyrus 

1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. In Twelfth Annual Report. 

Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Trubowitz, Neal, and Marvin Jeter (editors) 

1982 Arkansas Archeology in Review. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 15. 

Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

United States Department of Agriculture 

1975 Soil Survey of Sebastian County, Arkansas. 

Williams, G. Ishmael 

1986 An Archeological Survey of Three Miles of Proposed Transmission Line on the Fort Chaffee 

Military Reservation, Sebastian County, Arkansas. On file, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

1987 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Arkla Inaterconnect with the Transark Pipeline in 

Sebastian County, Arkansas. On file, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

Zahn, Ellen 

1985 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Alternate Gas Pipeline Relocation 

Route “A,” Barling, Sebastian County, Arkansas. On file, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 

1986 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Fort Chaffee Gas Pipeline, Sebastian County, 

Arkansas. On file, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 
 RC-6 
Ft. Washita

1842–61 Ft. Towson

1824–54

FORT SMITH

1817–71

Ft. Gibson

1824–90

Ft. Leavenworth

1827

Ft. Atkinson 

1818–27

Fort Snelling

1819–1946

Fort Scott

1842–73

Ft. Jessup

1822–46

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

MISSOURI

ILLINOIS

IOWA

WISCONSIN

NORTH DAKOTA MINNESOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

F1

0 200 km

0 200 mi

Figure 1. U.S. Army forts of the early and middle 1800s in the western drainage of the Mississippi River valley.
Figure 2. Post military historic features taken from Sanborn insurance maps superimposed on a modern orthophotograph.

F2
Figure 3. Three periods of Federal Government use superimposed on a modern orthophotograph.

24

F3
4

3

1 2

5

#

3

4

2

1

5

1 2

10 3

7 6

8 5

9 4

Bastion ( )

Wall Segment (1-10)

Gate ( ) 1–5

1-5

Figure 4. Plan view of the Second Fort Smith, ca. 1840, from Coleman 1990. Designations for bastions, gates, and curtain wall segments.

F4
Figure 5. Bell Point features and “Coke Hill” squatter sites superimposed on a modern orthophotograph.

F5
Figure 6. Locations of archeological excavations and shovel tests superimposed on a modern orthophotograph.

F6
Figure 7. Geophysical survey areas and historic feature locations superimposed on a modern orthophotograph.

F7
Figure 8. Archeological sensitivity zones within Fort Smith National Historic Site superimposed on a modern orthophotograph.

F8
 A-1 

Appendix A: Archeological Resource Assessment by Land Tract 

Previous investigations have identified prehistoric and historic resources at Fort Smith National Historic Site. Although these are a fraction of the remains that are potentially present, they nonetheless provide important information on the extent, variety, and integrity of resources for most land tracts within the 

park boundary. The following discussion deals with known and predicted resources for all park land 

tracts. Pertinent data regarding resource identification, integrity, depth, and location are summarized and 

specific recommendations for resource protection are made at the tract level. 

For more specific information, the reader is referred to original field records and completion reports 

housed in the field generated record file in the park curatorial facility (File Cabinet B). These records may 

be accessed by the project number format used herein. 

Tracts 01-101, 01-103, 01-104, 01-105 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 4, 6, 10, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31 

Resources: The Commissary lot contains numerous structural remains and significant buried deposits. 

Intact foundations for Wall Sections 1 and 10 occur and are encountered 4 and 9 inches below surface, 

respectively. Structural remains associated with exterior features of the Commissary include a flagstone 

walk that parallels the right flank of the building (ca. 1.5 ft below surface); two stone piers and a possible 

post mold from the left flank porch (0.73–2.8 ft below surface); buried steps that once serviced the porch 

on the right face of the Commissary (2.6 ft below surface); and two post molds on the right flank that 

mark a former porch at this location (2.0 ft below surface). Eleven distinct soil zones, including two historic ground levels, have been identified in these tracts. Within the boundaries of the fort curtain wall, a 

buried historic ground level is encountered 2.0 ft below surface. In extrafort areas where more fill has accumulated, two former occupational surfaces are evident. The first historic ground level occurs at 1.8 ft 

below surface, postdates 1898/9, and is associated with the late historic period of the site. The second historic ground level occurs at 2.4 ft below surface, overlies the fort wall construction surface, and dates 

from ca. 1839–1898/9. This historic ground level contains significant artifacts and holds potential for the 

discovery of features and structural remains. The interior of the Commissary contains a previously unknown cellar or basement. The cellar fill appears to be relatively sterile as far as artifacts are concerned, 

but its size as well as wall and floor features are relatively unknown. 

Recommendations: Construction activities in the vicinity of the Commissary should be carefully 

planned to avoid known structural remains. To prevent impact to porches and other external features of the 

Commissary, destructive activity within a 10-ft radius of the building should be avoided whenever possible. Because of shallow structural remains, some only 4 inches deep, even superficial work should be 

monitored by an archeologist. Significant buried ground levels at 2 ft below surface should be avoided. If 

avoidance is not possible and historic deposits must be disturbed, a 100-percent excavation of the affected 

area should be conducted. 

Tracts 01-107 and 01-110 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 7, 14, 15C, 22, 31 

Resources: Significant cultural resources are present on Tracts 01-107 and 01-110. The second fort 

Cistern and 35 subsurface features identified in this area relate to possible well and privy locations, and 

wall lines from Officers Row. Investigations suggest that less than 1.7 ft and 0.5 ft of fill remain in the 

basements of Officers Quarters A and B, respectively. Evidence of the Commandant’s Quarters no longer 

exists or at least has not been identified by previous investigations. A 100-ft-long segment of Wall Section 1 occurs from 1.5 to 1.8 ft below surface on Tract 01-107. Although the historic ground level is cut 
 A-2 

away on the fort interior, significant buried deposits exist in extrafort areas on Tract 01-107. Test 15C-1, 

on the north boundary of Tract 01-107, yielded a buried historic ground level and historic trash midden 

from 2.0 to 3.5 ft below surface. At 3.5 ft below surface, sterile military embankment occurs that may 

overly significant pre-1839 cultural deposits. In Test 15C-2, ten distinct soil zones were recognized. 

These include two historic ground levels and wall construction and demolition surfaces separated by two 

episodes of military embankment. Historic ground levels in Test 2 are encountered at 0.5 ft and 2.7 ft below surface, respectively. Military embankment at this location is greater than 3.0 ft deep, and pre-1839 

remains may occur below it. 

Recommendations: To prevent disturbance to subsurface portions of the second fort Cistern, potentially destructive activity within a 5-ft radius of the modern Cistern platform should be avoided. To avoid 

impacting significant features, structures, and buried historic ground levels, construction should be limited 

to the upper 1.5 ft of soil. Activity that extends 1.5 ft below surface should be monitored by an archeologist. Significant cultural remains identified at this level must be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, a 

100-percent excavation of the affected area is necessary. 

Tract 01-108 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32 

Resources: Having escaped the wholesale urbanization that disrupted much of the site, the visitor 

center lawn is the least altered area within the park. Known structures and features include a filled well 

east of the visitor center entrance and the filled basement of Soldier’s Barracks B. Bisected by the 1888 

Jail addition, only narrow strips of the former barracks basement survive and are encountered 2 ft below 

surface. A sandstone foundation identified near Wall Section 5, at 54 cm below surface, is probably the 

remains of an ordnance shed depicted on an 1870 Army survey map. Additional unidentified features 

may exist on Tract 01-108 in buried historic ground levels. 

Fill on the visitor center lawn exceeds 4 ft in depth. At least eight soil zones are found on Tract 01-

108 including two buried historic ground levels. The uppermost ground level is 0.8-ft deep, but is expected to be closer to the surface near the tract edge. The lowest historic ground level, dating to ca. 1846–

1888, is encountered 1.4 ft below surface. Both levels contain historic artifacts and possibly unidentified 

structural remains. Sterile military embankment underlying the second historic ground level covers the 

entire east half of Tract 01-108. In at least one location on the tract edge, this fill overlies an historic trash 

midden located 3.25 ft below street level. The deposit is believed to have accumulated between the fall of 

1821 and August 1838, when the civilian community of Fort Smith occupied the site. Potentially, deposits 

such as this could underlay military embankment elsewhere within the park. 

Recommendations: The potential for significant cultural remains on the visitor center lawn exists at 

any level. Late prison-related features may occur in Zone 2, a buried historic ground level 0.8 ft below 

surface. Second fort and early Federal Courthouse remains undoubtedly occur in the buried historic 

ground level 1.4 ft below surface. Evidence of the early civilian community of Fort Smith and possible 

prehistoric remains will be encountered at an unspecified depth below second fort fill (Zone 6). If future 

earth-altering activities on the visitor center lawn cannot be avoided, impact must be mitigated through 

data collection. Proposed construction projects will be archeologically investigated to prevent impact to 

structures, features, and historic artifacts. Structural remains must be avoided. All impacted areas of historic ground level and features that cannot be avoided must be systematically excavated. 
 A-3 

Tracts 01-111 and 01-134 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 4, 5, 11, 12, 21, 31, 32 

Resources: The only structural remains encountered in Tracts 01-111 and 01-134 include two ca.-

1900 building foundations, remnants of the Webber-Ayere’s warehouse complex that occupied the west 

half of Tract 01-111. The northwest corner of this tract had been cut for construction of the warehouses, 

exposing sterile subsurface clays. Elsewhere in the tract, substantial fill deposits occur that date from the 

late 1870s to ca. 1947 and are predominantly twentieth century in age. These deposits are contained in a 

former ravine, depicted on the 1870 Army survey map. This former erosional feature is estimated to have 

been 285 ft wide and 23 ft deep at this location. 

Recommendations: The building foundations and fill deposits in Tracts 01-111 and 01-134 were not 

deemed significant to the park, but may have significance to the city of Fort Smith. Significant archeological remains are not expected to occur on the surface. Potentially significant, older deposits are thin, 

discontinuous, and deeply buried. Mitigation of future construction impacts in this area is unnecessary. 

Tract 01-113 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Number 17 

Resources: Tract 01-113, the site of the first fort garden, contains a buried historic ground level from 

2.5 to 3.8 ft below surface. Significant prehistoric and historic remains might occur in this area. 

Recommendations: Earth-altering activities on Tract 01-113 should not exceed 2.5 ft in depth. If 

disturbance to the buried historic ground level there cannot be avoided, then the affected area should be 

archeologically investigated to assess adverse effects to significant archeological resources. 

Tracts 01-114 and 01-115 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 5, 14, 15C, 16, 31 

Resources: The railroad median strip has been the subject of intensive investigation for construction 

of the pedestrian trail, for capping and outlining Bastion 2, and for geophysical remote sensing. Tracts 

01-114 and 01-115 contain a buried historic ground level predating ca. 1898/9 that is coextensive with the 

entire median strip area. It is encountered 0.6 to 3.5 ft below surface and contains abundant artifacts and 

structural remains. These include a fireplace foundation from one building of Laundress Row, the foundation of Bastion 2, and the adjoining fort Wall Sections 2 and 3. 

Approximately 67 percent of Bastion 2 is intact and foundation exists on all five sides of the structure. Wall Section 2 is represented by a 27.5-ft-long foundation and Wall Section 3 by a 10.5-ft-long 

foundation. Construction stone is encountered from 0.4 to 4.3 ft below surface. 

Stratification in the vicinity of Bastion 2 is more complex than elsewhere on the median strip. On the 

bastion interior, extant ground surface marks former floor level. Thus, internal features may survive here. 

The small area of fort interior, between Wall Sections 2 and 3, contains numerous levels of military embankment and a single historic ground level, ca. 1839–1930, 0.8 ft below surface. Over time, extrafort 

areas in the immediate vicinity of Bastion 2 received successive layers of fill. 

Four historic ground levels occur here at 0.4, 1.4, 2.8, and 3.2 ft below surface, respectively. Artifacts 

and structural remains are associated with each level. External building features constructed during the 

1866–1867 renovations when the structure was converted to a barracks are encountered at the lowest 
 A-4 

ground level. These include stone piers for full-length porches on the right face and left flank (opposite 

sides) of the structure. 

Recommendations: The railroad median strip contains significant artifact bearing deposits and structural remains. Bastion 2 and adjacent, related foundations must be avoided. Sensitive archeological deposits occur close to the surface near Bastion 2 (0.4 ft below surface) and should not be disturbed. Elsewhere, 

a buried historic ground level occupies the median strip, sloping from 0.6 to 3.5 ft below surface to the 

south. Earth alteration that would disrupt this level and disturb its contents must be avoided. If avoidance 

is not possible, impacts should be mitigated through data collection. 

Tract 01-116 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 1A, 113, 16, 18, 23, 25, 27 

Resources: Numerous features are present on Belle Point, but most are from the twentieth century 

Coke Hill occupation of the site. An estimated 2.2 percent of the features on Belle Point are potentially 

historic. Investigations here have encountered the foundations of the first Fort Smith—now capped and 

outlined, the post well, and an unidentified privy or cellar from an extrafort structure. Artifacts are quite 

abundant on Belle Point, but like the features, most are recent. It is estimated that less than 5 percent of all 

artifacts there are potentially historic. Artifacts are contained in a 1-ft-thick, disturbed topsoil—a product 

of early National Park Service landscaping activity. 

Thus, the historic ground level does not exist on Belle Point. Low-lying areas on the north edge of 

the area, however, do have potential for a buried historic ground level. Such a deposit was identified 2.5 ft 

below surface on the fort garden area. The south edge of Belle Point is also a naturally low area. In fact, 

the ravine identified in across the railroad tracks also crosses the south end of Belle Point. In this area, 

however, the ravine received substantially less fill. Deposits here are only 1.5 to 3.5 ft deep and contain a 

mix of historic and post-historic artifacts, signifying recent deposition. 

Recommendations: All ground-disturbing activities conducted at Belle Point must account for the 

presence of significant cultural resources. The area enclosed by the fort walls has not been completely 

excavated and since foundations were only selectively capped, other subsurface structural remains are 

present. All earth alteration on the interior of the first Fort Smith must be avoided. 

The discovery of the post well and a first fort cellar or privy establishes the presence of significant 

historic features beyond the walls of the first Fort Smith. The north end of Belle Point, like adjacent Tract 

01-113, may contain a buried historic ground level. To prevent adverse impact to significant resources, 

construction activities on Belle Point should be restricted to the upper foot of soil. If this is not possible, 

an archeological investigation should be conducted to identify and assess adverse effects on significant 

cultural resources. If avoidance is not possible, a 100-percent excavation of all endangered significant remains should be undertaken. Since fill deposits on the south end of Tract 01-116 are recent, mitigation of 

construction impacts in this area should not be necessary. 

Tracts 01-119 and 01-133 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Number 25 

Resources: One inventory was conducted on these tracts in conjunction with the development of a 

new pedestrian trail. The shovel testing effort found twentieth-century materials in the upper one foot of 

fill. The area was significantly impacted by bulldozing in the early 1960s. The adjacent Tract 01-113 contains a buried historic ground level 2.5 ft below surface. Thus, archeological remains might occur in 

Tracts 01-119 and 01-133. 
 A-5 

Recommendations: Prior to earth alteration deeper than one foot on Tracts 01-119 and 01-133, an archeological investigation to assess impact to significant resources should be undertaken. If a buried historic ground level is present, it should be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, a 100-percent excavation 

of the affected area should be conducted. 

Tracts 01-120, 01-131, 01-148 

Owner: Belle Point Beverage Co., Inc. 

Project Number 25 

Resources: One inventory was conducted on these tracts in conjunction with the development of a 

new pedestrian trail. The shovel testing effort found twentieth-century materials in the upper foot of fill. 

The area was significantly impacted by bulldozing in the early 1960s. Adjacent Tract 01-113 contains a 

buried historic ground level 2.5 ft below surface. Thus, archeological remains may occur in Tracts 01-119 

and 01-133. 

Recommendations: Prior to earth alteration deeper than one foot on Tracts 01-119 and 01-133, an archeological investigation to assess impact to significant resources should be undertaken. If a buried historic ground level is present, it should be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, a 100-percent excavation 

of the affected area should be conducted. 

Tracts 01-122 and 01-135 

Owners: United State Forgecraft Corporation and the City of Fort Smith 

Project Number — 

Resources: Although archeological investigation has not been undertaken in Tracts 01-122 and 

01-135, the area is suspected to contain the first fort cemetery and the second fort sawmill (Coleman and 

Dollar 1984:51–52). The site is significantly altered from building construction, but the extent of cutting 

and filling cannot be determined without an investigation. 

Recommendations: If the National Park Service acquires this property, an archeological investigation 

should be conducted to determine if the first fort cemetery and second fort sawmill are present. These remains should be identified, delineated, and protected from destruction or impairment. 

Tract 01-124 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 12 and 30 

Resources: Utility excavations on Tract 01-124, between the park maintenance building and Parker 

Avenue, revealed subsurface deposits. Although no historic ground level exists here, extensive military 

embankment is present and extends deeper than 7 ft below surface—at least on the south edge of the tract. 

There is potential for significant buried deposits below this sterile fill. 

Recommendations: Earth-altering activities can be safely conducted on Tract 01-124 to a depth of 7 ft. 

If construction will disturb deposits greater than 7 ft below surface, archeological monitoring to identify 

significant remains should be conducted. 

Tracts 01-125 and 01-143 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 2, 3, 5, 15B, 31 

Resources: Although disturbed from parking lot construction in 1963, Tracts 01-125 and 01-143 

contain significant structural remains. A small portion of Bastion 4 is intact on Tract 01-125. A 6-ft-long 
 A-6 

section of the bastion gorge is encountered 0.55 ft below surface. Intensive testing failed to identify surviving foundation from the flanks and faces of Bastion 4 or from adjoining Wall Sections 6 and 7. Significant features, however, do occur on the bastion interior. A 17-ft-long section of the parados, an internal 

foundation to support the terreplein, survives. It is a fragile, dry-laid foundation of sandstone slabs. A 

complex arrangement of pit features, possibly privies, also occurs within the former bastion walls. At least 

three superimposed features exist. They contain historic artifacts and are encountered 0.6 ft below surface. 

Complex stratigraphy is evident on Tracts 01-125 and 01-143. Twenty-three soil zones have been 

identified. The uppermost deposits are disturbed to 1 ft below surface and a buried historic ground level 

does not exist. Below this topsoil, sterile military embankment is encountered. Seven distinct levels of this 

historic fill were identified to a depth of 3.5 ft below surface where testing was discontinued. The potential exists for encountering significant prehistoric and historic cultural deposits below this military embankment. A 1-ft-thick cinder zone occurs within the embankment as does a linear concentration of sandstone rubble. Sandwiched between two layers of embankment, the rubble follows a sloping contour toward the interior of the fort, from 0.4 to 2.2 ft below surface. The stone concentration parallels the site of 

Wall Section 6 and is probably a former wall construction surface. Testing suggests that this rubble is coextensive with Tract 01-125—Features 3 and 4 as identified by Anderson (Project No. 3) might be a continuation of this construction surface. 

Recommendations: Significant structural remains and features in Tracts 01-125 must be avoided. 

All activity extending 1 ft below surface in Tracts 01-124 and 01-143 should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Tracts 01-127 and 01-128 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 5, 15A, 31 

Resources: Significant structural remains occur in Tract 01-127. Archeological investigation reveals 

that Bastion 5 is approximately 95 percent complete—only a portion of the gorge and left flank are disturbed, and a city storm sewer creates a short break in the right and left faces of the structure. Construction stone in the bastion is encountered from 1.0 to 2.5 ft below surface. The parados, on the bastion interior, occurs 0.3 ft below surface. This pentagonal arrangement of dry-laid sandstone slabs was intended to 

support the terreplein and might mark the historic ground level at this location. Both adjoining fort walls 

are represented. Wall Section 8, in places only 0.3 ft deep, is completely intact on Tract 01-127. Only a 

2-ft-long segment of Wall Section 9 exists at the juncture of Bastion 5. It is 3.0 ft below surface. The remainder had been destroyed by basement construction for the former Speer Building. The implication also 

holds for other cultural remains between Bastion 5 and Second Street (e.g., the Guardhouse) that have 

also been destroyed by basement excavation. A small portion of Wall Section 9, however, may survive on 

Tract 01-128 between the Speer Building foundation and Second Street. 

No historic ground level exists on Tracts 01-127 and 01-128, and few historic artifacts were recovered there. The southeast portion of Tract 01-127, however, does contain sterile military embankment. 

Significant buried deposits may occur at an unknown depth below this fill episode. 

Recommendations: Construction activity must avoid known bastion and wall foundations. Since the 

potential for subsurface features and buried deposits exists on the eastern half of Tract 01-127, all activity 

in this area should be monitored by an archeologist. 
 A-7 

Tract 01-136 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Number 25 

Resources: One archeological investigation associated with a pedestrian trail revealed disturbed 

soils to a depth of at least one foot and twentieth-century deposits. A brief survey of the area also indicates that late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century artifacts are eroding from exposures along the Arkansas River. Boat mooring rings mark landing sites at the river’s edge, and one stone monument marking 

the Choctaw Boundary exists in the tract. Therefore, the potential for significant cultural remains exists. 

Recommendations: An archeological investigation should be undertaken on the riverfront to document cultural resources for future management needs. Until cultural resources in this area can be assessed, 

all earth-altering activity should be preceded by archeological testing to determine adverse effect to significant cultural resources. 

Tract 01-138 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 4, 5, 11, 12, 21 

Resources: This former section of Parker Avenue has been intensively investigated for evidence of 

Bastion 3 and the Gallows. Testing encountered sterile subsoil and revealed no evidence of historic structures. Apparently, Parker Avenue had been cut considerably lower than historic grade. Because of discoveries on adjacent Tract 01-108, the potential for military embankment and pre-1839 cultural deposits exists on the extreme east end of Tract 01-138. Midden should be encountered here approximately 3.25 ft 

below street level. 

Recommendations: Fill placed on Tract 01-138 by the National Park Service, however, has raised the 

elevation at least 1 ft above former grade. Construction in the first foot of soil on Tract 01-138 will not 

impact significant cultural resources. Because of the potential presence of significant buried deposits, all 

ground-disturbing work extending deeper than one foot should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Tract 01-139 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Numbers 7, 8, 11, 22, 33 

Resources: Archeological monitoring and testing in Tract 01-139, an abandoned section of Second 

Street, has identified significant cultural remains in portions of the area. The second fort Flagstaff, long 

covered by street pavement, is marked by a 20-x-20-ft square excavation. This feature, 1.5 ft below surface, contains a well-preserved wooden structure or Flagstaff base. Elsewhere in Tract 01-139, sterile 

subsurface clays are evident. The presence of other historic features on this former section of parade 

ground is possible. 

Recommendations: All construction activity should avoid the site of the second fort Flagstaff. Because of the potential for other significant features, all work in Tract 01-139 that is conducted 1.5 ft below 

surface or deeper should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Tracts 01-140 and 01-141 

Owner: City of Fort Smith 

Project Numbers 22 and 33 

Resources: Four active city streets once crossed the park: Rogers Avenue, Second Street, Third 

Street, and Parker Avenue. These are included in Tracts 01-140 and 01-141. There have been two archeo-
 A-8 

logical investigations related to utilities placement and tree plantings. No historic features were seen and 

subsurface deposits all appear to be extensively disturbed. Historical documentation and testing on adjacent area indicates that significant cultural resources should underlay street pavements. Military embankment and subsurface cultural deposits may be present on the east and west ends of Rogers Avenue within 

the park boundary. The remaining segment of Second Street overlay Wall Sections 9 and 10 and Gate 5, 

although geophysical investigations suggest that the wall segements were destroyed by construction. 

Third Street and Parker Avenue, although cut below historic grade, cover military embankment that may 

overly pre-1839 midden deposits. In at least one area, a buried midden occurs 3.25 ft below street level on 

the adjacent lawn of the Courthouse/Jail complex. 

Recommendations: An archeologist should monitor all future construction activity in the street 

alignments and significant resources, if present, should be avoided. 

Tract 01-142 

Owner: The Old Commissary Museum Association 

Project Number — 

Resources: This area, now a parking lot for the Old Fort Museum, once contained a warehouse with 

basement. Significant cultural resources will not be found here. 

Recommendations: If the National Park Service acquires this property, it will not be necessary to 

mitigate future construction impacts in Tract 01-142. 

Tracts 01-144 and 01-145 

Owner: United State Forgecraft Corporation 

Project Number 12 

Resources: A buried historic ground level is present in Tracts 01-144 and 01-145. This former occupational surface (ca. 1839–1898/9) occurs 1.2 ft below surface over a layer of military embankment and a 

1-ft-thick cinder deposit. Artifacts were not recovered from the historic ground level, but the potential exists for locating artifacts and structural remains. The presence of embankment here indicates that the military intended to use this area, south of the historic ravine, as a construction site. The 1870 Army survey 

map indicates that the Post Bakehouse was situated nearby. 

Recommendations: If the National Park Service acquires Tracts 01-144 and 01-145, an exploratory 

excavation to document cultural resources should be conducted. Any activities that affect deposits 1.2 ft 

below surface should be preceded by an archeological investigation. A 100-percent excavation of the affected historic ground level should be undertaken. All soil from this former occupational surface should 

be screened and all artifacts should be retained for analysis. 

Tract 01-146 

Owner: Douglas Stites 

Project Number — 

Resources: The Frisco Station, a restaurant and National Register property, is located on Tract 01-

146. The area is deeply cut from Second Street to track grade at the adjacent Arkansas and Missouri Railroad. It is expected that all cultural resources relating to Fort Smith National Historic Site in Tract 01-146 

have been destroyed. One possible exception may be the Sutler’s Store in the northeast corner of the tract. 

Recommendations: Significant archeological resources, with one possible exception, will not be 

found in Tract 01-146. If the National Park Service should acquire this property, an archeological investigation should be conducted to identify remains of the Sutler’s Store. The remainder of Tract 01-146 will 

not require archeological mitigation. 
 A-9 

Tract 01-147 

Owner: National Park Service 

Project Number — 

Resources: Investigation on an adjacent tract suggests that an historic ground level will not be found 

on Tract 01-147. This area has been disturbed by a spur of the former St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad. Intact subsurface features, however, might occur in this tract. 

Recommendations: Construction activities in Tract 01-147 should be monitored by an archeologist. 

Tracts 01-149, 01-150, 01-151 

Owners: Arkansas and Missouri Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad 

Project Numbers 13, 14, 20 

Resources: The railroad right-of-way crossing Fort Smith National Historic Site is cut below historic 

grade. The entire length of right-of-way has been investigated, indicating that the railroads are on sterile, 

subsurface deposits. Significant historic resources are not present here. 

The northern half of the railroad median strip, although distinct from the railroad cuts, is included in 

Tract 01-149. Like Tracts 01-114 and 01-115, the southern end of the median strip, this area also contains 

significant buried deposits and structural remains. A buried historic ground level will occur here. Although 

the depth of this former occupational surface is unknown, it is expected to be shallow at the northern end 

of the median where the historic cistern overflow drain was once exposed at the surface. The surface drain 

has been covered with fill, however, and is no longer visible. The existence of additional structural remains is likely since construction stone is exposed in the North Arkansas and Missouri Railroad cut where 

the 1870 Army survey map depicts the post hospital. This site, however, has not been investigated. 

Recommendations: Mitigative action is not required for construction within the railroad cuts. Any 

potentially destructive activity on the median strip between the railroad cuts, however, must be avoided. If 

avoidance is not possible, a 100-percent excavation of affected deposits is required. 
 A-10