Parts I and II 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

Arkansas post 

NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

Gillett, Arkansas 

View of Post Bend from Arkansas Post National Memorial, September 2003

December 2005

Arkansas Post 

National Memorial 

G ILLETT , A RKANSAS

Cultural Landscape Report 

 1443CX600094014/ 1443PX605097811 

Parts I and II 

December 2005 

Prepared for 

National Park Service 

Midwest Systems Support Office 

1709 Jackson Street 

Omaha, Nebraska 68102 

Quinn Evans / Architects

2191/2 North Main Street 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 

(313) 663-5888 
 

i 

Table of Contents 

PART I 

1 / Introduction

Scope of the Report .................................................................................................................... 1 

Methodology and Project Staff ................................................................................................. 2 

Location ..................................................................................................................................... 3 

Background ................................................................................................................................. 3 

Brief Historical Overview ......................................................................................................... 4 

2 / Management Issues 

Preliminary Management Issues ............................................................................................ 13 

Major Issues .............................................................................................................................. 13 

Significance and Integrity .................................................................................................... 13 

Archeological Investigations and Resources ........................................................................ 15 

Landscape Interpretation ...................................................................................................... 18 

Contemporary Management Issues ...................................................................................... 20 

Treatment Philosophy .......................................................................................................... 22 

3 / Site History 

Historical Periods ..................................................................................................................... 25 

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 27 

Pre-1673 ................................................................................................................................... 36 

Historic Context ................................................................................................................... 36 

Site Chronology .................................................................................................................... 42 

 Geomorphology & Vegetation Patterns .................................................................... 42 

 Historic Background & Indian Artifacts ................................................................... 46 

Period Summary ................................................................................................................. 48 

1673- 1803 ................................................................................................................................... 49 

Historic Context..................................................................................................................... 49 

Site Chronology ..................................................................................................................... 51 

 Geomorphology ............................................................................................................ 51 

 Historic Background..................................................................................................... 53 

 De la Houssaye’s Fort at “Ecores Rouge,” 1749-1756 .............................................. 58 

 Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement ............................................................... 59 

 Historic Buildings and Associated Features ........................................................... 60 

 Ft. San Carlos III, Ft. San Esteban & the Post of Arkansas, 1779-1803................... 64 

 Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement ............................................................... 65 
 

ii 

 Historic Buildings and Associated Features ..................................... ......... 71 

Period Summary .......................................................................................................... 87 

1804-1855 .............................................................................................................................. 89 

Historic Context .............................................................................................................. 89 

Site Chronology .............................................................................................................. 92 

 Geomorphology .......................................................................................................... 92 

 Historic Background................................................................................................... 94 

Arkansas Post, 1804-1855....................................................................................... 99 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement .................................................... 99 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features .............................................. 103 

United States Military Reservation ....................................................... 104 

Post of Arkansas ...................................................................................... 106 

Town of Rome and Town of Arkansas, 1818-1855.............................. 114 

Farmsteads, 1804-1855 ............................................................................ 117 

Period Summary ........................................................................................................ 119 

1856-1865............................................................................................................................. 120 

Historic Context ............................................................................................................ 120 

Site Chronology ............................................................................................................ 121 

 Geomorphology ........................................................................................................ 121 

 Historic Background................................................................................................. 121 

Village of Arkansas Post, 1856-1862................................................................... 123 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement .................................................. 123 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features .............................................. 128 

Post of Arkansas and Farmsteads, 1856-1863...................................... 128 

Confederate Fortifications & Associated Structures, 1862-1863 ....... 132 

Union Operations at Arkansas Post, 1863............................................ 135 

Period Summary ........................................................................................................ 136 

1866-1928............................................................................................................................. 136 

Historic Context ............................................................................................................ 136 

Site Chronology ............................................................................................................ 138 

Geomorphology.................................................................................................... 138 

Historic Background ............................................................................................ 140 

Village of Arkansas Post, 1866-1928................................................................... 143 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement .................................................. 143 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features .............................................. 148 

Period Summary ............................................................................................................... 152 
 

iii 

1929-1963 ................................................................................................................................... 153 

Historic Context................................................................................................................... 153 

Site Chronology ................................................................................................................... 157 

Geomorphology .......................................................................................................... 157 

Historic Background................................................................................................... 158 

Arkansas Post State Park, 1929-1963 ........................................................................ 161 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement......................................................... 161 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features..................................................... 167 

Village of Arkansas Post, 1929-1963 ......................................................................... 173 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement......................................................... 173 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features..................................................... 174 

Period Summary ............................................................................................................... 176 

1964-1998 ................................................................................................................................... 177 

Historic Context..................................................................................................................... 177 

Site Chronology ..................................................................................................................... 180 

Geomorphology .......................................................................................................... 180 

Historic Background................................................................................................... 182 

Initial NPS Development, 1964-1974 ........................................................................ 184 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement......................................................... 184 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features..................................................... 188 

Later NPS Development, 1975-Present .................................................................... 194 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement......................................................... 194 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features..................................................... 198 

Period Summary ............................................................................................................... 202 

Historic Maps (Map 1-48) ....................................................................................................... 204 

Historic Photographs (Figure 1-49) ....................................................................................... 252 

Historic Period Plans (Exhibit 1 – 8)...................................................................................... 299
 

iv 

PART II 

4 / Existing Conditions 

Site Location ............................................................................................................................ 309 

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 311 

Identification of Vegetative Stand Types ............................................................................ 314 

Identification of Vegetative Species Present at APNM ....................................................... 316 

Landscape Characteristics and Features ............................................................................. 318 

Site Description, Land Use, and Landscape Organization ................................................. 318 

Response to Natural Features and Land/Water Relationship ............................................ 321 

Soils ................................................................................................................................. 325 

Habitat ................................................................................................................................ 327 

Buildings, Structures, and Small-Scale Features ............................................................... 330 

Circulation .......................................................................................................................... 334 

Archeological Resources ..................................................................................................... 337 

Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 338 

Overview of Vegetation ............................................................................................... 338 

Descriptions of Vegetative Stand Types ....................................................................... 343

Summary of Vegetative Stand Types ............................................................................ 346 

Vegetation Analysis ...................................................................................................... 348 

Plants Traditionally Used by Native Americans .......................................................... 350 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species ................................................................... 351 

Exotic Plant Species ...................................................................................................... 351 

Maps 49-52 ............................................................................................................................... 352 

Exhibit 9-39 .............................................................................................................................. 356 

Table I ................................................................................................................................. 387 

5 / Analysis 

Criteria for the Evaluation of Significance of a Historic Landscape ................................ 399 

Significance of the Arkansas Post Historic Landscape ...................................................... 401 

Historical Periods ................................................................................................................... 403 

Archeological Analysis .......................................................................................................... 404 

Civil War ............................................................................................................................ 409 

Analysis of Landscape Integrity ........................................................................................... 410

Effects of Invasive Vegetation on Integrity ......................................................................... 413 

Integrity Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 414 

Contributing Features, Pre-1673 .......................................................................................... 416
 

v 

Contributing Features, 1673-1803 ........................................................................................ 417 

Contributing Features, 1804-1855 ........................................................................................ 418 

Contributing Features, 1856-1865 ........................................................................................ 421 

Contributing Features, 1866-1928 ........................................................................................ 423 

Contributing Features, 1929-1963 ........................................................................................ 426 

Non-Contributing Features .................................................................................................. 427 

Summary of Analysis and Evaluation ................................................................................ 429 

Exhibits 40-47 ........................................................................................................................... 433 

6 / Treatment Recommendations 

Treatment Approach .............................................................................................................. 442 

Treatment Plan ....................................................................................................................... 444 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 446 

Overall Site Management and Operation ........................................................................... 447 

Circulation ............................................................................................................................... 448 

Vegetation Management ....................................................................................................... 450 

Plants Traditionally Used by Native Americans ............................................................... 451 

Invasive and Noninvasive Exotic Plant Species ................................................................ 451 

Vegetative Burns .................................................................................................................... 452 

Prairie ................................................................................................................................. 454 

Archeology .............................................................................................................................. 455 

Interpretation .......................................................................................................................... 455 

Future Studies ......................................................................................................................... 458 

Contributing Features Table ................................................................................................. 461 

Non-Contributing Features Table ........................................................................................ 463 

Exhibits 48-49 .......................................................................................................................... 465 

7 / Implementation Guidelines 

Overall Site Management and Operation ........................................................................... 468 

Expand the Visitor Center .................................................................................................. 468 

Update Existing Site Furnishings ...................................................................................... 469 

Circulation ............................................................................................................................... 470 

Expansion of the Existing Pedestrian Trail System ........................................................... 470 

Develop an Informal Overflow Parking Area .................................................................... 472 

Vegetation Management ....................................................................................................... 473 

Establish Meadow Vegetation in Currently Mowed Areas ............................................... 473 

Site Planning for Views and Vistas ..................................................................................... 473 
 

vi 

Conduct Research to Determine Responses of APNM Woodland to Fire .......................... 474 

Evaluate Prairie Management Practices ........................................................................... 474 

Archeology .............................................................................................................................. 475 

Archeological Studies and Investigations ........................................................................... 475 

Interpretation .......................................................................................................................... 476 

Prepare an Interpretative Plan that Enhances Cultural Landscape Interpretation ........... 476 

Develop a Logo for identifying Civil War Sites .................................................................. 481 

Develop Mapping or Waysides to interpret the Historic Landscape .................................. 481 

Develop Electronic/Digital alternatives to Interpretation ................................................. 481 

8 / Bibliography 

Primary Sources ...................................................................................................................... 483 

Secondary Sources .................................................................................................................. 503 

9 / Appendices 

Appendix A: Archival Collections Consulted During Site History Research ............... 517 

Appendix B: Plant List with Tribal Affiliation .................................................................... 521 
 

vii 

List of Maps, Exhibits, Figures, and Tables 

Map 

Map 1. Lockhart, Waugh, Evans ....................................................................................... 199 

Map 2. Marquette, (1673-1674) ............................................................................................ 200 

Map 3. “Indian Tribes of Arkansas, 1690 .......................................................................... 201 

Map 4. “Map of Arkansas Region in Colonial Times ..................................................... 202 

Map 5. “Locations of Arkansas Post, 1686-1999” ............................................................ 203 

Map 6. “Establissement du Poste des Arkansas” ............................................................ 204 

Map 7. “Map of Arkansas Post’s New Fort-ca. 1783 ....................................................... 205 

Map 8. “Map of the Fort of the Post of Arkansas in 1807 ................................................ 206 

Map 9. Territorial Limits of Native American Nations (1816) ........................................ 207 

Map 10. “Indian Reservations west of the Mississippi “(1818) ..................................... 208 

Map 11. William Russell and Nicholas Rightor, Surveys (1816-1820) ............................ 209 

Map 12. Spanish Land Grant (ca. 1820) ............................................................................. 210 

Map 13. Map of Arkansas River (ca. 1821) .......................................................................... 211 

Map 14. Historical Base Map (1818-1840) ........................................................................... 212 

Map 15. “Provisional Plan of the Village of Arkansas Post, 1819-1840” ........................ 213 

Map 16. “Post of Arkansas, Territory of Arkansas, 1829” ................................................. 214 

Map 17. “Map of Arkansas Post, January 13, 1832” ........................................................... 215 

Map 18. T.S. Brown sketch of Arkansas River (1833) ........................................................ 216 

Map 19. Plat Prepared by Nicholas Rightor (ca. 1819) ....................................................... 217 

Map 20. Lots Purchased by Eli Lewis from James Scull (1818) ....................................... 218 

Map 21. Plat of Lot Owned by Pryor, Richard and Samuels (1821) ................................. 219 

Map 22. Lot Given to the Bank of Arkansas by Colonel Notrebe (1840) ......................... 220 

Map 23. Plat of Private Survey showing the Town of Rome (1818) ................................. 221 

Map 24. Map of the Town of Arkansas (1819) .................................................................... 222 

Map 25. Troop Movement Map (1863) ................................................................................. 223 

Map 26. Troop Movement Map (1863) ................................................................................. 224 

Map 27. Historical Base Map, Post of Arkansas (1863) ...................................................... 225 

Map 28. “Approaches to Fort Hindman...” (1863) ............................................................. 226 

Map 29. Plan of Fortification at the Post of Arkansas (1863) ............................................ 227 

Map 30. “Diagram of Post of Arkansas and Outworks” (1863) ........................................ 228 

Map 31. “Post of Arkansas Captured Jan. 11, 1863...” ...................................................... 229 

Map 32. Plan of the Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) ........................................................... 230 

Map 33. Plan of Fort at Post Arkansas (1863)....................................................................... 231 

Map 34. Map of Arkansas River (1886) ................................................................................ 232 
 

viii 

Map 35. Plat Map for F. Quandt (1900) ............................................................................... 233 

Map 36. Plat Map for L. C. Jones (1903) .............................................................................. 234 

Map 37. Plat Map for L. C. Jones (1907) .............................................................................. 235 

Map 38. Sectional Map for Arkansas County (1912) ......................................................... 236 

Map 39. Arkansas River Survey (1931) ................................................................................. 237 

Map 40. Aerial Photo (1950) ................................................................................................... 238 

Map 41. “Map of Arkansas Post State Park with Relation to Archeological Research 

Area” (1957) ............................................................................................................................... 239 

Map 42. Archeological Explorations (1957) ........................................................................ 240 

Map 43. Boundaries for the Arkansas Post National Park Memorial Project (1960) ..... 241 

Map 44. USGS Topographic Map of Arkansas Post (1972) .............................................. 242 

Map 45. Excavated Areas, Trenches, and Features (1976) ................................................ 243 

Map 46. Buildings of Arkansas Post for Proposed Disposal (1964) ................................. 244 

Map 47. Hand Drawn Map Showing early 20th Century Features ................................... 245 

Map 48. Land Classification Map (1973) ............................................................................. 246 

Map 49. Aerial Photograph, 1955 ........................................................................................ 352 

Map 50. Aerial Photograph, 1964 ......................................................................................... 353 

Map 51. Aerial Photograph, 1981 ......................................................................................... 354 

Map 52. Aerial Photograph, 1994 ......................................................................................... 355 

Exhibits Part I 

Exhibit 1. Pre 1673, Pre-Contact Period .............................................................................. 299 

Exhibit 2. 1673-1803, Colonial and Revolutionary Period ............................................... 300 

Exhibit 3. Cattle Dip Component Landscape Site Plan .................................................... 301 

Exhibit 3A. Cattle Dip Component Landscape Site Plan ................................................ 302 

Exhibit 4. Component Landscape Site Plan ....................................................................... 303 

Exhibit 5. Component Landscape Site Plan.......................................................................... 304 

Exhibit 6. Component Landscape Site Plan.......................................................................... 305 

Exhibit 7. Component Landscape Site Plan.......................................................................... 306 

Exhibit 8. Component Landscape Site Plan.......................................................................... 307 

Exhibits Part II 

Exhibit 9. Site Context and Regional Location ................................................................... 356 

Exhibit 10. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 357 

Exhibit 11. Cattle Dip Component Landscape Site Plan ................................................... 359 

Exhibit 12. Component Landscape Site Plan ...................................................................... 360 
 

ix 

Exhibit 13. Component Landscape Site Plan......................................................................... 360 

Exhibit 14. Component Landscape Site Plan......................................................................... 361 

Exhibit 15. Component Landscape Site Plan......................................................................... 361 

Exhibit 16. Component Landscape Site Plan......................................................................... 362 

Exhibit 17. Component Landscape Site Plan......................................................................... 362 

Exhibit 18. Maintenance/Employee Housing Area ............................................................. 363 

Exhibit 19. Visitor Center Area................................................................................................ 364 

Exhibit 20. Soils Survey ........................................................................................................... 365 

Exhibit 21. Archeological Resources...................................................................................... 366 

Exhibit 22. Large Diameter Trees ......................................................................................... 367

Exhibit 23. Vegetation Types ................................................................................................ 369 

Exhibit 24. The Nature Conservancy Vegetation Classes .................................................. 370 

Exhibit 25. Vegetation Type A .............................................................................................. 371 

Exhibit 26. Vegetation Type B .............................................................................................. 372 

Exhibit 27. Vegetation Type C .............................................................................................. 373 

Exhibit 28. Vegetation Type D .............................................................................................. 374 

Exhibit 29. Vegetation Type E .............................................................................................. 375 

Exhibit 30. Vegetation Type F ............................................................................................... 376 

Exhibit 31. Vegetation Type G .............................................................................................. 377 

Exhibit 32. Vegetation Type I ............................................................................................... 378 

Exhibit 33. Vegetation Type J ............................................................................................... 379 

Exhibit 34. Vegetation Type K .............................................................................................. 380 

Exhibit 35. Vegetation Type L .............................................................................................. 381 

Exhibit 36. Vegetation Type M ............................................................................................. 382 

Exhibit 37. Vegetation Type N ............................................................................................. 383 

Exhibit 38. Vegetation Type O............................................................................................... 384 

Exhibit 39. Vegetation Type P .............................................................................................. 385 

Exhibit 40. Contributing Features, pre 1673 ....................................................................... 433 

Exhibit 41. Contributing Features, 1673-1803 ..................................................................... 434 

Exhibit 42. Contributing Features, 1804-1855 ..................................................................... 435 

Exhibit 43. Contributing Features, 1856-1865 ..................................................................... 436 

Exhibit 44. Contributing Features, 1866-1928 ..................................................................... 437 

Exhibit 45. Contributing Features, 1929-1963 ..................................................................... 438 

Exhibit 46. Noncontributing Features ................................................................................. 439 

Exhibit 47. Archeological Analysis ....................................................................................... 440 

Exhibit 48. Conceptual Design/Development Plan .......................................................... 465 

Exhibit 49. Interpretative Plan .............................................................................................. 466 
 

x 

Figures 

Figure 1: “Three Villages Robe”............................................................................................. 247 

Figure 2: Detail for the “Three Villages Robe”..................................................................... 248 

Figure 3: Details from a drawing in T. Nuthall, Travels Into the Arkansas Territory during 

the Year 1819 (1821).................................................................................................................... 249 

Figure 4: Detail of the Northeast Elevation of the Bank Building..................................... 250 

Figure 5: Notrebe Cistern Exterior......................................................................................... 251

Figure 6: Notrebe Cistern Interior.......................................................................................... 252 

Figure 7: Union Ironclad Gunboat (1865) ............................................................................. 253 

Figure 8: Fort Hindman (1863) ............................................................................................... 254 

Figure 9: Detail, Fort Hindman (1863)................................................................................... 255 

Figure 10: Capture of Arkansas Post (1863) ......................................................................... 256 

Figure 11: Bombardment of the Post of Arkansas (1863) ................................................... 257 

Figure 12: Fort Hindman at Arkansas Post (1863)............................................................... 258 

Figure 13: “Casemate on the Eastern Curtain of Fort Hindman ....................................... 259 

Figure 14: “Casemate in the Northeastern Bastion, Fort Hindman .................................. 260 

Figure 15: “Disabled Confederate Gun in the East Bastion of the Fort at Arkansas Post 

(1863) .................................................................................................................................... 261 

Figure 16: “Bombardment and Capture of Fort Hindman” (1863) ................................... 262 

Figure 17: 19th Century Well ................................................................................................... 263 

Figure 18: 19th Century Well Exterior.................................................................................... 264 

Figure 19: Arkansas Post State Park Entrance (1950s) ........................................................ 265 

Figure 20: Arkansas Post State Park Entrance (early 1930s) .............................................. 266 

Figure 21: Arkansas Post State Park Lake (1937)................................................................. 266 

Figure 22: Arkansas Post State Park Lake (1939 ................................................................. 267 

Figure 23: Arkansas Post State Park Lake, View from the East (1937) ............................. 268 

Figure 24: Earth Dam and Culverts around Park Lake (1968)........................................... 269 

Figure 25: Fishermen at Arkansas Post State Park (ca. 1954)............................................. 270 

Figure 26: P.C. Howson, “Plan of Proposed U.D.C. Area, Arkansas Post State Park” 

(1931) .................................................................................................................................... 271 

Figure 27: Caretaker’s Lodge, View from the North (1937) ............................................... 272 

Figure 28: Caretaker’s Lodge, View from the Northeast (1937) ........................................ 272 

Figure 29: Caretaker’s Lodge, View from the Northwest (ca. 1930s) ............................. 273 

Figure 30: Caretaker’s Lodge, (1939) ................................................................................... 274 

Figure 31: Picnic Grounds (ca. 1932) ..................................................................................... 275 

Figure 32: Picnic Grounds, View Showing Concrete Table (ca. 1932) .............................. 276 

Figure 33: Footbridge Across Ravine (ca. 1940)................................................................... 277 
 

xi 

Figure 34: “Lady of Justice” Statue (1964) ............................................................................ 278 

Figure 35: Log Cabin Contructed by WPA of CCC (1964) ................................................. 279 

Figure 36: Interior Detail, Log Cabin..................................................................................... 280 

Figure 37: Broad View, Log Cabin......................................................................................... 281 

Figure 38: Gallows, Arksanas Post State Park (1964).......................................................... 282 

Figure 39: Dedication of Battle of Arkansas Post Centennial Marker .............................. 283 

Figure 40: African American Children in front of Arkansas Post building (1937) ......... 284 

Figure 41: Arkansas Post National Memorial (ca. 1970)..................................................... 285 

Figure 42: Quandt House (ca. 1966)....................................................................................... 286 

Figure 43: Removal of Quandt House (1967) ....................................................................... 287 

Figure 44: APNM Visitor Center and Maintenance Building............................................ 288 

Figure 45: Forms for Walk to APNM Visitor Center and Maintenance Building........... 289 

Figure 46: Walk from Front Door (APNM Visitor Center, 1968)....................................... 290 

Figure 47: House Trailer Loaned to APNM (1964).............................................................. 291 

Figure 48: DeTonti, “Great Cross” Exhibit (ca. 1970).......................................................... 292 

Figure 49: House Trailer Residence, APNM (1969)............................................................. 293 

Tables 

Table 4.1 Flora of Arkansas Post National Memorial ......................................................... 387 

Table 6.1 Contributing Features............................................................................................. 461 

Table 6.2 Non-Contributing Features.................................................................................... 463 
1. Introduction 
Chapter 1, Introduction • 1 

December 2005 

INTRODUCTION

Scope of the Report 

The purpose of this Cultural Landscape Report is to guide treatment and use of the 

above-ground resources associated with the Arkansas Post National Memorial 

(APNM). To do this, an investigation and evaluation of the historic landscape has been 

conducted, using National Park Service and National Register of Historic Places 

guidelines. The documentation of historic significance and evaluation of integrity of the 

cultural landscape serves as a framework upon which treatment recommendations are 

based. The report provides park managers with a comprehensive understanding of the 

physical evolution of the historic landscape, and guidance for future management of the 

site. 

The report is organized in the following manner: 

Part I: 

• Chapter 1: Introduction – Documents the scope of the report, location and 

description of the property, identifies project consultants, and describes the 

methodology used.

• Chapter 2: Management Issues – Provides a list of management issues to be 

addressed throughout the project. 

• Chapter 3: Site History – Presents a historic narrative of the physical evolution of 

the site. Historic period plans support the historic narrative that addresses the 

major time periods identified for the site. These periods have been defined as 

pre-contact, the Colonial/Revolutionary War, settlement and early statehood, the 

Civil War, late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century development, twentieth 

century and state park development, and NPS development. 
2 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Part II: 

• Chapter 4: Existing Conditions -- Provides a narrative and graphics addressing the 

existing landscape features, vegetation, and the archeological resources present 

at the site. 

• Chapter 5: Analysis – Compares findings from the site history and existing 

conditions information to analyze the landscape characteristics and features of 

the APNM landscape. The historic integrity assessment has focused on 

determining if the characteristics and features that defined the landscape during 

the historic periods are still present and if they retain the ability to physically 

represent the site’s history. 

• Chapter 6: Treatment Recommendations – Overall preservation treatment 

recommendations as well as specific implementation guidelines are provided. 

Includes a treatment plan.

• Chapter 7: Implementation Guidelines – Includes general recommendations for 

phasing the treatments recommended in Chapter 6. Also includes future Project 

Management Statements and “Class C” cost estimates for implementation.

Methodology and Project Staff

The methodology used for preparation of Chapters 2 and 3 of this Cultural Landscape 

Report is based on a multidisciplinary approach that combines narrative and graphic 

research with field investigations. The project team members met with APNM staff to 

discuss the site and its resources and to direct both research and fieldwork. Land and 

Community Associates project staff included J. Timothy Keller, FASLA, historical 

landscape architect; Genevieve Keller, cultural landscape specialist and preservation 

planner; Matthew Tucker, cultural landscape specialist; Harold L. Reem, historian; and 

Ann Wanner, editor and research assistant. The team developed an integrated 

approach for the development of the CLR with the work of each individual discipline 

and project team member addressing and balancing the work of the others. The LCA 

team prepared drafts of Part I and Part II through the August 2000 submission. 
Chapter 1, Introduction • 3 

December 2005 

Quinn Evans|Architects made revisions and additions to the CLR based on requests 

made by the National Park Service.1 Project staff included Steven Jones, historical 

architect for project coordination; Brenda W. Williams, historical landscape architect; 

and Mary Orlich, scanning and administrative assistance. 

Location 

Arkansas Post National Memorial (APNM) is located in the Mississippi-Arkansas 

Rivers Delta region of southeast Arkansas in Arkansas County. The site is accessed by 

Arkansas State Highway 169 (SH 169), and is 11 kilometers south of Gillett, Arkansas, 

and 32 kilometers northeast of Dumas, Arkansas. The total acreage of the site is 389.2 

acres and includes open lawns, wooded areas, and several bodies of water. 

Background 

Indian groups, including the Quapaw tribe, inhabited the landscape that is now within 

APNM’s boundaries. The first European Arkansas Post settlement, founded by the 

French in 1686, was located six miles southeast of the APNM near the Quapaw village 

of Osotouy. APNM’s newly authorized Menard-Hodges or Osotouy unit encompasses 

the site of Osotouy and may include the site of the 1686 French post. The present-day 

site of APNM was first used by the Europeans from 1749-1756, before the Post was 

moved twice to other locations. In 1779 the Spanish, who assumed control of the post 

from the French in 1763, returned the Post settlement to present-day APNM and it did 

not move again. The Post’s various locations on the Arkansas River were critical for the 

French and their Spanish successors because the river was heavily used to transport 

both people and goods. 

 

1 A summary of the agreed-upon revisions is outlined in a letter from Brenda W. Williams, Quinn Evans|Architects, 

to Sherda Williams, Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service, dated 17 September 2003. Conversion of the 

LCA MAC formatted document into Microsoft Word resulted in formatting problems that, despite tremendous 

efforts, could not be resolved. These have been minimized as much as possible. 
4 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Following the Post’s cession to the United States in 1804, its periods of significance 

included its time as Arkansas’ territorial capital from 1819 to 1821, and its use as a 

Confederate Civil War stronghold, which culminated in the January, 1863, Battle of 

Arkansas Post. The Quapaws, who ceded the area surrounding the APNM to the 

United States in 1818, have recently identified the site as part of their original homeland. 

Therefore, the site is now considered a culturally significant area for the Quapaw. 

The site was established as an Arkansas State Park in 1929 and received support in 

development from Depression-era work-relief programs. Congress authorized the 

addition of the Post to the National Park Service (NPS) in 1960. The site’s purpose as a 

National Memorial is to “commemorate a series of events important in American 

history,” especially those typical of the settlement of the Mississippi River Valley.2 

APNM currently contains known archeological remains and above-ground artifacts 

from a number of its occupied time periods, including the Spanish colonial era, the 

nineteenth century town development, the Civil War, and more recent Arkansas State 

Park and NPS development. 

Brief Historical Overview

APNM’s topography and wealth of natural resources have made the site a prime 

location for human habitation for thousands of years. The site, which lies above the 

frequently flooded Arkansas River lowlands, is the first high ground encountered when 

ascending the Arkansas River from the Mississippi River. Although no prehistoric 

Indian village sites or structural traces have been identified on the APNM site, materials 

from nearby sites indicate that Native Americans from several cultures ranging from 

the Dalton or Archaic through the late Mississippian and early Quapaw periods 

 

2Arkansas Post National Monument Provision: Indefinite Quantities Delivery Order. July 23, 1997. 
Chapter 1, Introduction • 5 

December 2005 

periodically used the area for hunting, gathering and possibly other activities for almost 

10,000 years. Both the relatively limited archeological investigations and the likelihood 

that periodic flooding and shifts in the course of the Arkansas River may have been 

eroded away many artifacts and structural remains may explain this relative dearth of 

Indian cultural materials found at the site. 

In 1686, following the initial 1673 encounter between the Quapaws and the French, the 

latter established Arkansas Post as one of the first European settlements in Louisiana. 

For 65 years the Post, which provided the French and later the Spanish with a strategic 

and economic presence on the Arkansas, was intermittently located at sites on the river 

below present-day APNM. The French did not build their first settlement on the high 

ground at APNM site until 1749, when the Post was moved upriver to be closer to the 

main villages of France’s Quapaw allies. This settlement, which consisted largely of 

Captain Paul de La Houssaye’s impressive square fort, occupied the site for only seven 

years until 1756 when the Post was again moved downstream. Twenty-five years later 

in 1779 Captain Balthazar de Villiers again moved Arkansas Post back upstream to 

APNM’s bluffs, where it has remained ever since. De Villiers’ Spanish post, which may 

have been built on the site of de La Houssaye’s fort, consisted of a number of hastily 

constructed houses for the Post’s French residents. The houses occupied lots along two 

intersecting streets (the probable predecessors of nineteenth-century Main and Front 

streets). There were also small American and Quapaw residential suburbs. The 

settlement’s first fort, Fort San Carlos III, was built in 1781 and attacked by British 

Loyalist and Chickasaw forces in the April, 1783, Colbert Raid. By 1790, however, both 

Fort San Carlos III and much of the Post’s early French residential area eroded into the 

Arkansas River. The Spanish built Fort San Esteban to replace Fort San Carlos III in 

1791. Equally extensive changes occurred almost simultaneously in the Post’s 

residential quarter. Surviving houses from the late 1770s and early 1780s were probably 
6 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

upgraded or replaced, and a large number of additional new dwellings were built. In 

ca. 1800 on the eve of its transfer to the United States, the village of Arkansas Post stood 

approximately 100 yards south (upstream) of Fort San Esteban. It consisted of 

approximately thirty Louisiana-French, colonial, vernacular houses with many 

relatively sophisticated architectural features, including covered galleries, raised floors, 

and high, steeply-pitched, wood-shingled, hipped roofs. The houses, moreover, stood 

on lots along the streets platted by de Villiers in a pattern that anticipated the 

organization of the early nineteenth-century American Post. 

During the first half of the nineteenth century after the United States assumed control of 

Louisiana, the Post of Arkansas respectively served as a fur-trading center, the county 

seat of Arkansas County (1813-1855), the territorial capital of Arkansas (1819-1821), and 

an entrepot of the Arkansas River cotton trade.3 Four groups of buildings occupied the 

Post’s landscape during this half-century period: Fort Madison (old Fort San Esteban) 

and the U.S. Trading Factory on the grounds of the United States Military Reservation; 

the buildings comprising the Post of Arkansas; the structures that were built or already 

existed in the towns of Rome and Arkansas; and clusters of farm buildings on several of 

the Spanish land grants. With only a few exceptions, including Fort Madison and the 

possibly the structure that housed the Arkansas Post branch of the Arkansas State Bank, 

all these buildings were vernacular structures that reflected the traditional French, 

Upland and Lowland South, and other ethnic building vocabularies of their owners and 

builders. The sites of Fort Madison and the U.S. Trading Factory eroded into the 

 

3During the first half of the nineteenth century, the term Post of Arkansas was often used to describe the 

American frontier village located in the southeastern part of present-day APNM. The term is a literal 

English translation of the French name Poste des Arkansas or Post aux Arkansas. When used in the text, 

Post of Arkansas specifically refers to this American frontier settlement. The term Arkansas Post, on the 

other hand, is a more general term. Among other things, it can describe the French and Spanish colonial 

Arkansas Post settlements, the Americna frontier Post of Arkansas and/or its immediate hinterland, and 

the post-Civil War Arkansas Post settlement located approximately one-half mile to the north of the old 

Post of Arkansas between the 1870s and the 1950s. 
Chapter 1, Introduction • 7 

December 2005 

continually encroaching Arkansas River by the 1820s and 1830s, and the speculative 

towns of Rome and Arkansas, their prospects doomed by removal of the capital to Little 

Rock in 1821, never fully developed. Throughout most of the period, however, the Post 

of Arkansas village continued to exist as a small settlement of about thirty or so houses 

and commercial buildings located on lots along Front and Main streets—the same two 

streets platted by de Villiers in 1779. Nevertheless, by the time the county seat was 

transferred to DeWitt in 1855, the Post’s prospects, never completely bright since 1821, 

had dimmed. The town, in the words of an 1856 visitor, was going “to decay.” 

In the late 1850s and early 1860s Arkansas Post continued to exist as a small rural 

settlement consisting of several dozen inhabited and abandoned houses and 

outbuildings and possibly a few businesses located in the southern part of the Post of 

Arkansas and on several surrounding farmsteads. As in the past, most of these 

buildings and their surrounding vernacular landscapes continued to embody the 

traditional building vocabularies of the various ethnic groups comprising the Post’s 

population. During the Civil War, from 1862 to 1863, Confederate forces built Fort 

Hindman and other works on the Post’s strategically located bluffs to guard against a 

feared Union invasion of Arkansas and Little Rock via the Arkansas River valley. 

Union forces attacked the southern fortifications in January, 1863, and destroyed not 

only the works, but all the buildings comprising the Post of Arkansas. When the war 

ended, the Post’s population had to start over and build anew. 

 

Arkansas Post never recovered from the effects of the Civil War. In 1865 the Post’s 

planters and farmers were penniless, their buildings and properties were devastated, 

and their slave labor force had been freed. The arrival of the railroad magnified the 

Post’s problems by undercutting the Arkansas cotton shipping trade that contributed to 

the Post of Arkansas’ prosperity as a river port in the decades before the war. In the 
8 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

early 1900s, moreover, the small remaining portion of the river trade disappeared 

forever when the Arkansas River changed its channel. Nevertheless, by the early 1880s 

the Arkansas Post at least partially recovered from its postwar slump and once again 

consisted of a small farming community of about 100 inhabitants. Through the late 

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, three major groups of buildings and structures 

were located on the site’s landscape. These groups included the scattered ruins of the 

Post’s pre-1863 structures and Civil War-era fortifications; the farmsteads, stores, hotel, 

and post office comprising the white settlement at Arkansas Post in the north; and the 

houses and farms comprising the African-American community to the south, in and 

around the old Post of Arkansas. All or most of these structures continued to reflect the 

building traditions of the Upland South, and they probably no longer included Frenchstyle vernacular buildings. 

Until the late 1930s, the population of the Post’s crossroads village and adjacent area 

hovered around 100, and the settlement continued to include farms, residences, and 

several stores as well as an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church. Soon 

thereafter, however, the settlement began to decline, and twenty years later the Post, 

like so many rural Arkansas communities, was largely deserted. Most of its residents, 

presumably pushed off the land by the Depression and agricultural consolidation and 

mechanization, or attracted by better opportunities elsewhere, had departed. The Post’s 

vernacular houses, AME church, and other buildings, abandoned by their owners and 

occupants, were left to deteriorate. 

Arkansas Post State Park was established and became a popular tourist and recreational 

attraction at about the same time that the Post’s farming community was declining. In 

1929 the Arkansas legislature, responding to a popular campaign to preserve and 

commemorate the historic Post of Arkansas site, created the park and placed it under 
Chapter 1, Introduction • 9 

December 2005 

the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. During the next several 

years the Commission, following a plan framed by Pine Bluff landscape architect and 

nurseryman P. C. Howson, developed the site both using private and state funds. In 

1934, the Commission transferred responsibility for the park to the Arkansas State Park 

Commission. The site was managed as part of the overall Arkansas state park system 

for the next thirty years, and park development was completed using federal 

Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) relief funds. 

 Facilities at the landscaped park included an eight-acre lake; a caretaker’s lodge; 

overnight tourist cabins; picnic, swimming, and fishing areas; a few restored ruins; and 

several historical monuments and markers. The park attracted more than 25,000 

visitors per year in the mid-1950s. Despite the park’s popularity, by the late 1950s at 

least part of its infrastructure was beginning to deteriorate because of the state’s policy 

of deferred maintenance. 

In 1956 the Arkansas Congressional delegation began a campaign to establish Arkansas 

Post as a national historic site. Four years later Congress and President Dwight D. 

Eisenhower authorized the creation of Arkansas Post National Memorial as a site 

commemorating European exploration and settlement of the lower Mississippi valley. 

In 1964 the park was formally established on the site of Arkansas Post State Park and 

other lands donated to the federal government by the State of Arkansas. Since that 

date, the memorial has been administered and interpreted as a unit of the National Park 

System. 

The NPS has developed the memorial, which is bordered on its eastern and western 

sides by the waters of the Arkansas River Navigation Pool 2, in two phases. During the 
10 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

first phase of development, which lasted through the mid-1970s, the NPS constructed 

about one-fourth of the facilities required for proper interpretation and protection of the 

site. It cleared away the Post’s deteriorating post-Civil War non-historical buildings 

and structures; improved roads and landscaping; and constructed a temporary, 

combined visitor center and maintenance building, a new picnic area, and a new 

interpretive trail and markers. Equally important, NPS developed land use 

classifications and other guidelines to complete development of the site. 

These plans were implemented in the second development phase, which began in 1975 

and transformed the park into its current form. In the “General Outdoor Recreation 

Area,” located northeast of the park’s lake, the NPS built a new visitor center. NPS also 

expanded the network of interpretive trails and exhibits explaining the history of the 

French, Spanish, and American Post of Arkansas settlements and the Post’s role in the 

Civil War. These interpretive trails and exhibits were developed in the portions of the 

memorial classified as “Historic Areas” located north and south of the visitor center. 

The remainder of the park has been developed and preserved as a “Natural 

Environment Area” and wildlife refuge. 

The Arkansas Post CLR includes the first comprehensive effort to identify, consolidate, 

and analyze historical landscape information concerning the APNM from the earliest 

known period through NPS ownership. The site history, combined with the 

preliminary identification of issues that relate to cultural landscape resources and 

concerns, makes several contributions to the ongoing challenge of documenting, 

evaluating, and treating the APNM landscape. 
Chapter 1, Introduction • 11 

December 2005 

Although the site history builds on earlier studies and investigations, it makes new 

contributions to existing scholarly knowledge about the Post, specifically in terms of 

Post layout during the Colonial/Revolutionary period, the late nineteenth and early 

twentieth centuries, and the state park period. Its major contribution, however, is the 

chronological compilation of research data in a comprehensive historical narrative that 

addresses the development and redevelopment of the Arkansas Post landscape through 

successive periods. It also details the changing land-to-water relationship that has 

characterized the site throughout its history. 

A major contribution of the CLR has been preparation of the first-ever series of equally 

scaled historic period plans that are referenced to APNM’s boundaries and that include 

all phases of the Post’s development. Previous historic period plans have had different 

map scales, have generally not been referenced to APNM’s boundaries, and have only 

covered discrete periods of development, primarily the territorial/early statehood 

period and the Civil War period. 

The historic period plan exhibits developed as part of this CLR include the following: 

• the first known Pre-1673 plan of the site; 

• the first known 1673-1803 plan of the site that references current APNM’s boundaries 

and depicts the locations of the Arkansas River, the French village, Fort San Carlos III, 

and Fort San Esteban; 
12 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

• a comprehensive 1804-1855 plan that builds on the previous plans of F. M. 

Quertermous (ca. 1929), Edwin C. Bearss and Lenard F. Brown (1963 and 1971), and 

John W. Walker (1971); corrects errors on those previous plans; and depicts the locations 

of Fort Madison (old Fort San Esteban) and John Treat’s United States Trading Factory; 

• an 1856-1865 plan that references current APNM boundaries and corrects minor 

errors and omissions in Edwin C. Bearss’ 1971 plan of the Civil War-era Post; 

• the first known 1866-1928 plan of the site that references current APNM boundaries 

and shows the detailed evolution of the site during the late nineteenth and early 

twentieth centuries, including representations of cultural resources such as the African 

American dwellings that existed on the site prior to development of the Arkansas Post 

State Park; 

• a 1929 - 1963 plan of the site that references current APNM boundaries and identifies 

the locations of the area’s AME church and of major structures in Arkansas Post State 

Park and in the Arkansas Post crossroads community north of the park; and

• a 1964 through ca. 1980 plan systematically depicts the various phases of NPS 

development. 
2. Management Issues 
Chapter 2, Management Issues • 13 

December 2005 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Preliminary Management Issues 

Introduction 

Several management issues related to the Arkansas Post National Memorial landscape 

have been identified and discussed in this chapter. These issues primarily concern the 

absence of most cultural features associated with the site history periods identified for 

this landscape. The landscape has experienced significant and enduring changes that 

have altered land/water relationships for a site that was first occupied and developed 

for its strategic river-accessible location. Significant cultural sites have been lost to 

natural river meanders, erosion, and to flood control engineering projects. The site has 

also experienced major devastation as a result of military action during the Civil War. 

Virtual abandonment related to changing rural economies and outmigration, 

development first as a state park, and subsequently as a national park have also altered 

the landscape. The challenge for the Arkansas Post National Memorial landscape is to 

protect any significant cultural features, characteristics, or qualities that remain on site 

and develop interpretive programs that convey known information concerning the 

history of the site’s landscape while continuing to offer and expand existing recreational 

and educational programs. 

Major Issues 

Significance and Integrity 

There is no doubt that Arkansas Post has been associated with significant events in

national, state, and local history and a nomination to the National Register of Historic 

Places is currently underway. However, there have been substantial losses of the 

cultural features associated with those events. 
14 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The site history implies that the site would represent multiple periods of history. In 

reality, the landscape rarely reflects the layers of its history. This occurrence is largely 

the result of the abrupt site changes that have occurred on this landscape. While sites at 

other locations often reflect a gradual landscape evolution of growth and gradual 

decline, perhaps with one or two dramatic periods or incidences of marked change, the 

Arkansas Post site has experienced episodic change throughout its history. Some of this 

change has been as a result of the natural forces of erosion; some has been related to 

military actions; and other changes have been related to political decisions such as 

moving the capital of Arkansas away from Arkansas Post to Little Rock. The 

destruction of much of the above ground physical fabric during the Civil War 

eradicated most colonial-era landscape resources that would be expected to represent 

the Post’s significant early history. Subsequent rebuilding was followed by another 

period of decline, followed by two periods of sequential park development, first as a 

state park, and finally by the NPS. This legacy of almost cyclical physical change has 

created today’s landscape—a landscape that is not a landscape of multiple layers that 

are visibly apparent. The existing landscape does not represent the Post’s French and 

Spanish heritage in a compelling way, its role as a defensive post, its development as an 

early Arkansas capital and thriving river port, its involvement in the Civil War, or its 

rural and agrarian traditions. Its character as a state park, while it established the basis 

for the APNM’s development, has been subsumed by more recent NPS actions. What 

remains is not a layered cultural landscape reflecting the dynamic and multi-cultural 

phases discussed in the site history, but instead a collection of fragmented landscape 

remnants that are not apparent in the tranquil, memorial setting that has been created to 

impart a park-like feeling. 
Chapter 2, Management Issues • 15 

December 2005 

It is possible that future archeological investigations may reveal or confirm information 

concerning historic landscape features. Consequently, there remains an ongoing need 

for continued archeological studies and investigations. These investigations would be 

expected to reveal information that could be useful in interpretation and in making site 

management and treatment decisions. 

Archeological Investigations and Resources 

Few visible above ground physical traces of Arkansas Post’s early colonial and 

American frontier periods remain at APNM. However, past excavations have 

demonstrated that a rich and extremely significant subsurface archeological record of 

both of these and later periods exists at the memorial. Therefore, since it is probable 

that continued archeological studies and investigations will reveal the presence of 

archeological resources or information that will increase understanding of the site and 

its development, potential archeological sites need to be identified and protected. The 

site history and the period plan exhibits developed for Chapter 3 of this CLR document 

features associated with the development of the site through consecutive periods as 

well as the locations of some known features. Remnants of some of these features have 

been revealed through archeological investigations. Others may remain undiscovered. 

The Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) undertaken by the NPS Midwest Systems 

Support Office in March 1997 also has identified extant cultural landscape features and 

feature locations. 
16 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Because many features were constructed of vulnerable building materials, such as wood 

and rammed earth, there are few remnants from the colonial period. Documenting and 

protecting what remains of the Post’s colonial period appears essential. Continuing 

archeological investigations would be helpful in locating features from all other periods 

as well, such as historic cemeteries and burial grounds and other landscape features 

that would provide information about land use, spatial organization, design, and 

cultural traditions at Arkansas Post. Used in conjunction with the CLR site history and 

the CLI, the results of such investigations would be likely to increase the understanding 

of the site’s landscape development and its designed and vernacular traditions. 

There are known historic remnants and fragments of the landscape, such as roads, 

walks and paths, portions of wire fences and brick walls, house and corral sites, a 

dipping vat for cattle, cement pillars, dumps and refuse, plant materials, wells, and 

cisterns that warrant consideration in the planning process. Decisions need to be made 

concerning their preservation. NPS managers have expressed concern about knowing 

which resources to protect. The current NPS policy toward historic landscape 

management has been described by staff as essentially benign neglect. NPS personnel 

are concerned that there are remnants of the cultural landscape that are not visited or 

interpreted. A decision needs to be made concerning which of these features are 

desirable and appropriate to protect, interpret, propagate, relocate, remove for storage, 

document more fully, or continue to manage “as is.” Some remnants and fragments in 
Chapter 2, Management Issues • 17 

December 2005 

the landscape present hazards that may be injurious to visitors or staff who may trip, 

fall, or become entangled in overgrown vegetation. In addition, there are no safeguards 

to prevent site looting. Currently there appears to be unlimited site access without any 

restrictions or warnings that there may be safety or security concerns. 

Both the CLR and the CLI can provide the basis for a systematic evaluation of extant 

resources as the first step in developing prioritized protection, retrieval, and 

interpretive strategies. Recognizing these identified locations as sensitive is a major 

issue. At present, few of these sites are monitored on a daily basis. Periodic inspections 

and security may help to protect culturally significant sites and resources. 

Archeological resources located outside the existing interpreted area are especially 

vulnerable. 

Extant archeological resources from virtually all periods of the Post’s occupation are 

likely to be found in APNM’s currently interpreted areas. These areas include the site 

of the Spanish colonial village and the American frontier Post of Arkansas, as well as 

the Confederate 1863 trench line. In addition to a scattering of Native American 

artifacts, the Spanish colonial and American frontier site almost certainly contains high 

concentrations of artifacts and vernacular structural remains from the Post’s late 

eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century, multi-ethnic and socially diverse population. 

Union and Confederate artifacts from the Civil War period as well as vernacular 
18 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

architectural and other remains associated with the Post’s post-Civil War AfricanAmerican community are likely to be found. The site also encompasses the subsurface 

remains of cabins and other structures built at Arkansas Post State Park. APNM’s 

second interpreted area—the 1863 Confederate trench line—almost certainly contains a 

significant concentration of Civil War-era artifacts as well as a sprinkling of artifacts 

from most other periods of the Post’s history. 

Similar archeological resources are probably found in APNM’s uninterpreted areas, 

although most likely in lower concentrations. Uninterpreted zones encompass the sites 

of the failed towns of Rome and Arkansas, the late nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury Arkansas Post settlement, and most of the Post’s historic farmsteads. These 

areas probably contain artifacts and/or vernacular architectural remains associated 

with most of the many ethnic and social groups that shaped the Post’s history. In 

addition, the tracts on the northern and western margins of Park Lake almost certainly 

harbor structural remains from the State Park period. 

Landscape Interpretation 

The major cultural landscape issue remains how to treat and interpret a site known for 

its historical associations but largely bereft of the above-ground features that would 

best help to tell the story of Arkansas Post. The site has a rich, multi-cultural and multiethnic story as well as significant early settlement and military associations that would 

enrich the educational experience of site visitors. Currently visitors have no sense of the 
Chapter 2, Management Issues • 19 

December 2005 

lost cultural landscape character of the historic Arkansas Post. State-of-the-art 

landscape interpretation rather than landscape treatment appears to have the most 

potential for conveying the story of the development and decline of Arkansas Post. 

Using advanced technologies such as virtual presentations based on documented 

cultural landscape information could make the site come “alive” in a way that the static 

types of interpretation used currently cannot. Cultural landscape topics and 

information to convey through such interpretation would include but not necessarily be 

limited to the following:

• Addressing the change and evolution of the site’s water-related 

resources, including the navigation channel, Park Lake, and the Post 

bayou, and the interrelationship to the historic river that was a major 

character-defining feature of the historic Post; 

• Portraying a sense of a large river port, town site, and agrarian 

settlement area; 

• Using increased information concerning the town site to enhance visitor 

understanding and reduce current confusion and misrepresentations, such 

as the current circulation system; 

• Incorporating physical resources into interpretation; and 

• Undertaking a more comprehensive and holistic approach to site 

interpretation that allows the visitor to understand the cyclical nature of 

growth and destruction or decline that has characterized the site and the 
20 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

internal and external forces—both natural and cultural—that have 

influenced the site through multiple periods. 

Contemporary Management Issues 

There are a number of contemporary site management issues that are directly or 

indirectly related to the cultural landscape. One of the most critical is the potential 

conflict or negative public reaction to landscape maintenance changes that could result 

from landscape treatment decisions. The staff has indicated that most visitors, 

particularly those from the vicinity and repeat visitors, expect the park “to look really 

nice.” Current managers, however, have expressed a desire to reduce some of the 

current landscape maintenance burden and expense by reducing mowing operations. 

Any departure from the current manicured parklike setting in the current interpretive 

area could be unpopular with visitors. Similarly many visitors come for outdoor 

recreational activities; reducing the amount of woodland or limiting or eliminating 

fishing or other activities in any areas would also be likely to be met with public 

opposition. 

Another related concern is insect control measures and the effect of control measures on 

landscape ecology. Currently mosquitoes are especially plentiful in July and August 

and affect the quality of the visitor experience and enjoyment. Visitors receive 

warnings—in both brochures and through posted, printed notices—that there are 

potential dangers from poisonous snakes and from ticks and chiggers. Visitors are 

advised to dress appropriately for these conditions and to take precautions. These 

conditions may influence the NPS to consider opportunities for interpretation that 

would allow visitors to experience the cultural values of the site in relative comfort and 
Chapter 2, Management Issues • 21 

December 2005 

security. The Post’s current natural character—complete with certain hazards and 

annoyances—could be maintained for outdoor recreationists and naturalists who enjoy 

the site for fishing, boating, bird watching, and other activities. 

Other related concerns include making decisions concerning forestry practices such as 

cutting cypress in the bayous and fire and wildlife management. NPS personnel are 

concerned about developing an appropriate burning policy that will be effective as a 

prairie management tool and will foster desired and/or beneficial ecological processes. 

At the same time they are concerned that there not be a negative effect on other 

vegetation, including forest oak species and historic plant material. Identifying the 

appropriate locations and extents for controlled burns is a priority issue related to the 

cultural landscape. 

Wildlife contributes much to the character of the APNM and its visitor appeal. Visitors 

enjoy observing eagles and other rare wildlife species in a largely natural setting. There 

are staff concerns about the ecological balance and environmental effects of some 

species, including nutria, beaver, and armadillo, that have increased in the absence of 

predators. Nutria populations (nutria are not indigenous and were introduced from 

Latin America) have increased to a point where their burrowing into banks has caused 

significant damage, especially to the land/water edge. Evidence of substantial beaver 

activity is also apparent. Other wildlife species have created hazardous conditions in 

some wooded areas. Alligator populations have also increased; it is possible that 

APNM has the largest concentration of alligators in the state. Alligators were reintroduced by the State of Arkansas in the 1980s. 
22 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

There are similar concerns related to vegetation. Vegetation plays a significant habitat 

role and contributes to landscape character. Critical habitats, such as that of the Trails 

Flycatcher, an endangered species first observed and referenced on site by Audubon, 

may be vulnerable. 

Another complex issue relates to the recently established experimental prairie in a 

formerly wooded area of the site. The issues of historic plant material, exotic species, 

and invasive vegetation will need to be addressed within a cultural landscape 

framework once a comprehensive evaluation of contributing features has been made. 

NPS staff members have also indicated through the CLR process that there are land use 

issues that need to be considered and resolved. Some areas of the APNM may be 

suffering damaging effects as a result of over use. The area near Park Lake, for 

example, may be experiencing increased soil compaction as a result of overuse related 

to fishing from the banks of the lake. There are also concerns about erosion of the 

interior lake shoreline. 

Treatment Philosophy 

The publication The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes provides professional 

standards and guidance for treatments to cultural landscapes. The document defines 

four types of treatment philosophies including preservation, restoration, reconstruction, 

and rehabilitation.4

 

4 Birnbaum, Charles A. and Christine Capella Peters, 1996.  The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for

the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.  

(Washington D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service), pp. 3‐5.
Chapter 2, Management Issues • 23 

December 2005 

For APNM the extent of loss; environmental, hydrological, and geomorphological 

changes; and the absence of detailed physical documentation make restoration or 

reconstruction remote and unrealistic possibilities as management philosophies. 

Preservation would restrict opportunities for accommodating and enhancing visitor 

needs and site management. It appears that the most realistic management philosophy 

is rehabilitation, with an emphasis on upgrading interpretation and meeting the 

demands of the ongoing recreational usage of the park. The essential cultural landscape 

treatment decision centers on establishing priorities for natural and cultural resources 

and resolving conflicts between the two. This creates a complex issue, since the 

memorial was established to commemorate cultural events and yet the site today 

appears to possess high quality natural resources and recreational value. 

Treatment decisions address remnant landscape features. Recommendations address 

the treatment of remnant structures, artifacts, and vegetation, particularly historic plant 

material specimens. For instance, the APNM is considering modifying the extent and 

schedule of its current mowing practices. Future mowing modifications are considered 

within a cultural landscape framework. 

The NPS will also need to address which examples of historic vegetation to protect and 

preserve since examples of vestige plant material are known to survive from the various 

historical periods. Historic trees remain from the town site era. In addition, the site 

contains examples of osage orange, privet hedge, boxwood, periwinkle, and other 

plants at house sites. Some vegetation is also related to the state park era. Some plant 

materials have been identified in the CLI process that may be rare or unusual and may 
24 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

require special protection measures, either on or offsite. These issues affect treatment 

decisions to regenerate, prune, fertilize, or remove plant material.
3. Site History 
Chapter 3, Site History • 25 

December 2005 

SITE HISTORY

Historical Periods 

The site history for Arkansas Post National Memorial (APNM) has been divided into 

the following eight historical periods associated with the site’s development and 

management. 

• Pre-1673: The period prior to extended European contact. During this period, the 

site was part of the territories claimed by the Quapaws and other 

American Indian tribes. 

• 1673 - 1803: The period of initial European settlement and the American Revolution. 

This period began with the Quapaws’ encounter with French 

explorers Louis Joliet and Father Jaques Marquette and ended with 

the French transfer of the site to the United States as part of the 

Louisiana Purchase. During this period the site was part of the 

French and and Spanish North American colonial empires. Both 

the French and Spanish established early European military 

outposts and settlements in Arkansas on the property. 

• 1804 - 1855: The period of Euro-American settlement and Arkansas’ early development 

as a territory and state. During this period the Quapaws sold their 

title to the Arkansas Post property and the surrounding region to 
26 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the United States. Large numbers of Euro-American settlers 

immigrated to the site, largely supplanting the existing French 

population. The village of Arkansas Post briefly served as the 

capital of Arkansas Territory, and subsequently developed as an 

entrepot (commercial warehouse center) of the Arkansas River 

cotton trade and as the seat of Arkansas County. 

• 1856 - 1865: The period of the Civil War. During this brief but significant ten-year 

interval Arkansas Post was devastated. The village, already in 

decline following the removal of the Arkansas County seat to 

Dewitt in 1855, was virtually destroyed in the January 1863 Union 

attack on the Confederate fort and entrenchments built on the site. 

• 1866 - 1928: The period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During 

this period Arkansas Post unsuccessfully struggled to recover from 

the ravages of the Civil War. The coming of the railroad and a 

permanent change in the course of the Arkansas River further 

weakened the Post’s already tenuous economic base. By the early 

twentieth century Arkansas Post had become a small agricultural 

community centered around the post office located north of the site 

of the colonial and American frontier village. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 27 

December 2005 

• 1929 - 1963: The period of state park development. During this period, the State of 

Arkansas acquired 41 acres of the site, including part of the colonial 

and frontier village, and developed the property as a unit of the 

Arkansas State Park System. The small Arkansas Post farming 

community continued to stand on the site to the north of the state 

park.

• 1964 - Present: The period of National Park Service (NPS) development. 

During this period the State of Arkansas donated the land 

comprising Arkansas Post State Park and the remainder of the site 

to the federal government, and the site was designated the 

Arkansas Post National Memorial. After acquiring the land, the 

NPS demolished or removed all existing structures on the property, 

commenced site interpretation, initiated natural resource 

conservation projects, and planned and implemented building, 

road, and other infrastructure construction programs. Following 

completion of its development program, the NPS continued to 

interpret the site, its cultural history, and its remaining resources as 

a unit of the NPS system. 

Methodology 

Phase I began with a visit to APNM headquarters by Land and Community Associates’ 

(LCA’s) project team, including the project historian. The team reviewed archival 

research materials available for the project at park headquarters with NPS cultural 
28 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

management personnel and conducted a physical reconnaissance of the site. NPS 

personnel provided the consultant team with an orientation to APNM’s in-house 

archival collections, identified areas of research and specific primary and secondary 

sources, and posed questions to address during project research and analysis. 

Phase II consisted of research using primary and secondary materials identified in 

Phase I. During the initial site visit, brief preliminary research was conducted at the 

APNM in-house archives and at the neighboring Arkansas Post Museum. On a 

subsequent research trip, the project historian conducted additional in-depth research at 

the Arkansas History Commission and Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism in 

Little Rock, at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock library, and at the Arkansas 

Archeological Survey in Fayetteville—the temporary repository for APNM’s historical 

archives while they were being catalogued and microfilmed. Further research was 

accomplished at the National Archives and Library of Congress. Materials examined 

included observers’ published and unpublished primary accounts of Arkansas Post’s 

development over a two hundred-year period, land records, census records, historic 

and current maps, historic illustrations of the site, historic and current ground and 

aerial photographs of the memorial, archeology reports, APNM’s administrative history 

files, and a wide range of published and unpublished secondary sources. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 29 

December 2005 

Documentary research was supplemented with several personal interviews. The 

project historian interviewed Judge Morris S. Arnold, the foremost contemporary 

historian of colonial Arkansas and Arkansas Post; Mr. Richard W. Davies, the Executive 

Director of the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism; Ms. Lille Fuhrman, the 

Director of Arkansas Post Museum; and several members of the Arkansas 

Archeological Survey, including Mr. Robert Mainfort, the Survey’s Research 

Administrator; and Ms. Kathleen H. Cande, the Senior Project Archeologist for the 

Survey’s Sponsored Research Program. The historian’s initial conversations with Judge 

Arnold, Museum Director Fuhrman, and Archeologist Cande were followed up with 

subsequent telephone interviews. 

Phase III consisted of analysis and interpretation of the Phase II research materials. 

Analysis focused on answering specific historic cultural landscape questions for each 

period of the site’s development, including questions regarding historic 

geomophological and vegetation patterns, the locations of historic roads and streets, 

and the locations of historic structures and building clusters, fence lines, fields and 

orchards, and other cultural features. The land use and spatial patterns revealed in 

these features’ locations, moreover, were assumed to be the products of a variety of 
30 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

interrelated factors, including but not necessarily limited to the natural environment, 

economics, technology, and cultural traditions.5

Answers to these cultural landscape questions, moreover, were predicated upon several 

assumptions about the site. First, between the mid-eighteenth century and 1912, the 

Arkansas River permanently changed course to a new channel located approximately 

one-half mile east of the site. At this time, it was assumed that the river’s 

hydrodynamics operated like those of a typical meandering stream. The ground on the 

eastside of the Post stood at the edge of a river bluff, on the outside bank of a meander 

curve. This earth was therefore continually eroded by the centrifugal force of the fastermoving water, moving along the outside of the expanding bend. Opposite the Post, on 

the inside bank of the meander curve, slower-moving water deposited silt eroded from 

the outside bank of the previous curve in a gradually accreting “point” bar. In contrast, 

the topography of the bluffs on the southwest side of the Post, which were not subjected 

to active river forces, changed minimally during the 150-year period.6

 This evolving 

geomorphological pattern at the Post is depicted in two nineteenth-century Army Corps 

of Engineers river surveys—Sheet 17 of Lieutenant T. S. Brown’s “Nineteen Sketches 

 

5 For a detailed discussion of these cultural landscape characteristics and the factors shaping them see 

Linda Flint McClelland, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick, National Register 

Bulletin 30, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes (Washington, D.C.: 

National Park Service; Interagency Resources Division, Interagency Resources Branch, U.S. Government 

Printing Office), pp. 3-8. 

6 Eberhard Czaya, Rivers of the World (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1981), pp. 181-185; 

Laurence Pringle and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Planet Earth: Rivers and Lakes (Alexandria, Virginia: 

Time-Life Books, 1985), pp. 63-66. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 31 

December 2005 

Exibiting [sic] the Course of the Arkansas River from Fort Gibson to Its Mouth With the 

Channel, Sand Bar, etc., etc.,” (Map 18), which was prepared in 1833; and Sheet 16 of 

Captain Charles E. Taft’s “Map of the Arkansas River from Little Rock, Arkansas to the 

Mouth Consisting of 22 Sheets” (Map 34), which was prepared in 1886. 

A second assumption regarding the site concerns the accuracy of existing maps of 

Arkansas Post. As archeological surveys note, comprehensive and accurate maps of 

APNM and the surrounding area do not exist. Current base maps are not “tied to . . . 

on-the-ground benchmark[s] or reference point[s]” and omit key features, while historic 

maps, which depict “vastly different” landforms, are often “not drawn to scale or lack 

any reference point.”7 This problem is especially critical with respect to Spanish Land 

Grant boundaries and corners, which are used as references for surveying property 

lines in the Arkansas Post vicinity. The current United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

map of the Arkansas Post area (Map 44) presumably depicts the land grant boundaries 

in their correct locations. However, one older map, the NPS’s 1960 plan, “Boundaries, 

Arkansas Post National Memorial Project” (Map 43), shows the grant boundaries in 

different locations than the positions depicted on the USGS charts. These older and 

 

7 Kathleen H. Cande, “Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History and Prospects, Narrative to 

Accompany a Cultural Resources Base Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas” - AAS Project 961 Draft Report 

(Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey, September 30, 1997), p. 59 (source of 

quotations); Patrick E. Martin, “An Inquiry into the Locations and Characteristics of Jacob Bright’s 

Trading House and William Montgomery’s Tavern,” Arkansas Archeological Survey Publications on 

Archeology, Research Series No. 11 (Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1977), pp. 

86-87. 
32 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

probably incorrectly-surveyed grant boundaries include several “monumented” 

boundary markers in the southeastern portion of the park in the vicinity of the site’s 

oldest cultural resources. They were almost certainly used to demarcate property lines 

on the site’s landscape throughout much of the nineteenth as well as the first half of the 

twentieth centuries. Indeed, in the southeastern part of the park, the postulated 

locations of several APNM cultural features closely correspond to the land grant lines in 

the 1960 NPS plan when these boundaries are shifted slightly to the southeast. These 

features include those depicted on NPS historian Edwin C. Bearss’ and archeologist 

John W. Walker’s reconstructed plans of the site (Maps 14 and 15) and those depicted 

on Thomas Strode’s map of the excavations (Map 42). The latter shows several 

accurately identified features, including the Arkansas State Bank and its southwest 

(Main Street) lot line (Map 22) and the trench lines discovered by archeologist Preston 

Holder in 1956-1957.8

 Consequently, in this area as well as some other portions of the 

park, these older adjusted grant boundaries rather than those shown on the USGS map 

 

8 Edwin C. Bearss and Lenard E. Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas, 1804-1863, and Civil War 

Troop Movement Maps, January 1863” (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Office of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern Service Center, April 1971), 

pp. 176-178, 208-210. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 33 

December 2005 

have been used to calculate the approximate locations of many of APNM’s cultural 

resources.9

 

Another assumption about the site pertains to two of the maps used to prepare Exhibit 

4: the 1856 - 1865 Historic Period Plan. This plan depicts detailed topographical 

information on portions of the Civil War-era site based upon contemporary maps (Maps 

28-33), two chronological troop movement maps prepared by NPS historian Bearss 

(Maps 25 and 26), and the accounts of Union and Confederate troops who fought in the 

January 10-11, 1863, Battle of Arkansas Post. Many of the historic cultural features 

depicted on the plan, particularly vegetation patterns and fence lines, were largely 

determined by plotting the positions of features that battle participants identified in 

their contemporary and post-Civil War writings. If participants were positioned where 

the Bearss troop movement maps indicate they were, the locations of these features 

should be correct. On the other hand, if the Bearss maps erroneously depict Union and 

 

9 The discrepancy between the Spanish Land Grant boundaries and the known and projected locations of 

the Post’s cultural resources was first identified by archeologist Patrick E. Martin in his report on the 1971 

excavations conducted at the sites of Jacob Bright’s trading house and Montgomery’s tavern. Martin, 

after noting inconsistencies in the land grant boundaries on Strode’s and other presumably correct NPS 

maps, prepared a new overlay of the grant boundaries using his own calculations. He superimposed his 

recalculated land grant overlay on another overlay of the Post’s projected nineteenth-century lot 

boundaries, and superimposed both overlays onto a 1971 topographic map of the site. “In shifting these 

overlays about,” he concluded, “it became apparent that 1) the Spanish Land Grant boundaries 

corresponded closely to the shape and size of the 19th century lot boundaries, and 2) both of these sets of 

boundaries corresponded almost perfectly to some of the archeological features identified by Holder.” 

Based on this analysis, Martin believed that the Spanish Land Grant corners on the maps he was using 

should be shifted “more than 100 feet to the southeast.” In contrast, review of the current USGS map 

indicates the boundaries should possibly be shifted at least 150 feet to the north-northeast. The 

conclusion, however, is the same—the grant boundaries depicted on many if not all maps are probably 

incorrect, but when they are shifted they closely correspond to known and projected cultural features at 
34 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Confederate units’ positions, these features’ projected locations could be incorrect. 

APNM management specialists, however, have not identified any problems with the 

maps.10

 

The final assumption about the site pertains to vernacular architectural traditions. 

Between the late eighteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century, 

members of many cultural groups, including the French, Euro-Americans from the 

Lowland and Upland South, and African-Americans, built fortifications, houses, 

agricultural structures, and commercial and industrial buildings at Arkansas Post. 

Surviving and often sketchy descriptions indicate that with the exceptions of the 

Arkansas State Bank and possibly the French, Spanish, and Confederate fortifications, 

few, if any, of the Post’s major buildings were high-style or “scientifically” inspired 

structures. Rather, they were vernacular structures that reflected the traditional 

building vocabularies of the ethnic groups that constructed them. Given this almosttotal predominance of vernacular buildings, it can be assumed that both residences and 

other major structures at the Post bore the mark of their builders’ and owners’ various 

cultural heritages. These traditions influenced the site’s entire landscape, including the 

architecture of subordinate outbuildings, the arrangement of clusters and groups of 

 

APNM. For a complete discussion of Martin’s analysis see Martin, pp. 86-87. 

10 Harold L. Reem, Conversations with APNM Management Specialists, APNM, March 1998. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 35 

December 2005 

buildings, the patterns of fields and fencelines, and the configuration of the Post’s littleknown small-scale elements.11

 

Phase III concluded with the preparation of a draft site history for NPS review and 

comment. The site history focuses on both the history of the 389.2-acre unit currently 

administered by the NPS as well as on the history of the immediately adjacent areas. 

These areas include portions of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century French, Spanish, 

and American Arkansas Post settlements. Previously eroded by the Arkansas River, 

these adjacent areas are currently inundated by the waters of the navigation pool 

created by the Arkansas River Navigation System’s Lock and Dam Number 2. 

Phase IV consisted of preparation of a final site history that incorporated NPS review 

comments. It also included review of additional secondary materials, an additional 

telephone interview of Judge Arnold, and a telephone interview of Dr. John House, 

Arkansas Archeological Survey Station Archeologist at the University of Arkansas at 

Pine Bluff Station. A final site visit was made by an LCA project team member to 

validate the conclusions in the site history. 

 

11 Henry Glassie, Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analysis of Historic Artifacts (Knoxville, 

Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press, 1975), pp. 13-40; Henry Glassie, Pattern in the Material Folk 

Culture of the Eastern United States (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968), 

pp. 33-39, 64-124; D. W. Meinig, Continental America, 1800-1867, Vol. 2 of The Shaping of America: A 

Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1993), 

pp. 231-236. 
36 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Pre-1673 (Exhibit 1: Pre-1673 Historic Period Plan) 

Historic Context 

Indians periodically occupied the APNM site and the surrounding area of eastern 

Arkansas for over 11,000 years before the beginning of extended contact with 

Europeans in the late seventeenth century. The earliest prehistoric Indian inhabitants, 

who roamed the area from ca. 9500 B.C. - 8500 B.C., were small bands of nomadic 

hunters from the Clovis and Folsom Paleo-Indian cultures. These peoples possibly 

hunted mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, and other now-extinct large 

mammals throughout Arkansas’ mixed deciduous forests and grasslands. These initial 

inhabitants were succeeded by the Dalton hunting and gathering culture, which lasted 

for approximately 1,000 years. This culture was characterized by more sophisticated 

tools and complex social behavior, including semi-permanent camps as well as burials 

in the first-recorded cemetery in the Americas. 

The Dalton period was followed by the Archaic period, which began in ca. 7500 B.C. 

This period endured for about 7,000 years until the advent of the Woodland period. 

Major cultural developments during the Archaic period included improved stone and 

wood tools, especially the atlatl (spear-thrower); possible construction of permanent 

winter villages with substantial houses; and by the end of the period, the practice of 

simple agriculture to supplement the fruits of hunting and gathering activities. Crops 

produced included gourds and squash, which had been introduced from Mexico, and 

possibly locally-domesticated native plants. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 37 

December 2005 

Around 500 B.C. the Archaic period graded into the Woodland period, which lasted for 

over 1,000 years until ca. A.D. 700. The three salient characteristics of Woodland Indian 

culture were the use of clay pottery, increased farming activities, and burial mounds. 

Arkansas Indians probably lived in permanent villages; indigenously developed fired 

earthen pottery to replace impermanent baskets; expanded horticulture through the 

introduction of the sunflower and other varieties of squash; and constructed 

Hopewellian burial mounds to entomb the dead of their increasingly stratified 

societies.12 

The final prehistoric Indian society present in the vicinity of APNM was the 

Mississippian culture. Present in northeastern Arkansas in all its basic facets by the 

ninth century, the Mississippian culture was characterized by a number of factors that 

represented technological and political advances. These developments included the 

dominance of maize-based agriculture, which sparked population growth but caused 

tooth decay and resulted in an unbalanced diet; the use of flint hoes; the building of 

dispersed villages of wattle and daub houses on or near good flood plain farming lands; 

the introduction of the bow and arrow; and the use of shell-tempered pottery. The most 

conspicuous Mississippian characteristic, however, was construction of flat-topped 

 

12 Deirdre T. Bevington et al, National Geographic Society Historical Atlas of the United States, Revised 

Edition (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1993), pp. 30-32; Michael B. Dougan, Arkansas 

Odyssey: The Saga of Arkansas from Prehistoric Times to Present (Little Rock, Arkansas: Rose Publishing 

Company, Inc., Publishers, 1994), pp. 12-15; Dan F. Morse, “On the Possible Origins of the Quapaw in 

Northeast Arkansas,” in Hester A. Davis, ed., Arkansas Before the Americans (Fayetteville, Arkansas: 
38 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

platform mounds where the chiefs and priests of a hierarchical society exercised 

political and ceremonial authority. 

Mississippian culture peaked in both eastern Arkansas and throughout the Mississippi 

valley in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries before being staggered by a major 

cultural disruption in ca. A.D. 1400. This disruption, which was characterized by open 

warfare among nascent Indian states and the concomitant concentration of the 

population in central fortified towns, may have been precipitated by a number of 

factors. Among the major mutually-reinforcing suspect causes are resource depletion 

caused by excessive population growth; climatic change, which resulted in cooler, drier 

summers and shorter growing seasons that decreased corn production and increased 

population stresses; and competition among the incipient Mississippian chiefdoms that 

may have been driven by resource pressures. According to one historian, still another 

factor contributing to this disruption could have been indigenous Native American 

epidemic disease. Whatever the genesis of the crisis, however, Arkansas Mississippian 

society had already sustained a major blow when Hernando De Soto’s Spanish entrada

entered the state and initiated the first documented contact between Europeans and 

Native American groups in eastern Arkansas.13

 

Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 40, 1991), pp. 40-42. 

13Bevington et al, pp. 32-33; Cande, p. 15; Dougan, pp. 15-17; Roger G. Kennedy, Hidden Cities: The 

Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization (New York: The Free Press, 1994), pp. 19-20; 

Claudia Gellman Mink, Cahokia: City of the Sun (Collinsville, Illinois: Cahokia Mounds Museum Society, 

1992), pp. 20-22, 66-67; Morse, pp. 42-43. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 39 

December 2005 

De Soto’s entrada (1539-1543)—a persistent armed military reconnaissance of the 

American interior in pursuit of Native American riches—crossed the Mississippi River 

into Arkansas in June, 1541. For most of the next two years the expedition roamed 

across Arkansas from Indian town to Indian town in a quest for treasure and food. 

Although the expedition’s route through the state has been and continues to be the 

subject of debate, the consequences of the march are not.14 De Soto’s entrada decimated 

the populations of the surviving Mississippian Indian towns, as well as other towns it 

passed through. 

The main causes of this demographic cataclysm, which one writer calls “the Great 

Dying,” were not Spanish depredations and confiscation of Indian food supplies, 

although these factors played their roles. Instead, the Indians of eastern Arkansas were 

probably the victims of devastating epidemics caused by smallpox and other European 

diseases that may have killed more than 90% of the population in some villages. The 

Mississippian elites were most likely to have contact with the Spanish invaders and 

were probably particularly hard hit by diseases. Cultural disintegration soon teamed 

with population loss, warfare, and other already-endemic problems to virtually 

 

14Cande, p. 19; Dougan, pp. 17-22; Morse, pp. 43-49; Ian K. Steele, Warpaths: Invasions of North America

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 13-16 (source of the term entrada); David J. Weber, The 

Spanish Frontier in North America (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 49-55. John 

Swanton contended in the Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission (1939) that De 

Soto’s entrada crossed the Mississippi into Arkansas near present-day Helena, Arkansas, and followed a 

southerly route through the state, while more recently (1985) Charles H. Hudson has argued that the 

expedition crossed the river further north in the vicinity of present-day Memphis, Tennessee, and 
40 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

complete the demise of Arkansas’ Mississippian civilization. Gerald T. Hanson’s map, 

“Indian Tribes of Arkansas, 1690” (Map 3), illustrates the findings of the French at the 

time of their arrival in the early 1670s, near the close of the protohistoric period (1500 - 

1700). Their observations ended a 130-year silence in the written record, which 

followed the Spanish arrival in the area. French accounts note that the sparselypopulated eastern Arkansas and APNM vicinity were occupied by the Quapaws—a 

tribe not readily identified as possessing Mississippian antecedents.15

Questions of who are the Quapaws and what is their ethnogenesis have vexed 

historians and archeologists and animated their dialogue. Indeed, perhaps the only 

points of agreement among scholars place the Quapaw as a branch of the Dhegila Sioux, 

who lived in villages comprised of long, rectangular, bark-covered lodges, and who 

combined agriculture with gathering, fishing, and hunting. These activities, especially 

the all-important buffalo hunting, supplemented their extensive cultivation of corn, 

beans, squash, and other crops.16 

 

followed a more northerly route through Arkansas. For a discussion of these alternative routes see 

Dougan, pp. 17-23, 33; and Morse, pp. 43-49. 

15Dougan, p. 22; David H. Dye and Ronald C. Brister, eds., “The Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South, 

1500 - 1700: Proceedings of the 1983 Mid-South Archeological Conference” (Jackson, Mississippi: 

Mississippi Department of History and Archives, 1986), p. xii; Kennedy, pp. 20-22 (source of phrase “the 

Great Dying”); Morse, pp. 49-51. 

16W. David Baird, The Quapaw Indians: A History of the Downstream People (Norman, Oklahoma: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), pp. 7-11. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 41 

December 2005 

Beyond this basic information, there are several interpretations. One uses information 

drawn from historical data, Quapaw architectural and religious practices, and the 

tribe’s seventeenth- and eighteenth-century oral tradition telling of a recent drift 

downstream. This interpretation concludes that the Quapaws, whom the Iroquois had 

driven southwest from their original Ohio River valley homeland, were recent arrivals 

in a nearly-empty eastern Arkansas. Another hypothesis holds that the Quapaws were 

descended from the collapsed Mississippian chiefdoms of the post-De Soto era—a 

scenario bolstered by alleged continuity between Mississippian artifacts and pottery 

found in the so-called Menard complex and supposed Quapaw assemblages.17 A third 

scenario—the so-called “shreds and patches” interpretation—contends that the 

Quapaws were a collection of peoples who originated in northeastern Arkansas. They 

then migrated south to the Arkansas River valley in the face of Algonquin (Illinois) 

 

17The Menard complex is associated with Arkansas County’s Menard site, which was formally renamed 

the Menard-Hodges site in 1985. Menard-Hodges, recently authorized as a new APNM unit, is located 

six miles southeast of the memorial. The site of Osotouy—the late eighteenth-century Quapaw village 

where Henri de Tonti established France’s first Arkansas Post settlement (1686-1699)—is encompassed 

within the Menard-Hodges’ boundaries. The site of de Tonti’s Post is also within or near the MenardHodges unit’s limits. According to Dr. John House of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, artifacts found 

in the Menard complex should chronologically overlap with this French presence at the site. There is no 

connection between the Menard complex and Osotouy and the “Three Villages of the Arkansas (or 

Quapaws)” shown on Balthazar de Villiers’ plan “Establishment of Arkansas Post at Red Bluffs on 17 

March 1779” (Map 6). Harold L. Reem, Oral Telephone Interview of Dr. John House, February 8, 1999.
42 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

pressure and reassembled the shattered remains of the mid-sixteenth-century, Siouanspeaking, Mississippian cultures.18

 

This debate is not likely to be resolved in the near future. As Kathleen H. Cande of the 

Arkansas Archeological Survey cogently states, “It seems that as more archeological 

and historical data on the seventeenth century Quapaw villages are gathered and 

interpreted, the less that is certain about them.” Nevertheless, she concludes, 

“additional archeological research at the Menard-Hodges and nearby sites has the 

potential to address these questions with fresh insights.”19

 

Site Chronology 

Geomorphology and Vegetation Patterns 

APNM’s evolving geomorphology has been a critical determining factor in the site’s 

history and development. The site is located at the far southeastern end of the Grand 

Prairie ridge or terrace. The prairie appears on the Arkansas Archeological Survey’s 

recent map of the Lower Mississippi River Valley (Map 1). It is depicted as a broad 

plain—between 4 and 20 miles in width—and lying between the courses of the 

 

18For various aspects of the ongoing academic debate on Quapaw ethnogenesis see: Baird, pp. 3- 20 (the 

most thorough summary of the scenario that the Quapaws were recent arrivals from the Ohio River 

Valley); Cande, pp. 15-16, 23-24; Michael P. Hoffman, “The Protohistoric Period in the Lower and Central 

Arkansas River Valley in Arkansas,” in Dye and Brister, pp. 24-34; Michael P. Hoffman, “Quapaw 

Structures, 1673-1834, and Their Comparative Significance,” in Davis, pp. 55-68; John H. House, “The 

Mississippian Sequence in the Menard Locality, Eastern Arkansas,” in Davis, pp. 6-9; Marvin D. Jeter, 

“Tunicans West of the Mississippi: A Summary of Early Historical and Archeological Evidence,” in 

Brister and Dye, pp. 38-58; Morse, pp. 53-54. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 43 

December 2005 

Arkansas and White rivers, approximately 10 to 25 feet above these streams’ bordering 

lowlands.20 The plain is comprised of clays and silty clays deposited by the Arkansas 

River between 80,000 and 100,000 years ago. It is subject to erosion along its edges, 

particularly at locations like Arkansas Post where the force of the Arkansas River has 

actively diminished its southeastern margin. 

Although the Arkansas River formed the Grand Prairie, the river has occupied its 

present meander belt at the prairie’s southern edge for only about 1,000 years since the 

early part of the Native American Mississippian period. Prior to that time, the river was 

located to the southwest of its current location for several millenia. Within the portion 

of the present meander belt that lies adjacent to Arkansas Post, moreover, the river’s 

exact course and meanders can be reconstructed for only about 220 years based upon 

site plans, survey maps, and historical accounts (Exhibit 8). Nevertheless, despite the 

continuous meandering of the river, the characteristics making the Grand Prairie’s 

southeastern bluffs at APNM an attractive location for human habitation for several 

thousand years have survived unchanged. The site still lies above the frequentlyflooded Arkansas River lowlands. In the thousand years since the river has followed its 

 

19Cande, p. 24. 

20These 25-foot bluffs delineating the site’s eastern and southwestern boundaries are no longer a readilyvisible feature of APNM’s landscape. Since the lowlands bordering the memorial were flooded by the 

navigation pool created by the Arkansas River Navigation System’s Lock and Dam Number 2 in 1956, the 

bluffs have lost both their original prominence and part of their original form. 
44 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

approximate present course, the site has remained the first high ground encountered 

when ascending the Arkansas from the Mississippi River.21

 

In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries during the final phase of 

exclusive Indian habitation, two vegetation patterns dominated APNM and the 

immediate surrounding area. There were forested areas along the margins of the 

Arkansas River and its tributaries and open grassland on the Grand Prairie to the north 

of the site. The wooded areas, which encompassed all or most of APNM’s acreage, 

were largely lowland deciduous forest (Exhibit 1). The United States General Land 

Office (GLO) surveyors made notes on the lowland deciduous forest in the townships 

surrounding Arkansas Post and its adjacent Spanish land grants. Since they were 

surveying during the first decades of the early nineteenth century, conditions at the site 

were not significantly different from those found during the late pre-contact period. 

According to these notes, the forest contained almost forty species of deciduous trees, 

including the ash, black oak, cottonwood, cypress, elm, maple, post oak, red oak, 

sycamore, and white oak. Common woodland shrubs and undergrowth species 

 

21The geomorphology of APNM is discussed in various archeological reports on the site. See: Cande, pp. 

1-4; Preston Holder, “Archeological Field Research on the Problems of the Locations of Arkansas Post, 

1686-1804” (Richmond, Virginia: The National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Region One, 

September 15, 1957), pp. 2-3; Martin, p. 1; John W. Walker, “Excavation of the Arkansas Post Branch of 

the Bank of the State of Arkansas” (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Southeast Archeological Center, Division of Archeology, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 

1971), p. 1; William A. Westbury, “Archeological Assessment of Arkansas Post” (Southern Methodist 

University Archeology Research Program - Research Report 96, 1976), pp. 3-4; William A. Westbury, 

“Investigations at Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas” (National Park Service Archeology 

Research Program, November 1975), pp. 4-5. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 45 

December 2005 

included greenbriers, giant cane, locust vines, sumac bushes, privey vines, black 

willows, and oak, hickory, and pecan shrubs. Big bluestem, broomsedge, and other 

tallgrasses dominated the treeless grassland of the Grand Prairie.22

These forested and prairie areas were home to a broad range of wildlife species, many 

of which could be found in both ecosystems. Large mammal game and fur-bearing 

species included substantial numbers of deer, numerous black bears and buffalo, and 

occasional elk. Small mammal game and fur-bearing species consisted of squirrels, 

cottontail and swamp rabbits, raccoons, opossums, beaver, river otter, mink, and 

muskrat. Panthers, bobcats, red and gray foxes, red wolves, and coyote made up the 

feline and canine predator population. In addition to these numerous mammalian 

species, birds, fish, and reptiles abounded. Waterfowls included swans, cranes, and 

ducks, while turkeys, passenger pigeons, and other game birds were found in the 

uplands. The river, its tributaries, and their bordering swamps were home to giant 

catfish, gars, and a large number of turtle species. Alligators, which are common at 

APNM and the surrounding area today, are not mentioned in GLO surveyors’ and 

other early European and Euro-American observers’ narratives. However, alligator 

 

22Cande, pp. 4, 10-11; Westbury (1975), pp. 5-6. According to Judge Morris S. Arnold, there are no field 

notes describing Arkansas Post’s Spanish land grants that are similar to those available for United States 

General Land Office Surveys. The judge states, however, that some information on the types of 

vegetation found on the Post’s late eighteenth- and early nineteenth century Spanish grants may possibly 

be contained in a book titled Spanish Land Grants located in the Land Commissioner’s Office at the 

Arkansas Capitol Building in Little Rock. Harold L. Reem, Oral Telephone Interview of Judge Morris S. 

Arnold, February 5, 1999. 
46 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

teeth and bones have been uncovered in recent archeological investigations, suggesting 

that they were present during at least a portion of the site’s history.23

 

Historic Background and Indian Artifacts 

Although APNM’s topography and wealth of natural resources made the site a prime 

location for human habitation, little is known about the prehistoric occupants of the site. 

No Indian village sites or structural traces from the early Quapaw era or any other 

period have been identified, and only a relatively small collection of Native American 

artifacts have been found.24 Nevertheless, this dearth of evidence does not necessarily 

mean that the location was largely unoccupied. Rather, it may be a result of relatively 

limited extent of archeological investigations as well as the likelihood that natural forces 

have removed many artifacts and structural remains from the site. Periodic flooding 

and the continuing shifts in the course of the meandering Arkansas River have 

obliterated large parts of the European colonial, early Euro-American, Civil War-era, 

and late nineteenth century Arkansas Post settlements. The River may have also eroded 

away remains typical of riverfront village sites. 

The scant handful of Indian artifacts that have been collected offer some brief insights 

into APNM’s prehistoric past. They indicate that Native Americans at least periodically 

 

23Cande, pp. 4, 10-12; Westbury (1975), p. 6. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 47 

December 2005 

used the site for hunting, gathering and possibly other activities for thousands of years. 

The materials are associated with several Indian cultures ranging from the Dalton or 

Archaic through the late Mississippian and early Quapaw periods, and span an almost 

10,000-year interval (ca. 8,000 B.C. - ca. A.D. 1700).25 

The Mississippian connection is particularly tantalizing. Virtually all scholarly accounts 

of the De Soto entrada concur that the expedition probably passed through the Arkansas 

Post vicinity and the neighboring Mississippian town at the Menard-Hodges site. The 

accounts, however, disagree on the date of De Soto’s passage and the events that 

occurred. According to John R. Swanton and the U.S. De Soto Expedition Commission, 

who posit a southerly route through Arkansas for the entrada, Menard-Hodges was the 

large town of Quiguate visited by De Soto in August 1541. Charles Hudson and other 

scholars who believe that the expedition took a more northerly route offer a different 

explanation. They identify Menard-Hodges as the site of the town of Anilco whose 

inhabitants were slaughtered by the Spanish and their Indian allies in April, 1542. 

Nevertheless, regardless of which interpretation is correct, neither the events at 

 

24The presence of a mound just west of the park, identified in recent archeological surveys, increases the 

likelihood that there may exist Native American archeological resources of which we are currently 

unaware. Reem, Harold L. Oral Telephone Interview of Dr. John House, Station Archeologist, 

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Station, Arkansas Archeological Survey, February 8, 1999. 

25Westbury (1975), p. 6. 
48 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Menard-Hodges nor the Mississippian and other prehistoric artifact collections found 

there have been directly linked to developments at the APNM site.26

 

Period Summary 

APNM’s topography and wealth of natural resources have made the site a prime 

location for human habitation for thousands of years. The site lies above the frequentlyflooded Arkansas River lowlands, and it is the first high ground encountered when 

ascending the Arkansas from the Mississippi River. No prehistoric Indian village sites 

or structural traces have been identified at APNM. However, Native Americans from 

several cultures ranging from the Dalton or Archaic through the late Mississippian and 

early Quapaw periods periodically used the site for hunting, gathering and possibly 

other activities for almost 10,000 years. The relative dearth of Indian cultural materials 

may be attributed to the relatively limited extent of archeological investigations and the 

likelihood that periodic flooding and the shifting course of the Arkansas River have 

eroded away many artifacts and structural remains. 

 

26Cande, pp. 19, 49-59; House, pp. 8-9; Morse, pp. 43-49; Westbury (1975), pp. 6-7. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 49 

December 2005 

1673 - 1803 (Exhibit 2: 1673 - 1803 Historic Period Plan) 

Historic Context 

Arkansas Post’s prehistoric period ended in July, 1673, when French explorers Louis 

Joliet and Father Jaques Marquette entered the area. They encountered the Quapaws, 

who were living in the village of Akansea (Arkansas), and three other settlements near 

the mouth of the Arkansas River (Map 2). The French explorers, who were voyaging 

down the Mississippi from Canada, were searching for the Pacific Ocean, an interior 

North American fur-trading empire, and souls. Although Marquette and Joliet did not 

find the Pacific, they learned that the Mississippi emptied into the Gulf of Mexico, and 

in concert with the St. Lawrence River, formed a virtually all-water route from Quebec 

to the Gulf. Marquette’s and Joliet’s discovery spurred Robert Cavalier de La Salle, 

Henri de Tonti, and thousands of other French explorers, traders and settlers to develop 

Louisiana. The area came to be an immense, loosely-organized province that extended 

along the Mississippi and its tributaries from New Orleans to the western Great Lakes. 

The French traded with the region’s Indian tribes from Saint Genevieve, Kaskaskia, 

Arkansas Post, Ouachita Post, and other Louisiana frontier settlements shown in 

Arnold’s “Map of the Arkansas Region in Colonial Times” (Map 4). In concert with the 
50 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Quapaws and other Native American allies, the French contested with their Spanish 

and English imperial rivals for control of the North American interior.27

French political dominance in Louisiana ended in 1763 when France, which was losing 

the Seven Years’ War (The French and Indian War, 1756-1763) to Britain, ceded the 

western part of province, including APNM, to her then-ally Spain. The cession 

compensated the Spanish for the loss of Florida and jettisoned a strategic and financial 

liability since the Louisiana colony routinely lost money. Despite the fact that Louisiana 

promised to remain a fiscal burden, Spain accepted the cession for strategic reasons. 

For the next four decades, the Spanish attempted to transform the province into a buffer 

to counter British and later Euro-American threats to New Spain. Spanish techniques 

for exercising imperial control remained virtually identical to those used by the French. 

These techniques included construction of military outposts at Arkansas Post and other 

sites, cultivation of trade and alliances with the region’s Indian tribes, and participation 

in great power conflicts, including the North American and European war spawned by 

the American Revolution. 

 

27For discussions of French colonial rule in Louisiana see Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 3-23, 53-107, 125-

141, 171; Baird, pp. 21-40; Cande, pp. 15-21; Roger E. Coleman, The Arkansas Post Story: Arkansas Post 

National Memorial (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Division of History, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, 

Southwest Region, National Park Service Department of the Interior, Professional Papers No. 12, 1987), 

pp. 3-46; D. W. Meinig, Atlantic America, 1492-1800, Vol. 1 of The Shaping of America: A Geographical 

Perspective on 500 Years of History (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 194-202, 

208-211, 224. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 51 

December 2005 

The colony prospered under Spanish rule, but despite its best efforts Spain’s control of 

Louisiana was in many respects superficial. The province’s European population 

remained largely French in ethnicity and culture. French merchants and traders 

continued to dominate Louisiana’s economy. Even the colonial government’s leavening 

of Spanish officialdom included many former French officers who had enlisted in 

Spanish service. Moreover, Louisiana continued to cost more than it generated in 

revenues. By the 1790s Spain faced a fresh challenge—the aggressive expansionism of 

the newly created United States. 

Consequently, Spain retroceded Louisiana to resurgent Napoleonic France in the 1800 

Treaty of San Idelfonso in the hope that the French would serve as a barrier between the 

Euro-Americans and the rich provinces of northern Mexico. However, Napoleon’s 

dream of a new American colonial empire perished in the Haitian slave rebellion. 

Three years later in 1803 France sold and transferred Louisiana to the United States.28 

Site Chronology 

Geomorphology 

As was the case during the prehistoric era, Arkansas Post’s geomorphology determined 

its development during the Spanish and French colonial period. The site’s resources 
52 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

and location on the first high ground above the Arkansas River flood plain continued to 

make it a prime location for human habitation. During this period, moreover, the river 

assumed the rough meander configuration it would occupy until 1912. By the mideighteenth century the river, which flowed northward out of a probable bend to the 

south of the site, formed an oxbow or horseshoe to the east-southeast of the present-day 

memorial. 

In 1779, based upon calculations derived from Spanish Captain Balthazar de Villiers’ 

plan (Map 6) and archeological and historical information, the river was about 690 feet 

(106 French toises—one toise equals about six-and-a-half English feet) wide opposite the 

Post. Its western bank was located approximately 260 feet east of the southeastern tip 

of APNM’s boundary (Exhibit 2).29 The shoreline’s position, however, did not remain 

constant. For the last twenty-five years of the colonial period, the western bank of the 

river continued to migrate to the west-northwest. This movement was caused by the 

 

28For discussions of Spanish colonial rule in Louisiana see Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 23- 24, 108-

112,115-124, 141-170, 173-176; Baird, pp. 39-51; Coleman, pp. 46-76; Meinig, Atlantic America, pp. 282-283, 

288, 334, 337-338, 416-417, 424-425; M. Carmen Gonzalez Lopez-Briones, “Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 

Spanish Arkansas, 1762-1804” (Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, 

May 1983), pp. vi-vii, 4-19, 238-273; Weber, pp. 198-203, 266-267, 279-280, 290-292, 337-339. 

29De Villiers’ scaled plan, “Etablissement du Poste des Akansas aux Ecores Rouges de 17 Mars 1779” 

(“Establishment of Arkansas Post at Red Bluffs on March 17, 1779”), provides a wealth of information 

about late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Arkansas Post. The map, its scale, and its probable 

correlation with known features on APNM’s landscape are analyzed in detail below in the section of this 

history discussing Fort San Carlos III, Fort San Esteban and the Post of Arkansas Settlement between 

1779 and 1803. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 53 

December 2005 

energy of the fast-moving water on the outside of the oxbow meander curve constantly 

eroding the bluffs at the Grand Prairie’s southeastern extremity.30

 

Historic Background 

In 1686 Henri de Tonti, a French officer in La Salle’s expedition, established the first 

Arkansas Post settlement on the Little Prairie in present-day Arkansas County. The 

Post was located near Osotouy, a Quapaw village located at the Menard-Hodges site 

about 35 miles above the mouth the Arkansas River. The Post was one of the first 

European settlements in Louisiana, and for most of the next 115 years it served as an 

outpost of French and Spanish colonial rule on the Arkansas. During this time, 

however, Arkansas Post consisted of several successive settlements located at three 

different locations that were determined by the necessities of geography and changing 

economic, political, and military requirements (Map 5). From 1686 to 1699 the Post was 

located on the Little Prairie—a site originally selected for economic reasons because of 

the promise of trade with the neighboring Quapaws. In 1721, more than two decades 

after the French abandoned this first Post, John Law reestablished the Post near the site 

of de Tonti’s 1686 trading settlement. The Post remained at this location on the Little 

Prairie until 1749 when First Ensign Louis-Xavier-Martin Delino de Chalmette relocated 

the settlement, which had been attacked and partially destroyed by the English-allied 

 

30Holder, p. 6. The river’s continuing west-northwesterly migration between 1779 and 1903 is 

documented in detail in both the narrative portion of this study and in the accompanying maps and 

historic period plans. 
54 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Chickasaws. The new site was upstream on the high ground at Ecores Rouges (Red 

Bluffs) at the present-day APNM site. As a result of the relocation, the French were 

closer to what were then the major villages of their Quapaw allies. 

Seven years later in 1756 the Post was moved again, this time downstream to a site 

about 10 miles above the mouth of the Arkansas. This location nearer to the Mississippi 

made it a more convenient entrepot for river convoys travelling between the Illinois 

Country and New Orleans. Presumably, it also offered strategic advantages during the 

Seven Years War. The Post built at this location, however, flooded every year. 

Therefore, in 1779 Captain de Villiers moved the Post, which was by then a Spanish 

outpost, back upstream to the APNM Ecores Rouges site where it has remained ever 

since.31

Although Arkansas Post performed duty as a French and Spanish commercial and 

military outpost on the Arkansas for more than a century, the settlement’s existence was 

extremely tenuous until the late eighteenth century. As Morris S. Arnold states, during 

“the period of French domination, and well into the Spanish epoch as well, the 

tenacious little Post community barely managed to survive the Indian attacks, floods, 

 

31Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 5-24, 177; Morris S. Arnold, “The Relocation of Arkansas Post to Ecores 

Rouges in 1779,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 39 (Winter 1933), pp. 317 - 331; Morris S. Arnold, Unequal 

Laws Unto a Savage Race: European Legal Traditions in Arkansas, 1686-1836 (Fayetteville, Arkansas: 

University of Arkansas Press, 1985), Appendix II, “The Locations of Arkansas Post, 1686-1985,” pp. 212-

217; Cande, pp. 24-32; Coleman, pp. 12-14, 19-23, 33-49, 59-60, 141-148. This Post came to be known later 

as “Fort Desha.” Colonel Desha was an early nineteenth century settler. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 55 

December 2005 

famines, and epidemics that constantly threatened its existence.”32 The Post served its 

strategic roles of guarding the route to Santa Fe and preserving the critical French and 

Spanish alliance with the Quapaws. Its population, however, never numbered more 

than about 125 through the mid-1770s; the settlement did not begin to prosper until 

after its final move to Ecores Rouges in 1779. 

Indeed, the survival of the Post continued to be uncertain throughout the Revolution. A 

joint British Loyalist-Chickasaw force attacked the Post unsuccessfully in the April, 

1783, Colbert Raid, one of the final battles of the American Revolution and one of two 

engagements fought west of the Mississippi. The population of the Post did not begin 

to increase significantly until the late 1780s. Between 1788 and 1798, the date of the final 

Spanish census before the Post’s March, 1804, transfer to the United States, the 

population jumped by more than 300% from 119 to 393 residents. The increased 

population, moreover, was a multiethnic and multi-class mixture comprised of large 

numbers of French hunters, traders, and merchants, many of whom had Indian wives; 

several French officers and their European families; a few Spaniards, German farmers, 

and Americans; and a significant number (56) of free and enslaved blacks. These 

residents, many of whom were of mixed blood, together with the neighboring 

Quapaws, formed a society where French values predominated. However, their society 

 

32Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 171. 
56 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

also contained significant elements of a cosmopolitan multicultural “middle ground” 

where various vernacular cultures mingled and mixed on an equal basis. 

This late eighteenth-century vitality, however, was at least partially undermined by the 

Post’s perennial Achilles heel—the weakness of its agricultural sector. Despite 

numerous Spanish land grants to farmers and other residents, the Post never produced 

enough wheat and corn to feed itself, and imported flour from the Illinois country and 

Natchez to meet its needs.33 John B. Treat, the American government factor at the 

Arkansas Post fur trading house, wrote in 1805 that although the Post’s land was fertile, 

“agriculture here is yet in its infancy.” He described the fields as having “been 

 

33The Spanish colonial government made numerous land grants at Ecores Rouges between the early 1780s 

and early 1800s. Most grants, which encompassed former Indian lands, were made to attract permanent 

European settlers, particularly farmers, to Arkansas Post. The Post’s commandants, however, received 

lands in return for service. Few, if any, of these grants were confirmed during Spain’s tenure. After the 

United States assumed control of the Post, the previous Spanish grants were adjudicated, confirmed, and 

surveyed between 1812 and 1820. For a discussion of Spanish land grant regulations and procedures, see 

Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 161-168; and Harold L. Reem, Oral Telephone Interview of Judge Morris S. 

Arnold, February 5, 1999. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 57 

December 2005 

constantly sown with the same kind of grain, only half cultivated, and never to have 

received any kind of manure.”34

 

The Post’s late eighteenth-century growth was accompanied by the decline of the 

neighboring Quapaws. The Quapaws population has been variously estimated at 

between 2,500 to 3,500 and 6,000 to 15,000 in the early 1680s. In the 1700, the Quapaws 

allied with the French and later the Spanish to obtain firearms and military support to 

fight their traditional enemies—the Osages and the English-allied Chickasaws. They 

cleaved to this allegiance for more than a century, but by the 1790s the tribe was a 

numerically and culturally decimated ghost of its former self. The tribe’s population 

was reduced to some 700 in the late 1700s as a result of casualties incurred while 

serving as French auxiliaries in colonial wars, the large number of Quapaw women lost 

to whites as wives, and especially smallpox and other fatal European epidemic diseases. 

 

34Arkansas Post’s late eighteenth-century development is discussed in detail in a number of sources. The 

most comprehensive account is Morris S. Arnold’s Colonial Arkansas, especially pp. 53-124, 171-181 (the 

quote from John B. Treat is on p. 61). Other sources discussing various aspects of the Post’s history 

during this period include Edwin C. Bearss, Special History Report: The Colbert Raid, Arkansas Post National 

Memorial (Denver, Colorado: Denver Service Center, Historic Preservation Team, National Park Service, 

United States Department of the Interior, November 1974), entire report; Coleman, pp. 3-75; Gilbert Din, 

“Arkansas Post in the American Revolution,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 39 (Spring 1981), pp. 3-30; 

Gilbert Din, “Spanish Fort on the Arkansas, 1763-1803,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 42 (Autumn 1983), 

pp. 271-293; Dougan, pp. 35-51; Stanley Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: French Domination, The 

Louisiana Historical Quarterly 26, No. 3 (July 1943), pp. 633-721; Stanley Faye, “The Arkansas Post of 

Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” The Louisiana Historical Quarterly 27, No. 3 (July 1944), pp. 629-716; 

Gonzalez L. B., pp. 50-273; and Ray H. Mattison, “Report on the Historical Investigations of Arkansas 

Post, Arkansas” (Omaha, Nebraska: National Park Service, Region Two, September 25, 1957), pp. 1-73. 

The term and concept “middle ground” is taken from Richard White’s The Middle Ground: Indians, 

Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650- 1815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 

1991), which discusses the formation and demise of a sixteenth- and seventeenth-century French-Indian 

multicultural society in the Great Lakes area. 
58 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Similarly, the partial abandonment of agriculture in favor of hunting to obtain 

European-produced goods, the simultaneous loss of many indigenous craft skills, and 

the socially-disruptive effects of alcohol gutted many facets of traditional Quapaw 

culture.35 

 

De La Houssaye’s Fort at “Ecores Rouge” and Arkansas Post, 1749 - 1756 

With the possible exception of ephemeral Indian settlements or European structures, 

whose remains have been eroded away or remain unfound, the first structures built at 

the APNM site were the work of the French. Under the command of Lieutenant Pierre 

Augustin Le Pelletier de La Houssaye, a fort was constructed at Ecores Rouges. De La 

Houssaye, who succeeded Delino de Chalmette as Post commandant in 1751, probably 

began construction of the work in the autumn of that year and supervised its 

construction over the next several months or years. The location of the fort is not 

known. Archeologist Preston Holder believed that the “trench complex” (Maps 42 and 

45) uncovered during his 1956-1957 excavations in the extreme southeastern portion of 

present-day APNM was related to the fort. In fact he believed that the trenches were 

not only “the remains of de La Houssaye’s French fort of 1752-1755 [sic],” but also quite 

likely those of the “Spanish fort San Carlos III of the early 1780s.”36 Nevertheless, 

subsequent analysis, which has benefited from more recent study of French colonial 

vernacular architecture, has interpreted the trenches more convincingly as the 

 

35Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 98-124, 177; Baird, pp. 21-51; Dougan, pp. 28-29. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 59 

December 2005 

“remnants of palisade-type fences outlining lots” dating from the late eighteenthcentury period of Spanish occupation.37 It is possible that the remains of the fort exist in 

a part of the APNM that has not been excavated. A detailed March, 1755, description of 

the fort certified and probably prepared by Bernard Deverges, the chief engineer in 

Louisiana, indicates that the works were of substantial size and made a significant 

imprint on the Post’s landscape. However, it is likely that the fort was located relatively 

close to the edge of the Arkansas River bluffs, as were its three successors at APNM 

(Forts San Carlos III, San Esteban (Fort Madison), and Hindman). In this case, the site 

has probably eroded away and will never be found.38

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

The first major change to the Post’s landscape would have involved clearing a site for 

the works on the Grand Prairie bluffs. The fort was sizable; it enclosed a tract of one 

arpent (approximately 0.85 acres). As a result, the cleared area would have been 

correspondingly large. It would have encompassed not only the ground occupied by 

 

36Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 32; Holder, pp. 23-25 (source of quotations). 

37Martin, p. 87 (source of quotation “remnants of palisade-type fences”); Westbury, “Archeological 

Assessment of Arkansas Post,” p. 51. 

38A translation of this document, which is contained in the “Fort Papers” file at the Missouri Historical 

Society in St. Louis, is included as Appendix A in Mattison, pp. 99-113. Arnold notes, however, that this 

translation “is not entirely reliable.” The translation, moreover, does not identify Deverges by name, and 

states only that “I, the undersigned, Chief engineer in Louisiana, certifies genuine this present estimate of 

the work of the fort and buildings which have been made fifteen leagues from the Arkansas River [sic], 

but Mr. Delahaussaye.” Deverges is identified as French Louisiana’s engineer-in-chief (1751-1762?) by 

Samuel Wilson, Jr., in his study of French colonial military architecture in the Mississippi River Valley. 

See Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 190- 191, Note 34; and Samuel Wilson, Jr., “Colonial Fortifications and 

Military Architecture in the Mississippi Valley,” in John Francis McDermott, ed., The French in the 

Mississippi Valley (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1965), pp. 118-122.x 
60 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the fort, but also the surrounding terrain within several tens or hundreds of yards to 

provide the defending garrison with unobstructed fields of fire.39 A large portion of the 

harvested timber from the cleared area presumably would have been used to build the 

fort’s stockade, bastions, and buildings. 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Arnold describes de La Houssaye’s fort as “the most elaborate military structure” built 

in Arkansas during its colonial period.40 The walls, which formed a square about 30 

toises (195 feet) on a side, were constructed of two rows of overlapping stakes set in a 

backfilled three-foot-deep trench. The outer row of stakes stood eleven feet above 

ground level, and the inner row five feet above ground level. Three of the fort’s four 

corners were protected by log or timber bastions that mounted cannon, and two of these 

bastions supported sentry boxes constructed of tar-covered planks. A log, possibly 

lunette-shaped, outwork stood in front of the entrance gate.41 Indeed, as one historian 

notes, all of France’s Mississippi Valley forts “from the simplest stockade to the greatest 

fortresses and fortified towns,” reflected the military engineering genius of Marshal 

Sebatien de Prestre Vauban and his French army corps of engineers. The early 1750s 

works at Arkansas Post were no exception to this rule.42

 

39Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 36 (source of information on the area enclosed by the fort). 

40Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 32. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 61 

December 2005 

There were seven buildings inside the fort’s walls, three of which were a combination 

commandant’s quarters and chapel (a 72- by 17-foot four-room structure with two 

bedrooms, a hall, and chapel); a combination officers’ and soldiers’ quarters (a 96- by 

17-foot structure that included two separate officers’ bedrooms); and a combination 

hospital/storehouse (a 64- by 18-foot structure that contained spaces for the interpreter, 

the storekeeper, the supply storehouse, and the hospital). These three buildings were of 

vernacular, poteaux en terre, post-in-the-ground construction (vertical posts set in a 

trench with their tops tied together on wall plates supporting the roof’s rafters). The 

interstices between the posts were filled with bousillage—a mixture of mud, lime, and 

Spanish moss. The basic construction technique was derived from traditional French 

colombage (half-timber) framing, but the bousillage nogging was borrowed from the 

Native American building vocabulary, and perhaps reflected a continuation of 

Mississippian construction technology. Other features of the three buildings included 

plank floors, shuttered windows, mud or clay fireplaces constructed of a wood-framed 

dirt and straw mixture (bousillage?), and steeply-pitched gable roofs covered with tarred 

clapboard or staves. There are no indications that the structures had either hipped roofs 

 

41Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 32; “Description of Arkansas Post Constructed 1751-1755,” Appendix A to 

Mattison, pp. 99-100. 42Wilson, pp. 103-104. 
62 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

or galleries—two subsequent signature features of French Louisianan and Arkansan 

colonial vernacular architecture.43

 

The four other structures enclosed by the fort’s stockade included a bakehouse, a 

powder magazine, a jail, and a latrine. The 18- by 16-foot bakehouse was a plank- or 

stave-covered, probably gable-roofed, poteaux en terre structure with a dirt floor and a 

mud oven covered by an exterior, bark, lean-to shed. The powder magazine was 

surrounded by a seven-foot high, palisade fence. It was an eight-and-a-half feet square 

structure of vernacular, pieux en terre, stake-in-the-ground construction (vertical stakes 

set in a trench with their tops tied together on wall plates supporting the roof’s rafters). 

Its floor was made of heavy timbers covered with three inches of dirt and a layer of 

bark. The 8- by 7-foot, dirt-floored prison, located under a cannon platform in one of 

the three corner bastions, was constructed of strong, heavy stakes. The dirt-floored, 9- 

by 5-foot latrine was covered with bark and surrounded by a stake enclosure. The 

Louisiana chief engineer’s description of the Post does not mention a well, cistern, or 

other source of water located inside its walls, although the fort may have had one.44

 

 

43Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 32-36; Jay D. Edwards, Louisiana’s Remarkable French Vernacular 

Architecture, 1700-1900 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: The Fred B. Kniffen Cultural Resources Laboratory, 

Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, 1988), pp. 2-7; “Description of 

Arkansas Post Constructed 1751-1755,” Appendix A to Mattison, pp. 100-108; Charles E. Peterson, “The 

Houses of French St. Louis,” in McDermott, pp. 19-24, 26-29. 

44Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 36; Edwards, p. 3; “Description of Arkansas Post Constructed 1751-1755, 

Appendix A to Mattison, pp. 109-112. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 63 

December 2005 

This fortification and its interior buildings, which Arnold describes as “provincial 

military Spartan,” were possibly not the only cultural features on the site.45 The cleared 

area and forests surrounding the fort may have been dotted with additional structures, 

including temporary Quapaw dwellings as well as a few French-style houses and 

outbuildings. Other features probably included gardens, fences, and paths. 

Amazingly, Arnold states, the Quapaws may have left a “relatively realistic” picture of 

the styles of French vernacular buildings found at the mid eighteenth-century Post. In 

Paris’ Musee de l’Homme (Museum of Man) there is a painted Quapaw buffalo hide that 

depicts, among its myriad of details, four French buildings at Arkansas Post (Figures 1 

and 2). The four buildings shown are almost certainly those comprising the lightly 

fortified Post located on the Little Prairie in the 1730s and 1740s. However, Arnold 

notes the slight possibility that “the skin deals with a time after 1748, when, on account 

of flooding, the Quapaws moved their villages above the fort to Ecores Rouges.” 

Regardless of the date the hide was painted, however, it provides an excellent snapshot 

of early French colonial building practices in Arkansas. The gable-roofed building on 

the left in the detail from the skin (Figure 2) distinctly shows the vertical log poteaux en 

terre and bousillage construction found in the commandant’s quarters and other major 

structures at de La Houssaye’s fort. Architectural features depicted in the other steeply-

 

45Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 36. 
64 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

gabled structures include a chimney and the apparent use of colombage half-timber 

framing.46

 

 

Fort San Carlos III, Fort San Esteban and Arkansas Post, 1779 - 1803 

After abandoning de La Houssaye’s fort in 1756, Europeans did not permanently 

reoccupy the Ecores Rouges site until 1779.47 In that year Captain Balthazar de Villiers, a 

French officer in Spanish service, moved the Post back upstream to the Ecores Rouges

high ground to escape the annual flooding at “Fort Desha,” which was built on the 

Arkansas River lowlands. De Villiers began construction of this new Post in early 1779, 

and over the next quarter century it developed into the growing multicultural frontier 

settlement transferred to the Americans in March 1804. Unlike the site of de La 

Houssaye’s fort, the remains of a portion of this settlement, including two forts and a 

number of houses, have been found. They were excavated during Preston Holder’s 

aforementioned 1956-1957 archeological excavations in the extreme southeastern 

portion of present-day APNM. The challenge is to interpret correctly what these 

remains represent, and to locate the buildings, structures, and other elements of the late 

eighteenth-century settlement with respect to known cultural features on the presentday APNM landscape. 

 

46Morris S. Arnold, “Eighteenth Century Arkansas Illustrated,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 53 (Summer 

1994), pp. 119-136 (source of all quotations); Cande, p. 21; George P. Horse Capture et al, Robes of 

Splendor: Native American Painted Buffalo Hides (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 11, 28, 54-57, 136-

137. 

47Some accounts note a hunting village that stood on or near the site for some years between 1756 and 

1779. See Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” p. 688. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 65 

December 2005 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

As was the case with the 1751 fort, de Villiers’ first step in laying out the 1779 Post at 

Ecores Rouges would have been clearing a site for the fort and settlement. Assuming the 

location of de La Houssaye’s Post had not eroded into the Arkansas River, de Villiers 

might have incorporated the previously-occupied area, which would probably have 

been covered with low second-growth trees and shrubs, into the plan of the new Post. 

If he did, it would have been encompassed by the approximately 300 by 400 yard 

cleared area on the far southeast corner of the Grand Prairie bluffs where he built the 

new settlement. This tract, which is shown on his 1779, scaled map of the site (Map 6), 

was most likely bordered by partially-cleared woodland near the edge of the prairie on 

the west and north. Northeast of the settlement several small creeks carved gullies as 

they flowed into the Arkansas River—a harbinger of future erosion. To the south were 

the periodically flooded Arkansas River lowlands (Pais bas Inonde aux Eaux hautes—

lowlands flooded during high water) along the larger tributary known in the future as 

Post Bayou (bayou etendent des Prairies— bayou extending from the prairies). To the east 

across the 690-foot-wide river (Lackancas es a 106 toises de longues devant le fort—the 

Arkansas is 106 toises [690 feet] wide in front of the fort) stood the forested terrain on 

the interior of the stream’s continually migrating horseshoe bend. 

De Villiers laid out the settlement along two approximately 40-feet-wide Rues (streets) 

platted in an “X” or cross in roughly the center of the cleared area (Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2). 

These two streets, as Arnold has speculated, probably closely or even exactly 
66 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

correspond to Main and Front streets in the early nineteenth-century American Post.48 

The future Main Street was the northwest-to-southeast Rue, and the future Front Street 

was the southwest-to-northeast Rue. The southwestern, northwestern, and northeastern 

quadrants of the “X” formed by the streets were divided into long residential lots 

(Exhibit 2-3) approximately 65 feet wide and 350-450 deep. A rhombus-shaped tract in 

the southeastern quadrant was reserved for a fort (Emplacemt du fort—site of the fort) 

with sloping glacises (Glacis is a slope that runs downward from a fortification) on its 

most vulnerable northeastern and northwestern sides. 

Multiple pieces of evidence support this interpretation and reinforce each other as well. 

First, the streets form a 105-degree obtuse angle where they intersect at the northeastern 

corner of the southwestern quadrant on de Villiers’ plan. This is the same angle formed 

by Main and Front streets at the point of their intersection. They intersect at the 

northeastern corner of an 1821 Arkansas Post lot sold by Alexis Jordelas and mapped in 

a plat in the Arkansas County deed books (Map 21). This tract is respectively depicted 

as Lot XV/XVI/XVII and Lot 6A/B/C on Bearss’ and Walker’s provisional plans of the 

ca. 1818-1840 American Post (Maps 14 and 15).49 It is highly unlikely that the 

congruence of these two features is coincidental, especially when other evidence is 

considered, including Main and Front streets’ orientations and locations on the site’s 

landscape, and Spanish land grant boundaries. 

 

48Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 41. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 67 

December 2005 

The western portion of the northwest-to-southeast Rue on de Villiers’ map ran south 57 

degrees east along a line between 300 and 400 feet to the northeast of the southwestern 

bluff line. Main Street followed an identical or virtually identical compass course as 

documented in three places: an 1818 plat of two lots sold by James Scull [(Lots VII and 

VIII on Bearss’ plan and Lots 4 and 7 on Walker’s plan) (Maps 14 and 15)]; the Jordelas 

lot plan (Map 21); and the 1840 plat of the Arkansas Post State Bank lot [(lot XIX on 

Bearss’ plan and Lot 27B on Walker’s plan) (Map 22)]. Furthermore, Main Street’s trace, 

as shown on both Bearss’ and Walker’s provisional site plans, was located between 300 

and 400 feet northeast of the southwestern bluff line in almost the same position as de 

Villiers’ Rue.50 This continuous, two-centuries-long coincidence of landscape features 

seems to indicate that de Villiers’ Rue and Main Street were one and the same. 

Moreover, it also provides hard evidence supporting the methodological assumption 

that the bluffs on the southwest side of the Post, which were not subjected to active 

river forces, have eroded very little in the last 200 years. 

 

49Bearss and Brown, pp. 204-206; Walker, pp. 209-210. 

50Bearss and Brown, pp. 188-190, 204-214; Walker, pp. 208-210, 219-220. The narrative description of the 

1821 Jordelas lot contained on p. 204 of Bearss and Brown states that the northern boundary of the 1821 

Jordelas lot ran north 27 degrees west rather than north 57 degrees west. This is a probable erroneous 

transcription of the lot description on pp. 249-250 and 439 of Arkansas County Deed Book B. The 

northern boundary shown on the lot plat runs north 57 degrees west and is parallel to the southern 

boundary, which runs south 57 degrees east in both the description and on the lot plat. 
68 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Similar evidence correlates early nineteenth-century Front Street with de Villiers’ 

southwest-to-northeast Rue. On de Villiers’ map this Rue ran north 18 degrees east—the 

same compass course followed by the south part of Front Street as depicted in the 1821 

Jordelas lot plan (Map 21). This course is only slightly different from the route of Front 

Street shown on the 1818 plat of the two lots sold by James Scull (Map 20).51 

Furthermore, the trace of this 1779 Rue almost certainly has been located at APNM, and 

it corresponds almost exactly to the projected course of the southern part of Front Street 

on Bearss’ and Walker’s provisional site plans. 

As previously noted, Preston Holder’s 1956-1957 archeological excavations at the 

extreme southeastern portion of present-day APNM uncovered a complex of trenches 

that are currently interpreted as the remains of palisade-type fences outlining late 

eighteenth-century lots (Maps 42 and 45).52 Archeologist William Westbury quotes Ivor 

Noel Hume, one of the United States’ most respected historical archeologists, regarding 

archeological remains from this time period. Noel Hume believes that “when found in 

North American sites in the United States,” sherds of Rouen and other French faiences 

(earthenware decorated with opaque colored glazes) “date from a Revolutionary War 

 

51Bearss and Brown, pp. 188-190, 204-206; Walker, pp. 208-210. The western Front Street boundary of Lot 

“E” in the plat of Scull’s lots ran north 20 degrees east—a 2-degree difference from the course of the 

eastern Front Street boundary of the 1821 Jordelas lot located immediately to its west. This discrepancy 

indicates that property surveys in early nineteenth-century Arkansas Post were not standardized and 

contained minor inconsistencies caused by improperly calibrated surveying equipment or surveyor error. 

The eastern Front Street boundary of Lot “D” in the plat of Scull’s lots ran north 25 degrees east, a larger 

difference indicating that the northern part of nineteenth-century front street probably ran slightly east of 
Chapter 3, Site History • 69 

December 2005 

context.” Sherds found by Holder in the trench complex match the descriptions given 

by Noel Hume and Westbury. If this analysis is correct, it may indicate that the 

trenches were dug no earlier than the 1775-1783 period—a date that corresponds with 

the construction of de Villiers’ Post in 1779. 53 The trenches outlining the lots, moreover, 

are located in two parallel lines separated by a space, probably a street, about 40 feet 

wide that runs from the southwest to the northeast on a compass course of north 18 

degrees east. This lot and street pattern almost perfectly matches the one created by the 

southwest-to-northeast Rue and flanking long lots on de Villiers’ 1779 plan. The trench 

complex therefore almost certainly partially marks the location of these features on 

APNM’s landscape. 

Several factors indicate, moreover, that the excavated portion of the street trace largely 

corresponds to the portion of the Rue located south of its intersection with the 

northwest-to-southeast Rue (the precursor to Main Street). The trace, which likely 

includes a small part of the Rue to the north of the intersection, runs south of the 

projected course of Main Street on APNM’s current landscape. In addition, its length 

(about 500 feet, including the portion north of Main Street) matches the length (about 60 

 

the Rue originally platted by de Villiers. 

52Martin, p. 87. 

53Westbury (1976), p. 51. For Noel Hume’s analysis see Ivor Noel Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial 

America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1970; reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 1991), pp. 142-143. 

Westbury fails to note that Noel Hume’s study addresses French faiences found largely if not exclusively 

at Anglo-American sites—not at Spanish sites in Louisiana. Therefore, it is possible that Westbury’s 

generalization of Noel Hume’s more specific analysis is incorrect. 
70 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

toises or roughly 400 feet) of this feature on de Villiers’ map. These two figures help in 

confirming the postulated minimal erosion along the site’s southwestern bluff line. 

Finally, the trace’s position almost exactly corresponds to the projected location of the 

part of Front Street lying south of Main Street, as shown on Bearss’ and Walker’s 

provisional site plans (Maps 14 and 15). This also indicates that the streets are the same 

thoroughfare. The only evidence that does not support this interpretation are the lot 

lines on the eastern side of the street trace, which occupy the western portion of the 

projected positions of the fort and glacis on de Villiers’ map. This anomaly can be 

accounted for, however, by the fact that the fort (Fort San Carlos III—Exhibit 2-9) that 

was almost certainly constructed in the eastern portion of this area in 1781 completely 

eroded into the Arkansas River during the late 1780s.54 If it had not already occurred, 

the land between the site of the former fort and the Rue probably would have then been 

subdivided into the town lots that subsequently left their archeological remains on the 

eastern side of the street trace. 

 

Spanish land grant boundaries provide final confirmation that de Villiers’ two Rues

almost certainly corresponded to Main and Front streets. As depicted on three early 

nineteenth century maps showing Spanish grants at the Post (Maps 11, 12, and 19), the 

lot sold by Alexis Jordelas in 1821 (Map 21) was originally part of Spanish Land Grant 

2363. Spanish Land Grant 2363 was a 550-arpent/468-acre tract surveyed for Mary 

 

54Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 39; Coleman, p. 71; Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish 
Chapter 3, Site History • 71 

December 2005 

Jordelas in 1817, some 15 to 20 years after the grant was made. Two of the grant’s 

northern boundaries, which quite logically would have been drawn along the lines 

formed by early existing landscape features, corresponded to the northern and eastern 

Main and Front street property lines on Jordelas’ lot. These lines respectively ran on 

courses of south 56 degrees east and south 18 degrees west (north 18 degrees east)—the 

same or virtually the same directions as the Rues on de Villiers’ map.55 In addition, 

according to the 1817 survey, the portion of the grant boundary corresponding to the 

southern part of Front Street was 6.79 chains (448 feet) long, a figure that approximately 

corresponds to the approximately 400-foot (60 toises) length of this feature on de 

Villiers’ plan. This same portion of the boundary is shown on the 1817 survey. On this 

survey it strikes the southwestern bluff line on its south 18 degrees west course, and 

then turns southeast to run along the bluff line on a course of south 50 degrees east until 

it reaches the river. This is the same direction as the southeastern edge of the bluff line 

on de Villiers’ 1779 plan.56

 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Although a projected rhombus-shaped fort was the centerpiece of de Villiers’ 1779 plan, 

it was not the first structure at the Post. Initial priority went to constructing housing for 

the settlement’s French habitan(t)s (inhabitants) and other residents. By mid-March, 

 

Domination,” pp. 699-702. 

55Bearss and Brown, pp. 73-74, 204-206; Walker, pp. 209-210. 

56Bearss and Brown, pp. 73-74. 
72 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

1779, scarcely three weeks after construction on the Post began, two rows of French 

houses lined the eastern ends of the lots in the Post’s northeastern and southwestern 

residential quadrants. The first line of houses, the Habitans de la Pre Ligne, consisted of 

nine houses, and the second line, the Habitans de la 2m Ligne, consisted of four houses 

(Exhibits 2-4 and 2-5). No description of the architecture has survived. It is likely, 

however, that the thirteen houses were simple, one- or two-room, dirt-floored, French 

vernacular, gable- or hip-roofed structures of poteaux en terre or pieux en terre

construction without exterior galleries. These houses and portions of their lots 

eventually would have been surrounded by the French-style, pieux en terre or pieux 

debout (stakes upright), palisade-type fences. Similar fences probably also enclosed 

sheds, privies, and other small-scale features. Archeological traces of such fences were 

found in the trench lines uncovered by Holder. Besides providing privacy and keeping 

out intruders and wild and domestic animals, these fences quite likely had another 

function—defense. One scholar addresses this issue in his analysis of the palisade style, 

domestic enclosures found in the French frontier towns of the Mississippi Valley. He 

notes that by “merely barricading the ends of the streets in an emergency it would be 

possible to have a continuous enclosure all around the village.57

The French habitants living along the Rues adjacent to the planned fort were not the only 

inhabitants of Ecores Rouges in 1779. Other groups resided at the Post and almost 

 

57Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 39; Coleman, p. 60; Edwards, pp. 2-3; Martin, pp. 10, 87; Peterson, pp. 24-26 
Chapter 3, Site History • 73 

December 2005 

certainly lived in different types of dwellings. The Post’s small garrison apparently 

lived on the grounds of the future fort adjacent to the habitants’ houses. De Villiers’ 

map depicts the Campemt du Detachment (encampment of the detachment or garrison) 

on the edge of the river bluff east of the rhombus-shaped fort trace (Exhibit 2-9). Since 

the map shows no buildings on the site, it may indicate that the garrison lived for a time 

in tents or some other form of temporary shelter. 

The dwellings of seventeen Anglo-American families stood on the left bank of the river. 

These families, who had fled from the east to escape the American revolution, 

established themselves at the northern tip of the horseshoe bend, several hundred yards 

downstream from the French village. With the exception of one isolated American 

dwelling (un habitant americain) (Exhibit 2-6), these families’ cabanes (huts) (Exhibit 2-7), 

as de Villiers describes them, stood in a line. This Etablissemt americain (American 

establishment) was a linear cluster about 200 yards (90 toises) long that faced the river 

along a sparsely-wooded bluff.58 Most likely these dwellings and any outbuildings 

were simple, one- or two-room, log or plank structures that reflected Anglo-American 

vernacular construction traditions of their builders. Whatever their form, however, 

they were almost certainly different from the houses of the French village. 

 

(source of quotation). 

58Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 39; Coleman, p. 60. 
74 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The Quapaws comprised another group living at the Post in 1779. As shown on de 

Villiers’ map, their three villages (Akansas des 3 Villages—three villages of the Arkansas 

or Quapaws) or groups of dwellings (Exhibit 2-8) stood immediately east of the Post’s 

Establissemt americain on a cleared or thinly-forested bluff. This Quapaw settlement 

may have antedated the French and American settlements. The thirty-five Quapaw 

houses shown on de Villiers’ plan, which may portray the end elevations of these 

structures, are depicted as rounded or domed dwellings. This possibly indicates that 

the Quapaws were living in their traditional, arch-roofed, bark-covered houses.59 These 

Quapaw residences, like the neighboring Americans’ cabanes, would have been 

bordered by fields or gardens containing corn and other crops if they remained in the 

locations shown on de Villiers’ map for any length of time. In addition, both clusters of 

dwellings would have been connected to the French village by a network of dirt paths 

and roads. 

De Villiers did not have a fort built at the Post until July 1781, more than two years after 

the Ecores Rouges settlement was established. Even then, he did not build it until the 

Post’s habitants volunteered to construct it. Spain had entered the American 

Revolutionary War on the United States’ and France’s side in the summer of 1779 and, 

in de Villiers’ words, they feared “a raid by the [English-allied] Chickasaws joined to 

the bandits living with them.” The habitants, he noted, “wanted a fort capable of 

 

59Baird, pp. 10-11; Hoffman, pp. 55-60, 63-65, 68. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 75 

December 2005 

holding their families” and “offered to make the stakes for the stockade themselves.” 

De Villiers took “advantage of their good will . . . to construct a fort in this Post which 

will cost the King little and last long.”60

 

De Villiers named the fort (Exhibit 2-9) San Carlos III (Charles III) in honor of the 

Spanish king. It was almost certainly located near the edge of the Arkansas River 

bluffs, in the eastern portion of the French settlement’s southeastern quadrant, in the 

vicinity of the area marked Campemt du Detachment on de Villiers’ map. Although its 

dimensions are not known, it was a sizable structure capable of resisting the anticipated 

British Loyalist-Chickasaw attack that occurred some two years later during the April, 

1783, Colbert Raid. If the outline of the fort depicted as the “Small Town of Traders” on 

an otherwise unidentified, ca. 1783, British or American map (Map 7) is accurate, it was 

a square work with bastions at each of its corners. De Villiers described the walls as a 

“reinforced stockade.” The walls were built of “red oak stakes thirteen feet high with 

diameters of 15 or 16 inches, split in two and reinforced inside by similar stakes to a 

height of six feet and a banquette of two feet.” This construction was reminiscent of de 

La Houssaye’s 1751 fort at Ecores Rouges. “Openings for . . . cannons and swivel 

guns”—six cannons and eight swivels according to the annotations on the ca. 1783, 

 

60Events leading up to construction of the fort are covered in a number of sources including Arnold, 

Colonial Arkansas, p. 39; Bearss, The Colbert Raid, pp. 21-22; Coleman, p. 63; Gonzalez L. B., pp. 227-228; 

and Mattison, pp. 52-54. The text of the July 11, 1781, letter from de Villiers to Louisiana Governor 

Bernardo Galvez describing construction of the fort is included as Appendix B,”Description of 

Construction of Arkansas Post 1781” in Mattison, pp. 114-117 (quotations are on p. 115). 
76 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

British or American map—pierced the walls and/or bastions. They were covered with 

“bullet proof . . . sliding panels.”61 Inside the walls there were several buildings, 

including a 45- by 15-foot house and a storehouse of unknown dimensions, both of 

which served as troop barracks. There were also a few smaller buildings that de Villiers 

built at his own expense when he arrived at the Post. His mention of these small, ca. 

1779, possibly military-related structures is another indication that the works were built 

in the tract annotated campemt du detachment on his map.62 One of the structures may 

have been the commandant’s house noted in 1783 and 1787 accounts of the fort. Besides 

these structures, all of which presumably were built in the French vernacular styles 

common at the Post, the stockade at one point also enclosed a so-called Indian-style 

lodge. The lodge, which was most likely of Quapaw design, was demolished during an 

April, 1783, wind storm.63 In de Villiers’ opinion the fort was “a solid post capable of 

resisting anything which may come to attack it without cannon.”64 In reality, however, 

the fort lacked a moat (de Villiers judged one to be too expensive) and the bluff-top 

terrain adjacent to the works apparently was eroded by ravines. These deficiencies 

allowed Colbert’s attacking force to approach to within pistol range (probably 40-50 

yards) without being detected. 

 

61“Description of Construction of Arkansas Post 1781,” Appendix B in Mattison, p. 115. 

62Bearss, The Colbert Raid, p. 52; “Description of Construction of Arkansas Post 1781,” Appendix B in 

Mattison, p. 115; Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” p. 701. 

63Bearss, The Colbert Raid, p. 52. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 77 

December 2005 

De Villiers, who departed the Post in 1782, was proven correct about the fort’s ability to 

withstand military attack. However, he underestimated its ability to combat the 

corrosive power of the Arkansas River’s swift current. Between 1781 and 1789 repeated 

rises in the river and additional landward erosion totally obliterated Fort San Carlos 

III—a development that belies Holder’s 1957 claim that he had possibly excavated the 

remains of the work. The process began immediately after the enclosure was 

completed, and by the date of Colbert’s 1783 attack the distance between the fort and 

the Arkansas had already been cut by a third. In 1787, three years after the Spanish 

made extensive repairs to the stockade, the river rose greatly. The bank under the fort 

was eroded and the distance from its eastern wall to the edge of the bluff was reduced 

to a mere 18 inches. This development prompted Commandant Joseph Vallliere to 

remove the fort’s artillery. Another February 1788 rise ripped away a bastion; the next 

month the wall nearest the river slid down the bank into the Arkansas, causing the 

garrison to abandon the fort and take quarters outside the rapidly deteriorating 

enclosure. The following year a small spring or creek running through the abandoned 

works completed what Commandant Vallliere termed the “total ruin and destruction” 

of the fort.65

 

 

64Bearss, The Colbert Raid, p. 53; “Description of Construction of Arkansas Post 1781,” Appendix B in 

Mattison, p. 116. 

65Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 39; Bearss, The Colbert Raid, p. 65; Coleman, p. 71; Faye, “The Arkansas Post 

of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” pp. 699, 701-702; Holder, pp. 23-25; Mattison, pp. 94-96 (source of 

quotation “total ruin and destruction”). 
78 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

These erosive forces, moreover, almost certainly had a similar effect on the dwellings 

comprising the Etablissemt americain, the Quapaw villages, and the eastern part of the 

French village (Habitans de la Pre Ligne), all of which were located near the river on the 

outside bank of the Arkansas River oxbow.66 Indeed, by the late 1780s the Post probably 

required not only a new work to replace Fort San Carlos III—it also almost certainly 

needed a new residential pattern to supplant the one being undermined by the 

meandering river. This new pattern apparently emerged by the early 1790s, about the 

same time Fort San Esteban—the replacement for Fort San Carlos III— was being built. 

Because the Louisiana government lacked funds, construction of Fort San Esteban did 

not begin until 1791. Construction began only because the Post’s habitants, fearing 

renewed Indian attacks, offered to supply the stakes needed to build the “absolutely 

indispensable . . . little fort” they requested.67 Although some sources indicate that the 

site of the new work (Exhibit 2-10) was as much as one-half mile north or downstream 

from the ruined Fort San Carlos III, it was almost certainly located much closer—

probably about 400 yards or one-quarter mile north of the 1781 fort.68 An 1807 plan of 

Fort Esteban (Map 8) places the fort approximately 100 yards north of a “Bayou” 

(probably the ravine shown on de Villiers’ map) bordering the northern edge of the 

 

66Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” p. 699. 

67Coleman, pp. 71-72; Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” pp. 702- 703 (source 

of quotation “absolutely indispensable . . . little fort”). 
Chapter 3, Site History • 79 

December 2005 

“Town of Arkansas” (the Post of Arkansas).69 It is almost certain that John B. Treat, the 

United States government factor at Arkansas Post, drew the plan which indicates that 

the fort was about 70 feet from the banks of the Arkansas River. This measurement, 

however, reflects the interval between the fort and the river after more than 15 years of 

continuing erosion had taken their toll, and the original distance was perhaps as much 

as 200-300 feet.70 Besides this map, other sources also place Fort Esteban in this position 

rather than further northward. Two 1900 and 1907 plats of the vicinity by surveyor M. 

Maxwell (Maps 35 and 37) identify a “U.S. Government Reservation” or “U.S. 

Reservation” immediately north of the “Old Post of Arkansas” or “Former Site of 

Arkansas Post.” As archeologist John Walker notes, this U.S. government land was 

almost certainly former Spanish “King’s Land” that encompassed the site of Fort 

Esteban and became U.S. “Public Land” in 1804 following the transfer of the Post to the 

United States Army.71

 

68Faye, for example, states on p. 702 of “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination” that the 

site of the new fort was “half a mile (northward) down the river bend” from the location of Fort San 

Carlos III. 

69Treat’s “Town of Arkansas,” his name for the 1807 Post, must not be confused with the subsequent 

“Town of Arkansas,” which was platted approximately one-half mile north of the Post of Arkansas in 

1819. 

70This 200–300 foot estimate has been developed by plotting the approximate location of the fort’s 

remains (Exhibit 3-10). Both William Woodruff and Daniel T. Witter indicated that in 1819 these remains 

were still standing along the Arkansas River’s approximately known bank as derived from government 

survey maps (Maps 11 and 12). This location was compared with the approximate course of the river in 

1779 as derived from de Villiers’ map (Map 6), and the fort’s original approximate distance from the river 

was determined by extrapolating. For Woodruff’s and Witter’s accounts of the Post in 1819, which were 

provided to historian Robert Trimble in 1876, see Bearss and Brown, pp. 17-18. 

71Walker, pp. 5-6. 
80 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Fort San Esteban, named after the Louisiana governor’s given name, was completed 

between late 1791 and early 1792, several months after construction started.72 Treat’s 

map and surviving narratives provide a detailed description of the fort. Captain Pedro 

Rousseau of the Spanish war galiot La Flecha wrote in his diary that the fort was 

“situated in the middle of a hill,” overlooking the Arkansas River. This hill may have 

been “forty-five feet in height” when the river was low, and “six feet” high when it 

flooded. Its walls consisted of an approximately 135- by 115-foot, white oak, log 

stockade with bastions on the southwestern and northeastern corners. These walls, 

which were pierced by four loopholes, mounted four 6-pound cannon and two swivel 

guns in their bastions. The entrances included a main gate opposite the Arkansas River 

and a secondary gate on the fort’s rear landward side.73 In 1804, when the United States 

Army Lieutenant James B. Many assumed control of the Post from Spanish Captain 

Francisco Caso y Luengo, several large buildings stood inside the palisade. These 

structures, not all of which may have been standing when Treat drew his 1807 plan, 

included: a 36- by 16-foot commandant’s quarters with two galleries, two rooms with a 

“double clay chimney,” and two closets in the rear, the whole of which was in “bad 

condition”; a 50- by 10-foot barracks with a double clay chimney and a room used as a 

 

72Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 39, 193 (Note 53); Coleman, p. 72; Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: 

Spanish Domination,” p. 704. 

73Coleman, pp. 72-73; Francisco Caso y Luengo and James B. Many, Inventory of Fort “San Estevan [sic] 

Arkansas, 1804,” Appendix D in Mattison, pp. 126-127; Mattison, p. 97; Diary of Pedro Rousseau, 

February 3, 1793, translation in Westbury, “Archeological Assessment of Arkansas Post,” p. 13. 

Rousseau’s diary entry is cited in numerous sources describing the Post. The translation contained in 

Westbury has been used because it is the most extensive and appears to be among the most accurate. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 81 

December 2005 

prison; a 20- by 12-foot commandant’s kitchen or bake house; and a 45- by 20-foot 

storehouse “supported on props.” All of these structures had shingle roofs.74 Other 

cultural features associated with the fort included: “three sentry boxes in poor 

condition”; an “earthen oven near the fort in normal condition”; a “flag staff in good 

condition”; and what Luengo termed a “worthless” and “badly built” well.75 In 1807 

when Treat drew his map, a garden (Exhibit 2-11) (probably fenced) was located 

immediately northeast of the fort in the presumably cleared area surrounding the 

stockade—a feature that was quite likely duplicated during the fort’s Spanish period. 

Victor Collot, a French spy who reported on Fort Esteban in 1796, noted that the works 

were unimpressive. “Two ill-constructed huts, situated on the left, surrounded with 

great palisades, without ditch or parapet,” he wrote, “bear the name of fort.”76

 

Whatever the rudimentary and ill- maintained fort lacked in military refinement, 

however, was balanced by its relative architectural sophistication. Indeed, Morris S. 

Arnold states that the “design of the commandant’s house, evidently built in the late 

1790s, . . . indicates that a kind of architectural maturity had overtaken the remote 

 

74Coleman, pp. 74-76; Inventory of Fort “San Estevan Arkansas, 1804,” Appendix D in Mattison, pp. 126-

126 (source of quotations); Mattison, p. 98. Treat’s map depicts an officers’ quarters, barracks, and 

contractor’s store inside the palisade. The dimensions of the three buildings, nevertheless, are different 

from those inventoried by Many and Caso y Luengo. This indicates that the United States may have 

replaced the buildings after it assumed control of the fort. It is more likely, however, that the two groups 

of buildings are one and the same and were simply measured differently by two separate observers. 

75Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 39,196 (Note 89 - source of quotations on well); Coleman, pp. 74-76; 

Inventory of Fort “San Estevan Arkansas, 1804,” Appendix D in Mattison, pp. 126-126 (source of other 

quotations); Mattison, p. 98. 

76Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 39 (source of quotation). 
82 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

military post of Los Arcos.” The presumably poteaux en terre or pieux en terre house, with 

its apparently assymmetrical two-room salle-et-chambre (general purpose living/dining 

room-and-bedroom) floor plan, use of closets, West Indian-derived galleries, and 

hipped-roof (like the other structures on Treat’s map), displayed many elements of fullblown, eighteenth-century, Louisiana Creole, vernacular architecture. Furthermore, this 

vernacular sophistication was not only found in the commandant’s house and official 

buildings. By the late 1790s it was also evident in the homes of the habitants.

77

 

Captain Rousseau of the La Flecha provided the most comprehensive description of 

Arkansas Post’s domestic architecture from this period, when the Post’s economic 

importance grew and its multi-ethnic and multicultural population trebled to almost 

400. He wrote in 1793 that the village, which was upstream from the fort (Fort Esteban), 

consisted of “about thirty houses, with galleries around, covered with shingles, which 

form two streets.”78 William F. Pope confirmed Rousseau’s description more than forty 

years later. Following his 1832 visit to the Post, Pope described the houses built during 

Post Commandant Vilemont’s administration (1794-1802). Many of them “were still 

standing and were built after the French style of architecture, with high pointed roofs 

and gables and heavy exterior timbers, and high chimneys.79 Nineteenth-century 

 

77Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 39-41 (source of quotation); Edwards, pp. 2-13, 22-23. 

78Diary of Pedro Rousseau, February 3, 1793, translation in Westbury, “Archeological Assessment of 

Arkansas Post,” p. 13. 

79William F. Pope, Early Days in Arkansas, Being the Most Part Personal Recollections of an Early Settler (Little 

Rock, 1895), pp. 66-67, excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, p. 15. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 83 

December 2005 

Arkansas County, Arkansas, historian W. H. Halli Burton, who quoted Pope in his 

History of Arkansas County, added to this description. Burton notes that the majority of 

the structures described by Pope “had their floors from four to six feet off the ground 

with galleries on all sides.”80 Still further architectural details were provided by 

Arkansas Post merchant Andres Lopez. He stated in a July, 1788, court testimony in 

New Orleans that his house at the Post had a “gallery” and a back yard with a palisade 

garden fence that may have contained “big stakes.”81

 

These descriptions give a good indication of the appearance of the village of Arkansas 

Post—the successor to de Villiers’ quickly-built Post of the early 1780s—during the 

1790s. During this the final decade before its cession to the United States the village 

apparently consisted of approximately thirty Louisiana French, colonial, vernacular 

houses of poteaux en terre, colombage, or similar construction. Most had covered 

galleries, raised floors, high chimneys, and high, steeply-pitched, wood-shingled, 

hipped roofs. Furthermore, if Arnold’s analysis is correct, the average house had a tworoom salle-et-chambre floor plan that occupied an area of approximately 625 English 

square feet (550 French square feet) with additional open-air living space provided by 

the galleries.82 Most of these houses were probably sited on individual lots, which in 

 

80W. H. Halli Burton, A Topographical Description and History of Arkansas County, Arkansas from 1541 to 1875

(Easley, South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1978 Reprint of original ca. 1903 edition), p. 105. 

81Andres Lopez, July 31, 1788, New Orleans court declaration, translation and summary contained in 

Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” pp. 695-697. 

82Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 49-50. 
84 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

many instances were quite likely subdivisions or combinations of the original lots that 

were platted by de Villiers in 1779. Andres Lopez also described many cases of stake or 

palisade fences that enclosed entire lots or significant portions of them and left trench 

complexes similar to those found by Holder in his 1956-1957 excavations. If Pierre 

Lefevre’s property at the Post, as described by Arnold, was typical, the palisade fences 

would have encompassed a wide range of large- and small-scale cultural features, 

including kitchens, slave quarters, saw and grist mills, privies, small barns, orchards, 

and gardens.83 Wells, however, were apparently an extremely rare feature. John B. 

Treat wrote in 1805 that because the Post’s residents were “too indolent to sink Wells, 

one of which alone is in the whole Town,” they depended entirely on water drawn from 

“the River for culinary and every other use.”84 

The two dirt streets (Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2) formed by the Post’s late eighteenth-century 

houses—the future nineteenth-century Main and Front Streets—were almost certainly 

the same two 40-feet-wide, dirt Rues that de Villiers platted in an “X” or cross in 1779. 

By the 1790s, however, Arkansas Post’s houses quite likely lined the two streets in a 

significantly different pattern than they had 15-20 years before. The meandering 

Arkansas River probably had eroded away a large portion of the eastern half of de 

Villiers’ original Post and village. The losses were likely to have included Fort San 

 

83Ibid; also see Peterson, pp. 24-26. 

84Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 196 (Note 89); John B. Treat Letter to Superintendent of Indian Trade Davy, 

November 15, 1805, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 26. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 85 

December 2005 

Carlos III (Exhibit 2-9), the eastern portion of the northwest-to-southeast Rue (Exhibit 2-

1), and the houses occupied by the Habitans de la Pre Ligne (Exhibit 2-4). Consequently, 

by the 1790s most of the village dwellings probably faced directly onto one of the two 

streets in a pattern that anticipated the Post’s early nineteenth-century layout (Exhibit 

3). With the possible exception of the long lots immediately parallel to the western part 

of the northwest-to-southeast Rue , the future Main Street, which may have been 

subdivided initially during the 1790s, this new pattern entailed little change for 

properties in the western half of the village. Apparently houses in this part of the Post 

had always been sited at the eastern ends of their long lots and faced directly onto the 

southwest-to-northeast Rue, the future Front Street (Exhibit 2-2). In the northeastern 

quadrant of the village, however, the change was significant. Houses in this portion of 

the Post, traditionally sited on the eastern river ends of their lots, would have been 

completely reoriented and relocated to the western ends where they directly faced 

future Front Street. Additional changes in the Post’s eastern half almost certainly 

included the subdivision of the remnant of the southeastern quadrant originally 

occupied by Fort San Carlos III and the conversion of future Main Street’s eastern 

portion into a residential tract. The subdivision probably occurred during the early 

1790s. The exact date of the residential development of eastern Main Street is unknown; 

by the early 1800s, however, the original portion of the northwest-to-southeast Rue east 

of Front Street was part of one or more town lots (Exhibit 3). 
86 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The late eighteenth-century village and its streets would have connected with both Fort 

San Esteban and the outlying residences and farms of the Post’s other habitants by a 

network of dirt roads and paths. The locations of these roads and paths are completely 

conjectural, except for the approximate trace of a road (Exhibit 2-12) that probably 

connected the northern end of future Front Street with the fort’s western gate. The 

surface road network, however, was quite likely minimal and rudimentary because the 

Arkansas River and its tributaries continued to serve as the settlement’s primary 

internal and external transportation line until well into the nineteenth century. Post 

residents and visitors alike traveled to, from, and within the settlement in a variety of 

watercraft. The types of vessels included two-man canoes, pirouges (dugout canoes), 

keel boats, batteaux (large boats with keels), and large masted Spanish war galiots (the 

type of vessel commanded by Captain Rousseau). No wagon roads connected the Post 

with New Orleans or the Missouri and Illinois settlements, and the first four-wheeled 

wagon apparently did not arrive at the settlement until 1811. When it did, the “wheeled 

wonder” was reportedly unloaded from a keelboat and caused such a stir “that the 

villagers climbed to the house tops to witness the passing.”85

 

It is unknown whether or not any of these pathways and waterways that connected 

outlying late eighteenth-century residences and dwellings were located within APNM’s 

current boundaries. Rousseau mentioned several “inhabitants around the prairie who 

 

85Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 8-9 (source of quotations), 182-183 (Notes 16-20). 
Chapter 3, Site History • 87 

December 2005 

sow wheat;” and approximately a “dozen pretty houses [on plots] of four by four 

arpents” downstream from the fort. He also described “very beautiful fields of wheat 

on the highland.” Rousseau noted “three villages . . . [of] savages . . . [who are] very 

docile and very attached to the Spanish.” He did not, however, provide specific 

locations for any of these features.86 Similarly, Paul A. Lorien, who traveled to the Post 

in 1803, simply noted the presence of “savages” (presumably the Quapaws) who lived 

“on the bluffs” and traded their furs to the Post merchants. He also remarked that 

besides raising food crops, indigo, and cotton, the settlement’s residents also reared 

“many hogs, cattle, and fowls.”87 However, regardless of where they lived, these 

European and Indian inhabitants of Arkansas Post most likely built their dwellings 

and/or outbuildings and organized their lands and fields in accordance with the 

vernacular traditions of their respective cultures. 

Period Summary 

In 1686, following Joliet’s and Marquette’s initial 1673 encounter with the Quapaws, the 

French established Arkansas Post as one of the first European settlements in Louisiana. 

For 65 years the Post, which provided the French and later the Spanish with a strategic 

and economic presence on the Arkansas River, was intermittently located at sites on the 

river below present-day APNM. The French did not build their first settlement on the 

 

86Diary of Pedro Rousseau, February 3, 1793, translation in Westbury, “Archeological Assessment of 

Arkansas Post,” p. 13. 

87Account of Paul A. Lorien, quoted in Westbury, “Archeological Assessment of Arkansas Post,” p. 14. 
88 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

high ground at the APNM site until 1749, when the Post was moved upriver to be closer 

to the main villages of France’s Quapaw allies. This settlement, which consisted largely 

of Captain Paul de La Houssaye’s impressive square fort, occupied the site for only 

seven years until 1756 when the Post was again moved downstream. Twenty-five years 

later in 1779 Captain Balthazar de Villiers again moved Arkansas Post back upstream to 

APNM’s bluffs—the location where it has remained ever since. De Villiers’ Spanish 

Post—possibly built on the site of de La Houssaye’s fort—consisted of hastilyconstructed houses for the Post’s French residents. The houses occupied lots along two 

intersecting streets (the probable predecessors of nineteenth-century Main and Front 

Streets). There were also small American and Quapaw residential suburbs. The 

settlement’s first fort, Fort San Carlos III, was built in 1781 and British Loyalist and 

Chickasaw forces attacked it in the 1783 Colbert Raid. By 1790, however, both Fort San 

Carlos III and much of the Post’s early French residential area eroded into the Arkansas 

River. The Spanish built Fort San Esteban to replace Fort San Carlos III in 1791. Equally 

extensive changes occurred almost simultaneously in the Post’s residential quarter. The 

houses from the late 1770s and early 1780s were probably upgraded or replaced, and a 

large number of additional new dwellings were built. The village of Arkansas Post was 

transferred to the United States in 1800. At this point, it was located approximately 100 

yards south (upstream) of Fort San Esteban and consisted of approximately thirty 

Louisiana French colonial vernacular houses along the streets platted by de Villiers. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 89 

December 2005 

1804 - 1855 (Exhibit 3: 1804 - 1855 Historic Period Plan) 

Historic Context 

Following France’s 1803 sale of Louisiana, Spanish Captain Francisco Caso y Luenge 

formally transferred Arkansas Post and the surrounding Arkansas River region to the 

United States in a brief ceremony at Fort San Esteban on March 23, 1804.88 For the next 

fifteen years, the area was part of the United States territories of Louisiana (1805-1812) 

and Missouri (1812-1819), and it was successively included in the Districts of New 

Madrid and Arkansas. In 1813 the Missouri territorial legislature created Arkansas 

County with the Post of Arkansas (the American name for the Spanish colonial village) 

as its county seat. Six years later, Congress established a separate Arkansas Territory 

with the Post as the territorial capital. Creation of the territory was as reflective of 

policy-makers’ desire to admit a downsized Missouri to the Union as a slave state as it 

was of the desires of Arkansas’ Euro-American residents. Arkansas’ territorial period 

lasted for seventeen years. By the early 1830s, when the area’s population approached 

40,000, the minimum number then required for statehood, slaveholding Arkansas was 

considered for admission as a state in order to balance the impending admission of the 

free state of Michigan. In 1836, in an action that once again to a large degree mirrored 

southern regional political requirements, Arkansas was admitted to the Union as a slave 

 

88This ceremony, which Caso y Luenge conducted in concert United States Army Lieutenant James B. 

Many, his American counterpart, is described in Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 174-176; and Coleman, pp. 

74-76. 
90 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

state. The capital remained at Little Rock, where the seat of government had been 

moved in 1821 after two years’ residence at the Post of Arkansas.89

Social and economic development did not flourish in Arkansas, which remained 

sparsely populated during this period. As one historian writes, even though “Arkansas 

went through all stages of frontier development in just twenty years, . . . [for] various 

reasons the state’s development remained behind both regional and national levels.” 

He continues that “the frontier, although constantly being reduced in size, continued as 

a factor in Arkansas history into the 1920s.”90 During the first years of the American 

period, Arkansas’ population remained similar to its composition during the Spanish 

era. It continued to be comprised of a multi-ethnic and multicultural mix of hunters, 

traders, and a few merchants who practiced small-scale subsistence farming on the side. 

In the late 1810s and 1820s, however, this picture changed. The territory’s hunters and 

trappers, never large in number, were displaced by an influx of Scotch-Irish, English, 

and German Euro-American settlers from Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, North 

Carolina, Virginia and other regions of the Upland and Lowland South. Most of these 

settlers were small-scale subsistence farmers who raised corn, cattle, tobacco, and other 

crops, and in some cases owned a few African-American slaves. In this rural 

environment, towns, despite the efforts of land speculators, were small and few in 

number, and served mostly to meet the needs of local government and limited local 

 

89Dougan, pp. 59, 62-65, 67, 74, 82; Meinig, Continental America, pp. 447-454. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 91 

December 2005 

economic requirements. Indeed, in contrast to many other areas of the South, Arkansas 

did not begin to develop a mature slave-based plantation economy until the 1840s and 

1850s. By the latter date, however, plantation agriculture was dominant in Arkansas 

County and the other rich lands of the Arkansas River delta region. The state contained 

more than 100,000 slaves, who constituted one-fourth of the population. A large 

portion of these slaves produced tens of thousands of bales of cotton for shipment to 

New Orleans and other ports aboard the steamboats that plied the Arkansas River and 

the state’s other navigable waterways.91 

This Euro-American development of Arkansas may have been slow and delayed when 

compared to other regions of the United States, but for the Quapaws and the state’s 

other Native American inhabitants the outcome was the same. France and Spain, the 

initial European claimants to the tribes’ lands, did not significantly threaten Indian 

independence. The United States did, and after briefly toying with the idea of 

permanently relocating the Cherokees, Choctaws, and other displaced southeastern 

tribes on Arkansas’ nearly-vacant lands, Washington acted to remove all the Quapaws 

and all other Indians from the state. As late as 1816 the approximately 600 surviving 

Quapaws, as shown in a map of Indian territories prepared by Auguste Chouteau (Map 

9), still claimed Arkansas Post and the entire region northeast of the Arkansas River as 

 

90Dougan, p. 103. 
92 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

their preserve. The tribe, however, had lost its transient value as an American strategic 

and commercial partner, and in an 1818 treaty was confined to relatively small reserve 

located south of the Arkansas River and west of Arkansas Post (Map 10). This 1818 

treaty, nevertheless, provided the tribe with only a temporary respite. Six years later 

the surviving Quapaws agreed to cede their Arkansas River reserve, merge with the 

neighboring Caddos, and move to a reservation on Louisiana’s Red River. A few 

members of the tribe, most of whom were subsequently relocated from Louisiana to 

Oklahoma Indian Territory, returned to Arkansas and eked out a tenuous existence. 

For all practical purposes, however, the 1824 treaty terminated the suffering tribe’s 

presence in the homeland that bore their name.92

Site Chronology 

Geomorphology 

Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century the meandering Arkansas River’s 

oxbow continued to occupy its same relative position east of Arkansas Post. 

Nevertheless, even though the river made no major changes in course, its channel’s 

location did not remain constant. The western bank of the river continued to migrate 

west-northwest as the energy of the fast-moving water on outside of the oxbow 

 

91Coleman, pp. 77-101; Dougan, pp. 54-56, 103-114, 117-119, 124, 153-156, 172-173, 175- 176; David M. 

Tucker, Arkansas: A People and Their Reputation (Memphis, Tennessee: Memphis State University Press, 

1985), pp. 1-8, 19-25. 

92 Baird, pp. 51-109; Dougan, pp. 72-80; Jim Merritt, The Arkansaw Indians in Desha County, Arkansas

(Dumas, Arkansas: Clarion Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 38-45.
Chapter 3, Site History • 93 

December 2005 

meander curve constantly eroded the Grand Prairie’s southeastern bluffs. Opposite the 

Post, as shown on Lieutenant Brown’s 1833 map of the Arkansas (Map 18), the slower 

moving water on the inside of the curve deposited sand and dirt. These deposits 

formed a “point,” or sandbar, that gradually accreted in a broad arc paralleling the 

migrating western bank. The 1779, 1820, and 1863 Arkansas River channels shown in 

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the magnitude of the river’s movement. In the forty years 

between 1779 and 1820 the river apparently migrated between 400 and 900 feet westnorthwest. In the subsequent four decades erosion apparently subsided at the far 

southeastern tip of the Grand Prairie in the vicinity of Front Street (Exhibits 2-2, 3-2, and 

4-2). However, the river ate away an additional 400-to-1100-foot-deep swath of the 

Post’s bluffs, including the site of Fort San Esteban [(renamed Fort Madison by the 

Americans) (Exhibit 3-10)]. 

The effects of this erosion were apparently quite dramatic. Timothy Flint remarked on 

the “striking red pillars” of eroded earth that he observed when passing through the 

Post in 1819.93 G. W. Featherstonhaugh, an Englishman who visited the Post in the late 

1830s wrote that “the banks of the river . . . are crumbling down with a rapidity that 

must, more or less, attract the attention of the settlers and somewhat alarm them; the 

descending floods undermining them on one hand, whilst the banks, saturated with the 

 

93Timothy Flint, A Condensed Geography and History of the Western States, or the Mississippi Valley, Vol 1 

(Cincinnati, Ohio, 1828), p. 584, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 12. 
94 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

land springs and superfical [sic] waters tending to the river, become at length too 

heavy[,] tore [sic] their adhesion, and are precipitated in immense masses to the 

bottom.” Moreover, he continued, the Post’s flat land was “so cut by broad channels or 

gullies made by the rain, that even within 300 yards or so of the settlement they had 

been obliged to construct bridges over them.94 Father Edmond Saulnier, a Catholic 

priest who resided at the Post for seven months in 1831-1832, made a map of the town 

(Map 17). According to the legend on his map, the village’s “Old cemetery” (Exhibit 3, 

Lot 12, Post of Arkansas) was being “undermined by gullies” (probably the gully 

located south of Fort San Esteban in Exhibit 2). The deed for a riverfront lot 200 feet 

north of the cemetery (Exhibit 3, Lot 14, Post of Arkansas) sold by Catharine Fagot in 

1829 mentioned that the property’s size was continually diminishing as a result of 

erosion.95 All in all, concluded William Woodruff, the editor of the Arkansas Gazette, the 

ceaseless erosion “injure[d] the village very much.”96 

Historic Background 

Arkansas Post’s development paralleled the growth of the state and territory of 

Arkansas during the first half of the nineteenth century, just as was the case during the 

French and Spanish periods. Indeed, until 1821 when the territorial capital was 

 

94G. W. Featherstonhaugh, Excursion Through the Slave States from Washington on the Potomac to the Frontier 

of Mexico with Sketches of the Popular Manners and Geological Notices, Vol 2 (London, 1844), pp. 234-235, 

quoted in Bearss and Brown, pp. 16-17. 

95Bearss and Brown, p. 220. 

96William Woodruff, article in the first edition of the Arkansas Gazette, November 20, 1819, quoted in 

Bearss and Brown, p. 13. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 95 

December 2005 

transferred to Little Rock, the evolution of the Post, which remained the premier 

settlement in Arkansas, continued to be virtually synonymous with the evolution of the 

region. Between 1804 and the late 1810s the Post remained a small frontier village 

consisting of some sixty or seventy families of mostly French, plus a few Spanish and 

American, hunters, traders, farmers, and merchants. The population also presumably 

continued to include several tens of enslaved and free blacks. From 1805-1810 John B. 

Treat and his brother Samuel Treat, United States government factors, operated a 

United States government fur trading factory on the grounds of Fort Madison. This was 

part of an American government attempt to control and regulate the Indian fur trade on 

the White and Arkansas rivers—an effort resented by Jacob Bright and other private fur 

merchants who had traditionally controlled the trade.97 

Other major, early, nineteenth-century events included the designation of the Post of 

Arkansas as the county seat of newly-established Arkansas County in 1813 and the first 

surveys of the Post’s private and public lands.98 The latter development was 

particularly significant. Although the Spanish colonial government had made 

numerous land grants to the Post’s residents, the claims, many of which were 

fraudulent, had never been surveyed and formally settled. Beginning in 1812 a series of 

American land boards reviewed and confirmed Spanish land grant titles in Arkansas. 

Between 1816 and 1820 each validated claim was surveyed by United States 

 

97Bearss and Brown, pp. 21-31; Coleman, pp. 77-79; Dougan, p. 55; Mattison, p. 70. 
96 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

government surveyors and given a Survey or Spanish Land Grant (S.G.) number. At 

the Post, original Spanish grant titles (Maps 11 and 12 and Exhibit 3) were awarded to 

Jacob Diest (S.G. 2354), John Hudsell (S.G. 2333), Peter Jordelas (S.G. 2307), Joseph L. 

Bougy, Senior (S.G. 2297), Mary Derusseau (S.G. 2365), Jacob Bright (S.G. 2305), Daniel 

Mooney (S.G. 2339), Albert Berdue (S.G. 2344), John Larquier (S.G. 2368), Joseph 

Dardenne (S.G. 2432), and Mary Jordelas (S.G. 2363).99 As the grant recipients’ 

surnames indicate, a significant majority of them were of French background, although 

there were also three Anglo-Americans (Hudsell, Bright, Mooney) and possibly one 

German (Diest). According to an annotation on the map of William Russell’s and 

Nicholas Rightor’s 1816-1820 surveys (Map 11), the boundaries of the Post of Arkansas 

were also surveyed in 1812 at the start of the Spanish grant review and confirmation 

process. 

Between 1819 and 1821 the Post of Arkansas reached its zenith when it served as the 

territorial capital of Arkansas. The booming frontier town’s population was swelled by 

the arrival of government officials, doctors, merchants, mechanics, and a host of 

lawyers. In the words of one historian, the Post “assumed the appearance of an 

established community . . . with three general stores, William Montgomery’s tavern, 

two tailor shops, a post office, Samuel Wilson’s blacksmith shop, Francis Vaugine’s 

 

98Dougan, pp. 57-59, 63. 

99Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 163-168; Dougan, pp. 57-59. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 97 

December 2005 

billiard parlor, a mill, and two cotton factors.”100 The Arkansas territorial legislature met 

at the Post three times in 1819-1820; journalist William Woodruff founded the Arkansas 

Gazette and published the first issue of his newspaper at the Post on November 20, 1819; 

and William Russell and William O. Allen, both lawyers and land speculators, 

respectively founded the towns of Rome and Arkansas immediately north of the Post in 

1818 and 1819. Russell and Allen appeared confident, as stated in the first issue of the 

Gazette, that the “present Village will always be a place of mercantile importance, it 

being the first high ground above the mouth of the river.”101

The Post’s newfound prominence was short-lived. In October, 1820, the territorial 

legislature voted that effective June, 1821, the capital would be moved to Little Rock—a 

location that had more powerful supporters and was judged to be more healthful, 

centrally-located, and economically-promising. This action dealt a major blow to the 

Post. Its population plummeted with the departure of government officials, lawyers, 

merchants and mechanics, and William Woodruff and the Arkansas Gazette for Little 

Rock. Land values dropped, and the towns of Rome and Arkansas, which despite their 

boosters’ optimism always had a precarious future because of their location near the 

already-established Post and their lack of river frontage, remained largely undeveloped. 

 

100Coleman, p. 86. 

101Bearss and Brown, pp. 81, 113-114; Coleman, pp. 81-92; Dougan, pp. 59, 65-67; “The Arkansas Gazette, 

Saturday, November 20, 1819 (Vol I, No. 1),” excerpt published in the Grand Prairie Historical Society 

Bulletin, Vol. 11 (1968), No. 2, pp. 5-6 (source of quotation); Mattison, p. 71 (the same quotation is 

included in Mattison’s account). 
98 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Furthermore, at about the same time, a number of the Post’s French families departed 

the town and moved further up the Arkansas River to Jefferson County. Naturalist 

John J. Audubon, who visited the Post after the capital was relocated, described the 

town’s depressed condition. The Post, he wrote, was “a poor, Nearly deserted village . . 

. at present, the decripid [sic] Visages of the Worn out Indian Traders and a few 

American families are all that give it life.”102 Indeed, if Audubon’s characterization is 

accurate, the Post was even smaller and more isolated that it had been at the start of the 

nineteenth century. 

Nevertheless, despite this mid-1820s depression, the Post of Arkansas successfully 

emerged from the economic collapse in yet another incarnation—an entrepot of the 

Arkansas River cotton trade. The Post’s cotton boom began in the late 1820s and lasted 

through the 1840s. It was fueled in part by the advent of slave-based cotton plantation 

agriculture on the rich delta lowlands of Arkansas County. The development of 

steamboat navigation on the Arkansas, which provided a fast and cheap means to ship 

large quantities of cotton to downriver ports, also aided the growth of the cotton trade. 

River boats reportedly took on and discharged cargo and passengers at the bustling 

town almost every day, and a new class of merchants and businessmen emerged to 

service the trade. Frederick Notrebe, a Frenchman who emigrated to the United States 

in 1809, was the Post’s leading merchant, cotton planter and factor, and citizen. Notrebe 

 

102Bearss and Brown, pp. 81-83; Coleman, pp. 89, 93 (quotation from Audobon is on p. 93); Dougan, p. 67; 
Chapter 3, Site History • 99 

December 2005 

owned 71 slaves and over 3,400 acres of land. He built one of the Post’s first cotton gins 

in 1827 and constructed a large brick store and warehouse, which was one of several 

brick buildings in the town in the 1830s. He also successfully worked to establish a 

branch of the Arkansas State Bank (an institution established to provide credit to 

merchants) at the Post on a lot he donated in 1839 (Exhibit 3-55 and Map 22).103 Once 

again, however, the Post’s prosperity was illusory. The state bank failed in 1843 during 

the depression of the early 1840s, and the Post of Arkansas branch building was 

subsequently used to hold elections and stable horses. A final blow came in 1855 when 

the Arkansas County seat was transferred from the Post to neighboring DeWitt, 

removing the Post’s most longstanding and stable generator of business activity. As 

one visitor remarked in 1856, “The town at the Post of Arkansas has gone to decay but a 

few (persons) remaining.”104

Arkansas Post, 1804 - 1855 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

Arkansas Post’s early nineteenth-century patterns of land use and spatial organization 

built on the arrangements established during the Spanish colonial period. The Post’s 

area of cleared land, which was originally confined to the immediate vicinity of de 

 

Mattison, pp. 71-72. 

103Coleman, pp. 95-98; Dougan, pp. 89-93; Tucker, pp. 19-26. 

104Bearss and Brown, pp. 17 (source of quotation from “Diary of a Journey in Arkansas in 1856,” edited 

by Charles S. Snydor, The Mississippi Historical Review, Vol. 22 (1935), pp. 421-422), 206-214; Coleman, p. 

98; Dougan, pp. 91-93; Boyd W. Johnson, “Frederick Notrebe,” Grand Prairie Historical Society Bulletin 5 

(1962), No. 2, pp. 26-34; Mattison, p. 72; Walker, p. 8. 
100 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Villiers’ 1779 settlement, Fort Esteban, and a narrow strip near the American and 

Quapaw settlements along the western bank of the Arkansas River (Exhibit 2), 

expanded to encompass a large tract at the southeastern end of the Grand Prairie, 

including a significant portion of the acreage included within the contemporary APNM 

boundaries (Exhibit 3). Cleared areas included most of the approximately 120 acres 

enclosed by the Post of Arkansas’ surveyed boundaries,105 the small northeastern 

portions of Spanish grants 2432 and 2363 that were located on top of the Grand Prairie 

bluffs, and all or most portions of adjacent Spanish grants 2344, 2305, 2339, 2368, 2307, 

and 2365. As G. W. Featherstonhaugh wrote when he examined the flat plain behind 

the Post in the late 1830s, the only thing he saw among the rapidly eroding gullies were 

“a few stunted trees growing here and there.”106 Other areas, in contrast, probably 

remained largely wooded. These tracts included all or most of Spanish grants 2354, 

2297; the portions of Spanish grants 2363, 2432, 2344, 2333, and 2307 located along 

periodically-flooded Post Bayou lowlands; and all or most of the peninsula located 

inside the Arkansas River’s horseshoe bend.107 

 

105The 120-acre figure for the Post of Arkansas is taken from the NPS November 1960 map “Boundaries, 

Arkansas Post National Memorial Project” (Map 43). 

106Featherstonhaugh, pp. 234-235, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 17. 

107These general patterns of forested and cleared areas are derived from several detailed descriptions of 

the Post’s lots and land grants contained on pp. 28, 62-63, and 74-75 of Bearss and Brown, and especially 

from the patterns of cleared and wooded areas shown on several January, 1863, Civil War-era plans of 

the site (Maps 28-32), which presumably depict conditions present on the site by the 1840s and 1850s and 

also quite likely for some years prior to these dates. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 101 

December 2005 

By the 1820s an expanded network of dirt roads (Exhibit 3) criss-crossed the Post of 

Arkansas and the mostly-cleared plateau to its rear.108 The Post of Arkansas’ Main 

Street (Exhibit 3-1) and Front Street (Exhibit 3-2), both of which are depicted on 

Saulnier’s and Brown’s maps of the Post (Maps 17 and 18), were the successors to de 

Villiers’ two 1779 Rues (Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2). These two roads served as the anchors of 

the system. An extended Main Street ran for approximately one-half mile on a 

northwest-to-southeast course several hundred feet northeast of the Grand Prairie’s 

southwestern bluff line. Front Street continued to run from the southwestern edge of 

the bluff to the northeast, although its northern half was truncated by erosion and was 

located slightly east of the course platted by de Villiers. By the 1820s several additional 

streets paralleled and intersected with Main and Front streets. Many of these streets 

were platted during the period when the Post was Arkansas’ territorial capital, and they 

created a street grid that outlined approximately 15 blocks and contained more than 50 

lots. However, with the exception of a road apparently called Cross Street (Exhibit 3-

13), which ran from the southwest to the northeast and roughly bisected Main Street, 

the names of these additional streets are unknown.109

 

 

108Most of the information on the Post’s roads and the Post of Arkansas’ lots included in Exhibit 3 is 

derived from Bearss’ and Walker’s generally comprehensive and accurate ca. 1820-1840 plans of the Post 

(Maps 14 and 15), which have been checked for accuracy. The ca. 1929 map “Post of Arkansas, Territory 

of Arkansas, 1829” prepared by F. M. Quertermous (Map 16) is much less helpful. This map, among 

other errors, identifies Main Street as Front Street, incorrectly depicts the location of the Arkansas Post 

branch of the Arkansas State Bank, and shows a large European-style bastioned star fort—a structure that 

was never built—occupying virtually the entire southeastern tip of the site. 
102 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Streets or roads almost certainly radiated from this hub at the Post of Arkansas. To the 

east and/or northeast, roads led to Fort Madison and the trading factory located on the 

United States Military Reservation. To the northwest, they led to the clusters of farm 

buildings located on Spanish grants 2344, 2305, and 2339. The main road extending 

from the Post of Arkansas’ street grid, however, was the extension of Cross Street. This 

road ran north through the center of the Town of Rome (where it was called Main 

Street) and formed the western boundary of the Town of Arkansas. From there, as 

shown on H. L. Tanner’s map of Thomas Nuttall’s travels (Map 13), Cross Street 

apparently crossed the Grand Prairie and terminated in Little Rock. Other minor roads 

paralleled and intersected with this northern road. The plats of the Town of Rome and 

the Town of Arkansas (Maps 23 and 24) both depict grids of such minor streets and 

alleys (e.g., Don Carlos Street and Alley No. 1 in the Town of Rome and Market Street in 

the Town of Arkansas). However, because neither town was ever fully developed, most 

of their projected roads probably remained paper streets and never appeared on the 

site’s landscape. Indeed, besides the previously-discussed streets in the Post of 

Arkansas and the road running north to the Grand Prairie, the only other documented 

road on the Post’s early nineteenth-century landscape was Jordelas Street. This road 

ran west from the western boundary of the Town of Arkansas and presumably 

terminated in the vicinity of the Jordelas farmstead (Exhibit 3-62) in the western portion 

 

109An 1824 deed to the Post of Arkansas’ Lot 26 referred to the street that bisected Main Street and ran 

along the property’s northwest boundary as “Cross Street.” See Bearss and Brown, p. 178. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 103 

December 2005 

of Spanish grant 2307.110 The existence and routes of all other early-to-mid-nineteenth 

century roads and paths, including those that Civil War-era maps (Exhibit 3 and Maps 

28-32) show running parallel to the Arkansas River and extending from the Post’s 

plateau west and southwest across Post Bayou, must remain conjectural. 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Several major groups of structures were located on the site’s early nineteenth-century 

landscape (Exhibit 3). They included Fort Madison and the U.S. Trading Factory on the 

grounds of the U.S. Military Reservation, the buildings comprising the Post of 

Arkansas, the structures that were built or already existed in the towns of Rome and 

Arkansas, and clusters of farm buildings located on several Spanish land grants. The 

buildings depicted in Exhibit 3, however, were not the only ones that existed at the Post 

between 1804 and the 1850s. They are simply the structures for which some geographic 

and/or architectural documentation has survived. In addition, many undocumented 

buildings probably also once stood on the Post’s landscape. One example is the 

building or buildings of St. Ambrose’s Female Academy, which were “located within 

the vicinity of the town, immediately on the bank of the Arkansas River” in the 1840s.111

 

Nevertheless, these known buildings almost certainly provide a good cross section of 

 

110The existence and location of Jordelas Street is noted several times in the nineteenth-century Spanish 

grant 2307 survey and property records summarized in Bearss and Brown, pp. 63-72. 

111For a discussion of St. Ambrose’s Female Academy see Bearss and Brown, pp. 39-45. The quotation, 

contained on p. 40, is from the October 8, 1842 edition of The Catholic Advocate. 
104 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the types of structures that existed at the Post between 1804 and the Civil War, and their 

locations highlight the overall patterns of the Post’s development. 

United States Military Reservation 

The United States Military Reservation occupied most of the northern half of the Post of 

Arkansas’s approximately 120-acre tract. In 1806 John B. Treat wrote that the lot 

contained approximately fifty acres owned by the United States, about “two thirds of 

which is a bowling Green and the remainder covered with a fine growth of forest 

trees.”112 Prior to that year the only cultural features located on the reservation were 

apparently Fort Madison (Exhibit 3-10) and its garden (Exhibit 2-11), which Treat 

depicted on his 1807 plan of the site (Map 8). In late 1805, however, Treat decided to 

move his government fur trading factory from the two-room, 15- by 30-foot, Frenchstyle house he had rented in the Post, to an two-and-a-half-acre lot on the “Publick 

Ground . . . adjoining to the Garrison.”113 Treat began construction of his new factory, 

which he located approximately 100 yards northwest of Fort Esteban on his map, in 

1806. This factory complex (Exhibit 3-14), however, was not completed until late 1809, 

only a year or so before it closed in September, 1810. Nevertheless, Samuel Treat, who 

had succeeded his brother John as factor, provided a detailed description of the 

 

112John B. Treat Letter to Superintendent of Indian Trade Davy, July 1, 1806, quoted in Bearss and Brown, 

p. 28. 

113John B. Treat Letters to Superintendent of Indian Trade Davy, October 6 and November 15, 1805, 

quoted in Bearss and Brown, pp. 23, 26. Fort Madison’s garden is not depicted in Exhibit 3 because it had 

probably largely eroded into the Arkansas River by 1820—the date selected to depict the river’s course. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 105 

December 2005 

factory’s house and other structures in a letter written to Secretary of Indian Trade John 

Mason that September. Treat wrote that the buildings included a one-story, 20- by 33-

foot dwelling house with “pitched roof piazzas front and rear.” In addition he noted 

that there was a 20- by 38-foot, two-story, “oak frame . . . Skin House” as well as a halffinished log stable and a “well of 45 feet depth in a bed with Cypress frame and a 

windlass.” Moreover, “strong Oak posts and rails, 7 bars high” enclosed the buildings’ 

lot.114 Treat’s letter indicates that the trading factory consisted of a mix of French and 

American vernacular structures. Post carpenters built the French-style dwelling house 

in the traditional local form, while the log stable and post-and-rail fence (probably a 

snake or worm fence) reflected American traditions derived from the Upland South.115

As with most buildings at the Post, the fate of Fort Madison and Treat’s factory are 

unknown. The remains of the fort—almost certainly abandoned by ca. 1810—

apparently were still standing in 1819 but probably eroded into the river during the 

1820s or early 1830s. Unless they had already been razed or destroyed, the trading 

factory’s buildings almost certainly experienced this same fate in the following years.116

 

 

114Bearss and Brown, pp. 26-31 (the quotation on pp. 30-31 is contained in a September 30, 1810, letter 

from Samuel Treat to Superintendent of Indian Trade Mason). 

115Alan G. Noble and Richard K. Cleek, The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North American Barns & Other 

Farm Structures (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1995), pp. 62- 68, 170-171; 

Glassie, Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States, pp. 64-124, 225-228. 

116Bearss and Brown, pp. 18-19. 
106 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Post of Arkansas 

The Post of Arkansas village (Exhibit 3) occupied both the 60-70 acres comprising the 

southern half of the surveyed Post of Arkansas tract as well as additional acreage in the 

extreme northeastern portions of Spanish grants 2363 and 2432. Throughout the 1810s, 

1820s, 1830s visitors to the Post as well as its residents regularly described the 

settlement as a town of several hundred people consisting of 20-30 houses and several 

businesses, including taverns, retail stores, and tailoring establishments. Although 

occasional non-French and a few so-called modern brick buildings were sporadically 

noted, observers repeatedly stated that most of the Post’s buildings were built in the 

French style (Figure 3) and almost invariably claimed that they were in poor repair.117

 

Thomas Nuttall, for example, noted in 1819 that the approximately 20 houses 

comprising the “insignificant village . . . [were] commonly surrounded with open 

galleries, destitute of glass windows, and perforated with numerous doors.” This made 

them “well enough suited for summer shelter, but totally destitute of comfort in the 

winter.”118 William Woodruff wrote in a similar vein later that year that there were “but 

few buildings, and those principally in the French style.” He continued that “since the 

change of government from Spain to the United States many houses have been suffered 

to go to decay, and but few new buildings erected lately.”119 The situation, moreover, 

had improved little thirteen years later when William Pope visited the Post. He 

 

117Bearss and Brown, pp. 3-16. 

118Nuttall, quoted in Bearss and Brown, pp. 8-9. 

119William Woodruff, article in the first edition of the Arkansas Gazette, November 20, 1819, quoted in 

Bearss and Brown, p. 13. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 107 

December 2005 

observed that the bulk of the Post’s buildings consisted of old French-style houses that 

“presented a sad but interesting picture to look upon.” In many cases, Pope stated, “the 

tall chimneys had fallen down, and trees of considerable size were growing out though 

the roofs and chimneys below.” He also noted that there were a “few modern 

buildings.” Those buildings, which would have included Frederick Notrebe’s brick 

store and warehouse and another brick building (presumably Hewes Scull’s brick store 

and counting house), were “situated near the river.”120 As detailed as these descriptions 

may be, they do not reveal the positions and descriptions of most buildings and 

structures. 

Other sources, however, are more useful in identifying the approximate locations, 

functions, and/or architecture of about forty buildings. These other sources include 

land records, Arkansas Gazette articles, Brown’s and Saulnier’s maps (Maps 17 and 18), 

and archeological reports. The picture that emerges, moreover, corroborates 

contemporary observers’ subjective narrative descriptions of the nineteenth-century 

town. These sources help to confirm that the settlement consisted of French vernacular 

and other miscellaneous residential and business buildings that were located on more 

than fifty-five individual lots. These lots were located along several streets, but 

especially along the Post’s two main arteries, Main and Front Streets (Exhibits 3-1 and 3-

 

120Pope, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 15. 
108 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

2). This alignment is the same general pattern of development described by Spanish 

Captain Pedro Rousseau as early as 1793.121

At least 14 major documented structures—over 35% of the total—were sited on lots that 

bordered Front Street. These buildings included James and Hewes Scull’s dwelling 

house, brick store, warehouse, grist mill, and two-story, frame cotton gin and press122

(1820-1833) (Exhibit 3A-15, Lots 1 and 2); Abraham Lewis’ house (1832) (Exhibit 3A-16, 

Lot 3); Eli and Abraham Lewis’ skin house/warehouse or general store—probably the 

50- by 32-foot, French-style structure constructed on Lot 3 or 4 in 1807 (Map 20) (1807-

1832) (Exhibit 3A-17, Lot 4); the small, two-room, French vernacular house rented by 

William Woodruff as his first Arkansas Gazette printing office (1817-1820) (Exhibit 3A-18, 

Lot 5A); Joseph Cook’s house (1820) (Exhibit 3A-56, Lot 5B); Samuel Wilson’s 

blacksmith shop (1818-1819) (Exhibit 3A-19, Lot 6A—in 1826 this lot also contained 

improvements and roadways labeled as Exhibit 3A-20); the 50- by 32-foot, four-room, 

French-style dwelling and storehouse that served as Lewis and Thomas’ Store (1819) 

and the residence of a doctor (1832) (Exhibit 3A-21, Lot 7); the building housing Francis 

 

121Most of the information on the Post of Arkansas’ individual lots and buildings contained in this section 

of the study is a distillation of the detailed primary and secondary accounts of these properties and 

structures contained in Bearss and Brown, pp. 175-232, and Walker, pp. 209-226. The lot numbering 

system has been adopted from Walker’s Provisional Plan of the Post (Map 15). In the few instances 

where other sources have been consulted, these materials are specifically identified in the footnotes. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 109 

December 2005 

Vaugine’s billiard parlor (1824), a site subsequently occupied by the old Peeler store 

house (possibly the former billiard parlor) and an adjacent house containing a cotton 

screw press123 (1860) (Exhibit 3A-22, Lot 10); and Richmond Peeler’s house and gristmill 

(1827-1832)—a building possibly converted to a lard-oil factory by 1845 (Exhibit 3A-23, 

Lot 11). Besides these buildings, another major structure—the steamboat landing 

(Exhibit 3A-24) was situated near Front Street in this part of the Post. Although the 

landing’s exact position is not known, an August, 1833, notice advertising the sale of 

Hewes Scull’s estate stated that Scull’s “late residence at the Post of Arkansas situate[d] 

on the bank of the river . . . [and] embracing several lots of ground” (Lots 1 and 2), was 

located “near the landing.”124

 

Seventeen of the Post’s major documented buildings—more than 40% of the total—

were located on lots that fronted Main Street. The seventeen included a 30- by 20-foot, 

French-style structure that respectively served as Joseph Gravier’s storehouse, Dr. 

Robert McKay’s residence, and meeting rooms for the third session of the Arkansas 

territorial legislature (October 1820). This building also housed Elijah Morton’s store, 

 

122This two-story configuration was apparently the standard pattern for cotton gins. The upper floor 

housed the gin machinery and storage areas for harvested cotton, while the lower floor contained a socalled “save room” for the ginned cotton fiber and the usually mule-driven gear assemblage that 

powered the gin machinery. For a detailed description of cotton gins see John Vlach, Back of the Big 

House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina 

Press, 1993), pp. 124-125. 

123Cotton screw presses, which could be up 40 feet tall, were as essential as cotton gins to the large-scale 

commercial production of cotton. The mule-driven machines consisted of a large threaded screw that 

was turned to compress ginned cotton lint into 400-600 pound bales for shipment. See Vlach, Back of the 

Big House, pp. 123-124. 
110 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Daniel Brearly’s residence, and possibly a blacksmith’s residence (1818-1832) (Exhibit 

3A-25, Lot 8). Also fronting Main Street were David Maddox’s law office (1820) 

(Exhibit 3A-26, Lot 6B); and Frederick Notrebe’s house and store (Exhibit 3A-27, Lot 22). 

Another French-style house enclosed by palisade-style fences probably first served as 

Louis Jordelas’ residence and Jacob Bright’s fur-trading house. It later housed 

Montgomery’s Tavern—the site where the second (February, 1820) session of the 

Arkansas territorial legislature met—and subsequently served as James Hamilton’s 

store (ca. 1804-1825) (Exhibit 3A-28, Lot 27).125 Other structures included Frederick 

Notrebe’s cotton gin and presumably an associated outbuilding (1827-ca. 1835) (Exhibit 

3A-29, Lot 24).126 In addition there was a large, two-story, frame house built by 

Richmond Peeler that later served as James Hamilton and Company’s store (1820-ca. 

1832) (Exhibit 3A-30, Lot 25). Another house was occupied at various times (1819-ca. 

1835) by William Drope and Francis and Catharine Mitchell (Exhibit 3A-31, Lot 26). A 

two-story house (ca. 1810?-1832) (Exhibit 3A-32, Lot 39) respectively served as Joseph 

Dardenne’s residence, Johnson and Armstrong’s store—the location where Territorial 

 

124This notice is reprinted in Bearss and Brown, pp. 192-193. 

125Besides the property’s palisade-type fences, evidence for its French-style architecture is provided by 

John J. Audubon, who wrote that when he stayed at the Post in December, 1820, he lodged at 

Montgomery’s tavern, a “large Building that formerly perhaps saw the great councils of the Spanish 

Dons.” By 1832, however, the building had been razed because Saulnier’s map shows a horse corral and 

Frederick Notrebe’s small butcher or carpenter shop occupying the lot. For a detailed discussion of this 

property and its structures see Martin, “An Inquiry into the Locations and Characteristics of Jacob 

Bright’s Trading House and William Montgomery’s Tavern,” especially pp. 1-14 (the quote from 

Audubon is on p. 5), 18-21, and 82-87. 

126Notrebe “improved” his gin several months after a February, 1828, fire caused by heat generated by 

friction from the machine’s gears. The fire burned “a few bales of cotton” and caused “some slight injury 

to the buildings.” See Bearss and Brown, pp. 217-217. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 111 

December 2005 

Secretary Robert Crittenden lodged in 1820-1821—and James Hamilton and Company’s 

store. Northwest of this structure was a house that was probably successively occupied 

by John Taylor, D. W. G. and Irene Leavitt, Luther Chase, and Charles and Julia Young. 

The same structure may have served as a Methodist Church after 1852 (ca. 1820-ca. 

1852) (Exhibit 3A-33, Lot 41). Solomon Judd’s and John Taylor’s carpenter shop (1821-

ca. 1840) (Exhibit 3A-34, Lot 42) was on Main Street, as was the residence (ca. 1830-1832) 

of Charles Robier, also spelled Robun or Robin, (Exhibit 3A-35, Lot 43). The 

brickmaker’s house and brickworks (1832) (Exhibit 3A-36, Lot 44), which presumably 

provided the building materials for Notrebe’s 1833 brick store as well as other brick 

structures, was located on Main Street. An additional Main Street building was a tavern 

(1832) (Exhibit 3A-37, Lot 45). 

 The Post’s other major documented structures were sited on lots outlined by the grid of 

side streets northeast of Main Street. These buildings included the building used as a 

medical office (1846) by Doctors William Price and George Williams (Exhibit 3A-38, Lot 

9). A house occupied by Francis Vaugine and Thomas Blocker (ca. 1830-1848) (Exhibit 

3A-39, Lot 13) was in this area. Frederick Notrebe’s brick store (1833-1846) apparently 

was built on or near the site of a house owned and occupied by Francois and Suzanne 

Grebert prior to 1811 (Exhibit 3A-40, Lot 21). Mr. Taylor, an American carpenter, 

occupied a house (1832) (Exhibit 3A-41, Lot 19) in this area as did W. Sims (1834) 

(Exhibit 3A-42, Lot 16). Another building in this part of the Post, the Arkansas Post 
112 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

branch of the Arkansas State Bank (Exhibit 3-55), is the only Post structure that has been 

precisely located (1839-1863, Lot 27).127 The bank was a 31-by 61-foot, two-story, brick 

building (Figure 4 and Map 32) with a galvanized iron, shingle roof and cut stone 

trimming that possibly incorporated Greek Revival architectural details. There were 

also the Joseph Imbeau house (ca. 1800?-1840) (Exhibit 3A-43, Lot 30) and a blacksmith 

shop (1834) (Exhibit 3A-44, Lot 31). A structure used as a county jail (1813-1835) was 

also located in this area of the Post (Exhibit 3A-45, Lot 35F). The county and circuit 

courts met in private homes, taverns, and hotels during the 43 years that the village 

served as the Arkansas County seat; no courthouse was ever constructed. The jail 

remained the only non-Federal public building located inside the Post of Arkansas’ 

boundaries. 

These buildings and the Post of Arkansas’ other undocumented large residential and 

commercial structures did not sit in isolation on their individual lots. Rather, they were 

the focal points of a number of individual vernacular landscape ensembles that 

encompassed smaller outbuildings, gardens and orchards, subordinate roads and paths, 

fences, and other improvements. For the most part, the Post’s property records 

 

127Captain Henry F. Fitton of the 16th Indiana Infantry Regiment, who prepared the January 1863 sketch 

of the bank building contained in Map 32, incorrectly identified the brick building, which was then 

serving as a Confederate hospital, as the former Arkansas state capitol. For a detailed discussion of the 

bank building and its construction see John W. Walker, “Excavation of the Arkansas Post Branch of the 

Bank of the State of Arkansas,” especially pp. 1-43. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 113 

December 2005 

generally note only unspecified “outbuildings” and/or “improvements” in the few 

instances when they mention these features. 

The August, 1833, Arkansas Gazette notice advertising the sale of Hewes Scull’s estate, 

however, provides a rare detailed description of one property. The notice advertised 

land (Lots 1 and 2) with “a frame dwelling-house with a spacious cellar and kitchen; a 

brick smoke-house; an excellent well of water enclosed, with meat cellar adjoining.” 

The property included several tracts of ground, “improved and under fence, as garden 

and pasture lots.”128 Besides the types of structures noted in this advertisement, other 

outbuilding types common at the Post almost certainly included slave quarters, barns 

and sheds, gristmills, and privies. 

Most outbuildings and structures were probably of frame or log construction, but in 

some cases, like the prosperous Hewes Scull’s smokehouse and the cistern on Frederick 

Notrebe’s property (Figures 5 and 6) they were built of brick.129 Furthermore, virtually 

all of these structures and the Post’s other smaller-scale cultural features, like its major 

buildings, almost certainly reflected their builders’ vernacular cultural heritages. 

French residents of the Post probably constructed French-style outbuildings and 

palisade fences, and organized the gardens and other elements of their properties in 

 

128The notice is reprinted in Bearss and Brown, pp. 192-193. 
114 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

accordance with French colonial tradition. American inhabitants, most of who hailed 

from the Upland and Lowland South, likely followed suit with their snake fences 

(Figure 3) and log and frame outbuildings. The Post’s other ethnic and cultural groups 

possibly built in still different forms.130 Over time, facets of these traditions merged 

(Figure 3) and the American influences almost certainly became more predominant. 

During the first decades of the nineteenth century, however, the Post of Arkansas’ 

landscape probably reflected the diverse vernacular design and building traditions of 

its residents. 

Town of Rome and Town of Arkansas, 1818-1855 

The towns of Rome and Arkansas, located north of the Post, remained undeveloped 

throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. Indeed, as depicted on Civil Warera maps (Maps 29-32), virtually all of the towns’ areas remained wooded or were 

incorporated into cultivated fields throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. 

Rome, platted on a 38-acre tract carved from Spanish grant 2339, consisted of 44 lots, 

two of which (Lots 29 and 30) were reserved for a courthouse, jail, and other public 

 

129For a detailed description of Notrebe’s cistern see the March 26, 1966, letter from Bernard T. Campbell, 

Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park to the NPS Regional Director, Southeast Region found in Box 

2, File 21, HNMA Administrative Files. 

130For a discussion of the various ethnic outbuildings, fences, and other smaller-scale cultural features 

that were probably found at the early nineteenth-century Post, see Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 45-46; 

Glassie, Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States, and the appropriate sections of 

Noble and Cleek. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 115 

December 2005 

buildings (Map 23).131 Documented structures, however, existed on only four of these 

tracts in the 1820s and 1830s. One structure, located on Lots 1 and 2, was a house 

known as “the Factory” (Exhibit 3A-46) that probably antedated the Town of Rome. 

From 1818-1820 this building was the apparently the site of William Craig’s tavern and 

Stokeley Coulter’s tailor shop. Two more structures (Exhibit 3-47) were located on Lots 

21 and 22 across Rome’s Main Street from the Factory. They were respectively used by 

Jacoy Ely as a grocery store (1840) and Stokeley Coulter and J. B. Burke as a tailor shop 

(1818-1820). The fourth documented structure, a fenced house (Exhibit 3-48) owned by 

a Mr. Barry and used by John O’Ragan as a tailor shop, was located on Lot 40 during 

the early 1820s. These structures, like their counterparts in the Post of Arkansas, 

presumably had outbuildings and other improvements. 

Development in the Town of Arkansas, which was located on 35 acres of land in the 

eastern portion of Spanish grant 2307, was similarly stunted.132 Documented structures 

and their presumably-accompanying outbuildings, several of which probably were 

built before the settlement was platted, stood on only five of the town’s 80 lots (Map 24) 

in the first decades of the 1800s. These buildings included a hewn log house (Exhibit 3-

49) located on Lot 2 in 1827. There was probably a house (Exhibit 3-50) located on Lot 

12 in ca. 1820. In addition, there was a “frame house” (Exhibit 3-51) on Lot 14 opposite 

 

131The information on the Town of Rome’s lots and buildings contained in this section of the study is 

summarized from Bearss and Brown, pp. 81-113. 
116 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the platted public square. William Woodruff used this building as the second office of 

the Arkansas Gazette in late 1821. The large frame Arkansas Hotel or tavern and its 

stable (Exhibit 3-52) stood on Lots 58 and 62 in the early 1820s. The hotel, apparently 

also known as the “garrison house,” was probably a French-style structure with 

galleries and a hipped roof.133

Besides these structures located within the Town of Arkansas, two other groups of 

buildings stood immediately west across the north-south road to the Grand Prairie and 

Little Rock, and probably should be considered when analyzing the town’s overall 

development pattern. These buildings occupied small tracts carved from Spanish grant 

2307. In 1821-1822 David Brearly’s general store (Exhibit 3-53) was located on a 1.78 

acre parcel south of Jordelas Street. James Smith’s house (Exhibit 3-54) was built on a 

2.5-acre tract north of Jordelas Street in the late 1830s and 1840s.134 Along with the 

Factory (Exhibit 3-46), the buildings (Exhibit 3-47) used as Ely’s grocery store and 

Coulter and Burke’s tailor shop, and John Larquier’s house and billiard parlor (Exhibit 

3-57), were located on S.G. 2368. These structures anticipated a development pattern 

that predominated at the Post between the 1860s and 1950s (Exhibits 5 and 6). Instead 

 

132The information on the Town of Arkansas’ lots and buildings contained in this section of the study is 

summarized from Bearss and Brown, pp. 114-174. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 117 

December 2005 

of being scattered on lots in the interior of the Towns of Rome and Arkansas, residences 

and businesses were located in a line or strip running north and south along both sides 

of the major north-south road. 

Farmsteads, 1804-1855

The final groups of structures found at the early nineteenth-century Post were the 

clusters of buildings dotting the area’s farmsteads. Documented houses, domestic and 

agricultural outbuildings, and other various improvements, including fields and fences, 

were located on at least six and probably more of the area’s Spanish land grants. 

Besides the aforementioned house and billiard parlor (Exhibit 3A-57), additional 

“improvements” located on John Larquier’s property (S.G. 2368) during the mid-1820s 

included “convenient out-houses,” cultivated fields, and presumably fences. In 1835 

another documented structure—the second Arkansas County jail (Exhibit 3-58)—was 

built on a small, approximately one-acre tract carved from this property.135 William 

Rainey’s adjacent property, S.G. 2344, which he had purchased from Albert Berdue, 

encompassed similar improvements (Exhibit 3-59) during the same period. An 1830 

notice in the Arkansas Gazette advertising the sale of this farm stated that there was “a 

 

133For a further discussion of the Arkansas Hotel or “garrison house” see Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 45 

and 194 (Note 67). Arnold believes that the name “garrison house” implies that the structure was 

formerly the commandant’s house or one of the other buildings of Fort San Esteban. However, this is 

highly unlikely. The fort and all of its buildings, as depicted in John B. Treat’s 1807 map (Map 8), were 

all located near the river on the United States Military Reservation in the Post of Arkansas, not away 

from the river in Spanish land grant 2307. 

134Bearss and Brown, pp. 63-69. 

135Ibid., pp. 47, 74-75. 
118 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

comfortable dwelling house, with a kitchen, stable, &c . . . [on land] of good quality and 

fit for cultivation . . . [located] near the center of the village.”136 Hewes Scull’s farm (S.G. 

2305), which he had purchased from Jacob Bright, contained a house and barn (Exhibit 

3-60) and was almost certainly cultivated and fenced. According to an article in the 

Arkansas Gazette, a January, 1821, fire on the property destroyed not only the barn, but 

also “an excellent horse, about 200 bushells of corn[,] a quantity of hay, several hogs, 

&c.”137

 

Less is known about the structures on the Post’s other rural properties. In ca. 1820 Eli 

Lewis reportedly established a “Tanning & Currying Business on his plantation 

adjoining the Post of Arkansas” (Exhibit 3-61)—a property (S.G. 2432) originally owned 

by Joseph Dardenne.138 John and Cecilia Jordelas presumably cleared and cultivated 

fields and built a house and outbuildings (Exhibit 3-62) on their land (S.G. 2307). Their 

house was most likely in the western portion of their land where a farmstead was 

located during the Civil War (Map 29) and for almost a century thereafter (Exhibits 4, 5, 

6, and 7).139 Finally, in the early 1800s various improvements (Exhibit 3-63), including a 

house mill, other buildings, and fences were located on Joseph Bougy’s tract (S.G. 2297), 

much of which probably remained wooded throughout the first half of the century.140

 

 

136Ibid., pp. 70-72. 

137Ibid., pp. 62-63. 

138Ibid., pp. 76-79. 

139Ibid., pp. 63-70. 

140Ibid., pp. 61-62. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 119 

December 2005 

As was the case in the Post of Arkansas, virtually all of these improvements would have 

been structures that reflected their builders’ and owners’ cultural traditions. 

Period Summary 

During the first half of the nineteenth century after the United States assumed control of 

Louisiana, the Post of Arkansas respectively served as a fur-trading center; the county 

seat of Arkansas County (1813-1855); the territorial capital of Arkansas (1819-1821); and 

an entrepot of the Arkansas River cotton trade. Four groups of buildings occupied the 

Post’s landscape during this half-century period. They included Fort Madison (old Fort 

San Esteban) and the U.S. Trading Factory on the grounds of the United States Military 

Reservation; the buildings comprising the Post of Arkansas; structures in the towns of 

Rome and Arkansas; and clusters of farm buildings located on several Spanish land 

grants. With only a few exceptions, including Fort Madison and possibly the Arkansas 

State Bank branch, all buildings were vernacular structures that reflected the 

architectural traditions of the French and the American Upland and Lowland South, as 

well as other ethnic building vocabularies. The sites of Fort Madison and the U.S. 

Trading Factory had eroded into the continually encroaching Arkansas River by the 

1820s and 1830s. The speculative towns of Rome and Arkansas, their prospects doomed 

by removal of the capital to Little Rock in 1821, never developed fully. Through most of 

this period, the Post of Arkansas village continued to exist as a small settlement 

developed along Front and Main streets—the two streets de Villiers platted in 1779. By 
120 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the time the county seat was transferred to DeWitt in 1855, the Post’s prospects had 

dimmed. 

1856 - 1865 (Exhibit 4: 1856 - 1865 Historic Period Plan) 

Historic Context 

On May 6, 1861, three weeks after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, Arkansas left 

the Union to join the southern Confederacy. This was accomplished by the efforts of 

dominant secessionist planter-politicians, who won the reluctant support of a majority 

of previously-Unionist Arkansans after President Lincoln used force to suppress the 

southern rebellion. Arkansas state troops seized Fort Smith and Little Rock’s United 

States arsenal, and Arkansans enlisted in the Confederate Army by the tens of 

thousands. For the next four years the state was wracked by what one historian called 

Arkansas’ “greatest” tragedy. A combination of Union and Confederate military 

operations, divided internal loyalties, and partisan violence “left the landscape dotted 

with gaunt and blackened chimneys, broken fences, shattered lives, and freshly dug 

graves.” Invading Union armies defeated Confederate forces at Pea Ridge (March 7-8, 

1862), Prairie Grove (December 7, 1862), and Arkansas Post (January 10-11, 1863). By 

September, 1863, the Union forces had occupied both Little Rock and all but the far 

southwestern corner of the state. Although guerilla warfare continued for the next two 
Chapter 3, Site History • 121 

December 2005 

years, the state was effectively under Union control and a federal occupation that lasted 

until the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s.141

 

Site Chronology 

Geomorphology 

Throughout the late 1850s and early 1860s, the meandering western bank of the 

Arkansas River’s oxbow continued to eat away the Post’s landscape. By 1863 (Exhibit 4) 

parts of Spanish land grants 2297 and 2339 as well as a large portion of the United States 

Military Reservation and other sections of the Post of Arkansas had disappeared into 

the river. Additionally, as shown in Civil War-era maps of the site (Maps 29-31), a 

massive network of 20-foot-deep ravines had almost completely eroded a large portion 

of the Post. The area primarily affected was the former residential and business 

neighborhood located on the lots north of Main Street.142 Across from the Post, on the 

east bank of the Arkansas, the stream continued to build up a migrating point, or 

sandbar. 

Historic Background 

During the first fifteen months of the Civil War Arkansas Post experienced little change. 

It remained a small rural settlement with few businesses and several dozen houses and 

outbuildings—some of which had been abandoned. There were also several 

 

141Coleman, p. 103; Dougan, pp. 207-212, 231, 236-238; Tucker, pp. 27-42. 
122 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

surrounding farmsteads. The population probably numbered a couple of hundred 

persons, with about half of that population white, and the other half black slaves.143

 

This situation abruptly ended in July, 1862, when Confederate commanders, fearing a 

Union invasion of Arkansas and Little Rock via the Arkansas River valley, decided to 

build a fort at Arkansas Post. Confederate Colonel John W. Dunnington chose the Post 

as a fort site for the same reason Lieutenant de La Houssaye and Captain de Villiers had 

located French and Spanish works there 100 years before. Its prominent bluffs were the 

first high ground on the Arkansas River above the White River cut-off and commanded 

the river for more than a mile downstream. Federal gunboats could not steam up the 

river for an attack on Little Rock without passing under the fort’s guns. Confederate 

troops and African-American slaves labored on the “Post of Arkansas” fort, which 

consisted of a square bastioned earthwork called Fort Hindman and a line of flanking 

rifle pits, for more than five months (Maps 28-33).144

In early January, 1863, the Post’s 5,000 Confederate defenders, under the command of 

Brigadier General Thomas J. Churchill, were attacked by Union troops. The Union 

Major General John A. McClernand commanded 32,000 Union troops, the ironclad 

 

142Unless otherwise stated, all the information contained in this section of the study is derived from these 

and other Civil War-era maps (Maps 28-33), which are identified both the bibliography and in the “List of 

Sources” used to prepare Exhibit 4: the “1856-1865 Historic Period Plan.” 
Chapter 3, Site History • 123 

December 2005 

gunboats Baron de Kalb (Figure 7), Louisville, and Cincinnati; and several tinclad 

gunboats in his attack on the Post. A two-day federal naval and infantry attack on 

January 10-11 (Maps 25 and 26, Figures 8-11 and 16) severely damaged two of Fort 

Hindman’s casemates and silenced its batteries (Figures 12-15). Churchill subsequently 

surrendered the Post to McClernand. The victorious Union troops leveled the fort and 

its adjoining rifle pits, reportedly burned all the Post’s remaining buildings that had 

survived the Union bombardment, and departed downriver on January 16-17, leaving 

the small settlement completely desolated.145 

Village of Arkansas Post, 1856 - 1862 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

Patterns of land use and spatial organization found at the mid-nineteenth-century Post 

before the battle were in some respects similar to those that existed during the 

settlement’s heyday.146 Cleared areas and fields continued to include the uneroded 

 

143No detailed summary and analysis of the Post’s 1860 population apparently exists. However, it was 

small and the proportions of black and white residents quite likely approximated those of Arkansas 

County, which had an 1860 population of 3923 whites, 4921 black slaves, and 0 free blacks. See Edwin C. 

Bearss, “The Post of Arkansas” (undated typescript paper located in Box 5, APNM Administrative Files), 

p. 2. 

144 Bearss, “The Post of Arkansas,” pp. 1-8; Coleman, pp. 103-105. 

145Bearss, “The Post of Arkansas,” pp. 8-41; Coleman, pp. 106-117; Dougan, p. 209; Halli Burton, pp. 147-

150. Both Bearss’ and Coleman’s accounts include detailed tactical summaries of the battle. 

146These patterns and other known mid-nineteenth-century cultural features at the Post are depicted in 

Exhibit 4: the “1856-1865 Historic Period Plan.” In many respects this plan is identical to Edwin C. 

Bearss’ extremely informative “Historical Base Map Post of Arkansas, January 1863” (Map 27). 

Nevertheless, there are crucial differences. Bearss’ map is incorrectly scaled and is not referenced to 

known features on the present-day APNM landscape, fails to depict some known cultural features (e.g., 

the 19th Arkansas Infantry Regiments barracks), and infers that some features (e.g., the Confederate 

cavalry’s winter quarters) were located within APNM’s boundaries when in actuality they were located 

outside of the park. All of these discrepancies have been rectified in the current historic period plan. 
124 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

portions of the old Post of Arkansas, the small northeastern portions of Spanish land 

grants 2432 and 2363 lying atop the Grand Prairie bluffs, and all or significant parts of 

adjacent Spanish grants 2344, 2305, 2339, 2368, and 2307. The edges of this cleared tract, 

however, had almost certainly expanded and contracted over several decades. For 

example, Union commanders described the field north of the Confederate rifle-pits and 

Jordelas Street in their battle reports. The area was characterized as “cut by ravines 

lined by underbrush and fallen timber”;147 “slightly cut up by gullies and depressions 

and covered with standing trees and brush with a good deal of fallen timber and tree 

tops”;148 and covered with “scattered stumps and logs.”149 Fields east of this area and 

north of Fort Hindman (tracts that lay partially within the boundaries of the 

unsuccessful Town of Arkansas) also were described as being covered with “stumps, 

logs, brush, and felled trees” (Map 32)150 These descriptions probably indicate that all 

or most of these fields had been cleared and cultivated at one time, but had been 

abandoned and were overgrown with the beginnings of a second-growth forest that 

was cut down by the Post’s Confederate defenders. Heavy rains, moreover, 

periodically made some of the Post’s cleared tracts quite soggy and swampy. Captain 

 

147Report of General McClernand, January 20, 1863, in Robert N. Scott, Ed., The War of the Rebellion: A 

Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 1, Volume 17, Part 1 

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1886 - 1971 Reprint by The National Historical Society, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), p. 705 (hereinafter cited as ORA, 1, 17, 1). In many cases, several 

commanders’ battle reports repeat the same information and descriptions in an identical or only slightly 

different form. The quotations cited, therefore, should generally be considered as representative of this 

larger body of reports. 

148Report of General Sherman, January 11, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 756. 

149Report of Colonel Smith, January 12, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 776. 

150Report of Lieutenant Colonel Baldwin, January 13, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 736. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 125 

December 2005 

Henry Fitton of the 16th Indiana Infantry noted in his “Plan of the Battle of Arkansas 

Post” (Map 29) that a cleared field in the northern part of the Town of Arkansas was 

covered with “mud almost knee deep.” Colonel Richard Owen of the 60th Indiana 

echoed this characterization when he described the open field as “swampy” and related 

that he and his men “sank over ankle deep” in mud.151

The Post’s forested areas experienced minimal change. All or most of the peninsula 

located opposite the Post of Arkansas, inside the river’s horseshoe bend, continued to 

contain sycamores and a large number of cottonwoods.152 Forested areas also included 

the western portion of Spanish grant 2354 and the portions of Spanish grants 2363, 2432, 

2344, 2333, and 2307 situated along the seasonally-flooded Post Bayou bottoms. At least 

a few of the lowlands were very heavily wooded. General William T. Sherman 

described the woods immediately north of the site, where the DeWitt Road (the western 

extension of Jordelas Street) crossed Post Bayou, as a “dark cypress swamp.”153 

Confederate Colonel James Deshler noted “heavy growth of timber and brush” south of 

this location.154 At least some of these wooded areas, however, were probably logged to 

provide materials for the Confederate fortifications and winter quarters during the 

weeks and months prior to the battle. 

 

151Report of Colonel Owen, January 12, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, pp. 733-734. 

152The reference to sycamores is contained in Frank Mason, The Forty-Second Ohio Infantry: A History of the 

Organization of that Regiment in the War of the Rebellion (Cleveland, Ohio: 1876), quoted in Bearss and 

Brown, p. 276. 

153Report of General Sherman, January 11, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 756. 
126 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

General McClernand’s description captured the overall appearance of the site’s 

landscape. He observed that the Post’s generally cleared terrain, which was 

surrounded by belts of swamp and woods, formed a “dry . . . plateau . . . [on] elevated 

ground, above the reach of floods,” covering approximately 1,000 yards square.155 Frank 

Mason, the historian of the 42nd Ohio Infantry Regiment, was even more specific. He 

described the site as a “cleared space” among the forests that occupied approximately 

100 acres and harbored an orchard.156

Arkansas Post’s Civil War-era grid of dirt roads was an expansion and adaptation of the 

early nineteenth-century road system. The Post’s major north-south artery continued to 

be the old road, possibly used as a postal route, which ran north from the Post of 

Arkansas and the Town of Rome to DeWitt and the Grand Prairie. It did not, however, 

extend directly south to the Post from the town of Rome as it had in the past. Instead, 

the road curved southwest and then southeast to avoid the system of deep ravines that 

had eaten into the northern part of the Post of Arkansas’ landscape. The southeastward 

curve of this road probably ran between 100 and 200 feet north of the previous course of 

Main Street. The road, which was the Post of Arkansas’ new main thoroughfare, 

wended its way among the town’s remaining buildings until it intersected Front Street 

 

154Report of Colonel Deshler, March 25, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 792. 

155Report of General McClernand, January 20, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, pp. 705-706. 

156Mason, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 261. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 127 

December 2005 

(Exhibit 4-2) at the far southeastern corner of the Post.157 Roads or paths following the 

routes of the Post of Arkansas’ early nineteenth-century grid quite possibly extended 

from this road, but if these subordinate routes existed they do not appear on Civil War 

maps of the site. Arkansas Post’s second major road ran east-to-west across the site. 

This road, presumably was the “Brownsville and Little Rock Road” noted by General 

McClernand. It intersected the main north-south road approximately 500 feet north of 

the boundary of the Town of Rome.158 This road encompassed both the eastern part of 

the so-called River Road, which was parallel to the west and north banks of the 

Arkansas River northeast of the Post. It also encompassed an extended Jordelas Street, 

which ran west across the plateau, descended into the Post Bayou bottomlands, crossed 

the bayou on a bridge (probably the log bridge described by Union Colonel Warren 

Stewart) and finally turned into the DeWitt Road.159 Other roads extended from these 

two main thoroughfares. One, the western part of the River Road, dropped into the 

forested lowlands and crossed the bayou at a ford.160 Another, which began slightly east 

of the point where the west River Road dropped into the lowlands, curved northwest 

 

157Front Street almost certainly still existed in the early 1860s. Union Captain Julius Pitzman’s January, 

1863, topographical map of the site (Map 29), which General Sherman judged to be “very accurate for the 

time allowed in making the survey,” depicts a road following the course of Front Street. An 1860 deed 

for a lot (Post of Arkansas Lot 10 in Exhibit 3) stated that the property had a frontage of 112 feet on Front 

Street and extended back to a gully. See Report of General Sherman, January 13, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, pp. 

758-759, and Bearss and Brown, pp. 194-195. 

158Report of General McClernand, January 20, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 706. 

159Arkansas Post and Fair Dale Arkansas Post Office Contract Record, August 1867, National Archives 

Microfilm M-1126, “Post Office Department Records of Site Locations, 1937-1950,” Roll 22, National Archives, 

Washington, D.C; Report of Colonel Stewart, January 10, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 719. 
128 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

and then northeast along the western edge of the bluffs and crossed the DeWitt Road. 

Two more roads, which descended into the bottomlands from Front Street (Exhibit 4-2) 

crossed Post Bayou on a “flat boat” bridge and a bridge made from an “old steamboat” 

(Map 29).161

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Post of Arkansas and Farmsteads, 1856-1863 

Arkansas Post’s mid-nineteenth century buildings included the clusters of structures 

located at the Post of Arkansas and its surrounding farmsteads. According to Civil 

War-era maps, approximately 15 major structures stood in the old village. Most of them 

were almost certainly frame houses, or in a few cases businesses (Exhibits 4-64, 4-65, 4-

66, 4-67, and 4-68), surrounded by a number of subordinate outbuildings, fences, and 

other smaller-scale features. W. H. Halli Burton, an early twentieth-century local 

Arkansas County historian whose family apparently briefly owned a small tract carved 

from Spanish grant 2307 north of the Post, describes a number of the buildings burned 

by the Union Army. He identified the burned buildings as French-style, vernacular 

structures that in some cases may have dated from the late 1790s.162 An illustration of 

the Post, “The Investment of Fort Hindman, Arkansas Post” (Figure 9), appeared in 

 

160Arkansas Post and Fair Dale Arkansas Post Office Contract Record, August 1867, National Archives 

Microfilm M-1126, “Post Office Department Records of Site Locations, 1937-1950,” Roll 22, National Archives, 

Washington, D.C. 

161 Julius Pitzman, “Plan of Fortification at Post Arkansas surrendered to U.S. Forces Jan 11th 1863.” 

162Bearss and Brown, pp. 66-67 (information on Halli Burton family property at the Post); Halli Burton, p. 

105. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 129 

December 2005 

Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper in February, 1862. This illustration shows a house of 

what appears to be vertical log, poteaux en terre construction with “galleries front and 

back,” thereby providing further proof of French design at Arkansas Post.163

 

Nevertheless, it is doubtful that all of the Post’s wooden buildings were of French 

design, and many of them almost certainly reflected the vernacular building traditions 

of the American Upland and Lowland South. 

Besides these frame structures, the Post’s buildings also included what the 42nd Ohio’s 

regimental historian described as several “large . . . old fashion brick buildings,” some 

of which served as Confederate hospitals.164 One of these brick buildings would have 

been the two-story, brick building (Figure 4) used by the Arkansas Post Branch of the 

Arkansas State Bank (Exhibit 4-55). The bank was incorrectly identified as the former 

“State Capitol” on Captain Fitton’s map (Map 32). The bank building, which was used 

as a Confederate hospital during the battle, was struck by Union artillery rounds and 

destroyed by fire.165 Although it is by no means certain, the other brick structures 

referenced by the 42nd Ohio’s historian may have included Frederick Notrebe’s brick 

store (Exhibit 4-40) and Hewes Scull’s brick store and counting room (Exhibit 4-15). 

Captain Pitzman’s map of the site (Map 29) depicts buildings on the sites occupied by 

 

163Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, p. 46. 

164Mason, quoted in Bearss and Brown, pp. 261, 269. 

165For a detailed discussion of the bank building, including its construction and destruction, see Walker, 

“Excavation of the Arkansas Post Branch of the Bank of the State of Arkansas,” especially pp. 1-43. 
130 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the structures, and it is quite possible that these substantial brick buildings dating from 

the 1830s survived until the Civil War period.166

Several farmsteads and other structures surrounded the buildings clustered on the Post 

of Arkansas. These structures included a “steam mill” which most likely was a steampowered cotton gin (Exhibit 4-69).167 Two probable farm buildings (Exhibit 4-70) were 

located on Spanish grant 2363 immediately south of the flat boat bridge. A farmstead 

(Exhibit 4-71) and adjacent orchard (Exhibit 4-72) were located on Spanish grant 2305. 

There were probable farm buildings and a house (Exhibits 4-73 and 4-74) on Spanish 

grant 2344. Two log buildings probably occupied a lot in the Town of Rome168 (Exhibit 

4-75). There were probably farm buildings on Spanish grant 2307 (Exhibit 4-76). There 

was a white frame house (Exhibit 4-77) located at or near the intersection of the main 

north-south and east-west roads. To the northeast of this house, there was also a cluster 

of old farm buildings or cabins (Exhibit 4-78). The cluster likely consisted of a twostory, frame house with a fenced yard where the 60th Indiana Infantry’s dead were 

buried, a log stable, two small, single-crib barns, and a possible sink house.169 These 

structures are shown on Fitton’s map (Map 32) and presumably are also the same 

structures depicted in the illustration of “The Investment of Fort Hindman, Arkansas 

 

166Bearss and Brown, pp. 190-193, 203-204. 

167Vlach, pp. 124-125. 

168Report of Lieutenant Wilson, January 13, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 753. 

169Report of Colonel Owen, January 12, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 734; Report of General Smith, January 16, 

1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 726. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 131 

December 2005 

Post” (Figures 8 and 9). However, the architecture of the one and possibly two singlestory, French-style houses in the illustration, and the designs of the white frame house 

and the two-story house shown on Fitton’s map are different. This apparently indicates 

that at least one of the drawings is incorrect. 

As was the case with the buildings at the Post of Arkansas, these vernacular farmhouses 

and other agricultural structures were certainly surrounded by a variety of features, 

including subordinate outbuildings, fields, gardens, and fences. Fences, most likely 

snake or worm rail enclosures, which presumably encircled a number of fields, gardens, 

and other fixtures on the mid-nineteenth century Post’s landscape, are one of its hardest 

features to document. Besides the fence shown on Fitton’s map, Union commanders’ 

reports noted only one other fence—a barrier located on the northern and presumably 

eastern edges of the cleared and overgrown fields located northeast of Fort Hindman 

(Exhibit 4-79).170 The dearth of reported enclosures, however, can be explained. Frank 

Mason, historian of the 42nd Ohio, noted that since the night of January 10-11 was 

“sharp and frosty” and General “McClernand had no special object in concealing his 

numbers or position,” the abundant fence rails were burned in fires.171 Given this policy 

and the possibility that the Post’s Confederate defenders also demolished fences and 

 

170Report of Lieutenant Colonel Baldwin, January 12, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 734. 

171Mason, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 271. Some of McClernand’s force, on the other hand, did not 

build fires the night before the battle. General Sherman reported that “night closed in” before his 

“preparations were complete,” and the men of his corps “bivouacked without fires through that bitter 

cold night.” See Report of General Sherman, January 13, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 755. 
132 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

appropriated rails during the weeks and months prior to the battle, it is a wonder that 

any fences remained standing. 

Confederate Fortifications and Associated Structures, 1862-1863 

Confederate engineers built their 1862-1863 fortifications on the Post’s preexisting rural 

landscape. Fort Hindman (Figures 8-16, Exhibit 4-79) was the centerpiece of their 

efforts. Captain W. L. B. Jenny depicted the approximately 400- by 400-foot-square, 

earthen fort in detail in his plan of the works (Map 33). Fort Hindman was located 

between what Union troops described as two “very deep” and “impassible” ravines on 

the edge of the bluffs in the eastern part of the former Town of Rome.172 The fort’s low, 

18-foot-wide walls had an infantry-firing step on their interior, a bastion at each corner, 

and were protected by a 20-feet-wide and 8-feet-deep ditch. Its gun emplacements 

mounted four 3-inch, rifled, Parrott guns, six 6-pound, iron, smoothbore cannon, and 

one 9-inch and two 8-inch Columbiads—large coastal defense guns that fired shells or 

solid shot. All three Columbiads faced the river. The two 8-inch guns were mounted in 

casemates constructed of oak walls between one and three feet thick and reinforced 

 

172Report of General McClernand, January 20, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 707 (source of quotation 

“impassible”); Report of General Osterhaus, January 14, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 747 (source of quotation 

“very deep”). The same information is also contained in Fitton’s map (Map 32). Archeologist John W. 

Walker states that Fort Hindman was probably constructed in the northern part of the Fort Esteban/Fort 

Madison United States Military Reservation, which Arkansas troops presumably seized along with Fort 

Smith, the Little Rock arsenal, and other federal property following passage of the state’s secession 

ordinance in May, 1861. Three factors, however, argue against this conclusion. First, from a military 

standpoint, locating the fort on the reservation would not have provided a maximum field of fire down 

the Arkansas River; second, when the location of the fort, which lay at the eastern end of the 

Confederates’ line of rifle pits, is plotted from known spots along the line, its position is located in the 

eastern part of the former Town of Rome; and finally, it appears that by 1862 all or most of the northern 

and eastern parts of the Military Reservation had probably eroded into the Arkansas River. See Walker, 

pp. 21-22. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 133 

December 2005 

with railroad iron, while the 9-inch gun was mounted on a center-pintle barbette 

carriage in the southeastern bastion. The interior of the fort contained two magazines 

and four barracks, and a bridge led from the entrance on the fort’s west side to a road 

that connected with the Post’s main north-south artery.173 

Additional defenses augmented Fort Hindman. Immediately opposite the fort, 

stretching from the east bank of the Arkansas to the middle of the river, Confederate 

engineers planted a line of wooden piles (Exhibit 4-80), or a “chevaux-de-frise of heavy 

logs” in Admiral Porter’s words. This served to channel all approaching river traffic 

immediately under the muzzles of the Columbiads. Downstream, towards their first 

two lines of defensive rifle pits, Porter wrote, they placed targets (Exhibit 4-81) to 

regulate the range of their guns.174 To the west of the fort, between its northwestern 

bastion and Post Bayou, the Confederates, who had not expected a Union attack so soon 

or in such large force, built a third “hastily-constructed,” three-quarter-mile-long line of 

rifle pits (Exhibit 4-82).175 For the first 600-700 yards these dirt and log breastworks, 

 

173The most complete description of the fort is contained in McClernand’s report. See ORA 1, 17, 1, p. 

705. For a brief discussion of Columbiads and their development as coastal defense guns, see Emanuel 

Raymond Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory History (Annapolis, Maryland: 

Naval Institute Press, 1979), pp. 32-33, 58-59. 

174Report of Admiral Porter, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the 

Rebellion, Series 1, Vol. 23, p. 399, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 273. 

175Coleman, pp. 104, 197. General McClernand and General Morgan, from whom McClernand 

apparently took his cue, incorrectly stated that this line of Confederate trenches ran “westerly 720 yards 

towards the bayou.” General Sherman, on the other hand, correctly recorded the “three-quarters of a 

mile” length. See Report of General McClernand, January 20, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 705; Report of 

General Morgan, January 17, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 721; and Report of General Sherman, January 13, 

1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 755 (source of quotation “hastily-constructed”). 
134 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

which mounted six cannon, ran 50-100 yards south of Jordelas Street. The trench line 

then turned southwest and ran along the route of the street or immediately parallel to it 

for another 400-500 yards, terminating about 200 yards east of Post Bayou. This left the 

Confederates’ left flank completely open and their rear exposed. Confederate units 

spent the entire night of January 10-11 prior to the Union attack strengthening their rifle 

pits by cutting down trees and brush in the fields along their front and building an 

abatis. However, their work was “very much delayed . . . [for] want of tools, axes, 

spades, &c.”176

Besides Fort Hindman and its associated defenses, southern forces erected several other 

clusters of structures at the Post. Approximately one-half mile north of their main line 

of rifle pits, outside of the present-day APNM boundary, they built their “main 

cantonment.” This consisted of 648 log houses (Map 32) that comprised the winter 

quarters of the cavalry regiments that formed the bulk of Churchill’s force.177 

Immediately in front of the left center portion of this line, the 19th Arkansas Infantry 

Regiment erected the log huts (Exhibit 4-83) that formed its winter quarters. On the 

night of January 10-11, Confederate Colonel Deshler recalled, “I had them torn down in 

 

176For various descriptions of the Confederate rifle pits see Report of Confederate General Churchill, May 

6, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 780; Report of Confederate Colonel Deshler, March 25, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, pp. 

790-791 (source of quotations); Report of Confederate Colonel Garland, ca. July 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, pp. 

783-784; Report of General McClernand, January 20, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, pp. 705-706; Report of General 

Morgan, January 17, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 721; Report of General Sherman, January 12, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 

1. 

177Report of Colonel Stewart, January 10, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 719. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 135 

December 2005 

order to destroy the cover they would otherwise afford to the enemy, . . . [and] the logs 

were used in making breastworks.”178 The Confederates laid out a wagon park and 

fenced corral (Exhibit 4-84, Maps 30 and 32) southwest of Fort Hindman on the edge of 

the site’s 20-foot-deep ravine. Presumably the park and corral held a large proportion of 

the 170 wagons and 563 animals, mostly horses and mules, captured by McClernand’s 

victorious army.179 

Union Operations at Arkansas Post, 1863 

Although federal forces constructed one small artillery sedan or earthwork (Exhibit 4-

85) approximately 600-700 yards northeast of Fort Hindman,180 the Union army’s impact 

on the Post’s landscape was almost totally negative. McClernand’s invading troops 

pulled down fences to build fires,181 cut down trees to open vistas and fields of fire for 

their artillery (Exhibit 4-86),182 filled up rifle pits, and demolished the fort.183 In the long 

run, however, their most wanton act of destruction was the burning of the Post’s 

surviving buildings, some of which had stood on their sites since the late 1700s.184 

 

178Report of Confederate Colonel Deshler, March 25, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 791. 

179Report of General McClernand, January 20, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 708. 

180Report of Captain Blount, January 13, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 729; Report of Lieutenant Colonel 

Malmborg, January 12, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 778. 

181Mason, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 271. 

182Report of General Sherman, January 13, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 755; Report of General Stuart, January 

14, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1, p. 772. 

183Committee of the Regiment, Military History and Reminiscences of the Thirteenth Regiment of Illinois 

Volunteer Infantry (Chicago, Illinois: Women’s Christian Temperance Publishing Association, 1892), p. 

293, quoted in Bearss and Brown, p. 284. 

184Halli Burton, pp. 147-150. 
136 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Period Summary 

During the late 1850s and early 1860s the Post of Arkansas continued to exist as a small 

rural settlement with some abandoned and unused buildings and strucutures. There 

may have been a few businesses and there were several surrounding farmsteads. 

During the Civil War, from 1862 to 1863, Confederate forces built Fort Hindman and 

other works on the Post’s bluffs to guard against a feared Union invasion of Arkansas 

and Little Rock via the Arkansas River valley. Union forces attacked the southern 

fortifications in January 1863, and destroyed not only the works, but also all the 

buildings comprising the Post of Arkansas. When the war ended, the Post’s population 

had to start over and build anew. 

1866 - 1928 (Exhibit 5: 1866 - 1928 Historic Period Plan)

Historic Context 

Arkansas suffered from the effects of economic depression and the political turmoil of 

Reconstruction for more than a decade following the Civil War. By the late 1870s, 

however, conservative white redeemer Democrats representing planter-merchant and 

business interests had gained control of the state government. Arkansas subsequently 

embarked on a new phase of economic expansion fueled by the renewed commercial 

production of cotton for American and global markets. Besides cotton, the state also 

produced large quantities of corn and wheat, primarily for local consumption. In the 

early 1900s Arkansas River delta farmers, some of who migrated from the Midwest, 
Chapter 3, Site History • 137 

December 2005 

began the large-scale commercial production of rice. Other major commodities 

produced by the state’s overwhelmingly rural and agricultural economy included 

lumber and fish. More than two-thirds of Arkansas remained timbered in the late 

1800s; the state rapidly rose to be the fourth-largest lumber producer in the country. 

Fisheries continued to provide employment in communities nestled along Arkansas’ 

numerous rivers and streams. Railroads, which provided the foundation for this 

economic growth, eclipsed rivers as the state’s predominant form of commercial 

transport, and connected Arkansas with the rest of the nation. Nevertheless, despite 

this economic expansion and development, Arkansas’ renewed late nineteenth and 

early twentieth-century prosperity was tenuous. Cotton prices, never consistently high, 

peaked in 1919 on the crest of a wartime economic boom and then plummeted. This 

sent the state’s overwhelmingly agricultural economy into a sharp decline that persisted 

throughout the 1920s and became more desperate during the Great Depression of the 

1930s.185 

Arkansas’ population, which numbered 484,471 in 1870, more than doubled to 1,113,775 

in 1890, and continued to grow in the first decades of the twentieth century. As was the 

case before the Civil War, most of the state’s population continued to live on farms or in 

small communities consisting of several houses, a few stores and businesses, and 

possibly a post office. Despite the state’s integration into the national and world 

 

185Dougan, pp. 248-249, 281-282, 288-292, 362-369, 387-391; Tucker, pp. 35-42, 55-56, 64- 70. 
138 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

economies, most Arkansans remained small farmers living on tracts that averaged 70 

acres in size in 1925. This figure was even lower in parts of the delta where plots of 10-

20 acres were commonplace. Moreover, an increasing number of farmers, forced to 

mortgage their lands and future crops because of hard times, became cash-rent tenants 

and sharecroppers at the mercy of landlords and merchants.186

Conditions were especially bad for Arkansas’ African Americans, who numbered 30 

percent of the population in 1910. Although 23 percent of the state’s African Americans 

owned at least some land in ca. 1900, most did not; in fact, well over half were tenants 

or sharecroppers. In the delta this figure ran as high as 82 percent.187 

Site Chronology 

Geomorphology 

Between 1863 and the first years of the twentieth century, the meandering Arkansas 

River (Maps 34-38) eroded another 300-to-400-yard swath of the Post’s landscape 

(Exhibit 5). The site of Fort Hindman (Exhibit 5-79) disappeared into the river during 

the 1870s.188 The fort site was soon followed by the eastern part of the Town of Rome, 

 

186Dougan, pp. 281-282, 288-294, 296, 362-369, 387-391; Tucker, pp. 42, 54-56, 67-68. 

187Dougan, pp. 237-239, 292-296, 369-370; Tucker, pp. 43-53. 

188According to a reporter from the Arkansas Gazette who visited the Post in 1900, a small corner of Fort 

Hindman was still visible in that year. However, this is highly improbable. Given the fort’s location on 

the edge of the river and the apparent relatively uniform rate of erosion, Coleman’s statement that the 

site of the fort had entirely disappeared by 1880 is almost certainly correct. The reporter quite likely 

confused some scattered remains of the 1862-1863 Confederate rifle pits, which he also noted to the 

northeast of the old town, with the remnants of Fort Hindman. See Bearss and Brown, p. 284 (source of 

information on the Arkansas Gazette Reporter); and Coleman, p. 119. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 139 

December 2005 

most of the Town of Arkansas, and the entirety of Spanish grant 2368—the property 

originally owned by John Larquier. Similarly, the network of deep ravines gnawing 

into the interior of the Post of Arkansas continued to expand, although apparently not 

at its previous rapid rate.189 In 1903 the erosion slowed and subsequently stopped. That 

same year the Arkansas River temporarily altered its course to a new channel between 

one-half and three-quarters of a mile east of the Post—a change that became permanent 

in 1912. Still, the river continued to wreak havoc on the site. In 1927 an especially 

devastating flood inundated the entire Post, and destroyed or badly damaged many of 

the settlement’s post-Civil War structures.190 Furthermore, the term permanent is only 

relative in describing the Arkansas River’s change in course. As soon as the river 

occupied its new channel, its oxbow once again began migrating to the northwest, and a 

new sandbar began accreting on its eastern shore (Maps 39 and 40, Exhibit 5). 

 

189Mattison states that the “old Confederate entrenchments admitted the river to the town.” This 

observation, however, is almost certainly incorrect. The Confederate entrenchments, which were located 

about one-half mile north of the Post of Arkansas, were shallow rifle pits located on the plateau well 

above the Arkansas and could not have been flooded by the river. Mattison, like other early and midtwentieth-century observers, apparently assumed the deep ravines leading to the old river bed from the 

Post’s interior were the eroded remains of an inner line of trenches instead of a naturally-occurring 

feature of the Post’s landscape. See W. H. Halliburton (presumably a relative of W.H. Halli Burton), “An 

Arkansan Visits Arkansas Post,” “Sunday Magazine Section,” Arkansas Gazette, January 22, 1939, p. 3, 

copy of article located in Arkansas Post Place File, Arkansas WPA Federal Writers Project Folder II, 

Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas; P.C. Howson, “History of Arkansas Post” (ca. 

1931), p. 24, attached to Letter from Dallas T. Herndon, Secretary, Arkansas History Commission, to the 

Arkansas State Park Commission, June 4, 1935, Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas; and Mattison, p. 72. 

190Coleman, p. 119. 
140 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The shift in the Arkansas’ course also precipitated a change in Post Bayou’s route 

(Exhibit 5). For more than 130 years it had emptied into the Arkansas several hundred 

yards south of the southeastern tip of the Grand Prairie bluffs. After the river changed 

its course, the bayou turned northward at the site of its former mouth and followed the 

old channel of the Arkansas River east of the Post. The bayou then joined the river 

about three-fourths of a mile east of the Town of Arkansas. 

Historic Background 

As one historian states, “Arkansas Post never recovered from the ill-effects of war and 

reconstruction.”191 In 1865 the Post’s planters and farmers were penniless, their 

buildings and properties were devastated, and their slave labor force had been freed. 

The community’s misfortune was worsened by the failure of crops in 1866. By 1867 

conditions necessitated that the Arkansas County Court order $5,000 to be appropriated 

to buy corn for the needy. In addition, a St. Louis banker, James H. Lucas, a former 

resident of the area, shipped $300 worth of relief supplies to the Post. The arrival of the 

railroad between the 1870s and 1890s, which included a line of the Stuttgart and 

Arkansas River Railroad terminating in nearby Gillette, magnified the Post’s problems. 

The railroad served to undercut the Arkansas River cotton shipping trade that 

contributed to the Post of Arkansas’ prosperity as a river port in the decades before the 

 

191Coleman, p. 119. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 141 

December 2005 

Civil War. By the early 1900s, moreover, the small remaining portion of the river trade 

disappeared forever when the Arkansas River permanently changed its course.192

Nevertheless, despite these continuing problems, by the early 1880s the Arkansas Post 

had at least partially recovered from its postwar slump and once again consisted of a 

small farming community of thirty to forty inhabitants. The revived community was 

centered about the intersection of Jordelas Street and the county Post road about onehalf mile north of the old Post of Arkansas (Exhibit 5).193 Like many rural crossroads 

communities throughout the state, it consisted of several houses, a small number of 

businesses, and a post office. According to the 1880 United States Population Census, 

the only census that identified either the Post of Arkansas or Arkansas Post as a 

separate community, the Post had a total of thirty-seven inhabitants—all white. They 

included three farmers, three farm laborers, one farmer/merchant, a merchant, a dry 

goods merchant, a dry goods clerk, a physician, a boarding house operator, and a 

saloon keeper.194 

 

192Coleman, p. 119; Dougan, p. 248; Mattison, p. 72; F. M. Quertermous, “Sectional Map of Arkansas 

County, Arkansas” (St. Louis, Missouri: Aug. Gast Bank Note & Litho. Company, 1896), copy of map (no 

call number) located in Arkansas County, Arkansas Map File, Geography and Maps Division, Library of 

Congress, Washington, D.C. 

193Mattison, p. 72. 

1941880 United States Population Census, Arkansas Post, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas, p. 54, National Archives Microfilm T-9, 1880 United States Population Census, Roll 38. 
142 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The Post’s small population, however, increased to upwards of 100 if families residing 

in the Post of Arkansas and on farms on the Spanish land grants surrounding the 

crossroads community are included.195 Early twentieth-century landowners in the old 

Post of Arkansas included L. C. Jones, the Place family, Charley Morphis, and Fred 

Quandt, whose 20-acre tract encompassed most of the western part of the settlement.196 

In 1912 the owners of the Post’s major farms (Map 12, Exhibit 5) were Fred Quandt (S.G. 

2363 and 2432), Ruth Jones (S.G. 2432), E. W. (probably Emmitt Williams, S.G. 2344), 

Mrs. M. E. Reeves (S.G. 2307), J. A. Hudson and J. M. Wolf (S.G. 2354), George W. 

Conine and Emmitt Williams (S.G. 2297), and R. Bass (S.G. 2305). R. Bass was probably 

Rena Bass—an African-American. During the first decades of the twentieth-century 

African American dwellings were largely concentrated in two areas. These dwellings 

were found on the 16 acres of Spanish grant 2305 owned by R. Bass and among the 

 

195Coleman, p. 119. For late nineteenth and early twentieth-century census enumerations of Arkansas 

Post and the surrounding area see 1870 United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas 

County, Arkansas, pp. 8-9, National Archives Microfilm M-593, 1870 United States Population Census, Roll 

47; 1880 United States Population Census, Arkansas Post, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas, pp. 53-55, National Archives Microfilm T-9, 1880 United States Population Census, Roll 38; 1900 

United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, Arkansas, pp. 13-14, National 

Archives Microfilm T-623, 1900 United States Population Census, Roll 49; 1910 United States Population 

Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, Arkansas, pp. 2-4, National Archives Microfilm T-624, 

1910 United States Population Census, Roll 43; and 1920 United States Population Census, Arkansas 

Township, Arkansas County, Arkansas, pp. 1-4, National Archives Microfilm T-625, 1920 United States 

Population Census, Roll 53. 

196“Deed is Given to Ark. Post Park: Five Hundred Attend Picnic on Tuesday When Deed is Presented to 

Commission,” Typescript Paper, pp. 00445-00450 (page numbers assigned by Arkansas Archeological 

Survey Staff—no file number), Box 2, APNM Administrative Files; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” 

p. 22; Interview with Charley Morphis, May 7, 1968, quoted in Walker, p. 202. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 143 

December 2005 

fields and eroded gullies of the Post of Arkansas.197 African-American residents were 

often farm laborers, tenant farmers, and/or sharecroppers who provided the labor to 

operate many of the area’s white-owned farms. The late nineteenth- and early 

twentieth-century Post was comprised of a mostly white community inhabiting the area 

around the crossroads, and a mostly African-American community living to the south 

in and around the old Post. 

Village of Arkansas Post, 1866 - 1928 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

During the 65 years following the Battle of Arkansas Post, the settlement’s patterns of 

land use and spatial organization changed significantly. Although key elements of 

previous arrangements persisted, the Post, as shown in a 1931 Army Corps of Engineers 

survey of the site (Map 39), became much more wooded and major portions of its road 

network were transformed.198 In the late 1920s the Post’s cleared areas continued to 

encompass all or most of Spanish grant 2305 (owned by R. Bass); portions of Spanish 

 

197This conclusion is based upon analysis of several sources of information, including P.C. Howson’s 

statement in his “History of Arkansas Post” (pp. 22-23) that in 1930 the tract once occupied by the Post of 

Arkansas, property owned by Fred Quandt and donated to the state for Arkansas Post State Park, was 

occupied by “a few old negro cabins, tenantless;” and a ca. 1964 or later hand-drawn sketch map (Map 

47) showing locations, functions, and occupants of early twentieth century Arkansas Post buildings 

located within APNM boundaries, which was compared with the enumerations of the Post’s inhabitants 

contained in 1910 census and other previously-cited United States census records. 
144 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

grants 2354, 2297, and 2363; and parts of Spanish grant 2307, including tracts located in 

the vicinity of the Reeves farmstead (Exhibit 5-96) and the former early nineteenthcentury sites of David Brearly’ General Store (Exhibit 3-53) and James Smith’s residence 

(Exhibit 3-54). There were also several open spaces to the south at the old Post of 

Arkansas. P. C. Howson, the landscape architect who developed Arkansas Post State 

Park, described the open spaces. He stated that they were located within a “veritable 

wilderness of old oaks . . . [and] mulberry, pecan, and cedar” trees, as well as a “tangled 

mass of weeds and briars” that had grown up over the site.199 With the exception of 

areas immediately surrounding buildings, almost all of these open tracts were probably 

completely or partially fenced, and cultivated and planted with cotton, corn, wheat, and 

possibly orchards. Most of the remainder of the Post was wooded or overgrown with 

brush and shrubs, a pattern that apparently became more pronounced after the mid1880s (Map 34). Timbered tracts included the Post Bayou bottomlands—a traditionally 

forested area, previously open and cultivated portions of Spanish grants 2307 and 2339, 

and the newly wooded portions of the Post of Arkansas. The eight-acre network of 

gullies in the Post’s interior was also covered with trees, brush, and stumps. To the 

east, with the exception of much of the area previously occupied by the U.S. Military 

 

198Unless otherwise stated, all the information contained in this section of the study is derived from the 

Army Corps of Engineers map (Map 39); F. M. Quertermous’ 1912 “Sectional Map of Arkansas County, 

Arkansas” (Map 38); the 1964 hand-drawn sketch map showing Arkansas Post National Memorial 

buildings being considered for disposal (Map 46); the ca. 1964 hand-drawn sketch map (Map 47) showing 

locations, functions, and occupants of early twentieth-century Arkansas Post buildings located within 

APNM boundaries; and other maps included in the “List of Sources” used to prepare Exhibit 5: the “1866 

- 1928 Historic Period Plan.” 
Chapter 3, Site History • 145 

December 2005 

Reservation, most of the Arkansas River’s former channel was covered with rapidly 

maturing stands of cottonwoods.200

The late nineteenth and early twentieth century changes in the Post’s road network 

were even more dramatic than the transformations that occurred in the site’s vegetation 

patterns. A number of old roads were eroded or abandoned, existing routes were 

improved, and new roads were built. These upgrades were part of a statewide program 

to upgrade what virtually everyone in Arkansas agreed were poorly maintained roads. 

The effort, stimulated by a dramatic increase in the numbers of cars and trucks on the 

roads during the pre-1919 cotton boom, began in the 1910s and gained momentum 

during the 1920s.201

 

Throughout the entire period, the settlement’s main north-south route continued to be 

the county-maintained Post road running north from the Post to Gillette and Dewitt 

 

199Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” pp. 22-23. 

200“Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park, Arkansas Post, Arkansas, 1931,” 

pp. 00462-00464 (page numbers assigned by Arkansas Archeological Survey Staff—no file number), Box 

2, APNM Administrative Files; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 23. The absence of cottonwoods 

on much of the site occupied by the U.S. Military Reservation may possibly linked to previous vegetation 

patterns. Soils in the areas surrounding the government tract, including John Larquier’s Spanish grant 

2368 and parts of the Post of Arkansas, were heavily cultivated and presumably contained a high 

concentration of organic nutrients that would support rapid treee growth. In contrast, throughout much 

of the nineteenth century most of the area comprising the Reservation was a bowling green that was 

probably never cultivated and had less fertile soil. 

201Dougan, pp. 347-349; Tucker, pp. 70-73. 
146 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

(Map 38).202 By the late 1920s the portion of the road north of its intersection with 

Jordelas Street, which was rated as a graded and drained road on mid-1930s Arkansas 

state highway maps, may have been improved.203 When compared to the largely 

structural upgrades to the Post’s major north- south road, the changes to its major eastwest route were more radical. The eastern portion of this dirt road, the Civil War-era 

River Road (Exhibit 5), was washed away by the same annual rises in the Arkansas that 

claimed Fort Hindman. It was subsequently replaced by another unimproved county 

road that ran about one-quarter mile north of the original road trace. The western part 

of the east-west road, which consisted of Jordelas Street and the DeWitt Road (Exhibit 

5), probably continued to follow its traditional alignment through the last years of the 

nineteenth century. Sometime around 1900, however, the portion of the road to the 

west of the Reeves farm (Exhibit 5-96) was abandoned. A new county road, which may 

have followed an earlier post-Civil War road trace, was built to the north to replace it. 

This road, which connected with Jordelas Street about 400 yards to the west of the 

Arkansas Post settlement, probably remained unimproved. In the late 1920s there was 

no bridge over Post Bayou (there had been one in 1907) and the roadbed apparently 

 

202C. Roeser, Jr., and the Post Office Topography Office, “Post Route Map of the State of Arkansas and of 

Indian and Oklahoma Territory with Adjacent Portions of Mississippi, Tenneesse, Missouri, Kansas, 

Texas, and Louisiana Showing Post Offices with the Intermediate Distances and Mail Routes in 

Operation the 1st of August 1891,” Map 2 of 2, Record Group 28, Records of the Post Office Department, 

Series - Regional Postal Route Maps before 1894, Folder 26, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. 

203Arkansas State Highway Commission, “General Highway and Transportation Map, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas” (Arkansas: 1936), copy of map (no call number) located in Arkansas County, Arkansas Map 

File, Geography and Maps Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; Minutes of the October 15, 

1930, Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission, Arkansas Department of Parks Tourism 

Files, Little Rock, Arkansas. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 147 

December 2005 

remained dirt until it intersected with the main graveled highway about two miles from 

the Post.204 The third major road comprising the Post’s circulation network was a dirt 

road that ran southwest from the junction of the two county roads at Arkansas Post. 

This road followed the approximate course of the old River Road and crossed Post 

Bayou on a brick crossing. Branches off this road led to the farmsteads, fields, and 

houses clustered throughout the old Post of Arkansas and Spanish grants 2307, 2339, 

and 2305.205 With the exception of the western portion of the old River Road, few if any 

of these roads followed historic road traces. Since erosion and other natural forces were 

constantly altering the Post’s geography, rerouting was probably even more common at 

the Post than in the rest of Arkansas. As one historian notes, “any time a tree fell or a 

washout or mudhole developed, . . . [travelers] simply made a new track around the 

obstacle,” a practice that remained standard well into the twentieth century.206

 

204“Map of Arkansas County Showing System of State Highways, Arkansas State Highway Department 

& County Primary Highway System” (1936), Copy of map in APNM Administrative Files; M. Maxwell, 

“Plat of Parts of Townships 7 & 8 South, Ranges 3 & 4 West North of Arkansas River Showing Survey 

made for L. C. Jones of 90 Acres off the South End of Spanish Land Grant No. 2428 with accretion thereto 

. . . , February 19 & 20 1907,” copy of map in Tube A-60, APNM Map Files (source of information on 1907 

bridge); Minutes of the February 11, 1930 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission, Arkansas 

Department of Parks Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; October 15, 1930 Arkansas Post State Park 

Commission Meeting Minutes. 

205M. Maxwell, “Plat of Parts of Townships 7 & 8 South, Ranges 3 & 4 West North of Arkansas River 

Showing Survey made for L.C. Jones of 90 Acres off the South End of Spanish Land Grant No. 2428 with 

accretion thereto . . . , February 19 & 20 1907,” copy of map in Tube A-60, APNM Map Files. 

206Dougan, p. 119. 
148 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Three major groups of buildings and structures were located on Arkansas Post’s late 

nineteenth and early twentieth-century landscape. The three groups included the 

remains of the Post’s pre-1863 structures and Civil War-era fortifications; the farmsteads 

and business establishments comprising the white settlement at Arkansas Post, and the 

houses and farms comprising the African-American community to the south. By the 

1920s a few scattered and crumbling ruins were all that survived from the pre-1863 Post 

of Arkansas destroyed by McClernand’s invading Union forces. The most prominent 

remains were the ruins of the Arkansas Post State Bank building (Exhibit 5-55). Its 

foundations and part of its walls remained intact although they were overgrown with 

what P. C. Howson described as sumac and briers.207 Charley Morphis, who owned 

property at the Post and lived near the bank from 1915-1920, provided a particularly 

vivid description of the ruins. He recalled that when he arrived at the Post, all that 

remained of the bank building was “a big pile of bricks.”208 Howson also described the 

remains of other scattered structures, such as the remains Frederick Notrebe’s brick 

cistern (Exhibit 5-27/40),209 and an old well (Exhibit 5-88). The cistern was in disrepair, 

as was the well. Trees growing around the cistern had “sent their roots through the 

brick walls in search of water, causing the walls . . . to crack and fall in for at least 6 feet 

below ground level.” The well also had caved in, necessitating a plank to be “laid over 

 

207Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 23. 

208Interview with Charley Morphis, May 7, 1968, quoted in Walker, p. 202. 

209The cistern, which apparently lies on the line between two of Notrebe’s lots, may be associated with 

either his house and store (Exhibit 3-27) or his brick store (Exhibit 3-40). 
Chapter 3, Site History • 149 

December 2005 

the top to keep stock from falling in” to the well.210 He also noted “sidewalks of brick 

that had sunk below the ground level and was [sic] overgrown with grass.” In addition 

to these ruins on the site of the old Post, a small portion of the 1862-1863 Confederate 

rifle pit line (Exhibit 5-82), which Howson apparently confused with the site of Fort 

Hindman, also survived. It was located approximately one-half mile to the northwest 

of the old fort site.211

The second group of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century structures on the site 

were the clusters of buildings comprising the white settlement at Arkansas Post. As 

shown in Charles Taft’s 1886 map of the area (Map 34), these buildings lined the 

margins of the north-south county-maintained Post road by the early 1880s. They had 

already assumed the characteristic spatial pattern they would display through the 1950s 

(Exhibit 6). None of these structures, however, can be positively identified until the first 

decades of the twentieth century. At that time they encompassed the buildings on 

Louis C. Jones’ property (Exhibit 5-89), which included Arkansas Post’s post office and 

a store (probably located in the same building); Clarence Owens’ residence (Exhibit 5-

90); the so-called Silcox Hotel (Exhibit 5-91) operated by Mine E. Silcox, wife of 

carpenter Charles Silcox; a house and several buildings occupied by Arkansas Post 

farmer and physician John Hudson (Exhibit 5-92); the residence of farmer George W. 

Conine (Exhibit 5-93); and a building known as the Quandt Store (Exhibit 5-94). Other 

 

210Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 23. 
150 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

early twentieth-century structures located in the northern part of the Post included 

Frederick Quandt’s residence (Exhibit 5-95); the buildings comprising the Reeves Farm 

(Exhibit 5-96), which were occupied by members of the Refeld family; and a house 

owned or occupied by Ina Hudson (Exhibit 5-97).212 In many cases, a number of 

additional smaller outbuildings were located near these major structures. It is likely 

that all or part of the building clusters’ grounds were enclosed by wooden or barbed 

wire fences—an inexpensive form of fencing that had become increasingly widespread 

during the early twentieth century.213 

Little is known about Post architecture of this period. Without a doubt, almost all 

buildings and structures were certainly post-Civil War vernacular structures 

constructed following the destruction of the Post in 1863. Most probably embodied the 

building vocabularies of the Upland South, and were constructed of finished lumber, 

rough planks, or logs. Morris S. Arnold notes, however, that galleried French-style 

houses were still being constructed in Arkansas County as late as the 1880s. It is 

 

211Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 23. 

212Mildred Barnes Hampton, “Return of a Post Office: Post Office at Arkansas Post, Second Oldest in 

Arkansas, Recently Was Re-Established at Site of State’s Historic Former Capital,” “Sunday Magazine 

Section,” Arkansas Gazette, October 22, 1939, p. 3, Copy of article in Arkansas WPA Federal Writers 

Project Folder II, Arkansas Post Place File, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas; 1900 

United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, Arkansas, p. 13, National 

Archives Microfilm T-623, 1900 United States Population Census, Roll 49; 1910 United States Population 

Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, Arkansas, pp. 2-4, National Archives Microfilm T-624, 

1910 United States Population Census, Roll 43; 1920 United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, 

Arkansas County, Arkansas, pp. 3-4, National Archives Microfilm T-625, 1920 United States Population 

Census, Roll 53. 

213Noble and Cleek, pp. 170-171, 174. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 151 

December 2005 

therefore possible that some of the Post’s late nineteenth-century residences could have 

been built in this traditional form.214 Another possibility is that one or more of the 

houses were “pattern book” houses, designed and fabricated by an early twentiethcentury mail order builder. However, this is even more unlikely as it would have 

marked a break with the Post’s tradition of vernacular building. 

 

The houses and outbuildings of the Post’s African-American community comprised the 

site’s third major group of structures. During the first decades of the twentieth century 

these buildings included the homes of Richard Stovall (Exhibit 5-98), Rena Bass (Exhibit 

5-99), Ambros Bass (Exhibit 5-100), and Emma Battles (Exhibit 5-101).215 Nothing is 

known about the appearance of the Stovall, Bass, and Battles houses. Presumably they 

were small, plain, frame or log structures that reflected regional building traditions. 

There were also African-American tenant houses or cabins with associated outbuildings 

located in the clearings, gullies, and woods of the Post of Arkansas.216 P. C. Howson 

provided several descriptions of African-American tenant houses at the old Post. He 

noted that these austere vernacular structures were log houses or cabins and were 

enclosed or adjoined by fences. However, by the late 1920s the tumbled down and 

 

214Arnold, Colonial Arkansas, pp. 46-47. 

2151910 United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, Arkansas, pp. 2-4, 

National Archives Microfilm T-624, 1910 United States Population Census, Roll 43; 1920 United States 

Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, Arkansas, pp. 3-4, National Archives 

Microfilm T-625, 1920 United States Population Census, Roll 53. 

216Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 23. 
152 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

dilapidated buildings were in disrepair and their decaying fences littered the ground.217 

The most prominent structure in the Post’s black community, the AME church located 

north of the Arkansas Post State Park gates between the 1930s and 1950s, does not 

appear on early twentieth-century maps (Maps 35-39). It may have been omitted from 

these plans, but more probably it was built after 1930. 

In addition to the scattered remains of pre-1863 structures and the buildings comprising 

the Post’s communities, several additional cultural features stood on the site between 

1900 and 1928. There was a sawmill (Exhibit 5-106) operating in the western part of the 

Post of Arkansas in 1900. An unidentified farmhouse (Exhibit 5-107) was located in a 

field south of Post Bayou, on or near the site of two pre-1863 buildings (Exhibit 4-70). 

There were also two other unidentified buildings. One (Exhibit 5-108) was located on 

the east-west county road north of the Reeves Farm (Exhibit 5-96), and the other 

(Exhibit 5-109) was on the western bank of the Arkansas River’s post-1912 channel 

southwest of the mouth of Post Bayou. 

Period Summary 

Arkansas Post never recovered from the effects of the Civil War. In 1865 the Post’s 

planters and farmers were penniless, their buildings and properties were devastated, 

 

217Halliburton, “An Arkansan Visits Arkansas Post,” p. 3; P. C. Howson, “Arkansas Post: Site of 246-

year-old settlement becomes state park,” “Your Home” (probably a section of an Arkansas newspaper, 

possibly the Arkansas Gazette), March 1932, p. 3, copy of article provided by Ms. Lille Fuhrman, Director, 

Arkansas Post Museum, Gillette, Arkansas; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 23. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 153 

December 2005 

and their slave labor force had been freed. The arrival of the railroad magnified the 

Post’s problems by undercutting the Arkansas River cotton shipping trade that 

contributed to the Post of Arkansas’ prosperity as a river port in the decades before the 

war. In the early 1900s, moreover, the small remaining portion of the river trade 

disappeared when the Arkansas River changed its channel. Nevertheless, 

by the early 1880s the Arkansas Post at least partially recovered from its postwar slump 

and once again consisted of a small farming community of about 100 inhabitants. 

Through early twentieth century there were three major groups of buildings and 

structures: scattered ruins from the Post’s pre-1863 structures and Civil War-era 

fortifications; the farmsteads, stores, hotel, and post office comprising the white 

settlement at Arkansas Post in the north; and the African-American houses and farms 

comprising the community to the south, in and around the old Post of Arkansas. It is 

likely that these structures reflected the cultural traditions of the Upland South; it is not 

likely that any French influence in architecture remained. 

1929 - 1963 (Exhibit 6: 1929 - 1963 Historic Period Plan) 

Historic Context 

The Great Depression and post-World War II agricultural consolidation and 

mechanization devastated Arkansas’ traditional rural society of small farms and towns. 

During the Depression, the state’s already-reeling agricultural economy hit rock 

bottom. Cotton, rice, and other farm prices fell even further from pre-Depression lows, 

reducing life in the Delta, the Ozarks, and other parts of the state to a “hardscrabble, 
154 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

hand-to-mouth existence.”218 By the mid-1930s at least 60 percent of Arkansas’ farmers 

were tenants, and for some plantation counties in the Delta this figure was more than 90 

percent. Conditions were worst for the state’s African-American sharecroppers, tenants, 

and small farm owners. Although federal programs such as the Works Progress 

Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) provided some relief 

and helped construct courthouses, post offices, parks, and other civic improvements, 

these initiatives only slightly diminished the want that plagued the countryside. 

Arkansans responded to the agricultural crisis through substantial migration to urban 

areas outside the region. Despite the return of more prosperous agricultural conditions 

following World War II, this migration accelerated in the postwar era as many small 

farms were consolidated into larger holdings. Tractors, cotton pickers, and other 

machinery reduced the demand for agricultural laborers. By the early 1960s the 

number of farmers in the state had decreased by more than two-thirds; as a result 

hundreds of small towns and crossroads communities that had served rural 

populations were abandoned as well. In the words of one writer, “as mechanization 

became increasingly common after 1950, . . . dry goods and grocery stores that had 

formed the heart of the small-town community rapidly closed.” The symbol of 

Arkansas rapidly became the “abandoned rural store . . . surrounded by a weed 

patch.”219

 

 

218Dougan, pp. 428-430 (source of quotation); Tucker, pp. 77-78. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 155 

December 2005 

Although the Great Depression and its aftermath were a searing experience for 

Arkansas and Arkansans, one of the period’s positive legacies was the expansion and 

improvement of the newly established State Park system. Arkansas acquired its first 80-

acre State Park in 1923, and by 1939 the system consisted of ten parks that encompassed 

more than 18,300 acres of land. These parks, defined as “area[s] within the state which, 

by reason of location, natural features, scenic beauty, or historical interest, possess[ed] 

distinctive physical, aesthetic, intellectual, creative, and social values,” were 

administered by the Arkansas State Parks Commission. They included Arkansas Post 

State Park, established in 1929; Petit Jean, Craighead County, Crowley’s Ridge, Lake 

Catherine, Buffalo River, Donaghey, Devil’s Den, and Mount Nebo State Parks; and 

Watson State Park—a segregated state park for use by Arkansas’ African-American 

population.220 Some initial work at Arkansas Post and possibly other parks was funded 

by state appropriations, but the parks were developed primarily with federal 

Depression-era relief funds. The CCC and WPA performed the work under the 

supervision of National Park Service (NPS) technical personnel, in cooperation with the 

State Parks Commission. The CCC program, according to the Parks Commission’s 1938 

Annual Report, served a variety of purposes in Arkansas. It gave Arkansas the chance to 

have some of its “beautiful and interesting scenery” made available to all Arkansans, as 

 

219Dougan, pp. 421-425, 428-433, 438-439, 474-477 (quotation located on p. 477); Tucker, pp. 77-83. 
156 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

well as “to our friends from other states,” and further stimulated the state’s economy 

through tourist spending.221

 

Maintaining this federally funded park infrastructure was a state responsibility,222

however, and by the mid-1950s Arkansas parks were considered to be in poor 

condition. A 1955 NPS report on the operation of the Arkansas State Park system stated 

that the “park plant” was in “substandard” physical condition and did not “warrant 

expressions of pride by citizens of the State.” At several parks, including Arkansas 

Post, structures built by the CCC showed “signs of advancing age and need[ed] badly a 

comprehensive program of continuing maintenance which they deserve[d]” but had not 

received. Posts and rafter ends were “deteriorating,” twenty-year old, hand-river 

shingles had “developed leaks,” and some buildings damaged by fire had not been 

repaired, or replaced. The reason for the poor condition of the Arkansas parks, the NPS 

 

220Arkansas State Planning Board in cooperation with the State Parks Commission and National Park 

Service, Park,, Parkway and Recreational Area Survey (Little Rock, Arkansas: State Capitol, June 1940), pp. 

31 (source of definition of a State Park), 35, 39, 43 - copy of report in Arkansas Department of Parks and 

Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; Harold L. Reem Interview of Mr. Richard Davies, Executive 

Director of the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, Little Rock, Arkansas, June 23, 1998. 

221For discussions of the CCC’s and WPA’s development of the Arkansas State Park system see Arkansas 

State Park Commission, Arkansas State Park Commission Second Annual Report - Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 

1938 (State Capitol: Little Rock, Arkansas, December 5, 1938), pp. 3-15 (quotations are found on p. 5) - 

copy of report in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; Arkansas State 

Park Commission, Arkansas State Parks Commission Third Annual Report from July 1, 1938 to June 30, 1939

(Little Rock, Arkansas, December 5, 1939), pp. 3-12 - copy of report in Arkansas Department of Parks and 

Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; and the 1940 Park, Parkway and Recreational Area Survey, pp. 15-18, 

31. 

222Arkansas State Park Commission Second Annual Report, p. 5. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 157 

December 2005 

report concluded, was limited state funding with a “shoe-string” budget for parks.223 

This report spurred some remedial action. A subsequent 1962 NPS follow-up report on 

the Arkansas park system noted that since the 1955 report was written there had been a 

“very marked increase in state park budgets.” In addition “admirable progress” had 

been made in the rehabilitation of state park facilities.224 Nevertheless, the 1962 report 

concluded that the Arkansas Park Publicity and Parks Commission still needed to 

develop a statement of purpose for the park system as well as master plans for 

individual parks. 

Site Chronology 

Geomorphology 

No significant erosion of the Post’s landscape occurred between the late 1920s and the 

early 1960s. The Arkansas River, which occupied its channel a half-mile to the east of 

the site (Map 39, Exhibit 5) through the mid-1940s, did not border the site’s bluff line, 

and there were no major floods. The river, however, did continue to change its 

meander pattern. In 1947 the channel abandoned the oxbow east of the Post, cut 

through the neck of its old horseshoe bend, and shifted to a new course. This largely 

 

223Allyn P. Bursley, Regional Chief, Division of Cooperative Activities, “Arkansas State Parks Under 1955 

Conditions - A Confidential Report to the Arkansas Publicity and Parks Commission, Little Rock, 

Arkansas, By the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, Region One Office,” 

September 14, 1955, pp. 2-9, 25-26 (quotations are found on pp. 7-8) - copy of report in Arkansas 

Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

224“Arkansas State Parks Under 1961 Conditions - A Confidential Report Prepared by the United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Region One, Richmond, Virginia, for the Arkansas 

Publicity and Parks Commission,” January, 1962, pp. 2-8, 10-13 (quotations are found on pp. 8 and 11) - 

copy of report in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas. 
158 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

east-west course was located about one-quarter mile south of the extreme southeastern 

end of the Grant Prairie bluffs (Map 40, Exhibit 6).225 Following this change in course, 

the Arkansas’ pre-1947 meander loop continued to exist as a stagnant backwater,226 and 

Post Bayou once again flowed into the river at a location several hundred yards south of 

the Post’s southeastern bluff line. 

Historic Background 

Interest in commemorating Arkansas Post through establishment of a state park began 

in the early 1920s. In November 1923, Maude Bethel Lewis of Stuttgart, the president 

(or possibly the vice-president) of the district organization of the Arkansas Authors’ 

and Composers’ Society, first broached the project at a meeting of the organization held 

in her home. She urged Arkansas women’s clubs, patriotic societies, and civic 

organizations to lobby to preserve the remains of the Post’s old buildings. She also 

hoped to erect a fitting memorial at “Arkansas Post to DeTonti and his followers, who 

effected the first white settlement within the borders of the state.” 227

 Arkansas Gazette

columnist, Fletcher Chennault, further publicized Lewis’ idea following a 1926 visit to 

the site of the Post. Consequently, in 1929, Ballard Deane of St. Charles introduced a 

bill into the Arkansas state legislature proposing the establishment of an Arkansas Post 

State Park Commission. The legislature passed the bill and Governor Parnell signed it 

 

225Thomas Strode, “Plat of P.S. 2363 Showing Changes in the Course of the Arkansas River and 

Ownership,” 1947 - copy of map in Tube A-78, APNM Map Files. 

226Czaya, p. 184. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 159 

December 2005 

into law on February 27, 1929. The bill created an independent eleven-member 

Arkansas Post State Park Commission, including one representative each from the 

Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) and the United Daughters of the 

Confederacy (UDC), to develop and manage the site. The legislation provided that the 

Commission could petition the Arkansas State Park Commission to assume its 

responsibilities and administer the park as part of the overall state park system.228 

The Arkansas Post State Park Commission held its first meeting on February 11, 1930, 

and initiated planning for the park’s development. On June 17, 1930, at a ceremony and 

picnic at the Post, the Commission accepted title to 20 acres of land on the site of the old 

Post of Arkansas donated by local farmer and merchant Frederick Quandt. Subsequent 

purchases and donations in 1931 expanded the Park’s area to 41 acres (Map 41, Exhibit 

6). The Commission initially developed and maintained the site with private funds and 

a $5,000 appropriation from the 1931 Arkansas state legislature.229 By 1933, however, 

 

227Dr. H. V. Glenn, “Arkansas Post State Park,” Grand Prairie Historical Society Bulletin 4, No. 1 (1961), p. 9. 

228Coleman, p. 121; Davies Interview; Glenn, pp. 9-10. 

229Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 22; Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post Park 

Commission, February 11, 1930 - copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism 

Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; “Deed is Given to Ark. Post Park” - typescript copy of paper in APNM 

Administrative Files; Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post Park Commission, October 15, 1930 - 

copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; 

Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post Park Commission, December 18, 1930 - copy of minutes 

located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; Minutes of the 

Meeting of the Arkansas Post Park Commission, January 10, 1931 - copy of minutes located in Arkansas 

Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; Minutes of Meeting of Arkansas Post 

State Park Commission in Session, April 7, 1931 - copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of 

Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; Ted R. Worley, “Arkansas Post as a Historical Site,” 

Grand Prairie Society Historical Bulletin 9, No. 4 (1966), p. 16. 
160 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

these monies were exhausted, and in July, 1934, the Commission petitioned the 

Arkansas State Park Board (Commission) to take control of and maintain the park. This 

was the Commission’s only hope that the park could be “maintained and improved,” 

especially since “the chances seemed favorable for the Park to share in certain Federal 

Funds for improvement, etc., if the Park were made a part of the general park system 

under the Park Board.”230 The Arkansas State Park Commission assumed responsibility 

for the park later that year and managed it as part of the overall Arkansas State Park 

system for the next three decades. In August 1935, Arkansas Post State Park was 

designated as eligible for CCC relief funding, and the CCC and WPA completed 

development of the park during the following two years.231 The park was established 

originally as a commemorative site, but by the mid-1950s its historical associations had 

been supplanted in the public mind by its use as a popular recreational park. Visitation 

to the park increased. Between 1938 and 1953 the number of annual visitors increased 

 

230Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post Park Commission, February 2, 1933 - copy of minutes 

located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas; Minutes of the 

Meeting of the Arkansas Post Park Commission, July 19, 1934 (source of quotations) - copy of minutes 

located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

231Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), Microfilm A3112. Roll 

151, Federal Works Agency, Works Progress Administration - Record Project, National Archives, 

Washington, D.C.; Letter from William R. Hogan, Regional Historian, Region VII, National Park Service, 

to Mr. Dallas Herndon, Arkansas State Historical Commission, August 19, 1935, Box 2, No File Number, 

APNM Administrative Files; Park, Parkway and Recreational Area Survey, pp. 42-43; “Report of Arkansas 

State Parks Commission - 1936,” Arkansas Post State Park Section - copy of report section located on 

Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 161 

December 2005 

by more than eightfold from 3,000 to about 26,000—a figure that was almost certainly 

even larger by the early 1960s.232

 

While Arkansas Post State Park developed into an increasingly popular tourist and 

recreational attraction, the small Arkansas Post farming community immediately north 

of the park and the old Post of Arkansas declined. Until the late 1930s the population of 

the crossroads village and adjacent area hovered around 100, and the settlement 

included farms, residences, several stores, and an AME church (Map 47).233 Twenty 

years later, however, the Post, like so many rural Arkansas communities, was largely 

abandoned. Most of its residents had moved away from the Post as a result of the 

Depression and agricultural consolidation and mechanization, or had been attracted by 

the promise of better opportunities elsewhere.234

Arkansas Post State Park, 1929 - 1963 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

Landscape architect P. C. Howson, the manager of the Pine Bluff Nursery Company, 

developed the initial overall land use and development plan for Arkansas Post State 

Park. He conducted his first reconnaissance of the site in December 1930, and the 

 

232Arkansas State Park Commission Second Annual Report, p. 10; Arkansas State Park Commission Third Annual 

Report, p. 7; “Arkansas State Parks Under 1955 Conditions,” p. 24. 

233Report on Establishment of Post Office at Arkansas Post, Arkansas, September 1939, National Archives 

Microfilm M-1126, Post Office Department Reports of Site Locations, 1937-1950, Roll 22, National Archives, 

Washington, D.C.; Hampton, p. 3. 
162 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Arkansas Post State Park Commission formally retained him as consulting and 

supervising landscape architect for the project in April 1931, after Howson briefed them 

on his design. His three-year plan called for fencing and clearing the area, improving 

and expanding its road network, restoring the remains of the Post’s historic buildings, 

and creating a landscaped recreation area centered around an artificial lake.235 

Volunteers who had received relief from the Red Cross cleaned part of the area in April 

1931, but intensive work did not begin in earnest until May, after the Arkansas state 

legislature made its $5,000 park appropriation. Over the next five months Howson’s 

labor crew, which worked for a “reasonable wage,” completed initial development of 

the site. They cleared remaining undergrowth and brush; trimmed or cut trees while 

preserving mature forest trees; blasted stumps from the sites of the lake bed and picnic 

grounds; and removed old fences and dilapidated, vernacular, African-American, 

tenant houses and their adjoining outbuildings (Exhibits 6-102, 6-103, 6-104, and 6-105). 

They also cleared a right of way for the park’s perimeter fence (Exhibit 6-110, Figure 19). 

This fence was constructed of 48-inch “cattle and hog proof woven wire . . . [with] two 

 

234Memorandum from Ovie Bradford to Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, August 1, 1964, Box 

1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files; Mattison, p. 72. 

235“Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00462; Howson, “Arkansas 

Post,” p. 13; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 22; Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post 

State Park Commission, January 10, 1931; Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park 

Commission, April 7, 1931. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 163 

December 2005 

strands of barb wire on top” and attached to steel fence posts.236 Cattle guards were 

installed at the park entrance, and the entrance was marked with four masonry columns 

(Exhibit 6-111, Figures 19 and 20) constructed with bricks salvaged from the ruins of the 

Arkansas State Bank building (Exhibit 6-55).237

Howson’s crew formed the park’s eight-acre lake (Maps 40-41 and 43-45, Figures 21, 22, 

and 23) by damming the neck of the deep network of ravines that had eroded much of 

the area of the old Post of Arkansas. The earthen dam (Exhibit 6-112, Figure 24), which 

had a concrete spillway or culvert (Exhibit 6-113 and Figure 24) subsequently rebuilt by 

the CCC and WPA, contained approximately 1650 cubic yards of dirt and was sodded 

with Bermuda sod. It was completed in August 1931 and by December of that year 10 

inches of rainfall had covered the broken ground in the center of the park and filled the 

lake to one-third of its projected capacity. After it was full, the lake was stocked with 

 

236Unless otherwise stated, all information on the locations of buildings and structures in Arkansas Post 

State Park and the neighboring Arkansas Post farming community is derived from the from the maps 

and other materials identified in the “List of Sources” used to prepare Exhibit 6: the “1929-1963 Historic 

Period Plan.” One of these sources, however, was especially critical and needs to be singled out for its 

usefulness—the July 1998, handdrawn draft map of the state park prepared by Lille Fuhrman, the 

Director of the Arkansas Post Museum. 

237Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” pp. 00462-00463 (source of all 

quotations); Howson, “Arkansas Post,” p. 13; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” pp. 23-24; Worley, p. 

16. 
164 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

game fish to make it, in Howson’s words, “a Paradise for the sportsmen of Arkansas” 

(Figure 25).238

 Arkansas Post State Park’s development also required major changes to both the site’s 

and the surrounding area’s road networks. Old roads were destroyed or upgraded, and 

several new roads were built. Inside the park boundaries, most of the old roads leading 

to the locations of the site’s former cabins and tenant houses (Exhibits 6-102, 6-103, 6-

104, and 6-105) were flooded or obliterated. However, a section of one farm road on the 

northeastern side of the lake was retained and formed part of a newly graded dirt road 

that eventually encircled the basin. In the southern portion of the park Howson laid out 

a circular earthen drive around the site of the Arkansas Post State Bank (Exhibit 6-55) 

and other portions of the early nineteenth-century Post. There was a concrete curb 

around the edge of the “historical circle.” At the northern end of the site, workers 

constructed a road spur from the lake road to the location of the caretaker’s lodge. In 

addition, a short entrance road (Figure 19) was built leading from Arkansas State 

Highway 169 into the park. The CCC and WPA improved and expanded these roads in 

 

238Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Arkansas Post WPA 

Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project Proposal, p. 3; Howson, 

“Arkansas Post,” p. 3; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” pp. 23-24 (source of the quotation). Writers 

often state that the CCC formed the park’s lake during the mid-1930s. Review of Howson’s accounts and 

the WPA records, however, clearly indicate that the lake was created during initial work at the site in the 

summer of 1931. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 165 

December 2005 

1935-1936—work that presumably included construction of a road and wooden bridge 

across the park’s dam and rebuilding the dam’s concrete spillway.239

 

As part of the site’s overall development program, the state of Arkansas assumed 

responsibility for the access road leading to Arkansas Post State Park. The State 

Highway Department responded to Arkansas Post State Park Commission requests for 

road maintenance in ca. 1931. The department agreed to maintain the unimproved ca. 

1912 east-west county road that partially followed the trace of Jordelas Street. The 

unimproved portion of the north-south road located between the park’s entrance 

(Figure 19) and the road’s intersection with the east-west county road were also to be 

maintained. The department redesignated these roads as Arkansas State Highway 169 

and some improvements were made, including additional grading and graveling and 

probable construction of a new bridge over Post Bayou.240 Nevertheless, from the late 

1930s through the mid-1950s Arkansas State Park Commission and National Park 

Service reports continued to cite poor conditions on the road as a factor in limiting 

 

239“Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Arkansas Post WPA 

Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project Proposal, p. 3; Howson, 

“Arkansas Post,” p. 3; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” pp. 23-24 (the quotation “historical circle” is 

contained in this account and the “Annual Report of Work Accomplished”). 

240Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission, February 11, 1930; Minutes of the 

Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission, April 7, 1931; Arkansas State Highway 

Commission, “General Highway and Transportation Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas (Arkansas: 1936) 

- copy of map (no call number) located in Arkansas County, Arkansas Map File, Geography and Maps 

Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; Arkansas State Highway Commission, “General 

Highway and transportation Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas (Arkansas: 1947) - copy of map (no call 

number) located in Arkansas County, Arkansas Map File, Geography and Maps Division, Library of 

Congress, Washington, D.C.; Arkansas State Park Commission Third Annual Report, p. 7. 
166 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

visitation.241 Rerouting of Route 169 in the late 1950s, moreover, only partially remedied 

this deficiency. The new 600-yard highway section extended from the western end of 

former Jordelas Street across the cultivated fields of Spanish grant 2339 to the park’s 

entrance. It was more than a quarter of a mile shorter than the old route, but it 

continued to be substandard. An early NPS assessment noted decomposition of the 

asphalt-sealed road because it had been built to “minimal standards.” By the late 1960s 

the road had “deteriorated beyond the point of rehabilitation by a leveling course 

and/or new surface treatment.”242 

P. C. Howson completed his development of Arkansas Post State Park’s natural 

landscape with an ambitious program of plantings. Beginning in October, 1931, 

workers planted more than 670 deciduous trees, evergreens, and shrubs at various 

vantage points. Tree species planted included 18 tulip poplars lining the “historical 

circle” drive; a semi-circle of 20 Chinese elms (Exhibit 6-114, Figure 26) planted 

(probably west of the historical circle) as a UDC “memorial to the brave southern 

soldiers who fell at the battle of Arkansas Post;” 30 pecan trees; and 10 weeping 

willows. The hundreds of shrubs encompassed more than 90 spirea bushes, 75 assorted 

climbing roses, and almost 60 althea plants.243 WPA and CCC workers did not provide 

 

241“Arkansas State Parks Under 1961 Conditions;” Park, Parkway and Recreational Area Survey, p. 40. 

242Memorandum “Project Requirements and Maintenance and Operation Instructions - Entrance Road 

Reconstruction, Arkansas Post National Memorial,” ca. 1970, Box 1, File 3, APNM Administrative Files. 

243Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Howson, “Arkansas 

Post,” pp. 13, 18; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 24 (source of quotation). 
Chapter 3, Site History • 167 

December 2005 

additional plantings to this impressive program. However, they did cut or trim 

approximately 50 trees in the park.244

 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Arkansas Post State Park’s buildings, monuments, and other features dotted the site’s 

landscape, which Howson described as “a beauty spot . . . worth traveling miles to 

see.”245 These structures largely fell into two groups—those built during the initial 

period of the state park’s development in 1931-1932, and those constructed between 

1935 and 1937 during the years of WPA and CCC work. 

Howson’s workers constructed other features in addition to the park fence and entrance 

pillars (Exhibits 6-110 and 6-111, Figures 19 and 20). Other early structures installed by 

Howson’s workers included a caretaker’s lodge, picnic facilities, a well and pump, a 

bridge, rest rooms, the Lady of Justice statue, a stone marker commemorating the 

Arkansas State Bank, shelters protecting the park’s restored nineteenth-century cistern 

and well, and (presumably) several small interpretive signs. The caretaker’s lodge 

(Exhibit 6-115, Figures 19 and 27-30), which is better known as the Hinman or Quandt 

house, also served as park headquarters, a museum, and a post office. The log dogtrot 

house, which may resemble many Upland South, vernacular structures built at the Post 

during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, was built in ca. 1877 and was 

 

244Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project 

Proposal, p. 3. 

245Howson, “Arkansas Post,” p. 13. 
168 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

originally located near Hinman Bayou on the Quandt estate. During the summer of 

1931 Howson’s workers dismantled the house, hewed new logs to replace several of the 

structure’s decayed timbers, and reassembled the extensively-repaired house at the 

entrance to the park. Structures in the area of the caretaker’s lodge included the park 

flagpole and two small buildings—one of which was possibly the frame oil house 

described in a 1967 NPS memo.246 Howson located the site’s picnic grounds (Exhibit 6-

116, Figures 31, 32, and 33) along the lake road south of the caretaker’s lodge. The 

picnic area was sited in a “large grove of native trees on the banks of the lake.” The 

area consisted of seven concrete picnic tables and two outdoor ovens, and was enclosed 

with cedar posts to “prevent autos from driving on the grounds.”247 A well and pump 

(Exhibit 6-117), which supplied water to visitors, were installed near the southern end 

of the lake. A wooden foot bridge (Exhibit 6-118, Figures 22 and 33) was built over the 

ravine between the picnic area and the well.248 The pit latrines (Exhibit 6-119), which 

 

246Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Arkansas Post County 

Museum Staff, “Arkansas Post County Museum: Honoring Arkansas Post - Birthplace of Arkansas” 

(current edition of museum pamphlet containing background information on the Hinman or Quandt 

house); Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to John L. 

Peterson, November 28, 1967, Box 2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files; Glassie, Pattern in the Material 

Folk Culture of the Eastern United States, pp. 64-117; Halliburton, p. 3; Hampton, p. 3; Howson, “Arkansas 

Post” p. 13; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 24. 

247Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463 (source of quotation 

“prevent autos from driving on the grounds”); Howson, “Arkansas Post,” p. 13 (source of quotation 

“large grove of native trees”); Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 24. 

248Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Howson, “History of 

Arkansas Post,” p. 24. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 169 

December 2005 

were subsequently rebuilt or improved by the WPA and CCC in 1935-1936, were 

located at a distance from the well and picnic grounds on the north side of the lake.249

 

In addition to creating recreational facilities, Howson also preserved the remains of 

historic structures and created monuments commemorating “the most historical and 

interesting spot in Arkansas.”250 The remains of Frederick Notrebe’s brick cistern 

(Exhibit 6-27/40) and the site’s nineteenth-century well (Exhibit 6-88) were restored and 

wooden protective shelters were built over both structures (Figures 5-6 and 17-18).251

 

The ruins of the Arkansas State Bank building (Exhibit 6-55), however, were excavated 

and scavenged for bricks to build the park’s entrance columns (Exhibit 6-11, Figures 19-

20). A commemorative marker on the site was carved from stone from the building.252 

The Lady of Justice statue (Exhibit 6-120, Figures 21-23 and 34), which was probably 

erected with UDC funding, was installed at the south end of the lake. It was located on 

a promontory that “could be seen from nearly every angle in the park.” The nineteenthcentury statue, affectionately called the “Lady of the Lake,” originally stood atop the 

old Arkansas County courthouse in DeWitt, and was placed in the park to remind 

 

249Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Arkansas Post WPA 

Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project Proposal, p. 3. 

250Howson, “Arkansas Post,” p. 13. 

251Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Howson, “Arkansas 

Post,” p. 13. 

252Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 004633; Howson, “Arkansas 

Post,” p. 13; Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 24. 
170 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Arkansans that the Post was once the capital of their “great state.”253 In the mid-1930s 

several additional small, cast iron, historical markers were placed throughout the park, 

mostly in the vicinity of the historic circle (their exact locations are unknown). These 

markers commemorated the Post’s brief history as Arkansas’ territorial capital, as well 

as the establishment of the first French fort, the first meeting of the Arkansas legislature, 

the birth of the Arkansas Gazette, and the Battle of Arkansas Post.254 Besides these 

documented structures and markers, one additional undocumented commemorative 

structure may have stood on the site. Howson’s original 1931 plan for the UDC area at 

the Arkansas Post State Park (Exhibit 6-114, Figure 26) called for the construction of a 

pagoda in the center of the semi-circular memorial grove of Chinese elms. Early NPS 

maps indicate that a building was standing on the probable location of the grove during 

the early 1960s, perhaps indicating that the pagoda or a similar memorial structure was 

built. 

Howson’s three-year program for developing Arkansas Post State Park was cut short 

when state and private funding ran out in 1932. Projected commemorative structures 

 

253Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00463; Memorandum from 

Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Memorial, to Regional Director Southeast 

Region, July 28, 1964, Box 2, File 9, APNM Administrative Files; Note from Lille Fuhrman, Director, 

Arkansas Post Museum, to Harold L. Reem, Project Historian, September, 1998; Halliburton, p. 3; 

Howson, “History of Arkansas Post,” p. 24; Harlan Hobbs, “Stirring Memories of State’s Historic First 

Days Retained at Arkansas Post,” Arkansas Democrat, June 6, 1937 - copy of article provided by Lille 

Fuhrman, Director, Arkansas Post Museum. 

254Ernie Deane, “Keep History in Mind When You Visit Arkansas Post,” the Arkansas Gazette, May 8, 1963 

- copy of article located in Arkansas Post History in Brief, Place File, Arkansas History Commission, 

Little Rock, Arkansas; Worley, p. 16. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 171 

December 2005 

contained in his plan included a replica of Henri de Tonti’s first Arkansas Post fort, a 

monument to de Tonti, and a replica of the log cabin that housed the first office of the 

Arkansas Gazette. However, these structures were never built.255 Instead, most of the 

park’s remaining facilities were used for recreational purposes, and built by the WPA 

and CCC between 1935 and 1936 with monies provided by a $9,194 federal emergency 

relief appropriation. The federal appropriation paid for rebuilding the park dam’s 

concrete spillway (Exhibit 6-113, Figure 24), expanding and improving the rest rooms 

(Exhibit 6-119), upgrading the park’s roads and paths, and improving its landscaping. 

In addition, the funds supported the construction of a number of new facilities.256 One 

such structure was a windmill (Exhibit 6-117) constructed by WPA and CCC workers. 

Presumably located on the site of the park’s pump and well, the windmill served to 

“supply a constant stream of drinking water . . . [and] a supply of water to maintain 

[the] proper height of water in the lake.”257 

They also built four, single-room, 12- by 18-foot, log cabins (Exhibits 6-121, 6-122, 6-123, 

and 6-124, Figures 25, 33, and 35-37), which the state rented to overnight visitors. The 

cabins had no indoor water or toilet facilities, but were eventually lit by electric lights. 

 

255“Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park,” p. 00464; Howson, “History of 

Arkansas Post,” p. 24; Minutes of the Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission, February 2, 

1933. 

256Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project 

Proposal, pp. 1, 3. 

257Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project 

Proposal, pp. 1, 3 (quotations are found on p. 1). 
172 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Each cabin, moreover, had access to a WPA- and CCC-constructed outdoor oven and a 

picnic table (Figure 25).258 The WPA and CCC also constructed the park’s swimming 

facilities (Exhibit 6-125, Figures 21-22) which were located on the west side of the lake 

near the picnic area. The facilities included a wading pool for children, a swimming 

platform, a water slide, a diving tower, and a diving board.259 A dozen brick and stone 

fishing benches, a baseball diamond, tennis courts, and a small golf course (locations all 

unknown) completed the WPA and CCC inventory of recreational facilities.260

Arkansas Post State Park’s physical plant changed very little during the quarter-century 

after WPA and CCC laborers completed their work, and only a couple of additional 

structures were erected on the site’s landscape. In 1961 Arkansas County Judge John 

Peterson sent the gallows (Exhibit 6-126, Figure 38) from the demolished county jail at 

DeWitt to the park, where it was installed along the lake road south of the caretaker’s 

 

258Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project 

Proposal, pp. 1, 3; Photos and annotations attached to Memorandum from Bernard Campbell, 

Superintendent, Hot Springs, National Park, to Ovie Bradford, Arkansas Post National Memorial, July 

29, 1964, Box 2, File 9, APNM Administrative Files; Attachment to Memorandum from Ovie Bradford, 

Arkansas Post National Memorial, to Bernard Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, 

August 1, 1964, Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files. 

259Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project 

Proposal, pp. 1, 3; “Report of Arkansas State Parks Commission - 1936,” Arkansas Post State Park 

Section. 

260Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), WPA Project 

Proposal, pp. 1, 3; “Report of Arkansas State Parks Commission - 1936,” Arkansas Post State Park 

Section. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 173 

December 2005 

lodge.261 Additionally, in 1963 a cast iron marker (Exhibit 6-127, Figure 39) was placed 

in front of the lodge to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Arkansas 

Post.262 Indeed, if there was any significant transformation in the park during the 1940s 

and 1950s it was likely change for the worse due to the state’s policy of deferring basic 

maintenance at most state parks.263 When the NPS assumed control of the site in 1964, 

the site’s four log cabins (Exhibits 6-121, 6-122, 6-123, and 6-124, Figures 35-36) were in 

only “fair” condition. Moreover, the caretaker’s lodge (Exhibit 6-115, Figures 19 and 27-

30) required rehabilitation before it could be used as a temporary visitor center.264 

Vandalism had also occurred at the park. “Rifle marksmen,” an NPS official noted, had 

“delighted” in shooting at the Lady of Justice Statue, which had lost its upraised arm 

(Figure 34), and “was a sad symbol of anything other than malicious destruction.”265 

 

Village of Arkansas Post, 1929 - 1963 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

Between the 1930s and early 1960s only minor changes occurred to vegetation patterns 

in the Arkansas Post farming community north of Arkansas Post State Park and in other 

 

261Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Memorial, to 

Regional Director Southeast Region, July 28, 1964; Note from Lille Fuhrman, Director, Arkansas Post 

Museum, to Harold L. Reem, Project Historian, September, 1998; Telephone conversation between Lille 

Fuhrman, Director, Arkansas Post Museum, and Harold L. Reem, Project Historian, September 11, 1998. 

262Deane, “Keep History in Mind When You Visit Arkansas Post.” 

263“Arkansas State Parks Under 1955 Conditions,” pp. 7-8. 

264“Arkansas Post National Memorial Buildings Being Considered for Disposal,” Appraisal attached to 

Memorandum from Ovie Bradford to Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, August 1, 1964; 

Memorandum from Chief Architect, NPS Eastern Office of Design and Construction, to Architect Carroll, 

Vicksburg, October 7, 1965, Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files. 
174 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

areas surrounding the site. Small areas of woods on the Reeves Farm (Exhibit 6-96) and 

Spanish grant 2339 were converted to fields, while other areas, most notably the 

lowlands comprising the Arkansas River’s nineteenth-century channel, became 

increasingly forested. Moreover, the relocation and attempted upgrade of State 

Highway 169, associated with the park’s development, was the only major change to 

the farming settlement’s road network. The old county-maintained Post road, which by 

1947 had been upgraded from a “graded and drained road” to a “metal surfaced” road, 

continued to run north from former Jordelas Street to Gillette and DeWitt.266 Other dirt 

roads also continued to follow their traditional courses among the area’s fields, 

residences, and farmsteads. By the late 1950s, however, when most of the Post’s 

population had departed, and its buildings were largely abandoned and deteriorating, 

it is likely that roads were becoming overgrown with vegetation as a result of disuse. 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Throughout the 1930s and early 1940s, few changes occurred in the farming 

community’s overall residential patterns. White families and business establishments 

continued to flank the north-south county road as they had for more than a century, 

while African-American families resided southwest on Spanish grant 2305—the small 

tract owned by R. Bass in 1912. Barbed wire or other types of fences probably 

 

265Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Memorial, to 

Regional Director Southeast Region, July 28, 1964. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 175 

December 2005 

continued to surround individual buildings or groups of vernacular structures. Major 

individual buildings or groups of vernacular structures included those on the Reeves 

Farm (Exhibit 6-96) located adjacent to the remains of the 1863 Confederate rifle pits 

(Exhibit 6-82); the Frederick Quandt house and its outbuildings (Exhibit 6-94); the 

buildings on Louis Jones’ property, one of which was apparently known as the Hughes 

house by the 1950s (Exhibit 6-89); the Ina Hudson house (Exhibit 6-97); Clarence Owens’ 

residence (Exhibit 6-90); the Silcox Hotel (Exhibit 6-91); George Conine’s house and 

outbuildings (Exhibit 6-93); John Hudson’s house and numerous outbuildings (Exhibit 

6-92); the Quandt Store (Exhibit 6-94); and the residences of Richard Stovall, Rena Bass, 

Ambros Bass, and Emma Battles (Exhibits 6-98, 6-99, 6-100, and 6-101), all of which were 

clustered in a group on Spanish grant 2305. A few new structures, moreover, were 

probably constructed on the site after 1930. They included the Hudson Store (Exhibit 6-

128), the Conine Store (Exhibit 6-129), and an AME church (Exhibit 6-130, Figures 20 

and 40). The church, a 28- by 38-foot, single-story, frame structure, was built on a oneacre tract immediately north of the Arkansas Post State Park entrance, near the houses 

of the Post’s black community.267 Other structures had disappeared from the Post’s 

landscape by ca. 1950, including the farmhouse located in the cleared field south of Post 

Bayou (Exhibit 6-107); the unidentified building located along the north side of State 

 

266 Arkansas State Highway Commission, “General Highway and Transportation Map, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas” (Arkansas: 1936); Arkansas State Highway Commission, “General Highway and 

transportation Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas” (Arkansas: 1947). 
176 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Highway 169 (Exhibit 6-108); and the unidentified building (Exhibit 6-109) located east 

of the Post on the banks of the Arkansas River. It is likely that this last structure had 

eroded into the river. By the late 1950s and early 1960s, moreover, a significant 

percentage of the structures remaining on the site apparently were approaching a 

similar fate. Many of the Post’s houses, its AME church, and other buildings, an NPS 

official observed, had been abandoned by their owners and occupants, and were 

rapidly rotting and deteriorating.268

 

Period Summary 

Until the late 1930s the population of the Post’s crossroads village and adjacent area 

hovered around 100 people, and the settlement continued to include farms, residences, 

and several stores as well as an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church. Soon 

thereafter, however, the settlement began to decline, and twenty years later the Post, 

like so many rural Arkansas communities, was largely deserted. Most of its residents 

had departed as a combined result of the Depression, agricultural changes, and the 

attraction of urban life, leaving the Post’s vernacular houses, AME church, and other 

buildings to deteriorate. 

 

267Warranty Deed for sale of AME Church building and lot, January 20, 1960, Box 2, File 12, APNM 

Administrative Files; “Buildings at Arkansas Post Considered for Disposal,” Description attached to 

Memorandum from Ovie Bradford to Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, August 1, 1964. 

268Memorandum from Ovie Bradford to Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, 

 August 1, 1964, Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files; Mattison, p. 72. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 177 

December 2005 

As the Post’s farming community was declining, Arkansas Post State Park was 

established, and it became a popular tourist and recreational attraction. In 1929 the 

Arkansas state legislature, responding to a popular campaign to preserve and 

commemorate the historic Post of Arkansas site, created the park and placed it under 

the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. During the next several 

years the Commission, following a plan framed by Pine Bluff landscape architect and 

nurseryman P. C. Howson, developed the site both using private and state funds. These 

funds ran out in 1934, and the Commission transferred responsibility for the park to the 

Arkansas State Park Commission. The State Park Commission managed the site as part 

of the overall Arkansas state park system for the next thirty years, and completed its 

development using federal Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA) and 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) relief funds. Facilities at the landscaped park, 

which hosted more than 25,000 visitors per year in the mid-1950s, included an eightacre lake; a caretaker’s lodge; overnight tourist cabins; picnic, swimming, and fishing 

areas; and several historical monuments and markers. Despite the park’s popularity, 

however, by the late 1950s it was beginning to deteriorate because of Arkansas’ policy 

of operating its park system on a “shoestring” and deferring basic maintenance. 

1964 - 1998 (Exhibit 7: 1964 - 1998 Historic Period Plan) 

Historic Context 

In June, 1939, following review by the National Historic Sites Survey, the NPS Region 

Three Branch of Historic Sites prepared a special report on Arkansas Post 
178 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

recommending its inclusion in the National Park System. The NPS National Advisory 

Board reviewed the study and on March 28, 1940, voted to classify Arkansas Post as a 

nationally-eligible site in accordance with the provisions of the Historic Sites Act.269 For 

the next fifteen years the question of the Post’s national eligibility remained dormant. 

In 1956 Representative W. F. Norrell and Senator J. William Fulbright of the Arkansas 

Congressional delegation secured passage of the first of two bills authorizing the 

expenditure of $47,000 for historical and archeological survey research to investigate the 

Post’s eligibility as a National Historic Site.270 The subsequent studies—Raymond H. 

Mattison’s “Report on the Historical Investigations of Arkansas Post, Arkansas” and 

Preston H. Holder’s “Archeological Field Research on the Problem of the Locations of 

Arkansas Post, Arkansas, 1686-1804”—concluded that the site failed to meet the 

criterion of association with a great event. 

The persistence of the Arkansas Congressional delegation, however, resulted in a NPS 

recommendation that Congress establish the Post as a National Memorial 

 

269“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 1—copy of plan located in Box 3, APNM 

Administrative Files; Cande, p. 14; Robert B. Kasparek, “Master Plan of Arkansas Post National 

Memorial” (October, 1964) Chapter 1, “Basic Information,” p. 2—copy of plan located in Box 2, File 5, 

APNM Administrative Files; Mattison, p. iv. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 179 

December 2005 

commemorating European exploration and settlement of the lower Mississippi valley. 

On March 26, 1959, Congressman Norrell introduced the bill to authorize establishment 

of the memorial, and on July 6, 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act 

into law.271 Over the next four years the State of Arkansas acquired property for the site, 

and on June 24, 1964, the park was formally established on land the state donated to the 

NPS.272 

Since 1964 the Arkansas Post National Memorial (APNM) has been administered and 

interpreted as a unit of the National Park System. The memorial originally consisted of 

220 acres, which was expanded to 720 acres before it was fixed at its current 389.2 

acres.273 It currently encompasses all the lands located in Spanish grant 2305; those parts 

of the old Post of Arkansas, the former United States Military Reservation, and Spanish 

grants 2307, 2339, 2344, 2354, 2363, and 2432 located over 162 feet in elevation above 

 

270Kasparek, p. 1; Ted R. Worley, Untitled typescript of July 20, 1956, Arkansas Gazette article discussing 

the enactment and provisions of Senator Fulbright’s 1956 Arkansas Post site survey bill, Arkansas Post 

Survey Correspondence Folder, Arkansas Post Place File, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, 

Arkansas. There may or may not have been a direct connection between the Arkansas Congressional 

delegation’s 1956 action to investigate the Post’s eligibility as a National Historic Site and the NPS 1955 

report on the Arkansas State Park system. The report concluded that the system’s “park plant” was in 

“substandard” physical condition and “not such as to warrant expressions of pride by citizens of the 

State.” The chronology of events, however, appears to be more than coincidental. See Bursley, 

“Arkansas State Parks Under 1955 Conditions,” pp. 2-9, 25-26 (quotations are found on pp. 7-8). 

271Coleman, p. 121; Kasparek, Chapter 1, p. 3. 

272“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 1; Memorandum from Elbert Cox, Regional 

Director, NPS Southeast Region, to R. E. Woods, Executive Director, Arkansas Publicity and Parks 

Commission, October 9, 1963, Box 2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files; “Governor Faubus Presents 

Deeds for Arkansas Post National Memorial,” United States Department of Interior News Release, June 

24, 1964, Box 2, File 16, APNM Administrative Files. 

273The adjacent Menard-Hodges unit was authorized for inclusion in the memorial in 1998 but acquisition 

has not yet been initiated. 
180 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

mean sea level (MSL); and a portion of Spanish grant 2333 situated above 162 feet 

MSL.274 The NPS initially developed the park at the end of its Mission 66 initiative, 

which was designed to meet the increased needs of an influx of post-World War II 

visitors to national parks. Much of the APNM infrastructure, however, postdates the 

Mission 66 period, although it does continue to reflect the Mission 66 goal of providing 

maximum public access to historic and natural resources and resource preservation.275

Site Chronology 

Geomorphology 

During the mid-1960s Arkansas Post’s geomorphology was significantly transformed 

again—but this time by engineering rather than natural forces. Between 1965 and 1967 

the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Arkansas River Navigation System’s Lock 

and Dam Number 2 on the river below the Post. Dam Number 2—the Wilbur D. Mills 

 

274“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” pp. 23-24; Cande, p. 14; United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, National Park Service. 

“Proposed Acquisition – Arkansas Post National Memorial,” Drawing 411/30.001A, October 1974 - copy 

of map in Box 2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files; Walker, p. 1. The Secretary of the Interior 

originally designated a tract of approximately 740 acres as the proposed area for the memorial on 

December 24, 1960. However, because the Army Corps of Engineers’ Arkansas River navigation project 

was projected to inundate the 70% of the acreage located below 162 feet MSL, this area was subsequently 

reduced to 255 acres and later to 220 acres. The APNM Administrative files contain a voluminous 

correspondence (letters and memorandums, deeds, surveys and maps, etc.) covering acquisition and 

transfer of the property. For general information see: Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, 

Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to C. C. Stuart, Department of Education, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas, January 24, 1969, Box 1, File 23, APNM Administrative Files; Memorandum from Cox to 

Woods, October 9, 1963; and Kasparek, Chapter 1, p. 2. 

275Kasparek, “Master Plan of Arkansas Post National Memorial” (October, 1964) Chapter 2, “Area 

Objectives,” pp. 1-8; Questions and Answers: Mission 66 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, United 

States Department of Interior, ca. 1956), pp. 1-5; Fred B. Sarles, “Master Plan for the Preservation of 

Arkansas Post National Memorial - Mission 66 Edition” (March, 1961), Initial unnumbered page stating 

NPS and Mission 66 objectives. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 181 

December 2005 

Dam—became operational in 1967; and Navigation Pool 2, created by the dam, 

inundated all areas surrounding the Post below 162 feet MSL, including the Post Bayou 

bottomlands and the Arkansas River’s pre-1912 channel east of the Post (Map 44, Figure 

41). Portions of Post Bayou’s flooded bottomlands became part of the Corps’ popular 

Moore Bayou water recreation area and the 25-foot bluffs delineating the Post of 

Arkansas’ southwestern boundary lost both their original prominence and part of their 

original form. Along the eastern boundary of the site, the western bank of Post Bend 

approximated the Arkansas’ pre-1912 shoreline, but the bluffs and landscape were still 

transformed.276 

Prior to construction, the Corps of Engineers consulted with the NPS regarding 

protection of the APNM site. The NPS concluded that the land to be flooded was 

wasteland and possessed no archeological remains of the very early, historic, de Tonti 

Arkansas Post nor of the successive posts of the first part of the 18th century. NPS 

concurred that the project could proceed as long as the Corps constructed “protective 

works” to prevent the remainder of the Post from eroding. One protective scheme, a 

 

276“Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975,” p. 18 - copy of assessment 

located in File 
182 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

levee system that would have introduced “an artificial element into the historic scene” 

and destroyed “its historical integrity” was rejected by both the Corps and the NPS as 

too costly. Instead the Corps elected to protect the Post’s historical and archeological 

resources and “halt further erosion of memorial lands” by placing a stone revetment 

between elevations 160 and 165 along the shoreline of the peninsula. The system was 

not only affordable, but would also “permit Memorial development in keeping within 

conditions generally resembling the historical ones at Arkansas Post throughout the 

latter part of the 18th century and during the 19th century.” NPS Assistant Director Ben 

H. Thompson approved this plan in June, 1962, and the Corps installed the park’s 

protective rip-rap between 1965 and 1967.277

Historic Background 

The NPS developed APNM during two phases.278 The initial development phase, 

which lasted from 1964 through 1974, was funded by a $125,000 authorization in the 

 

ARPO 75-8438, APNM Administrative Files; Memorandum from H. Raymond Gregg, Superintendent, 

Hot Springs National Memorial, to Mr. Sam Dickinson, the Arkansas Democrat, August 14, 1962, Box 2, 

pp. 00598-00600 (No File Number), APNM Administrative Files; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

“McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System: Norrell through David D. Terry Dams” (Little 

Rock, Arkansas: Department of the Army, Little Rock District, Corps of Engineers, No Publication Date), 

entire pamphlet; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Site Survey - Dam No. 2 Site, Arkansas River, 

Arkansas,” February, 1962, Map/Drawing Serial-AR8149, 53/11, Map 9-7, APNM Administrative Files; 

Memorandum from Lieutenant General W. W. Wilson, USA, to the Honorable Charles A. Buckley, 

Chairman, House Public Works Committee, June 20, 1962, Box 2, File 13, APNM Administrative Files. 

277 “Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975,” pp. 26-27 (source of quotation 

“halt further erosion of memorial lands”); Memorandum from Ben H. Thompson, Assistant Director, 

NPS, to Major General R. G. MacDonnell, USA, Director of Civil Works, Office of the chief of Engineers, 

June 15, 1962, Box 2, File 13, APNM Administrative Files; Memorandum from Wilson to Buckley, June 20, 

1962 (source of quotations “normal navigation pool,” “protective works,” and “an artificial element”). 
Chapter 3, Site History • 183 

December 2005 

1960 bill to establish the memorial that was increased to $550,000 in the 1966 legislation 

to amend the original act introduced by Arkansas Congressman Wilbur D. Mills. All 

but $70,000 of the authorized sum was spent by July, 1974. Implementation included 

about one-fourth of the facilities considered essential to interpret and protect the site as 

a national memorial commemorating French and Spanish colonial settlement on the 

lower Mississippi Valley, early American settlement west of the Mississippi, and the 

January, 1963, Battle of Arkansas Post.279 Projects funded included clearance of postCivil War, non-historical buildings and structures; improvements to roads, landscaping, 

and existing interpretation and support facilities; and construction of a combined visitor 

center and maintenance building, a new picnic area, an employee residence, a drilled 

well and sewage lagoon, and an interpretive trail and markers.280

The second development phase began in 1975 and lasted through the early 1980s. 

During this period the memorial largely assumed its current form. Funds in excess of 

$2,000,000 were used to develop facilities comparable “with those at other national 

 

278Unless otherwise stated, all the information contained in this section of the study is derived from the 

sources used to prepare Exhibit 7: the “1964-Present Historic Period Plan.” 

279“Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975,” p. 11; “Arkansas Post National 

Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” pp. 1, 33-34 (copies of the 1960 and 1966 Congressional legislation 

regarding APNM are located on pp. 33-34); Memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior (name is illegible in signature block) to the Honorable Wayne H. Aspinall, Chairman, House 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, May 6, 1966, Box 1, File 18, APNM Administrative Files; 

Sarles, Volume I, Chapter 1, p. 3. 

280“Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975,” pp. 11-12, 25-26; Arkansas Post 

National Memorial Highlight Briefing Statements 1967 Calendar Year,” January 12, 1967, Box 2, File 1, 

APNM Administrative Files; “Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 29; 

Memorandum from Campbell to Stuart, January 24, 1969. 
184 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

historic or memorial areas with similar characteristics.” Additional infrastructure 

constructed included a modified circulation network, a new visitor center, additional 

maintenance facilities, and a significantly expanded network of interpretive trails and 

exhibits.281 

Initial NPS Development, 1964 - 1974 

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

During the first decade of NPS development, APNM’s system of land use generally 

followed the arrangements developed during the State Park era. Although cultivation 

of remaining fields on the site ceased, the NPS made no significant changes to the park’s 

vegetation patterns while it reviewed options for future development. Alternatives 

considered included reproduction of the landscape “at the height of . . . [the Post’s] 

importance” (1819-1821), or perhaps at another time in the site’s frontier history, and 

the “cultivation of historic crops.”282 In the meantime, NPS work crews concentrated on 

maintenance of the existing landscape, including mowing open areas and restoring 

fields through brush removal and selective grass seeding.283

 

281“Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975,” pp. 9-11, 28-30; “Arkansas Post 

National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” pp. 19-21, 29-30. 

282Kasparek, “Master Plan of Arkansas Post National Memorial” (October, 1964) Chapter 2, “Area 

Objectives,” p. 4; “Management Objectives - Arkansas Post National Memorial” (ca. 1969) - copy of 

objectives attached to Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National 

Park, to Regional Director, Southeast Region, August 5, 1969, Box 2, File 5, APNM Administrative Files 

(source of quotations). 
Chapter 3, Site History • 185 

December 2005 

Indeed, until the second and most intense phase of the site’s development began in the 

mid-1970s, the NPS’s main achievement in managing the site’s landscape was the 

establishment of zoned “land classification” areas. These zone designations would 

serve to guide the park’s future evolution when debates about the exact form of 

vegetation patterns were resolved. Three categories of areas were identified—Class 2 

“General Outdoor Recreation Areas,” Class 3 “Natural Environment Areas,” and Class 

6 “Historic Areas” (Map 48). “Historic Areas,” which occupied about 119 acres, were 

tracts “associated with history of sufficient significance to merit preservation or 

restoration.” They encompassed most of the Spanish and American Arkansas Post 

settlements and the sites of the Town of Rome, the Town of Arkansas, and the 1863 

Confederate rifle pits. Activities in these areas would be limited to sightseeing and 

historic interpretation, and access would be by trail. The “General Outdoor Recreation 

Areas” included another 107 acres that comprised the “man-made facilities outside the 

historic area.” This area included all primary two-way park roads, parking areas, the 

memorial’s picnic area, and the tracts occupied by the current and future visitor center, 

maintenance and support buildings, and employee residence. The “Natural 

Environment Areas” included a swath of land at the northern end of the park and the 

portions of Post Bend and Post Bayou located adjacent to the memorial’s eastern and 

 

283Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Management 

Assistant, Arkansas Post, April 19, 1966, Box 2, Page 00492 (No File Number), APNM Administrative 

Files; Memorandum from Campbell to Stuart, January 24, 1969. 
186 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

western boundaries. These were “buffer” areas that provided a “setting” for the rest of 

the park. Development in these tracts would be “minimal.”284

 

Much of the early NPS work on roads consisted of resealing and paving the “historic 

loop” and other parts of the state park-era circulation system. However, NPS planners 

did initiate two major changes in the memorial’s road network.285 The first change 

proposed in the 1964 APNM Master Plan called for the “development of a singular 

vehicular entrance to the park” to eliminate through traffic and permit “better 

management and protection of the area. “ This proposal entailed relocation of State 

Highway 169 north of the park’s original boundary and conversion of the old northsouth county Post road into the memorial’s entrance road.286 Over the next year the 

NPS pursued this issue with the Corps of Engineers and the Arkansas State Highway 

Department. The Corps and the department were initially planning to reconstruct and 

raise Highway 169 on its existing site as part of their planning for construction of 

Arkansas River Lock and Dam Number 2 and its navigation pool. In April, 1965, the 

Corps and the Highway Department dropped their original plan, which would have 

necessitated a “complete change” in park development, and agreed to the NPS 

proposal. The new section of Highway 169 north of the park was completed in August, 

 

284“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” pp. 15-19. 

285See, for example, the Memorandum on “Road Repair” from Frank B. Hastings, Management Assistant, 

Arkansas Post National Memorial, to the Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, located in Box 1, 

File 1, APNM Administrative Files. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 187 

December 2005 

1966 (Figure 41). The north-south county Post road, resurfaced by the NPS, became the 

park’s single entrance, and the portion of old Highway 169 located west of the 

memorial was subsequently flooded and obliterated.287

 

Five years after relocating the entrance road, NPS initiated its second major circulation 

pattern. In 1971 the service built a new curved road spur from the western end of old 

Highway 169 to the open field located west of the of the former site of the Reeves Farm 

buildings (Exhibit 7-96). The road, which terminated in a loop with four parking turnoffs, became the access route for the park’s new picnic area and comfort facilities 

(Exhibit 7-135).288 

 

286Kasparek, “Master Plan of Arkansas Post National Memorial” (October, 1964) Chapter 2, “Area 

Objectives,” p. 3. 

287The APNM Administrative files contain a large volume of correspondence discussing the relocation of 

the State Highway 169 and resurfacing of the old north-south county road. Most of these materials are 

filed in Box 1, Files 1 and 3; and Box 2, File 14. For representative correspondence and materials see: 

Memorandum from Assistant Superintendent Courtland T. Reid (Hot Springs National Park?) to 

Superintendent, September 8, 1964, Box 2, File 1, APNM Administrative Files (source of quotation 

“complete change”); Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National 

Park, to Arkansas County Judge John L. Peterson, March 17, 1966, Box 1, File 1, APNM Administrative 

Files; Arkansas State Highway Minute Order (Number 65-115) Affecting Arkansas Post - copy attached 

to Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Regional 

Director, Southeast Region, April 30, 1965, Box 2, File 14, APNM Administrative Files; and State of 

Arkansas State Highway Commission, “Plan and Profile of Proposed State Highway 169 Alterations 

(Lock & Dam Number 2), Arkansas County,” Map compiled by State of Arkansas in 1965 and published 

as National Park Service Drawing 411-40,005 in September, 1964, Map 9-9, APNM Administrative Files. 

288Correspondence covering construction of APNM’s picnic area loop road and the picnic area is located 

in Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files; and Box 2, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. The most 

detailed description of the project is the NPS July 14, 1971, contract with C. J. Sutton Construction 

Company, the project contractor, contained in Box 1, File 4. 
188 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Before constructing APNM’s interpretation and support infrastructure, the park service 

cleared away most of the memorial’s “non-historical” post-Civil War buildings and 

structures. Between 1964 and 1966 NPS work crews removed the state park perimeter 

fence (Exhibit 6-110) and the wire fencing around or near the Reeves Farm buildings 

(Exhibit 7-96), the Conine house and store (Exhibits 7-93 and 7-129), the fields in the 

western portion of Spanish grant 2339, and other features.289 Other surviving buildings 

and structures were cleared away from the landscape, including the Hughes, Owens, 

John Hudson, Conine, Quandt, Ina Hudson, Richard Stovall, Ambros Bass, and Emma 

Battles houses and their outbuildings (Exhibits 7-89, 7-90, 7-92, 7-93, 7-95, 7-97, 7-98, 7-

99, 7-100, and 7-101); the Quandt, Hudson, and Conine stores (Exhibits 7-94, 7-128, and 

7-129);290 the Reeves Farm buildings (Exhibit 7-96); the AME church (Exhibit 7-130); the 

state park’s WPA-constructed swimming facilities (Exhibit 7-125), log cabins (Exhibits 7-

121, 7-122, 7-123, and 7-124), and outdoor ovens; the Lady of Justice statue (Exhibit 7-

120); and the gallows (Exhibit 7-126). Arkansas County preservationists saved the 

 

289Memorandum from Campbell to Arkansas Post Management Assistant, April 19, 1966; Memorandum 

from Campbell to Stuart, January 24, 1969. 

290In the current 1998 edition of the Arkansas Post National Memorial Base Map provided to the Land 

and Community Associates project team by the NPS, some of these structures are identified by different 

names. For example, the former buildings on the site of George Conine’s house (Exhibit 6-93) are 

identified as “Baner’s and Cook’s Residences,” and the building on the site of the Quandt Store (Exhibit 

6-94) is identified as “Baner’s and Cook’s.” Although families by these names quite possibly occupied 

these structures at some point during their existence, their names have not been used to describe the 

buildings in the “1964 - 1998 Historic Period Plan.” Instead, the names listed in the ca. 1964 hand drawn 

sketch map (Map 47) in the APNM Administrative Files have been used. This map, which corresponds 

to United States Census Records, shows locations, functions, and occupants of most major clusters of 

early twentieth-century APNM buildings, and is more comprehensive and presumably more reliable 

than the NPS base map. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 189 

December 2005 

gallows and Lady of Justice statue, which the NPS considered to be “intrusions” 

unrelated to NPS focus at the memorial.291 The park service also declared eight buildings 

(Map 46), including three of the log cabins, the AME church, and the Jones, Hughes, Ina 

Hudson, and John Hudson houses, to be “surplus government property” and offered 

them for sale. Most of the site’s structures, however, were apparently in such poor 

condition that they were simply razed.292 

The only post-Civil War buildings exempted from the NPS sweep of the memorial’s 

landscape were the state park caretaker’s lodge (or Quandt or Hinman house) (Exhibit 

7-115), one of the WPA log cabins, and the state park rest rooms (Exhibit 7-119). These 

structures were to be retained to support NPS operations until new infrastructure could 

be developed. In 1966 the NPS rehabilitated the caretaker’s house as a temporary 

visitor center (Figure 42). NPS later donated the structure to the Arkansas Post County 

Museum near Gillett where it was moved (in two sections) in late 1967 (Figure 43) 

 

291Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Regional 

Director, Southeast Region, July 28, 1964, Box 2, File 9, APNM Administrative Files (source of quotation 

“intrusions”); Memorandum from R. M. Lisle, Assistant Regional Director, Operations, Southeast Region, 

to Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, August 4, 1964, Box 2, File 9, APNM 

Administrative Files; Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National 

Park, to R. M. Lisle, Assistant Regional Director, Operations, Southeast Region, August 14, 1964, Box 2, 

File 9, APNM Administrative Files. 

292The extensive correspondence describing disposal of the eight APNM buildings declared to be 

“surplus government property” is scattered throughout a number of individual folders in the APNM 

Administrative Files. The most thorough description is contained in the August 1, 1964, Memorandum 

from Ovie Bradford to Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs, located in Box 1, File 4; and 

the notice formally declaring the buildings to be “surplus government property” located in Box 2, Page 

00544 (No File Number). Two of the WPA-built log cabins are still standing in nearby Gillett, Arkansas, 

where they were apparently moved in ca. 1964. 
190 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

following completion of the new combined APNM visitor center and maintenance 

building.293 The NPS retained the log cabin for use as a tool and storage house until 1967 

when the maintenance facility was finished and the cabin was dismantled and removed 

from the site.294 The state park rest rooms in the picnic area, which were described as “in 

poor repair” in a 1968 U.S. Public Health Service report, apparently remained in use as 

the park’s only comfort facility through 1971. They were dismantled when a comfort 

station was constructed at the new picnic grounds (Exhibit 7-135) in 1971.295 

 

The NPS replaced the buildings it cleared away with structures built primarily in the 

northern part of the park on a tract split between a “General Outdoor Recreation Area” 

and a “Natural Environment Area.” These structures were grouped in a cluster on the 

west side of the memorial’s entrance road. In 1966-1967 the NPS developed a singlestory, frame visitor center and maintenance building (Exhibit 7-131, Figures 44-46) and 

adjacent parking lot in the cleared area formerly occupied by the Hudson Store (Exhibit 

7-128). In the same year the NPS added a single-story, frame, three-bedroom 

 

293Correspondence discussing the NPS rehabilitation, use, and disposal of the Quandt house (the NPS 

name for the structure) is filed in several folders in the APNM Administrative files, including Box 1, File 

10; and Box 2, Files 11 and 17. See Memorandum from Acting Assistant Director, Operations, Southeast 

Region, to Director, July 30, 1965, Box 2, File 17; and the August 14, 1967, NPS News Release announcing 

donation of the Quandt House to the Arkansas Post County Museum, located in Box 1, File 10. 

294Memorandum from Ovie Bradford, Arkansas Post National Memorial, to Bernard T. Campbell, Hot 

Springs National Park, August 31, 1964, Box 2, Page 00532 (No File Number), APNM Administrative 

Files; Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Arkansas 

County Judge John L. Peterson, November 28, 1967, Box 2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files. 

295U.S. Public Health Service “Environmental Health Report, Arkansas Post National Memorial, Gillett, 

Arkansas,” July 29, 1968, Box 1, File 12, APNM Administrative Files; July 14, 1971, NPS Contract with C. 

J. Sutton Construction Company for Picnic Area Construction, Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 191 

December 2005 

employee’s residence (Exhibit 7-132) and accompanying access road immediately north 

of the visitor center/maintenance building.296 West of these structures in the wooded 

area of Spanish grant 2307, NPS replaced the 1931 “pump-handle surface well” dug by 

Howson’s work crew with a new 600-foot drilled well (Exhibit 7-133). The new well 

and its adjacent sewage disposal lagoon (Exhibit 7-134), which were constructed in 

1965-1966, were evaluated as “adequate in size” for not only the memorial’s existing 

facilities, but also “for future development.”297 These structures were temporarily 

supplemented by a house trailer (Figure 47) on loan to NPS by the Arkansas Publicity 

and Parks Commission for use as an administrative office until a permanent facility 

could be built.298

Construction of a new picnic ground and comfort station (Exhibit 7-135)—the last major 

facility constructed during the memorial’s early phase of development—was delayed 

 

296Construction of the visitor center/maintenance building and the employee residence is discussed in a 

large volume of correspondence contained in various folders in the APNM Administrative Files. See, for 

example, Arkansas Post National Memorial Highlight Briefing Statement, 1966 Calendar Year, Box 2, File 

21, APNM Administrative Files; Arkansas Post National Memorial Highlight Briefing Statements, 1967 

Calendar Year; and the Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National 

Park, to C. J. Sutton, Owner, Sutton Construction Company, November 2, 1966, which contains a detailed 

description of these buildings. 

297Construction of the well and the sewage lagoon is discussed in a large volume of correspondence 

contained in various folders in the APNM Administrative Files. See, for example Memorandum from T. 

Reid Cabe, Management Assistant, Arkansas Post, to Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, 

September 4, 1965, Box 1, File 11, APNM Administrative Files; Arkansas Post National Memorial 

Highlight Briefing Statements, 1965 Calendar Year, Box 2, File 1, APNM Administrative Files (source of 

quotation “pump-handle surface well”); Arkansas Post National Memorial Highlight Briefing 

Statements, 1967 Calendar Year (source of quotation “for future development”); and the July 29, 1968, 

APNM Environmental Health Report. 
192 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

until 1971. In that year, as part of the same contract that funded construction of the 

picnic area access road spur, these facilities were built in a portion of the memorial’s 

“Natural Environment Area.” They were located on the former site of the Reeves Farm 

(Exhibit 7-96) in the tract enclosed by and surrounding the picnic loop road. The picnic 

area included 25 picnic tables, 15 fireplaces, and two water fountains. The comfort 

station was served by the memorial’s sewage disposal lagoon (Exhibit 7-134).299 

Following construction of the new picnic facility, the NPS dismantled the site’s fortyyear-old state park-era picnic facilities located in the memorial’s “Historic Area.” 

Early NPS development also included upgrade and expansion of the interpretive 

facilities and trails in the “Historic Area.” The NPS performed additional maintenance 

on the remains of Frederick Notrebe’s cistern (Exhibit 7-27/7-40) and the site’s 

nineteenth-century well (Exhibit 7-88).300 In addition, some state park interpretive signs, 

including the Battle of Arkansas Post Civil War Centennial marker (Exhibit 7-127), were 

retained as part of the NPS interpretive program. The NPS replaced most state park 

markers with its own signs interpreting the Post’s history and wildlife. New NPS 

wayside exhibits, which were completed in 1966, included a temporary park entrance 

sign (Exhibit 7-136) and interpretive signs covering “European Settlement,” “The Post 

 

298Loan of the trailer by the Arkansas Publicity and Parks Commission is discussed in several pieces of 

correspondence contained in various folders in the APNM Administrative Files. The agreement between 

the Commission and NPS governing use of the trailer is contained in Box 1, File 20. 

299NPS Contract with C. J. Sutton Construction Company, July 14, 1971. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 193 

December 2005 

of Arkansas,” “The French Period,” “The Post Under Spain,” “The American Era,” 

“Wildlife,” “The Birds of Arkansas Post,” and “The Restless River.” The signs were 

sequentially placed (exact locations are unknown) along the memorial’s lake and/or 

“historical” loop roads and allowed visitors driving along the routes “to get an 

immediate perspective of the historic significance of the area.”301

Besides installing wayside interpretive signs in ca. 1966-1967, the NPS also developed a 

gravel historical loop trail from the southern end of the historical loop road through the 

sites of the eighteenth-century French and Spanish posts. This trail, which incorporated 

an old dirt farm road running northwestward from the southern tip of the memorial 

along its southwestern boundary, furnished an “exceedingly lovely view of the river 

and eventual lake” and combined “esthetics and history.” The NPS provided two 

interpretive signs along the historic trail (apparently signs moved from the loop roads). 

In 1970 NPS installed a “Great Cross” exhibit commemorating Henri de Tonti and the 

foundation of the first Arkansas Post settlement along the eastern part of the trail 

 

300Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Southeast 

Regional Director, March 23, 1966, Box 2, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. 

301Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Director, 

December 1, 1966, Box 1, File 10, APNM Administrative Files (source of interpretive sign titles); Arkansas 

Post National Memorial Highlight Briefing Statement, 1967 Calendar Year; Memorandum from Bernard 

T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Director, January 30, 1967, Box 1, File 25, 

APNM Administrative Files (source of quotation “to get an immediate perspective”); Memorandum from 

Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Management Assistant, Arkansas 

Post, March 2, 1967, Box 1, File 12, APNM Administrative Files. 
194 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

adjacent to Post Bend (Figure 48).302 The NPS, however, was not satisfied with this 

interpretive “mini-program” and felt that the park needed additional interpretive 

services. As APNM’s 1971 “Interpretive Prospectus” noted, there “was little for the 

visitor to see or do” while touring the memorial, forcing visitors to “rely heavily upon 

... imagination to fill in the story.”303

 

Later NPS Development, 1975 - Present 

The NPS attempted to remedy these interpretive shortcomings and deficiencies in the 

park’s infrastructure during the second phase of the site’s development. This phase 

began around 1975 with the publication of a new park “Master Plan” and 

“Environmental Assessment” and continued through the early 1980s. These documents 

guided development of the park to what it is today.

Historic Land Use and Site Arrangement 

During this second and more intense stage of development, overall NPS planning and 

construction activities continued to be guided by the zoned land classifications 

 

302Historic Trail Project Construction Proposal, August 24, 1964, Box 4, File 22, APNM Administrative 

Files; Memorandum from Campbell to Director, January 30, 1967; Memorandum from Bernard T. 

Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, to Regional Director, Southeast Region, February 

10, 1967, Box 2, File 5, APNM Administrative Files (source of quotations); Arkansas Post National 

Memorial Interim Master Plan Drawing NMEM-AP 3007 (this ca. 1967 undated drawing depicts the dirt 

farm road incorporated into historic loop trail) - Copy of drawing attached to Memorandum from 

Campbell to Southeast Regional Director, February 10, 1967; “Sketch Map - Arkansas Post National 

Memorial,” ca. 1970 - copy of map located in Box 2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 195 

December 2005 

established during the initial phase of park operations. The northern portion of the 

park, including the 80-acre addition from the Hudson estate, was used primarily as a 

Class 3 “Natural Environment Area” and wildlife refuge. The sites of the eighteenthand nineteenth-century Post of Arkansas, the towns of Rome and Arkansas, and the 

Civil War rifle pits were developed as “Historic Areas.” Finally, the areas on the 

northern and eastern sides of the memorial’s lake and other scattered tracts were 

treated as “General Outdoor Recreation Areas.” 

Initially NPS planners considered restoring vegetation patterns to their appearance 

during the brief period when the Post served as Arkansas’ territorial capital. By the 

mid-1970s, however, NPS decided that there would be “no attempt to restore the tree 

cover of any area in the park to a specific historic period.” Instead, the “open park-like 

setting” would be “maintained” in the “historical area” and other tracts where it was 

already established, existing open fields would be mowed, and the remainder of the 

Post would be maintained in its contemporary wooded state. The sole exceptions to 

this rule were the “residence and maintenance” area at the northern end of the park and 

the area surrounding the Civil War entrenchments (Exhibit 7-82). In the residence and 

maintenance area, which would be solely devoted to these functions after the new 

 

303Memorandum from Frank E. Hastings, Management Assistant, Arkansas Post National Memorial, to 

Chief, I&RM, Hot Springs National Park, January 25, 1971, Box 1, File 25, APNM Administrative Files 

(source of quotation “mini-program”); “Arkansas Post National Memorial Interpretive Prospectus - 

1971,” p. 4 - copy of prospectus located in File ARPO 75-8438, APNM Administrative Files (source of 

quotations “was little for” and “rely heavily upon”). 
196 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

visitor center was built, “screening . . . [was] required to establish privacy.” In the 

vicinity of the Confederate rifle pits, the woods in the vicinity of the earthworks would 

be “opened up enough to invite visitors to walk along them.”304

Over the next three decades the NPS largely adhered to this plan. In the southern part 

of the park the wooded and mowed park-like areas and open fields encompassing the 

Post of Arkansas Historic Area and the lake largely retained their vegetation patterns 

from the state park era. Similarly, in the northern portions of the site large tracts of 

previously wooded terrain retained their forests, which matured into stands of large 

hardwoods. Nevertheless, there were some exceptions to the plan, several of which 

were particularly noteworthy. Northeast, east, and south of the memorial’s 1971 picnic 

area (Exhibit 7-135) a large tract was cultivated as a “restored prairie”—a development 

directly contrary to the 1975 Master Plan’s policy that there would be no vegetative 

restorations. Other areas, including the open fields in Spanish grants 2305 and 2339, 

were allowed to grow up in “young trees” or “second growth hardwoods.” Finally, a 

large area of woodland in the western portion of Spanish grant 2354 apparently was 

cleared during the rerouting of new State Highway 169 in 1965-1966. 

The NPS also significantly changed the park’s circulation patterns to conform to its land 

use classification system. Public vehicles were confined to three roads: the realigned 

 

304“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 20. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 197 

December 2005 

State Highway 169; the park entrance road running south from Highway 169 to the new 

38-car parking lot and visitor center (Exhibit 7-137) on the northeast side of the lake; and 

a new road extending west from the entrance road along the course of former Jordelas 

Street and connecting with the picnic loop road built in 1971. NPS contractors built the 

road paralleling or following Jordelas Street in 1975,305 and constructed the new visitor 

center parking lot and an short adjoining realigned segment of the entrance road several 

years later in ca. 1980. Other park roads were obliterated and/or incorporated into the 

memorial’s significantly expanded trail network. These roads included both the lake 

and historic loop roads as well as the 1,900 foot section of old State Highway 169 

running from the picnic loop road to the former state park entrance.306 

These changes to the circulation system limited and controlled public access to the 

park’s Historic and Natural Environment areas, the two portions of the site the park 

service was most anxious to preserve. Traffic to the memorial’s recreational picnic area 

no longer passed through the Historic Area but instead traveled there directly via the 

new east-west road. Furthermore, the public could visit the location of the historic Post 

of Arkansas, the Civil War rifle pits (Exhibit 7-82), and other sites in the Historic and 

 

305Several documents discussing the road that paralleled former Jordelas Street and separated the 

Historic Area from the Recreation Area (picnic area) are located in Box 1, File 20, APNM Administrative 

Files. The detailed construction requirements for the road are contained in the undated “Specifications” 

for “Road Construction Separating Historic and Recreation Areas, Project No. 7310-4399” contained in 

this file. 

306“Specifications” for “Road Construction Separating Historic and Recreation Areas, Project No. 7310-

4399,” Box 1, File 20, APNM Administrative Files. 
198 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Natural Environment areas only via the trail network. These trails began at the main 

General Outdoor Recreation Area’s new visitor center and other carefully selected 

locations throughout the park. 

Historic Buildings and Associated Features 

Additional construction during the second phase of park development occurred 

primarily in the General Outdoor Recreation Areas, which were zoned to include most 

of the park’s non-historic man-made facilities. In the early 1980s the NPS built the new 

visitor center (Exhibit 7-137) on the northeast side of the lake near the former sites of 

two of the state park’s log cabins (Exhibits 7-123 and 7-124). William Westbury’s 1974 

archeological investigations (Map 45), which found the remains of one of the cabin’s 

brick outdoor ovens, concluded that this site was devoid of significant remains 

associated with the eighteenth and nineteenth-century Post of Arkansas.307 The 

completed visitor center included interpretive exhibits, a theater, and administrative 

offices, which were moved from the loaned house trailer (Figure 47).308 Another 

structure built in the vicinity of the visitor center was a fishing deck (Exhibit 7-138). A 

boat dock that would have allowed visitors travelling the Arkansas River to approach 

the Post by water along the route used by the settlement’s French and Spanish founders 

 

307Cande, pp. 44-47; Westbury (1975), pp. i, 1, 12-26. 

308Arkansas Post National Memorial Interpretive Prospectus - 1971,” pp. 7-10; United States Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, “Specifications for Visitor Center and Boat 

Dock, Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas County, Arkansas,” November 24, 1975, Various 

pages, Box 6, APNM Administrative Files. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 199 

December 2005 

was planned but never built. Indeed, public boat launching and landing was 

subsequently prohibited within the memorial.309

The park’s residential and maintenance support area was also expanded in the second 

phase of park development. Following construction of the new visitor center (Exhibit 7-

137), the original combined visitor center and maintenance building (Exhibit 7-131) was 

used solely for maintenance support. This facility was supplemented, moreover, by 

additional maintenance and storage buildings (Exhibit 7-139) constructed during the 

1980s.310 Plans to build one or more additional employee houses were not funded; a 

house trailer (Figure 49) moved from Mammoth Cave National Park in ca. 1970 

continued in use as a second employee residence.311

 

As projected in APNM’s 1971 “Interpretive Prospectus,” the second phase of park 

development included significant expansion of the memorial’s systems of interpretive 

 

309“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 29; “Specifications for Visitor Center and 

Boat Dock, Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas County, Arkansas,” Various pages; United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Arkansas Post site plan narrative contained in 

“Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas” park brochure (Government Printing Office, 1993 - 

additional printing of 1991 Reprint); current ca. 1998 edition of the NPS “Arkansas Post National 

Memorial, Arkansas” park brochure. 

310“Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975,” p. 11; “Arkansas Post National 

Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 29. 

311“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 29. For examples of correspondence 

justifying additional employee housing at APNM see Memorandum from Frank E. Hastings, Arkansas 

Post National Memorial, to Director, Southeast Region, August 24, 1971, Box 1, File 20, APNM 

Administrative Files; and Memorandum from B. T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs, to Director, 

Southeast Region, August 19, 1971, Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files. Materials describing the 

trailer, including the shipping document transferring the structure from Mammoth Springs to Arkansas 

Post, are located in Box 1, File 7, APNM Administrative Files. 
200 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

foot trails and wayside exhibits. In the Historic Area encompassing the site of the 

eighteenth and nineteenth-century village, the original 1966-1967 historic loop trail 

(subsequently converted to a nature trail) was supplemented by an additional network 

of paved trails. These new trails approximated the course of Main Street and other 

portions of the Post of Arkansas’ street grid.312 These routes were complemented by an 

additional foot trail that circled the lake and followed the course of the obliterated 

Arkansas Post State Park lake loop road. 

After these trails were built, the NPS discontinued use of the existing Historic Area 

interpretive route “with its assortment of metal plaques and markers following no 

historical path.” The NPS then developed a “new tour trail” designed to be in 

“relationship to the historic streets of 18th century Arkansas Post.” After reviewing 

various alternatives for the topics and locations of interpretive stops, the NPS installed a 

number of wayside exhibits discussing prominent events, buildings, and individuals in 

the Post’s eighteenth and early nineteenth-century history. The exhibits included 

markers discussing the “Arkansas River,” “The Arkansas Post,” the “Colbert Incident,” 

the Post “Townsite,” the United States “Trading Factory,” the “Arkansas Gazette,” 

“Montgomery’s Tavern,” the Arkansas “State Bank,” and “Frederick Notrebe” and 

“Notrebe’s Gin.” However, an exhibit marking the positions of de La Houssaye’s fort 

 

312“Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975,” pp. 10, 29; “Arkansas Post 

National Memorial Interpretive Prospectus - 1971,” pp. 10-11; “Arkansas Post National Memorial Master 

Plan - 1975,” p. 21. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 201 

December 2005 

and Fort San Carlos III was deleted from the program. This presumably is because the 

NPS concluded that Preston Holder’s 1956-1957 archeological excavations had not 

located the actual sites of the works.313 As part of this development program, the de 

Tonti “Great Cross” exhibit (Figure 48) was also moved from its original site to its 

current location southeast of the visitor center. Additionally, during American 

Revolution bicentennial celebrations, the Daughters of the American Revolution 

financed partial reconstruction of Fort San Carlos III (Exhibit 7-140) to commemorate 

the 1783 Colbert raid as part of the “Colbert Incident” interpretive exhibit.314 

To the north in the Historic Area encompassing the Post’s Civil War rifle pits and the 

Towns of Rome and Arkansas, the NPS developed a second interpretive program that 

focused on the Battle of Arkansas Post. Visitors reached the Civil War area either by car 

or via two foot trails leading north from the park’s lake. The first path was a nature trail 

that ran northwest along the Post’s former southwestern bluff line before turning 

northeast towards the park’s picnic area (Exhibit 7-135) and the Civil War rifle pits. The 

second path was a connector trail that followed the course of obliterated State Highway 

169 and led directly to the trenches and the surrounding thinned vegetation. NPS 

marked the site of the rifle pits with an interpretive sign and cannon. To the southeast, 

at a turnoff along the park’s entrance road, additional exhibits explained the 

 

313Arkansas Post National Memorial Interpretive Prospectus - 1971,” pp. 11-16; “Arkansas Post National 

Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 29. The titles of the interpretive signs are derived from the wayside 

exhibits identified on the APNM site plan included in the ca. 1998 edition of the NPS “Arkansas Post 

National Memorial, Arkansas” park brochure. 
202 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

“Confederate Fort” and the “Battle of Arkansas Post.” East of these signs in the waters 

of Post Bend, the NPS placed a marker indicating the “Approximate Location of Fort 

Hindman.”315

 

 

Period Summary 

In 1956 the Arkansas Congressional delegation began a campaign to establish Arkansas 

Post as a national historic site. Four years later Congress and President Dwight D. 

Eisenhower authorized creation of Arkansas Post National Memorial as a site 

commemorating European exploration and settlement of the lower Mississippi valley. 

In 1964 the park was formally established on the site of Arkansas Post State Park and 

other lands donated to the federal government by the State of Arkansas. Since that 

date, the memorial has been administered and interpreted as a unit of the National Park 

System. 

The National Park Service (NPS) has developed the memorial, which is bordered on its 

eastern and western sides by the waters of the Arkansas River Navigation Pool 2, in two 

phases. During the first phase of development, which lasted through the mid-1970s, 

NPS constructed about one-fourth of the facilities required for proper interpretation and 

protection of the site. It cleared the Post’s deteriorating post-Civil War non-historical 

 

314Bearss, The Colbert Raid, pp. 1-3, 92-93; Memorandum from A. R. Mortensen, Acting Chief Historian, 

Southeast Region, to Mrs. J. Clayton Johnson, October 8, 1970, Box 1, File 12, APNM Administrative Files. 
Chapter 3, Site History • 203 

December 2005 

buildings and structures, improved roads and landscaping, and constructed a 

temporary, combined visitor center and maintenance building, a new picnic area, and a 

new interpretive trail and markers. Equally important, the park service developed land 

use classifications and other guidelines to complete development of the site. 

These plans were implemented in the second development phase, which began in 1975 

and transformed the park into its current form. The NPS built a new visitor center in 

the General Outdoor Recreation Area located northeast of the park’s lake. North and 

south of the visitor center in the portions of the memorial classified as Historic Areas, 

NPS constructed a significantly expanded network of interpretive trails. Exhibits 

located along the trail explained the history of the French, Spanish, and American 

Arkansas Post settlements and the Post’s role in the Civil War. The remainder of the 

park has been developed and preserved as a Natural Environment Area and wildlife 

refuge. 

 

315Arkansas Post National Memorial Interpretive Prospectus - 1971,” pp. 16-17. The titles of the 

interpretive signs are derived from the wayside exhibits identified on the APNM site plan included in the 

ca. 1998 edition of the NPS “Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas” park brochure. 
204 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 205 

December 2005 
206 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 207 

December 2005 
208 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 209 

December 2005 
210 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 211 

December 2005 
212 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 213 

December 2005 
214 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 215 

December 2005 
216 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 217 

December 2005 
218 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 219 

December 2005 
220 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 221 

December 2005 
222 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 223 

December 2005 
224 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 225 

December 2005 
226 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 227 

December 2005 
228 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 229 

December 2005 
230 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 231 

December 2005 
232 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 233 

December 2005 
234 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 235 

December 2005 
236 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 237 

December 2005 
238 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 239 

December 2005 
240 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 241 

December 2005 
242 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 243 

December 2005 
244 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 245 

December 2005 
246 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 247 

December 2005 
248 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 249 

December 2005 
250 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 251 

December 2005 
252 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 253 

December 2005 
254 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 255 

December 2005 
256 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 257 

December 2005 
258 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 259 

December 2005 
260 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 261 

December 2005 
262 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 263 

December 2005 
264 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 265 

December 2005 
266 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 267 

December 2005 
268 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 269 

December 2005 
270 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 271 

December 2005 
272 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 273 

December 2005 
274 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 275 

December 2005 
276 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 277 

December 2005 
278 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 279 

December 2005 
280 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 281 

December 2005 
282 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 283 

December 2005 
284 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 285 

December 2005 
286 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 287 

December 2005 
288 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 289 

December 2005 
290 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 291 

December 2005 
292 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 293 

December 2005 
294 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 295 

December 2005 
296 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 3, Site History • 297 

December 2005 
298 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 








4. Existing Conditions 
4. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

This chapter describes existing conditions of the Arkansas National Memorial 

cultural landscape. It includes discussions of the site’s major landscape 

characteristics, builds on site research, and is based on site surveys, including onthe-ground observations and documentation of site features. The chapter focuses 

on identifying extant cultural landscape features associated with the historical 

periods of the site’s development, such as vegetation patterns, the locations of 

historic roads, and the locations of historic structures, building clusters, existing 

land use, and spatial organization.316 The chapter also includes descriptions of 

natural and contemporary features and functions that affect cultural landscape 

analysis, evaluation, and treatment as well as surviving historic landscape 

features and characteristics. 

Site Location 

Arkansas Post National Memorial (APNM) is situated on a peninsula elevated 

above and overlooking the Arkansas River in the southern portion of Arkansas 

County. Its location on the Arkansas River made the site desirable historically as 

a strategic military fortification and commercial center. The Memorial, located in 

 

316 The chapter addresses existing cultural landscape characteristics and the factors shaping them 

using the guidance of Linda Flint McClelland, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert 

Z. Melnick, National Register Bulletin 30, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic 

Landscapes (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service; Interagency Resources Division, 

Interagency Resources Branch, U.S. Government Printing Office), pp. 3-8. 
 310 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

southeastern Arkansas within the Mississippi-Arkansas Rivers Delta region, is 

located at the most southerly portion of the Grand Prairie, the flat terrace that 

extends from the Mississippi River to the Arkansas River (Exhibit 9). Erosion of 

the Mississippi River more than 5,000 years ago was responsible for the 

formation of the alluvial fan of the Grand Prairie in which the APNM is located. 

The landscape setting for the Memorial is rural with most land in either 

agricultural or forestry uses. There are also substantial wetlands in this vicinity 

that contribute to the setting of the Memorial. Rice farming is a major 

agricultural land use in the region. Located 7 miles (11.2 kilometers) south of 

Gillett, Arkansas, and 18 miles (29 kilometers) northeast of Dumas, Arkansas, 

APNM is accessible to motorists travelling on Arkansas State Highway 169 (AR 

169). Pedestrians and cyclists use the same state highway access although no 

provisions have been made to accommodate the specific use of either. Although 

watercraft can pass through and adjacent to the APNM, boats and other water 

vessels are prohibited from launching or landing at the Memorial. The APNM 

often experiences extreme climactic conditions that range from extremely hot 

weather during the summer months to rare but substantial snow and ice storms 

in the winter.317 NPS publications recommend site visitation between September 

 

317 Such a storm occurred during fieldwork in February 2000 and is documented through site 

photography undertaken at that time. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 311 

December 2005 

and May to avoid the heat, humidity, and insects associated with summer visits 

to the site. 

Methodology 

The existing conditions discussed in this chapter and evaluated in the following 

chapter were developed through field investigation and informed by the 

historical research discussed in previous chapters of the CLR. This research 

provides numerous narrative discussions and graphic depictions of the area 

currently within the park boundaries. Ongoing natural resource studies that 

build on earlier efforts provide information that informs the cultural landscape 

investigation concerning biotic and biocultural issues. These include an ongoing 

research project (began in 1999) focused on impacts to vegetation by white-tailed 

deer (Odicoileus virginianus); a vegetation survey of the Memorial conducted by 

the University of Arkansas-Monticello (data was collected during April through 

September 1997); an informal vegetation survey by the University of ArkansasMonticello (conducted in July 2000); the Cultural Landscape Inventory prepared 

by NPS staff; and data from observations made by the CLR staff during February 

through May of 2000. 

 

Aerial photographic coverage over the last fifty years was also extremely 

informative (Maps 40, 49, 50, and 51). This photographic coverage also 

highlights the physical evolution of the site and its dramatic changes in landform 
 312 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

due to both natural and deliberate human actions. The absence of an accurate 

base map documenting these specific (and often dramatic) changes makes 

identifying site-specific locations difficult. In order for accurate base maps to be 

developed it is necessary for permanent benchmarks to be established on site and 

recorded with Global Positioning System (GPS). Once accurate base maps are 

produced, existing maps, including hose in this CLR, should be revised 

accordingly.318 

The CLR methodology was developed to inventory general landscape features 

and components including environmental setting, spatial organization, 

management land use, circulation, structures, vegetation, and small-scale 

features. The existing conditions field investigations began with LCA 

conducting reconnaissance surveys in February and March 2000. These 

investigations were directly informed by the NPS List of Classified Structures 

(LCS), the Cultural Base Map prepared by the Arkansas Archaeological 

Survey319, the CLI, the historic period plans prepared in the previous portion of 

the CLR and the series of flora and fauna studies undertaken in the 1970s and 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 313 

December 2005 

1990s, up to and including current ongoing studies. The School of Forest 

Resources of the Arkansas Forest Resources Center at the Agricultural 

Experiment Station, University of Arkansas, Monticello under the direction of 

Dr. Phillip Tappe worked with LCA in documenting and analyzing the 

vegetation of the APNM. Subsequent field surveys in April and May and 

vegetation sampling completed the multi-season field examination of the cultural 

landscape of APNM. The February field investigation was affected by an 

unusually heavy snowstorm that provided an opportunity to observe the rarely 

snow-covered landscape. The March and April field surveys each extended over 

a five-day period and took the field investigators into all sectors of the park unit. 

Special attention was given to above ground cultural landscape features, 

including extant vegetation. Several component landscapes possessing 

aboveground cultural resource concentrations as well as areas of known and 

predicted belowground cultural resource concentrations were identified and 

investigated during the May fieldwork. Summer vegetation was also observed 

during those investigations. 

 

318 The need for establishing permanent benchmarks and recording them with a GPS was also 

identified by Kathleen Cande, Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History and Prospects, 

Narrative to Accompany a Cultural Resources Base Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas, AAS 

project 961 Draft Report, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas, September 30, 

1997, p. 59. 

319 Kathleen Cande, Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History and Prospects, Narrative to 

Accompany a Cultural Resources Base Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas, AAS project 961 Draft 

Report, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas, September 30, 1997, p. 59. Please 

note that this document is still in evaluation. 
 314 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Identification of Vegetative Stand Types 

Vegetative stand types at APNM were identified and mapped using a digital 

orthoquad (DOQ) and field-collected data.320 The DOQ, at scale of 1:12,000, was 

based on a 1994 USGS aerial photograph. Vegetative stand types were 

delineated by heads-up digitizing of vegetation boundaries using ArcView®

v.3.1.321 

In the field, each vegetative stand type was sampled to determine dominant tree 

species composition. A coefficient of variation for basal area (BA) by species was 

estimated in each delineated vegetation type by sampling preliminary variableradius plots with a 10-factor prism. Basal area reflects stand density by 

quantifying the cross-sectional area of all trees in a stand. This is done on a per 

acre basis. A high basal area is an indication that an area has a high density of 

trees whereas a low basal area indicates low density in a forest stand. 

The estimated coefficients of variation of basal area combined with an allowable 

error of 20% were used to determine the appropriate number of plots to sample 

in each delineated vegetation type. Using this field-collected data in conjunction 

 

320 The project consultants coordinated and worked closely with personnel from the School of 

Forest Resources, Arkansas Forest Resources center, Agricultural Experiment Station, University 

of Arkansas, Monticello to identify vegetation communities and plant alliances through their 

combined field investigations and research. 

321 “Heads-up” digitizing does not involve the use of a digitizing tablet. Instead, features are 

drawn on the computer using some type of existing digital reference or background theme, such 

as an aerial photograph. 

 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 315 

December 2005 

with the information gained from the aerial photograph allowed determination 

of the composition and spatial extent of each vegetative stand type. Using this 

approach, 15 vegetative stand types were defined based on the dominant 

occurring tree species and mapped using ArcView® v.3.1. 

The methodology applied overlaps the methodology defined by the National 

Vegetation Classification system (NVCS) that was developed by The Nature 

Conservancy for use by the National Park Service. Once the vegetation stand 

types for APNM were defined, an attempt was made to classify each vegetation 

type using the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). Because it is 

not complete for all areas of the U.S., the NVCS proved inadequate for describing 

existing vegetation types occurring at APNM. Specific plant alliances exist at 

APNM that are either not defined by the NVCS, or are not adequately described 

by the NVCS. Therefore, the fifteen types described herein provide a more 

accurate and appropriate categorization of the vegetative stand types at APNM 

than could be presented if categories were limited to those currently defined by 

the NVCS. 

One other data source was investigated for use in classifying vegetation types on 

APNM. The Biological Resource Division of the U.S. Geological Survey 

completed the Arkansas GAP Analysis Project in 1998. However, based on the 

100 ha aggregated dataset available from this project, only two vegetation types 
 316 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

were identified on APNM, thus providing little useable information for resource 

managers. Finally, special attention was given to identifying vegetation 

associated with Native Americans, threatened and endangered species, and 

invasive exotic species. 

Identification of Vegetative Species Present at APNM 

Data collected as part of an ongoing study at APNM, documentation from a 

previous vegetation survey at APNM, and incidental observations by the 

Cultural Landscape Report team, as well as data collected while delineating 

vegetation communities, were used to identify plant species associated with 

defined vegetation communities. 

A research project investigating white-tailed deer (Odicoileus virginianus) 

impacts on vegetation at APNM was initiated in January 1999 and is currently 

ongoing. As part of this project, four exclosures were randomly placed in each of 

five sampling areas at APNM. All exclosures are at least 50-m apart. In addition, 

each exclosure has an unfenced check plot which is located 25-m either due north 

or due west from the exclosure. Thus, vegetation is being sampled at a total of 40 

locations. Each exclosure and check plot is divided into 16 1-m2 sampling 

quadrats. All vegetation was identified to the genus or species level in a 

randomly chosen quadrat for each plot during June, July, August, September, 

and October of 1999. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 317 

December 2005 

Three other sources of information on plant species occurrences are available for 

APNM: data collected during April – September, 1997 as part of a vegetation 

survey of APNM conducted by the University of Arkansas – Monticello, data 

obtained from an additional informal vegetation survey collected during July 

2000 by the University of Arkansas – Monticello, and data from the LCA 

observations during February – May 2000. All data were combined to document 

known plant species occurrences at APNM (Table 1). Species recorded as part of 

the deer study, while conducting field sampling for vegetation community 

delineation, or recorded by LCA were spatially referenced to the 15 identified 

vegetation types occurring at APNM. When sampling locations were 

documented, species recorded during the previous 1997 vegetation survey were 

also spatially referenced to the 15 identified vegetation types.322

The information collected through the field investigations discussed above has 

been used to inform the analysis, treatment recommendations and the 

implementation guidelines. 

 

322 Vegetation types were labeled A through P. After further analyses, type H was combined with 

other types due to similarities in composition. However, vegetation types were not relabeled and 

type H was omitted from vegetation maps in order to conform to other ongoing studies and to 

avoid future confusion. Therefore, there is no vegetation type H in this CLR. 
 318 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Landscape Characteristics and Features (Exhibit 10)

Site Description, Land Use, and Landscape Organization 

The 389.2-acre site is composed of a slightly elevated, flat peninsular site, with a 

steep shoreline along the Arkansas River. Over time the meanders of the 

Mississippi, Arkansas, and White Rivers created highly defined river bluffs in 

this region. The bluffs today are low in relation to the historic water level; prior 

to the navigation project the Arkansas Post plateau stood much higher above the 

water than it does currently. The Arkansas River bluffs, however, still provide 

the APNM site with a distinct visual and physical water/land edge that provides 

protection from flooding for the site’s elevated plateau. The site currently 

includes wooded areas, open lawns, an area planted in prairie in the 1990s, roads 

and trails, a manmade lake, parking areas, and areas that have been developed 

for visitor and interpretive services, administration, and support operations, such 

as NPS housing and maintenance. 

The APNM landscape is comprised of several identifiable component 

landscapes, some historic and some not, such as former town and farm sites and 

visitor amenity areas. In most instances, historic component landscapes retain 

some aboveground features, such as remnant vegetation (Exhibits 11-17). 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 319 

December 2005 

The current APNM landscape reflects the effects of major navigation and flood 

control projects on the Arkansas River implemented in the 1960s. Between 1965 

and 1967 the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Arkansas River 

McClellan-Kerr Navigation System’s Lock and Dam Number 2 on the river 

below the Post. Navigation Pool 2, created by the Wilbur D. Mills Dam, 

inundated all areas surrounding the Post below 162 feet mean sea level (MSL), 

including the Moore’s Bayou (Post Bayou) bottomlands and the Arkansas River’s 

circa-1911 channel east of the Post. Portions of Post Bayou’s (Moore’s Bayou) 

flooded bottomlands became part of the current Moore’s Bayou water recreation 

area323 and the 25-foot bluffs delineating the Post of Arkansas’ southwestern 

boundary lost both their original prominence and part of their original form. 

Although the western bank of Post Bend near the eastern boundary of the site 

approximated the circa-1911 shoreline, the character of the bluff landscape that 

exists today was changed substantially. 

Overall land use for the APNM is dedicated to the Memorial, conservation, 

recreational, interpretive, and educational uses of the site. APNM currently 

includes wooded areas, open lawns, and portions of several bodies of water as 

well as developed areas for visitor services, recreation, Memorial administration 

and operations. Recreational uses include fishing, hiking, walking, bicycling, 

 

323The Army Corps of Engineers changed the name of Post Bayou to Moore’s Bayou after the 

inundation. Both the historic and the current names are used when referencing the bayou in Part 
 320 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

rollerblading, birdwatching, and picnicking. A series of interpretive and nature 

trails link various parts of the site that are of historical or natural resource 

interest. The lake originally developed as a component of the state park is 

located in the southern portion of the peninsula near the current eastern 

shoreline.

The major concentrations of NPS-developed land uses are located in the central 

and southern sections of the Memorial with the picnic area the only major 

development in the northern third of the Memorial. All visitor services are 

concentrated near the picnic and visitor center areas. Maintenance operations 

and employee housing are located in a distinct cluster west of the Memorial 

entry road in an area of hardwoods. The picnic area, which was developed at the 

western promontory adjacent to Post Bayou, (Moore’s Bayou) on the former 

Reeves Farm site to replace the state park-era picnic facilities near Park Lake, 

provides restrooms and is adjacent to a recently planted prairie area to the east 

and south. 

Administrative operations have been incorporated into the visitor center 

northeast of Park Lake in an area where log cabins from the state park era were 

removed. The visitor center also provides space for exhibits, book sales, a 

 

II. However, the historic name of Post Bayou was used in Part I. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 321 

December 2005 

theater, and restrooms. Areas of forest separate the three distinct use areas; none 

is visible from another. Parking areas have been developed for the picnic, 

maintenance and visitor center areas, and all three areas are accessible to 

vehicles. The APNM provides no overnight facilities for visitors. 

The existing land use and site organization largely reflects adherence to the 1975 

NPS Master Plan for the APNM. The plan outlined a land use policy based on a 

zone approach oriented toward managing the Memorial to protect and interpret 

its cultural and natural resources and provide for the outdoor recreational needs 

of visitors. The northern portion of the park, identified in the plan as a natural 

environment area and wildlife refuge, is mostly forested. The sites of the 

eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Post of Arkansas and the Civil War rifle pits 

have been preserved and interpreted as historic areas. Finally, the areas on the 

northern and eastern sides of the Memorial’s lake and other scattered tracts have 

been identified and treated as general outdoor recreation areas. 

Response to Natural Features and Land/Water Relationship 

The APNM site, both historically and currently, has been defined by its 

relationship with water although these relationships have changed during 

different historical periods. The site developed as a military, governmental and 

mercantile center because of its strategic Arkansas River location. Both 

historically and today, only the Memorial’s northern boundary is land-based. 
 322 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

APNM's current offshore boundaries on all other sides extend into Post Bend on 

the east, Little Post Bayou on the northwest, Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou) on the 

southwest, and the Arkansas River to the south. Most of the current NPS 

boundaries are offshore with portions of the historic site no longer visible above 

water. The meander of the Arkansas River has influenced both land use and the 

physical character of the site throughout its history. 

The APNM currently includes all the lands located in Spanish grant 2305; those 

parts of the old Post of Arkansas, the former United States Military Reservation, 

and Spanish grants 2307, 2339, 2344, 2354, 2363, and 2432 located over 162 feet in 

elevation above mean sea level (MSL); and a portion of Spanish grant 2333 

situated above 162 feet MSL.324 The elevation of the Memorial ranges from 162 

feet MSL to 179 MSL. The highest points are along the northeast shoreline and 

the southwest shoreline. The majority of the site ranges from 170 feet MSL to 175 

MSL, making it approximately 15 feet above the water line in most places. The 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 323 

December 2005 

elevation tapers off to close to the water level in the northwest portion of the 

Memorial between Alligator Slough and the northern property boundary. In 

that area, the outer edge of the peninsula slopes down to wetlands. 

The late twentieth-century U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction of the 

Arkansas Post Canal east of the Memorial site planned in combination with 

levees and dams to improve navigation and control the river, however, is 

responsible for the current land/water configuration and water levels. The 

actual Arkansas River channel is not visible today due to a higher water level 

that currently covers both the channel and the adjacent historic flood plain. The 

increased water elevation also affects the western side of the peninsula by 

covering the traditional flood plain associated with Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou). 

 

 

324“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” pp. 23-24; Cande, p. 14; United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, National Park Service. 

“Proposed Acquisition – Arkansas Post National Memorial,” Drawing 411/30.001A, October 1974 

- copy of map in Box 2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files; Walker, p. 1. The Secretary of the 

Interior originally designated a tract of approximately 740 acres as the proposed area for the 

Memorial on December 24, 1960. However, because the Army Corps of Engineers’ Arkansas 

River navigation project was projected to inundate the 70% of the acreage located below 162 feet 

MSL, this area was subsequently reduced to 255 acres and later to 220 acres. The APNM 

Administrative files contain a voluminous correspondence (letters and memorandums, deeds, 

surveys and maps, etc.) covering acquisition and transfer of the property. For general 

information see: Memorandum from Bernard T. Campbell, Superintendent, Hot Springs National 

Park, to C. C. Stuart, Department of Education, Arkansas County, Arkansas, January 24, 1969, 

Box 1, File 23, APNM Administrative Files; Memorandum from Cox to Woods, October 9, 1963; 

and Kasparek, Chapter 1, p. 2. 
 324 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The water area of the bayou is much wider than it was historically.325 While the 

current land area edge appears as low bluffs adjacent to wide water bodies, 

historically those bluffs would have overlooked wide flood plains and a 

relatively narrow river channel on the eastern side of the peninsula and a narrow 

bayou on the west. Cultural resources may be present in the inundated areas 

since there was limited disturbance prior to flooding.326 Many experts, however, 

believe that this is unlikely since extreme flood conditions often characterized the 

Arkansas River historically, and the area would have been ravaged by 

floodwaters. Constant erosion of the stream banks and floodplain has probably 

removed most cultural resources from their original sites. In stabilizing the 

peninsula in 1968 when the area surrounding the park was inundated, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers built a protective dike of rock up to elevation 165. At 

the same time, the Corps flattened slopes and installed a quarry run stone riprap 

between elevation 160 and 165 along the shoreline of most of the remaining park 

boundary.327 Approximately 1,500 feet of the shoreline are not covered by 

riprap; severe erosion has occurred in some of this area. A project intended to 

mitigate these effects is underway. 

 

325 Historical accounts give the width of the bayou as only 8 to 12 feet. 

326 Cande, Archeological Report. 

327 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Arkansas Post Master Plan, 1975, p. 13. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 325 

December 2005 

Throughout the site, especially at its periphery, there are many opportunities for 

water views of either the Arkansas River though the tree-covered edges to the 

east and south and across marsh and swamp areas to the west. There is a slough 

(believed to be unnamed) in the northwestern portion of the site that empties 

into Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou) about midway between AR 169 and the picnic 

area entry drive. South of the picnic area, Alligator Slough, which is watered by 

an intermittent spring that develops in the center of the site, flows west to empty 

into Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou). Park Lake, a manmade lake that dates from 

the State Park era and was constructed on the site of historic ravines, is a major 

water feature located in the southern portion of the site and is adjacent to the 

NPS visitor center. 

Soils (Exhibit 20) 

Five soil types occur within the APNM: the Immanuel Silt Loam (20A, 20B) and 

the Stuttgart Silt Loam (37A) are the dominant soil types. A small area of Ethel 

Silt Loam (6) is located in the center of the site; soils in the northeast corner of the 

site along the water line belong to another type of Immanuel Silt Loam (20C) as 

does a small area along the northwestern boundary. This soil type is 

characterized by soils ranging from 3% to 8% slopes while all the others fall in 

the 0% to 1% or 1% to 3% slopes. 
 326 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The Immanuel series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils that 

formed in silty alluvium and are found in areas of the Grand Prairie of Arkansas. 

Runoff from Immanuel soils can be negligible to very high. Permeability is 

moderate above the fragic layer and slow in the fragic layer.328 Water is perched 

above the fragic layer at a depth of 1.5 to 3 feet during high rainfall periods in 

late winter and early spring. Immanuel soils are suitable for growing rice, 

soybeans, and wheat and for uses as pastures. They are also supportive of oak, 

hickory elm, and shortleaf pine species. They generally are geographically 

associated as they are at APNM with Stuttgart and Ethel soils.329

Stuttgart soils consist of very deep, moderately well to somewhat poorly 

drained, slowly permeable soils that formed in silty and clayey alluvium. These 

level to gently sloping soils are on found on the Grand Prairie terraces of 

Arkansas in the Lower Mississippi Valley, and typically contain an abrupt 

texture change. The terraces are thought to be made up of sediments from the 

Arkansas River system with a silty mantle from the Mississippi River system. 

 

328 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1998, 84 World Soil 

Resources Reports, International Society of Soil Science, SSS-AISS-IBG, International Soil 

Reference and Information Centre, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

The fragic horizon is a subsurface diagnostic soil horizon with a “porosity pattern such that roots 

and percolating water penetrate the soil only along interped faces and streaks.” 

329 National Cooperative Soil Survey, “Established Series LBW, Location Immanuel” University of 

Arkansas Soil Characterization Laboratory, 1997. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 327 

December 2005 

The upper mantle may be mixed with loess in some places. Runoff is negligible 

to high, depending on the slope. Permeability is slow. Stuttgart soils are 

appropriate for rice, soybeans, corn, and small grains. They generally support 

such native vegetation as tallgrasses and hardwood species of oak, gum, ash, and 

shortleaf pine.330

Ethel soils, which occur on level to depressional landscapes are in a fine-silty 

particle size family, are poorly drained and do not have fragic properties. They 

do not have an abrupt texture change. The Ethel series consists of level, poorly 

drained, slowly permeable soils that formed in alluvium. They occur on Grand 

Prairie terraces in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Runoff is negligible to low. 

These soils have an apparent water table within 12 inches of the soil surface in 

late winter and spring. Ethel soils are generally used for such crops as rice, 

soybeans, and wheat and support naturally occurring hardwood species such as 

water oak, willow oak, and sweetgum.331

Habitat 

Wildlife is abundant within the APNM and both enhances the visitor experience, 

especially for bird watchers and anglers, and plagues visitors who are disturbed 

by biting insects and poisonous snakes. Species–both native to the region and 

 

330 National Cooperative Soil Survey, “Established Series LBW, Location Stuttgart” University of 

Arkansas Soil Characterization Laboratory, 1997. 

331 National Cooperative Soil Survey, “Established Series LBW, Location Ethel” University of 

Arkansas Soil Characterization Laboratory, 1997. 
 328 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

introduced–that benefit from the interrelationship of land and water are 

frequently observed within the APNM and surrounding areas. The APNM 

provides a habitat supportive of diverse species, such as deer, nutria, alligators, 

ticks, chiggers, mosquitoes, biting flies, snakes (including three poisonous 

species–water moccasin or cottonmouth, copperhead, and pigmy rattlesnake), 

turkey, racoon, and migratory birds, including bald eagles and waterfowl. 

Two wildlife species that are listed as either threatened or endangered are 

known to inhabit APNM and the surrounding area. These are the bald eagle and 

American alligator. Because of its known distribution and nesting habits, the 

endangered least tern could also potentially use areas on or near APNM. Two 

State species of special concern, the least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) and bewick’s 

wren (Thryomanes bewickii) have been observed within the Memorial 

boundaries. In addition, the prairie mole cricket (Gryllotalpa major) and 

paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) occur within Arkansas County. 

From the western portions of the Memorial, there are frequent opportunities to 

observe bald eagle nests visible on the eastern shore of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers property. Occasionally, alligators are observed swimming and 

sunning offshore; there are alligator nests within the park and they are also 

observed in land areas of the Memorial. The State of Arkansas reintroduced 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 329 

December 2005 

alligators to the area in the 1980s; the largest concentrations in the state may exist 

at the Memorial.332 The swamp areas near the bayous and sloughs provide a 

welcoming habitat for such species. 

Deer are often evident in both wooded and open areas as well as along their 

edges. Ducks swim and feed in the lake, the visitor center pond, and the bayous 

west of the Memorial, as do herons and other waterfowl. Nutria, a small 

mammal introduced from South America, and beaver, which were present 

historically, are also numerous near the bayous and in nearby swamp areas. 

Nesting by these animals is probable in the Post area. Both burrow into the clay 

soils of the banks, and contribute to erosion. There are frequent sightings of 

nutria, and less common sightings of beaver, swimming and sunning in the 

bayous and sloughs. Armadillos have migrated into the area and also damage 

banks along the bayous. 

Several studies related to vegetation and animal species are underway at the 

present time. The three studies cover a) ticks, vegetation, and tick-borne disease; 

b) alligator populations, movement, nesting sites, and size classes; and c) deer 

vegetation, movement patterns, and their interactions. 

 

332 Interview and nature walk with NPS personnel, March 1998. 
 330 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Buildings, Structures and Small-Scale Features 

The APNM retains no intact historic buildings aboveground; in general historic 

buildings and structures have not survived the ravages of abandonment, war, 

weather, impoundment, and public administration. Although it is unlikely, 

there may be remnants of structures and other construction artifacts underwater 

in the impounded area immediately offshore, within the NPS boundaries.333 

After it assumed operation of the site in 1964, NPS removed the few 

aboveground structures that remained from the previous late nineteenth and 

early twentieth century periods because they did not relate to the Memorial 

mission of the site.334 The Notrebe cistern, the cistern north of the 

superintendent’s residence, and two nineteenth-century wells are the only 

surviving non-military structures that predate the NPS period. The Notrebe 

cistern has an outside diameter of 13 feet and 5 inches, an inside diameter of 10 

feet and 5 inches, and a depth of 14 feet and 4 inches. Built originally of brick 

produced in the Arkansas Post community, bricks from the foundation of the 

State Bank of Arkansas were reused in the restoration. The NPS also has 

stabilized an early nineteenth-century brick in the townsite. Originally 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 331 

December 2005 

constructed of dry laid brick, the well has been stabilized above ground with the 

use of cement mortar. In addition, there are the earthworks developed by 

Confederate forces during the Civil War. The earthworks are a series of generally 

linear, low depressions ranging from approximately a foot-and-a-half- to threefeet in depth. The NPS has placed the cannons in this vicinity to help interpret 

the 1783 Colbert Raid and the Civil War history of the site. There are also 

twentieth-century agricultural survivors, including a cattle dipping vat (Exhibit 

11), concrete piers in the vat vicinity, and metal fence fragments.335 A cast iron 

well pump also remains on the former Hughes property as does a concrete 

foundation for a small structure, probably an auxiliary outbuilding. A number 

of former house sites have concentrations of scattered bricks that appear to have 

been used in building foundations or chimneys. A cut stone property boundary 

marker, which dates from the 1930s, also survives in the northern portion of the 

site; others may exist, but may be covered by earth. A concrete culvert north of 

 

333 In addition to the dwellings, wells, cisterns, and other structures that may have been located in 

the water-covered area, fragments of the bridges that once crossed Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou) 

may be extant below water. 

334 The buildings and structures NPS cleared from the landscape included the Hughes, Owens, 

John and Ina Hudson, Conine, Quandt, Richard Stovall, Ambros Bass, and Emma Battles houses 

and their outbuildings; the Quandt, Hudson, and Conine the Reeves Farm buildings; the AME 

church; the state park’s WPA-constructed swimming facilities, log cabins, restrooms, and outdoor 

cooking facilities; the Lady of Justice statue from Park Lake. Nine structures, including log cabins 

from the state park era, the caretaker’s lodge, the AME church, and the Jones and Hughes houses 

were relocated from the Memorial. 

335 NPS removed the state park perimeter fence and the wire fencing around or near the Reeves 

Farm buildings, the Conine house and store, the fields in the western portion of Spanish grant 

2339. 
 332 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Park Lake and the earthen dam at the southeastern end of the lake are structural 

survivors from the state park era.336 

There are three distinct areas of NPS development: the maintenance/housing 

area (Exhibit 18), visitor center area (Exhibit 19), and the picnic area. After 1964, 

NPS added several late twentieth-century buildings and structures to meet 

operational, maintenance, and interpretive needs. The maintenance/employee 

housing area, was developed originally to include a visitor center/maintenance 

building, and is located in the northwestern part of the Memorial. The original 

NPS visitor center was constructed in 1966–1967, and is a one-story, wood-clad 

structure immediately south of the site of the former Hudson House. This 

building has been adapted to accommodate offices and a work area. The complex 

includes several other buildings and structures, as well as a water tank, a sewage 

lagoon, and a well. Although mobile units were used previously by NPS in this 

cluster, their use has been discontinued and the units were removed. A onestory, wood-clad, ranch-style employee residence typical of the NPS Mission 66 

era dates from 1965-1966, and is located immediately northwest of the former 

visitor center/maintenance building. Another residence of brick veneer (west of 

the original residence) was constructed as the superintendent’s residence in 

1998–1999. The maintenance/housing cluster also includes an equipment shop, a 

 

336 The culvert originally was constructed beneath the state park entry road. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 333 

December 2005 

pump house, a hazardous waste structure, a gas tank, a diesel tank, a 

maintenance storage structure, a hazardous materials storage structure, a lift 

structure, and three structures to house fire hoses and hydrants.337 The 600-foot 

drilled well and sewage disposal lagoon, which were also developed in the 1960s 

soon after NPS assumed operation of the site, are located west of the 

maintenance cluster in a wooded area. 

The picnic area was developed in 1971, and includes a one-story, brick, woodshingled restroom that replaced an earlier structure from the state park era, as 

well as 25 picnic tables, 15 brick and metal fireplace rings, plastic trash 

containers, and two water fountains. 

The focal point of the existing visitor center area is the one-story brick visitor 

center, which was built northeast of the lake in the early 1980s. The center 

incorporates enclosed space for fire hoses and hydrants, a water pump, and air 

conditioning equipment. 

 

337 A privately owned boat storage structure is being removed. 
 334 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Circulation 

The existing circulation system at the Memorial represents the post-1963 NPS 

roads and trails that were developed to provide access to specific interpretive, 

recreational, and operational areas of the Memorial. Remnants of earlier 

circulation systems also survive including; observable historic roads, remnant 

walks, and paths within the site. Historical research indicates that other nonextant circulation systems existed during one or more historic periods. The NPS 

significantly changed the APNM circulation patterns to conform to its land use 

pattern and to link service, interpretive, and recreational areas. The NPS has 

restricted vehicular circulation to three roads: the realigned State Highway 169; 

the park entrance road that extends south from Highway 169 to the visitor 

center; and a new road extending west from the entrance road along the course 

of former Jordelas Street which extends from the former town of Arkansas site 

and connects with the picnic area loop road. Some pre-NPS roads were 

abandoned and others, including both the lake and historic loop roads as well as 

1,900 feet of old State Highway 169 between the picnic area and the former state 

park entrance, were incorporated into the Memorial’s trail network.338

The APNM existing circulation patterns reflect implementation of the 1964 

Master Plan that called for relocation of State Highway 169 and the conversion of 

 

338“Specifications” for “Road Construction Separating Historic and Recreation Areas, Project No. 

7310-4399,” Box 1, File 20, APNM Administrative Files. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 335 

December 2005 

the old north-south county road as the Memorial’s entrance road. The vehicular 

entrance to the park originates at the northwest corner of the Memorial with AR 

169 crossing an earthen dam and concrete bridge over Little Post Bayou. Roads 

and trails link distinct uses and areas within the APNM, and parking areas have 

been developed for visitor and employee use. AR 169, a two-way, asphalt-paved 

road extending east-west from AR 165 to the Memorial, serves as the park entry 

road. The entry road makes an abrupt perpendicular turn to a north-south 

orientation to continue as the primary park road leading to the maintenance and 

NPS housing area, the picnic area access drive, the visitor center, and interpretive 

areas adjacent to the eastern shore line. The road providing access to the 

maintenance and NPS housing area is primarily asphalt-paved. There is a 

parking area near the entry road and a small pull-in parking area adjacent to the 

combination maintenance/office building. Most of the parking in this area is 

asphalt-paved. 

The picnic area access drive is also a two-way asphalt-paved road–with four 

parking turn-offs–that meanders through woodland towards Post Bayou 

(Moore’s Bayou) and follows an elliptical loop through the picnic area. Trails 

link the picnic area with both the nearby Civil War interpretive sites and 

Alligator Slough; a portion of trail borders the prairie. Wooden bridges facilitate 

pedestrian crossings of Alligator Slough and the adjacent wetland, allowing the 

trail to continue as a nature trail south of the slough. This nature trail along Post 
 336 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Bayou (Moore’s Bayou) connects with the major north-south connector trail 

between a point north of the Confederate trench to the territorial townsite in the 

southern portion. The connector trail is paved in concrete with brick detailing, 

and is handicapped-accessible. The nature trail and the connector trail intersect 

northwest of Park Lake. The connector trail also intersects with a concrete-paved 

walk delineating the historic linear grid street pattern of the territorial town 

south of the visitor center. The linear grid serves as an interpretive walk through 

the historic town site and links with a nature trail extending from the historic 

Main Street of the town to an overlook at the southernmost point of the 

peninsula. 

From the overlook, the nature trail continues on to the Arkansas Gazette site 

overlooking Post Bend at the historic terminus of Front Street. This asphaltpaved nature trail reconnects with the historic street pattern of the town at this 

point, allowing the visitor to return to the visitor center. Designated asphaltpaved parking areas have been developed northeast of the visitor center (38 

spaces), in the picnic area, near the wayside area north of the Confederate trench, 

and adjacent to the Confederate Fort and Battle of Arkansas Post waysides. Road 

traces are observable in forested areas of the site. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 337 

December 2005 

Archeological Resources (Exhibit 21) 

The APNM is known to possess archeological resources from a number of its 

occupied time periods, including the Spanish colonial era, the nineteenth century 

town development, the Civil War, its dispersed agrarian sites, and the Arkansas 

State Park period. In some places there is aboveground evidence to indicate 

historic building locations. Archeological investigations and historical research 

have identified historic building sites and other historic resources. It is also 

likely that there are resources that have not been identified during archeological 

investigation although the major concentrations have probably been identified 

for the pre-Civil War periods. 

The most recent archeological report, Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History, 

and Prospects, narrative to Accompany a Cultural Resources Base Map, Arkansas 

County, Arkansas, recommended making geomorphological research and 

mapping a high priority because of the lack of comprehensive archeological 

information concerning the APNM vicinity, especially the lower channel of the 

Arkansas river and the Grand Prairie Ridge. For conclusive archeological 

evaluations, archeologists believe it will be necessary to correlate historic 

descriptions of geographic features with their present geographic locations to 
 338 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

compensate for changes resulting from the Arkansas Post Canal construction and 

related shoreline erosion.339 For example, the historic locations of the La 

Houssaye Fort, Fort Carlos, and Fort Esteven del Arkansas/Fort Madison were 

located on the bluff above the former Arkansas River channel, and the bluff has 

since eroded away as a result of ravaging floods in this area. Continued 

investigations and studies related to late nineteenth- and twentieth-century 

dispersed rural settlement sites might reveal information related to rural life and 

African-American culture in the Arkansas delta region.

Vegetation (Exhibits 23-39) 

Overview of Vegetation 

Trees cover approximately 80% of APNM. The APNM possesses distinctly 

different areas of vegetation that include maturing hardwood forests, younger 

forests in successional growth, mowed lawns–some with deciduous shade trees, 

a late twentieth-century prairie plantation, and wetland vegetation. A total of 

162 plant species belonging to 63 families have been recorded. The northern 

portions of APNM consist of tree species similar to those found along a terrace 

while the more southern portions consist of primarily bottomland hardwood 

species. Interspersion of more upland species such as loblolly pine, post oak, 

and eastern red cedar occurs throughout APNM. The remainder of APNM 

 

339 Cande, p. 59. It should be noted that the current Arkansas Post location was occupied in 1749 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 339 

December 2005 

vegetation types consists mostly of manicured lawns, some semi-aquatic 

vegetation, and a small area of restored tall grass prairie. The young prairie, 

which was planted in the 1990s, grows adjacent to the picnic area although it is 

not in an area where there was a naturally occurring prairie. 

Mowed lawn areas, with some portions open and other portions shaded by large 

deciduous trees, occur in the southern portion of the site near the visitor center. 

There are also mowed areas adjacent to the entry road, near the maintenance and 

NPS housing area, and adjacent to interpretive waysides. In the vicinity of the 

Confederate rifle pits, the woods in the vicinity of the earthworks have been 

thinned so that they were “opened up enough to invite visitors to walk along 

them” in accordance with the 1975 master plan.340 In the southern part of APNM 

the wooded and mowed park-like areas and open fields near the lake and 

encompassing the Post of Arkansas Historic Area have largely retained the 

vegetation patterns that existed during the state park era (1929–1963). Similarly, 

in the northern portions of the site large tracts of previously wooded terrain have 

retained their forests, which have matured into stands of large hardwoods. The 

extreme southern end of the APNM is covered with a light post-World War II 

hardwood forest cover. The site’s swamp and marsh areas occur along its 

western shore, Alligator Slough and the northern slough near the vehicular 

 

although formal fortifications may not have been completed until 1752. 

340“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975,” p. 20. 
 340 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

bridge over Little Post Bayou. A Loblolly Pine community, predating 1975, was 

planted immediately north of the oak-shaded lawn north of the lake and is 

intended to evolve through vegetative succession into a shade-tolerant climax 

community of hardwood oaks. 

Older trees that originally grew up along tree lines or as shade trees in fields or 

adjacent to residences are found throughout the site. It is of interest to note that 

these very large diameter deciduous and evergreen trees appear to have grown 

rather quickly at APNM. Informal tree ring counts of fallen trees indicate that 

they are 100-years old, or older.341 The oldest and largest deciduous trees extant 

onsite–less than a dozen with circumferences in the six foot range–appear to be 

no more than 200 years old (Exhibit 22). 

Remnants of domestic landscape vegetation dating from the late nineteenth and 

early twentieth-centuries and associated with the dispersed rural house sites of 

that period survive in the central section of the Memorial. Characteristic 

remnant vegetation includes examples of Osage orange, pecan, apple, privet, 

mock orange, arum italicum, cottonwoods, trifoliate orange, periwinkle, 

daffodils, and other plants associated with domestic clusters (Exhibits 12-17). The 

placement and arrangement of much of this surviving vegetation are consistent 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 341 

December 2005 

with domestic clusters although no structures survive. These remnant vegetative 

features occur in the midst of, and in some cases, are being displaced by 

naturalizing understory plants and invasive exotic vegetation. 

Since 1964, the NPS has managed vegetation by retaining wooded areas, and has 

followed a policy of avoiding vegetative restoration of any historical period. 

NPS has selectively removed brush and debris, and has also employed 

prescribed burning as a vegetation management tool. The 1975 master plan 

stated that there would be “no attempt to restore the tree cover of any area in the 

park to a specific historic period.”342 In many places, the site’s vegetative 

character is unlike that of any single historic period. There are certain 

similarities and continuities with historic periods, however, particularly where 

hardwood forests have become reestablished. The older hardwood forest occurs 

primarily in the northern portion of the site and is intersected by the entry road. 

A review of aerial photography indicates that the central part of the peninsula 

was mostly open and in cultivation in 1950 (Map 40). Younger hardwoods have 

grown in succession in this area’s previously cultivated fields since World War II 

(Map 51). 

 

341 APNM personnel related that they have counted the rings of fallen trees. These informal 

counts place the trees in the 100-year or more range. 

342U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Arkansas Post master plan, 1975, p.20. 
 342 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

One prescribed burn occurred in 1994 in major portions of the site. An extremely 

hot fire that produced 12-foot flame scars, this burn damaged large oaks and 

hickories, perhaps because the older trees, which were not accustomed to 

periodic burning, were fire intolerant.343 The practice of burning was 

discontinued as a result of the high tree mortality in forested areas of the APNM. 

Prior to the 1994 burn, the non-burn policy was believed to have contributed to 

increased woody vegetation density, lower forest floor light levels, lower 

herbaceous vegetation diversity, and an increase in aggressive non-native plant 

species, such as privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and trifoliate orange. The resulting 

gaps in the canopy from the high tree mortality may have actually led to an 

increase of these invasive exotic species. Field investigations and field sampling 

appear to support this thesis since invasive exotics are widespread throughout 

the Memorial. 

 

343 Park personnel attribute the decline of large oaks in adjacent areas to the burns. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 343 

December 2005 

Descriptions of Vegetative Stand Types 

There are fifteen vegetative stand types that have been identified within APNM. 

They are defined based on the following criteria: 

• Vegetative Stand Type A: Occurs in the interior of APNM and mostly 

consists of cherrybark oak (BA = 23.8 ft2/acre), post oak (BA = 16.3 

ft2/acre), water oak (BA = 23.8 ft2/acre), and sweetgum (BA = 6.3 

ft2/acre). This area is also interspersed with more upland associated 

species such as loblolly pine and eastern red cedar. The average basal 

area for this vegetation type is 97.5 ft2/acre. The understory is well 

developed and diverse, with herbaceous species such as smartweed, 

bedstraw, and sanicle being characteristic. Midstory species in this 

vegetation type typically consists of trifoliate orange, Japanese privet, and 

numerous other sapling sized tree species. (Exhibit 25)

• Vegetative Stand Type B: Includes mixed oak species (BA= 42.0 

ft2/acre) and sweetgum (BA = 7.5 ft2/acre), with some interspersed 

eastern red cedar. Average basal area is 57.5 ft2/acre. This type occurs in 

the northern portion of APNM. The understory is well developed, with 

numerous, dense stands of French mulberry. Other understory species 

that occur in this vegetation type include muscadine, blackberry, and 

several species of grasses. The midstory component of this vegetation 

type consists of eastern red cedar, deciduous holly, and other sapling 

sized tree species that are also found in the overstory. (Exhibit 26)

• Vegetative Stand Type C: Consists of typical bottomland hardwood 

tree species such as pecan hickory (BA=11.3 ft2/acre), and water oak 

(BA=33.8 ft2/acre) and occurs in the southern portions of APNM. Type C 

has an average basal area of 135.0 ft2/acre. The understory is well 

developed and diverse. Characteristic plants include rattan vine, 

blackberry, Elephant’s foot and several species of grasses. The midstory 

in this area is rather dense, and consists mostly of deciduous holly, 

Japanese privet, and other tree saplings that also commonly occur as trees 

in the overstory. (Exhibit 27)
 344 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

• Vegetative Stand Type D: Mixed oak species (BA=32.0 ft2/acre) and 

sweetgum (BA=13.0 ft2/acre), with some interspersed eastern red cedar, 

makes up vegetation type. The average basal area for this vegetation type 

is 53.0 ft2/acre. This type occurs mostly in the northern portion of 

APNM. The understory is less developed than vegetation type B, 

although some areas have fairly well developed stands of French 

mulberry. Other understory species that occur in these vegetation types 

include muscadine, blackberry, and several species of grasses. The 

midstory component of these vegetation types consists of eastern red 

cedar, deciduous holly, and other sapling sized tree species that are also 

found in the overstory. (Exhibit 28)

• Vegetative Stand Type E: Consists of typical bottomland hardwood 

tree species such as pecan hickory (BA=13.8 ft2/acre), green ash (BA=2.5 

ft2/acre), and water oak (BA=12.5 ft2/acre) and occurs in the southern 

portion of APNM. This vegetative stand type has an average basal area of 

45.0 ft2/acre. The understory is well developed and diverse. 

Characteristic plants include rattan vine, blackberry, Elephant’s foot and 

several species of grasses. The midstory in this area is rather dense, and 

consists mostly of deciduous holly, Japanese privet, and other tree 

saplings that also commonly occur as trees in the overstory. (Exhibit 29)

• Vegetative Stand Type F: Mixed oak species (BA=24.4 ft2/acre) and 

sweetgum (BA=22.2 ft2/acre), with some interspersed eastern red cedar, 

make up vegetation type F. It is largely tree density that separates this 

vegetation type from other similar vegetation types. This type occurs on 

the north-eastern portion of APNM and has an average basal area of 72.2 

ft2/acre. The understory is well developed and consists largely of rattan 

vine, French mulberry, and blackberry. Other understory species that 

occur in this vegetation type include muscadine, poison ivy, bedstraw, 

and several species of grasses. The midstory component of this vegetative 

type consists of eastern red cedar, deciduous holly, and other sapling 

sized tree species that are also found in the overstory. (Exhibit 30)

• Vegetative Stand Type G: Sweetgum (BA=51.0 ft2/acre) and mixed 

oaks (BA=4.0 ft2/acre), with some interspersed eastern red cedar, makes 

up vegetation type G. The average basal area is 60.0 ft2/acre. The 

understory is well developed and diverse. Common understory species 

that occur in this vegetation type include muscadine, blackberry, Beggar’s 

lice, and several species of grasses. The midstory component of this 

vegetation type consists of eastern red cedar, deciduous holly, and other 

sapling sized tree species that are also found in the overstory. (Exhibit 31)
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 345 

December 2005 

• Vegetative Stand Type I: Cherrybark oak (BA=14.3 ft2/acre) and 

sweetgum (BA=2.9 ft2/acre), along with other mixed oak species, make 

up vegetative stand type I. It is largely tree density that separated this 

vegetation type from similar vegetation types. The average basal area for 

this vegetation type is 25.7 ft2/acre. The understory is well developed. 

Common understory species include blackberry, Partridge pea, and 

several species of grasses. The midstory component of this vegetative 

stand type is sparse and includes some sweetgum and other sapling sized 

tree species that also occur in the overstory. (Exhibit 32)

• Vegetative Stand Type J: Consists mostly of sweetgum, with a basal 

area of 160 ft2/acre. The understory is well developed with many species 

of herbaceous plants. Common species include sanicle, Virginia creeper, 

elephant’s foot, and geum. Also, several species of grass are found in this 

vegetation type. The midstory component of this vegetative stand type is 

sparse and consists of sweetgum, winged elm, and other sapling sized tree 

species. (Exhibit 33)

• Vegetative Stand Type K: Occurs in the interior of APNM and mostly 

consists of cherrybark oak (BA=16.3 ft2/acre), sweetgum (BA=26.3 

ft2/acre), water oak (BA=26.3 ft2/acre), and other mixed oaks. It has an 

average basal area of 93.8 ft2/acre. This area is also interspersed with 

more upland associated species such as post oak and eastern red cedar. 

The understory is well developed and diverse, with herbaceous species 

such as smartweed, bedstraw, and sanicle being characteristic. Midstory 

species in these vegetation types typically consist of trifoliate orange, 

Japanese privet, and numerous other sapling sized tree species. 

(Exhibit 34)

• Vegetative Stand Type L: Occurs on the western edge of APNM and 

consists mostly of sweetgum (BA=30.0 ft2/acre), pecan hickory (BA=4.0 

ft2/acre), and black locust with a well developed, diverse understory. 

Average basal area for this vegetation type is 34.0 ft2/acre. Common 

herbaceous plants include longleaf sunflower, goldenrod, blackberry, and 

ragweed. The midstory component in this vegetative stand type is sparse 

and only occurs in localized areas. It consists mostly of sapling sized 

sweetgum and black locust. A small portion of type L is a restored tall 

grass prairie consisting of a variety of grass species. (Exhibit 35)
 346 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

• Vegetative Stand Type M: Primarily post oak with an average basal 

area of 57.5 ft2/acre and an undeveloped understory. It occurs on the 

western portions of APNM. Selected areas of this vegetation type are 

regularly mowed. A midstory component is not present in this vegetation 

type. (Exhibit 36)

• Vegetative Stand Type N: Semi-aquatic vegetation such as cattail, 

typifies vegetation type N and occurs primarily along the edge of water 

on the northwestern portion of APNM. (Exhibit 37)

• Vegetative Stand Type O: Primarily eastern red cedar with an 

average basal area of 102.0 ft2/acre and an undeveloped understory and 

midstory. This type occurs in the western interior of APNM. (Exhibit 38)

• Vegetative Type P: Mowed areas of the APNM. (Exhibit 39)

Summary of Vegetative Stand Types 

Vegetation types C and E consist of typical bottomland hardwood tree species 

such as pecan hickory, green ash, and water oak and occur in the southern 

portions of APNM. The understory is well developed and diverse. Vegetation 

types A and K occur in the interior of APNM and mostly consist of cherrybark 

oak, sweetgum, and other mixed oaks. These areas are also interspersed with 

more upland associated species such as loblolly pine, post oak, and eastern red 

cedar. The understory is well developed and diverse. Mixed oak species and 

sweetgum, with some interspersed eastern red cedar, make up vegetation types 

B, D, F, G, and I. These types occur mostly on the northern areas of APNM. The 

understory is slightly less well developed than the previous vegetation types. 

Vegetation type J contains sweetgum and is located adjacent to Alligator Slough 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 347 

December 2005 

in the west-central portion of the park. Vegetation type L occurs on the western 

edge of APNM and consists mostly of sweetgum, pecan hickory, and black locust 

with a well developed, diverse understory. A small portion of type L is a 

restored tall grass prairie consisting of a variety of grass species. Vegetation type 

M consists of mowed areas with interspersed large trees, primarily post oak, and 

exists throughout the park with the exception of the northernmost areas. Semiaquatic vegetation typifies vegetation type N and occurs primarily along the 

edge of water on the northwestern portion of APNM. Vegetation type O is 

primarily eastern red cedar with an undeveloped understory and occurs in the 

western interior of APNM. 

It is difficult to evaluate and compare APNM vegetation structure and 

understory composition with surrounding forested areas without knowing those 

areas past management histories and current management objectives. Acreage 

surrounding APNM is primarily agricultural fields and small woodlots to the 

north. The south, east, and west are immediately surrounded by bayous and the 

Arkansas River. Beyond the bayous and river are primarily bottomland 

hardwood forests. Tree composition of these forests likely resembles the more 

southern areas on APNM, such as vegetation types C and E. However, forested 

areas on APNM are typically smaller and less contiguous than surrounding 

tracts of larger expanse. 
 348 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Vegetation Analysis 

Forested vegetation types on APNM roughly follow a gradient from composition 

resembling bottomland forest types that typically occupy more mesic sites to 

upland forest types that occupy more xeric sites. The following graphic 

illustrates these relationships as well as similarity between vegetation types. 

Types grouped together are more similar to each other than to types in other 

groupings (e.g., type C is more similar to type E than to type A). Also, types are 

most like other types that occur near each other along the moisture gradient (e.g., 

type C is more similar to type A than type B). 

 Vegetation Type Site Condition

 C, E most mesic 

 A, K 

 B, D, F, G, J, I 

 L 

 M, O most xeric 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 349 

December 2005 

Most vegetation types (excluding types I, G, and L) are currently in midsuccessional seres, though several types are interspersed with gaps or other areas 

that are in earlier successional stages. If left alone and undisturbed, canopy 

closure would likely increase, thus resulting in a decrease in understory biomass, 

diversity, and structure. However, gaps resulting from natural disturbances 

would ensure an interspersion of early- to mid- succesional areas throughout 

APNM. Composition on the more mesic sites would likely consist of species 

such as pecan hickory, green ash, and sugarberry, while composition on the 

more xeric sites would likely consist of species such as post oak and other mixed 

oak species. 

Vegetation types I, G, and L, are in relatively early successional stages. Types I 

and G, if left undisturbed, would likely resemble vegetation type F in 30 - 40 

years. Vegetation type L, if left undisturbed, would be populated by sweetgum 

until other mixed hardwoods begin to compete, ultimately resulting in 

vegetation similar to that found in types B, D, or K.
 350 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

The interspersion and juxtaposition of a variety of vegetation types along with 

maintained lawns, trails, and roads, provide for a landscape with numerous 

edges and little continuity. Thus, because of extensive edge effects, a wide 

diversity of wildlife occurs at APNM. Generalist species thrive throughout. 

However, these conditions may also foster habitat sinks that can negatively 

influence area-sensitive wildlife such as several neotropical bird species.344

Plants Traditionally Used by Native Americans 

All recorded plants were checked against a list of species compiled by the 

National Park Service that identified plants traditionally utilized by Native 

Americans (see Appendix B).

345 A total of 39 of these species, representing 25 

families, occur within the APNM (Table 1 – Flora of Arkansas Post National 

Memorial). When their location was documented, these species were spatially 

referenced to the 15 identified vegetation types at APNM (Exhibits 25-39). 

 

344 A habitat sink is defined as a habitat within which mortality exceeds reproduction for a given 

species. Conversely, a habitat source is defined as a habitat within which reproduction exceeds 

mortality for a given species. Without species-specific information on reproductive rates and 

mortality rates, identification of sources and sinks is not possible. 

345 Ethnographer Michael J. Evans of the NPS Midwest Regional Office compiled a list of plant 

species used by Native Americans. However, this plant usage may not have been by peoples 

indigenous to the APNM area. Dr. Evans researched historical documentation for direct 

references to use by specific plant by tribe or nation. His list, therefore, documents usage 

recorded in printed anthropological literature. Because knowledge of plant uses was and is so 

widespread among Great Plains and Midwest Native American cultures, uses by one tribe 

correspond into similar uses by other tribes. However specific documentation on continuing 

traditional plant use has not been researched for the indigenous peoples specifically affiliated 

with APNM. 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 351 

December 2005 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 

No nationally listed threatened or endangered plant species have been identified 

as extant within the APNM. In fact, no federally listed threatened or endangered 

species are known to occur in Arkansas County. However, two state-listed 

threatened species, Oenothera pilosella ssp. Sessilis (prairie evening primrose) 

and Thalictrum arkansanum (Arkansas meadow rue) exist within the APNM. 

Hairy water fern (Marsilea vestita) occurs in the Memorial and is listed a as an 

Arkansas state species of special concern as SU (uncertain). One state-listed 

endangered species, Platanthera nivea (snowy orchid), is known to occur in 

Arkansas County, although it has not been observed at APNM. 

Exotic Plant Species 

A total of 11 invasive exotic plant species representing 9 families and 11 

noninvasive exotic plant species representing 7 families were recorded at APNM 

(Table 1 – Flora of Arkansas Post National Memorial). When their location was 

documented, these species were spatially referenced to the 15 identified 

vegetation types at APNM (Exhibits 25 – 39). The status of plant species as 

invasive or noninvasive exotics is by the Plant Conservation Alliance’s listings. 

One invasive exotic species, Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle), is also 

identified as a plant traditionally used by Native Americans. 
 352 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Map 49: 1955 Aerial Photograph 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 353 

December 2005 

Map 50: 1964 Aerial Photograph 
 354 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Map 51: 1981 Aerial Photograph 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 355 

December 2005 

Map 52: 1994 Aerial Photograph 
 356 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Arkansas Post

National memorial

Exhibit 10

Existing Conditions

Cultural Landscape Report

Map prepared by Land and Community Associates, October, 1998;

Revised April, 1999.

Revised by Quinn Evans|Architects, May 2004.

This map is for planning purposes only.

0 300 900 600 ft N

Map Scale: 1"= 600' (approximate)

Park Entrance Road

(Old County Road/ Old Post Road)

S.R. 169 (Constructed 1965-66)

large trees 

over lawn

large trees 

over lawn

large hardwoods

lake

Picnic Area Road (Old StateRoute 169/ Jordelas Street)

SR 169

bridge

restored

prairie

second growth

hardwoods

AR KANS AS R IVE R

Approximate 1980 Channel

Navigation Pool #2

POS T (MOOR E 'S ) BAYOU

Nature Trail

alligator

slough mown

lawn

Trail (State Park Road)

Parking

Parking

Main Street

Confederate Fort 

Interpretive Exhibit

Parking

Colbert Incident

Interpretive Exhibit

Shoreline Rip-Rap

The Arkansas Post

Interpretive Exhibit

Battle of Arkansas Post 

Interpretive Exhibit

Fort Hindman

Marker

De Tonti Post (Great Cross); current site

Townsite Introduction Interpretive Exhibit

De Tonti Post (Great Cross);

first site

Arkansas Gazette

Interpretive Exhibit

Arkansas River

Interpretive Exhibit

Notrebe's Gin

Interpretive Exhibit

Trading Factory Interpretive Exhibit

Montgomery's Tavern Interpretive Exhibit

Current APNM Boundary/ 

Rip-Rap Shoreline

Obliterated S.R. 169

restored

prairie

AR KANS AS POS T CANAL

POST BEND

Navigation Pool #2

Flooded 1967; 1974 Water Elevation 162.00

Fence

Fence Orchard

mown

lawn

10-132

10-139

10-131

10-134 10-133

S.R. 169 (Constructed 1965-66)

mown

lawn

Main Street

10-136

10-138

EXHIBIT 19

 EX 16

EX 11

EX 13

 EX 12

EXHIBIT 15

EXHIBIT 14

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 18

10-112 & 10-113

10-55

7-27/40

Frederic Notrebe Interpretive Exhibit

10-88

7-120

10-127

10-82

10-135

Rifle Pit

Interpretive Exhibit

Obliterated Road

Existing Building

Wooded

Vegetation

Key:

Trail

Interpretive Stop

Lot Line/ Spanish Land Grant Boundary

Remnant Fence

Notable Groundcover

Current Boundary

Road

Map Notes:

1. Waterline illustrates 1980 channel conditions.

2. Landscape physiography illustrates Exhibit 7 "NPS Development 

Period" conditions.

3. See respective Historic Period Exhibits 1-8 for primary sources.

4. See Respective Exhibit # for Enlarged Plan: EX #

Legend

Remains of Frederick Notrebe's Cistern 10-27/40

Ruins of Arkansas Post Branch of Arkansas State Bank and

 State Bank Monument 10-55

Remains of Confederate Rifle Pits/ Trenches 10-82

Remains of Unidentified 19th Century Well 10-88

Earth Dam 10-112

Concrete Dam Spillway and Culvert 10-113

Battle of Arkansas Post Historical Marker 10-127

Visitor Center and Maintenance Building 10-131

Employee's Residence 10-132

Drilled Well 10-133

Sewage Lagoon 10-134

Picnic Area and Comfort Station 10-135

APNM Entrance Sign 10-136

Visitor Center 10-137

Fishing Pad 10-138

Additional Maintenance & Support Buildings 10-139
 358 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 359 

December 2005 
 360 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 361 

December 2005 
 362 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
 Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 363 

December 2005 
 364 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Arkansas Post

National memorial

Exhibit 20

soils Survey

Cultural Landscape Report

Map prepared by Land and Community Associates, October, 1998;

Revised April, 1999.

Revised by Quinn Evans|Architects; May 2004.

This map is for planning purposes only.

0 300 900 600 ft N

Map Scale: 1"= 600' (approximate)

lake

SR 169

bridge

AR KANS AS R IVE R

Approximate 1980 Channel

Navigation Pool #2

POS T (MOOR E "S ) BAYOU

alligator

slough

Parking

Current APNM Boundary/ 

Rip-Rap Shoreline

AR KANS AS POS T CANAL

POST BEND

Navigation Pool #2

Flooded 1967; 1974 Water Elevation 162.00

Maintenance 

Facility

Visitor Center

Road

Existing Building

Key:

Trail

Lot Line/ Spanish Land Grant Boundary

Current Boundary

Obliterated Road

Map Notes:

1. Waterline illustrates 1980 channel conditions.

2. Landscape physiography illustrates Exhibit 7 "NPS Development 

Period" conditions.

3. See respective Historic Period Exhibits 1-8 for primary sources.

4. Soil Series location from "Aerial Photograph, United States 

Department of Agriculture, NRCS.(date unknown)."

Soil series Legend

Ethel Silt Loam, Soil Series 6

Immanuel Silt Loam, Soil Series 20A

Immanuel Silt Loam, Soil Series 20B

Immanuel Silt Loam, Soil Series 20C

Stuttgart Silt Loam, Soil Series 37A
Arkansas Post

National memorial

Exhibit 21

Archeological resources

Cultural Landscape Report

Map prepared by Land and Community Associates, October, 1998;

Revised April, 1999.

This map is for planning purposes only.

0 300 900 600 ft N

Map Scale: 1"= 600' (approximate)

Park Entrance Road

(Old County Road/ Old Post Road)

S.R. 169 (Constructed 1965-66)

large hardwoods

lake

Picnic Area Road (Old StateRoute 169/ Jordelas Street)

SR 169

bridge

AR KANS AS R IVE R

Approximate 1980 Channel

Navigation Pool #2

POS T (Moore's) BAYOU

Nature Trail

alligator

slough

Parking

Main Street

Confederate Fort 

Interpretive Exhibit

Parking

The Arkansas Post

Interpretive Exhibit

Battle of Arkansas Post 

Interpretive Exhibit

Fort Hindman

Marker

De Tonti Post (Great Cross); current site

Townsite Introduction Interpretive Exhibit

De Tonti Post (Great Cross);

first site

Arkansas Gazette

Interpretive Exhibit

Arkansas River

Interpretive Exhibit

Notrebe's Gin Interpretive Exhibit

Trading Factory Interpretive Exhibit

Montgomery's Tavern Interpretive Exhibit

Current APNM Boundary/ 

Rip-Rap Shoreline

Obliterated S.R. 169

AR KANS AS POS T CANAL

POST BEND

Navigation Pool #2

Flooded 1967; 1974 Water Elevation 162.00

Fence

Fence

Perritt Residence

Site

Orchard

Apple Trees

Daffodils

Pin Oaks

S.R. 169 (Constructed 1965-66)

10-94

10-92

10-129

10-93

10-90

10-89

10-97

10-138

10-55

7-27/40

Frederic Notrebe Interpretive Exhibit

10-88

10-127

10-101

10-130

10-98/99

10-60/100

10-59

10-95

10-82

10-96

P. Holder Excavations, 

1956-1957

R. Wilson 

Excavations, 1966

J. Walker Excavations, 1968

Arkansas Archeological 

Survey Excavations, 1971

SMU Archaeology Research

Program Excavations, 1974

SMU Archaeology Research

Program Excavations, 1974

Sewer Line Survey

Sewer Line Survey

Obliterated Road

Archeol. Survey

Wooded

Vegetation

Key:

Former Building Site/

Building Remnant

Bluff Line

Interpretive Stop Trail

Lot Line/ Spanish Land Grant Boundary

Remnant Fence

Notable Groundcover

Current Boundary

Notable Trees

Map Notes:

1. Waterline illustrates 1980 channel conditions.

2. Landscape physiography illustrates Exhibit 7 "NPS Development 

Period" conditions.

3. See respective Historic Period Exhibits 1-8 for primary sources.

Historic Period Legend

Remains of Frederick Notrebe's Cistern 10-27/40

Ruins of Arkansas Post Branch of Arkansas State Bank and

 State Bank Monument 10-55

Rainey Farm Site 10-59

Hewes Scull Farm Site 10-60

Remains of Confederate Rifle Pits/ Trenches 10-82

Remains of Unidentified 19th Century Well 10-88

Post Office and Store Site operated by Louis C. Jones 10-89

Clarence Owens' Residence Site 10-90

John Hudson House & Buildings Site 10-92

George Connie House Site 10-93

Quandt Store Site 10-94

Frederick Quandt House Site 10-95

Reeves Farm Buildings Site 10-96

Ina Hudson House Site 10-97

Richard Stovall House Site 10-98

Rena Bass House Site 10-99

Ambros Bass House Site 10-100

Emma Battles House Site 10-101

Earth Dam 10-112

Concrete Dam Spillway and Culvert 10-113

Battle of Arkansas Post Historical Marker 10-127

Conine Store Site 10-129

African-American Episcopal (AME) Church Site 10-130
Arkansas Post

National memorial

Exhibit 22 

large diameter trees

Cultural Landscape Report

Map prepared by Land and Community Associates, October, 1998;

Revised April, 1999.

This map is for planning purposes only.

0 300 900 600 ft N

Map Scale: 1"= 600' (approximate)

Park Entrance Road

(Old County Road/ Old Post Road)

S.R. 169 (Constructed 1965-66)

large trees 

over lawn

large trees 

over lawn

large hardwoods

lake

Picnic Area Road (Old StateRoute 169/ Jordelas Street)

SR 169

bridge

restored

prairie

second growth

hardwoods

AR KANS AS R IVE R

Approximate 1980 Channel

Navigation Pool #2

POS T (MOOR E 'S ) BAYOU

Nature Trail

alligator

slough mown

lawn

Trail (State Park Road)

Parking

Parking

Main Street

Parking

Current APNM Boundary/ 

Rip-Rap Shoreline

restored

prairie

AR KANS AS POS T CANAL

POST BEND

Navigation Pool #2

Flooded 1967; 1974 Water Elevation 162.00

Fence

Fence Orchard

Crepe Myrtle, Daylilies, Privets, 

Arum Italicum, Loblolly Pine

mown

lawn

mown

lawn

EXHIBIT 19

 EX 16

EX 11

EX 13

 EX 12

EXHIBIT 15

EXHIBIT 14

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 18

7-120

Obliterated Road

Existing Building

Wooded

Vegetation

Key:

Trail

Lot Line/ Spanish Land Grant Boundary

Remnant Fence

Notable Groundcover

Notable Trees

Current Boundary

Road

Map Notes:

1. Waterline illustrates 1980 channel conditions.

2. Landscape physiography illustrates Exhibit 7 "NPS Development 

Period" conditions.

3. See respective Historic Period Exhibits 1-8 for primary sources.

4. See Respective Exhibit # for Enlarged Plan: EX #
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 369 

Final Draft, December 2005 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 370 

Final Draft, December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 371 

December 2005 
 372 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 373 

December 2005 
 374 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 375 

December 2005 
 376 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 377 

December 2005 
 378 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 379 

December 2005 
 380 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 381 

December 2005 
 382 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 383 

December 2005 
 384 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Chapter 4, Existing Conditions • 385 

December 2005 
 386 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005

TABLE I: FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

 EXOTIC1 SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAMES Invasive Noninvasi

ACERACEAE Acer negundo (L.) Boxelder; Ash-leaved maple, Three- leaved 

maple. 

ALISMATACEAE *Echinodorus cordifolius (L.) Bur-head. AMARYLLIDACEAE ***Narcissus sp. Jonquil, Daffodil, Narcissus X AMARANTHACEAE *Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Chaff flower. X ANACARDIACEAE Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Poison ivy. APIACEAE *Chaerophyllum tainturieri (Hook) Wild chervil. *Cryptotaenia canadensis (L.) Honewort; Wild chervil. *Ptilimnium nuttallii (DC.) Mock bishop’s weed. *Sanicula canadensis (L.) Black snakeroot; Sanicle. *Trepocarpus aethusae (Nutt.) APOCYNACEAE Trachelospermum difforne (Walt.) Climbing dogbane. *Vinca major (L.) Large periwinkle. X 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

AQUIFOLIACEAE **Ilex decidua (Walt.) Possumhaw; Deciduous holly, Winterberry. ARACEAE ***Arum italicum (Rafin) Italian Arum X ARECACEAE Sabal minor (Jacq.) Dwarf palmetto. ARISTOLOCHIACEAE *Aristolochia serpentaria (L.) Virginia snakeroot. BERBERIDACEAE Podophyllum peltatum (L.) May apple; Mandrake. BIGNONIACEAE ** Campsis radicans (L.) Trumpet creeper; Trumpet vine, Devil’s 

shoe laces, Shoe strings, Hell vine. 

BORAGINACEAE *Myosotis verna (Nutt.) Forget-me-not. CAMPANULACEAE *Lobelia appendulata (A.) Lobelia. CAPRIFOLIACEAE Lonicera japonica (Thunb.) Japanese honeysuckle. X 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

COMMELINACEAE*Tradescantia occidentalis (Bitt.) Spiderwort. *Acmella oppositifolia (Lam.) Ambrosia artemisifolia (L.) Common ragweed Baccharis halimifolia (L.) Groundsel-tree; Sea-myrtle, Baccharis. COMPOSITAE (ASTERACEAE) *Bidens aristosa (Michx.) Tickseed-sunflower. *Boltonia diffusa (Ell.) Doll’s daisy *Cirsium altissimium (L.) Plumed thistle; Tall thistle. *C. horridum (Michx.) Yellow thistle. **Elephantopus carolinianus (Willd.) Elephant’s foot. *E. tomentosus (L.) Tobacco-weed; Devil’s grandmother. Erigeron philadelphicus (L.) Philadelphia fleabane; Daisy fleabane. *E. strigosus (Muhl.) Fleabane; Daisy fleabane, Whitetop 

fleabane. 

 

*Eupatorium coelestinum (L.) Mist-flower; Blue boneset. *E. perfoliatum (L.) Thoroughwort; Boneset. *E. serotinum (Michx.) Late boneset. *Euthamia leptocephala (T.&G.) Narrow-leaf goldenrod. *Gnaphalium purpureum (L.) Purple cudweed. **Helianthus angustifolius (L.) Narrow-leaved sunflower. *Krigia dandelion (L.) Potato-dandelion. *Mikania scandens (Willd.) Climbing hempweed. *Rudbeckia hirta (L.) Black-eyed Susan. *Senecio glabellus (Poir.) Butterweed. **Solidago canadensis (L.) Goldenrod. *Vernonia missurica (Raf.) Ironweed. 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

CORNACEAE Cornus drummondii (Meyer) Rough-leaved dogwood. Cornus florida (L.) Flowering dogwood; Dogwood, Cornel, 

Arrow wood. 

Nyssa sylvatica (Marsh.) Blackgum; Black tupelo, Sour and Tupelo 

gum, Gum tree, Pepperidge. 

CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus virginiana (L.) Eastern red cedar; red cedar. Taxodium distichum (L.) Baldcypress; Southern cypress, Swamp 

cypress. 

 

CYPERACEAE *Carex flaccosperma (Dewey) Sedge. *C. oxylepis (Torr.&Hook.) Sedge. EBENACEAE **Diospyros virginiana (L.) Common persimmon; Persimmon, Possum 

wood. 

ERICACEAE Vaccinium arboreum (Marsh.) Farkleberry; Sparkleberry. FAGACEAE **Quercus falcata (Michx.) Southern red oak; Spanish, Finger, and Red 

oak. 

 

Q. michauxii (Nutt.) Swamp Chesnut oak; Cow oak, Basket oak. **Q. nigra (L.) Water oak; Duck, Possum, and Pin oak. 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

Q. nuttallii (Palmer) Nuttall oak. **Q. pagoda (Raf.) Cherrybark oak; Swamp red oak, Swamp, 

Spanish oak. 

Q. phellos (L.) Willow oak; Pin and Swamp willow oak. **Q. stellata (Wang.) Post oak. FUMARIACEAE ***Dicentra sp. Dutchman’s breeches ***D. canadensis Squirrelcorn GERANIACEAE *Geranium carolinianum (L.) Crane’s-bill. HAMAMELIDACEAE **Liquidambar styraciflua (L.) Sweetgum; Red gum, Gum, Gum tree, Sap 

gum, American sweetgum. 

 

HIPPOCASTANACEAE Aesculus pavia (L.) Red buckeye. HYDROPHYLLACEAE *Phacelia hirsuta (Nutt.) Scorpion-weed. HYPERICACEAE *Hypericum hypericoides (L.) St. Andrews Cross *H. punctatum St. John’s Wort. 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

IRIDACEAE *Sisyrinchium angustifolium (P.) Blue eyed-grass. ***Iris sp. Iris X JUGLANDACEAE *Carya illinoensis (Wang.) Pecan hickory; Sweet pecan. **C. tomentosa (Nutt.) Mockernut hickory; White, White heart, Big 

bud, and Red hickory, Bull nut. 

**Juglans nigra (L.) Black walnut; Walnut, American walnut, 

Gunwood. 

JUNCACEAE *Juncus balticus (Willd.) Baltic rush. *J. tenuis (Willd.) Path rush; Slender rush. LAMIACEAE *Hedeoma hispidum (Pursh.) Mock pennyroyal. *Perilla frutescens (L.) Beef-steak plant. X *Prunella vulgaris (L.) Self-heal; Heal-all. *Pycnanthemum albescens (T.&G.) Mountain-mint. *Salvia lyrata (L.) Lyre-leaved sage; Cancer weed. LAURACEAE Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Sassafras; Common sassafras. LEGUMINOSAE (FABACEAE) *Albizzia julibrissin (Durazz.) Silktree; Mimosa. X *Chamaecrista fasciculata (Michx.) Partridge pea. 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

*Clitoria mariana (L.) Butterfly-pea. **Gleditsia tricanthos (L.) Honeylocust. *Lathyrus pusillus (Ell.) Vetchling; Wild pea. *Mimosa strigillosa (T.&G.) Powder-puff. *Robinia pseudoacacia (L.) Black locust; Locust, Yellow, White, Red, 

and Green locust, False acacia. 

*Stylosanthes biflora (L.) Pencil flower; Sidebeak pencilflower. *Trifolium dubium (Sibth.) Little hop clover; Small hopclover. X *T. repens (L.) White clover; Clover. X *Vicia sativa (L.) Common vetch; Vetch. X ***Wisteria sinensis (Sims) Wisteria, Chinese wisteria X LILIACEAE *Allium canadense (L.) Garlic, Onion, Leek. ***Hemerocallis sp. Day lily X ***Muscari sp. Grape Hyacinth Smilax bonanox (L.) Greenbrier; Bullbrier, Catbrier, Saw 

greenbrier. 

 

*S. rotundifolia (L.) Common greenbrier; Catbrier. ***Yucca aloifolia (L.) Yucca, soapweed, spanish bayonet MALVACEAE*Hibiscus laevis (Allioni) Rose Mallow. MENISPERMACEAE Cocculus carolinus (L.) Carolina moonseed. 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

MORACEAE *Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Paper mulberry. X *Maclura pomifera (Raf.) Osage orange; Bois d’ark, Mock orange, 

Bow wood, Hedge, Hedge apple. 

 

*Morus rubra (L.) Red mulberry; Common mulberry. NYMPHACEAE *Nelumbo lutea (Nutt.) American lotus, Yellow lotus, Yanquapin, 

Water Chinquapin, Lotus lily. 

OLEACEAE **Fraxinus pennsylvanica (Marsh.) Green ash; Water ash. **Ligustrum japonicum (L.) Common privet. X **L. sinense (Lour.) Chinese privet; Privet. X ONAGRACEAE *Oenothera linifolia (Nutt.) Evening primrose; Sundrops. OXALIDACEAE Oxalis dillenii (Jacq.) Yellow wood sorrel; Wood sorrel. PASSIFLORACEAE **Passiflora incarnata (L.) Maypops; Apricot vine, Passion flower. PINACEAE ***Pinus taeda (L.) Loblolly pine 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

PLATANACEAE Platanus occidentalis (L.) American sycamore; Sycamore, 

Buttonwood, Buttonball tree, Plane tree, American planetree. 

 

POACEAE *Briza minor (L.) Little quaking grass. X *Chasmanthium laxum (L.) Inland sea oats. Cynodon dactylom (L.) Pers. Bermuda grass *Eragrostis spectabilis (Pursh) Lovegrass. *Hordeum pusillum (Nutt.) Barley. *Panicum anceps (Michx.) Panic; Panicum, Dichanthelium. *P. boscii (Poir.) Panic; Panicum, Dichanthelium. *P. commutatum (Schult.) Panic; Panicum, Dichanthelium. *P. dichotomiflorum (L.) Panic; Panicum, Dichanthelium. *P. laxiflorum (Lam.) Panic; Panicum, Dichanthelium. *P. malacophyllum (Nash) Panic; Panicum, Dichanthelium. *P. scoparium (Lam.) Panic; Panicum, Dichanthelium. *Paspalum dilatatum (Poir.) Paspalum. X *P. floridanum (Michx.) Paspalum *Setaria geniculata (Lam.) Foxtail; Bristlegrass ***Triodia flava POLYGONACEAE *Polygonum hydropiperiodes (Michx.) Smartweed *Rumex hastatulus (Baldw.) Dock 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

POLYPODIACEAE Polystichum acrostichoides (Michx.) Christmas fern. RANUNCULACEAE *Ranunculus sardous (Crantz) Buttercup; Crowfoot. RHAMNACEAE **Berchemia scandens (Hill) Supple-jack; Rattan vine. ROSACEAE *Geum canadense (Jacq.) Avens; White avens, Red root. *Potentilla simplex (Michx.) Cinquefoil; Five-finger. *Prunus serotina (Ehrh.) Black cherry; Rum cherry. **Rubus argutus (Link.) High-bush blackberry; Blackberry. R. trivialis (Michx.) Southern dewberry; Blackberry. ***Spiraea prunifolia (Sieb. & Zucc.) Bridal wreath X ***S. arguta (Zabel) Bridal wreath X ***Rosa sp. Rose X RUBIACEAE *Galium aparine (L.) Cleavers; Bedstraw, Goose grass. *G. circaezans (Michx.) Wild licorice; Bedstraw. *G. concinnum (T.& G.) Bedstraw RUTACEAE Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Trifoliate orange, bitter orange X Zanthoxylum clava-herculis (L.) Hercules’ club, toothache tree 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued. SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

SCROPHULARIACEAE *Gratiola neglecta (Torr.) Hedge-hyssop; Clammy hedge-hyssop. SOLANACEAE Solanum carolinense (L.) Horse nettle; Bull nettle. TYPHACEAE Typha latifolia (L.) Cattail ULMACEAE **Celtis laevigata (Willd.) Sugarberry; Southern hackberry. Ulmus alata (Michx.) Winged elm; Cork elm. Ulmus americana (L.) American elm. *Ulmus rubra (Muhl.) Slippery elm; Red elm. VALERIANACEAE *Valerianella radiata (L.) Corn Salad. VERBENACEAE **Callicarpa americana (L.) French mulberry; Beauty berry. VIOLACEAE Viola rafinesquii (Green) Johnny jump-up. 
Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report TABLE I Chapter 4, E

December 2005FLORA OF ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL – Continued.SCIENTIFIC NAME (AUTHOR) COMMON NAME; LOCAL NAME EXOTIC

Invasive Noninvasi

VITACEAE **Ampelopsis arborea (L.) Pepper vine. Ampelopsis cordata (Michx.) Raccoon grape; False grape, Heartleaf 

ampelopsis. 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Virginia creeper; Woodbine. **Vitis rotundifolia (Michx.) Muscadine; Scuppernong. 1 Status of plant species as invasive or noninvasive exotics is by the Plant Conservation Alliance’s listings. 2 Traditional plant use by Native Americans is based on research conducted and summarized by Ethnographer M

(National Park Service, Midwest Region). Dr. Evans researched historical documentation for direct references to 

by tribe or nation. His list, therefore, documents usage recorded in printed anthropological literature. Because k

uses was and is so widespread among Great Plains and Midwest Native American cultures, uses by one tribe corruses by other tribes. However, specific documentation on continuing traditional plant use has not been researche

people’s specifically affiliated with APNM. NOTE: Species not marked with an (*) were recorded by Chris Watt in 1999 (June – October). * Species marked with one (*) were recorded by Dustin Rodgers and Ricky O’Neill in 1997 (April – September)** Species marked with two (*) were recorded by Chris Watt (1999) and Dustin Rodgers and Ricky O’Neill (199*** Species marked with three (*) were contributed by Harlan Groe (2000) State listed Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) species located in Arkansas County, Arkansas: 

Oenothera pilosella ssp. sessilis (Prairie evening primrose) – T. 

 Thalictrum arkansanum (Arkansas meadow-rue) – T.  Platanthera nivea (Snowy orchid) – E. There are no federally listed Threatened (T) and/or Endangered (E) species located in Arkansas County, Arkansa
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Analysis 
5. ANALYSIS 

Criteria for Evaluating Significance 

The evaluation of significance of the APNM historic landscape presented herein 

adheres to standards set by the National Register and guidelines for their 

application provided by the National Park Service.345 According to these 

standards, a cultural landscape must possess significance in at least one of the 

four aspects of cultural heritage defined by the National Register criteria and

retain integrity. The four aspects of cultural heritage include properties that: 

• are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history (Criterion A); or 

• are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion 

B); or 

• embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high 

 

345 The analysis within utilizes guidelines presented in National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation 

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service; Interagency Resources Division, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), 

and Page, Robert R., Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan, A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural 

Landscapes Program, 1998). 
400 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity 

whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C); or 

• have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in 

prehistory or history (Criterion D).346

The significance of the APNM landscape was determined by relating findings 

from the site history and existing conditions analysis to the historic context. 

Assessment of the historic integrity of the APNM landscape was conducted to 

determine if the landscape characteristics and associated features are present in 

much the same way as they were historically. The historic integrity of a 

landscape is “determined by the extent to which the general character of the 

historic period is evident, and the degree to which incompatible elements 

obscuring that character can be reversed.”347 The level of historic integrity of the 

NPNM landscape is directly related to the ability of the combined extant physical 

features to convey the site’s historical significance.348 

 

346 National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; 

National Park Service; Interagency Resources Division, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991). 

347 Page, Robert R., Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan, A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural 

Landscapes Program, 1998), pp. 71-73. 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 401 

December 2005 

Significance of the Arkansas Post Historic Landscape 

The landscape at APNM does not retain sufficient integrity in relation to the 

applicable aspects of cultural heritage, and therefore it does not possess 

significance as a historic landscape. 

Historically, the APNM site’s topography and natural resources made the 

landscape an important location in European colonial development. Its 

elevation, high above the frequently flooded Arkansas River lowlands, 

contributed to its desirability for military and commercial uses. The site’s 

strategic location on the Arkansas River made it an important site for defense 

and military operations, commerce, transportation, communication, and 

government in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and a portion of the nineteenth 

centuries. 

The APNM landscape also played an important role in French and Spanish 

colonial, early American and Arkansas territorial and statehood, and Civil War 

history. The Arkansas Post area, which had declined in state and national 

significance by the 1860s, evolved into a rural backwater of small, dispersed, 

 348 Page, Robert R., Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan, A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural 
402 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

agrarian developments following the Civil War. During this period, the site’s 

geography contributed to its isolation rather than its strategic importance. In the 

twentieth century, the State of Arkansas established a state park at Arkansas Post 

to take advantage of the site’s compelling early history and opportunities for 

outdoor recreation. The landscape played a major role in all of these historical 

periods and reflected developments associated with land uses established at 

Arkansas Post. 

The combined forces of nature, war, abandonment, state and federal acquisition, 

and water control projects, have covered, removed, relocated, or obscured most 

of the landscape features associated with the historical periods and addressed in 

the Chapter 3 site history. As a result the landscape no longer retains a sufficient 

number of landscape features associated with these periods to adequately 

portray those historical periods. 

Instead, the APNM retains isolated landscape features, remnant component 

landscapes, and archeological concentrations that through interpretation may be 

 Landscapes Program, 1998), pp. 71-73. 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 403 

December 2005 

used to enhance public understanding of the site’s cultural landscape and its 

changes over time. 

Historical Periods 

Although the existing landscape does not maintain integrity, three periods of 

history at the APNM relate to National Register criterion A, events that have 

made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history: 

• 1673-1803 for French and Spanish colonial history (1673–1763 and 1800-

1803 for French colonial history and 1763–1800 for Spanish colonial 

history); 

• 1803–1830s for early American history; 

• and 1862–1864 for the Civil War. 

The documentation and research undertaken for the CLR do not indicate that the 

APNM is a significant landscape for any of the post-Civil War periods discussed 

in the site history. There is not a sufficient historic context to use in evaluating 

the significance of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century agrarian 

settlements although several fragmented component landscapes from this period 

have been identified (Exhibits 11–17). Moreover, it is likely that other more 
404 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

intact sites in this region would provide more information about rural life and 

prove to be more representative of this period of local and state history. In 

addition, it does not appear that the state park period at Arkansas Post was a 

significant example of twentieth-century state park design. NPS assumed 

operation of the site, altering much of the state park plan. NPS began to develop 

its own construction and management programs at the end of its Mission 66 

initiative although most NPS construction and installations postdate the Mission 

66 period. Consequently, the APNM is not believed to possess significance as 

either an exemplary or representative Mission 66 landscape. 

Archeological Analysis 

Archeological investigations to date have revealed some information about the 

history of the APNM landscape. Future investigations can be expected to yield 

additional information concerning the history and perhaps the prehistory of the 

site. Several concentrations of archeological resources exist at the APNM (Exhibit 

47). This CLR has been prepared without benefit of an archeological component 

and relies on the 1997 Draft Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History and 

Prospects, Narrative To Accompany A Cultural Resource Base Map, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas as the most recent and consolidated source of archeological 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 405 

December 2005 

information. The findings of this archeological report are consistent with the 

historical research undertaken for the CLR Part 1 and the cultural landscape field 

investigations undertaken for the CLR Part 2. There is currently no completed, 

comprehensive ethnographic study of the APNM to inform this analysis. It is 

anticipated that ethnographic information may contribute to the archeological 

analysis of the site in the future and may be used to refine and revise this 

analysis as it becomes available. 

Landform changes due to riverbed meanders, erosion, and navigational 

engineering have complicated archeological documentation and analysis. The 

findings of some reports and investigations have proven inaccurate due to the 

lack of accurate spatial recordation technologies, such as Geographic Information 

Systems and Geographic Positioning Systems that are available today, but were 

not available when earlier investigations were conducted. In addition, 

archeological research methodologies have improved considerably since the 

early studies were conducted. Finally, many of the more reliable archeological 

findings have been related primarily to NPS compliance requirements for sites, 

which were investigated prior to their disturbance for construction of current 

buildings and facilities. As a result, the archeological information available for 
406 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the APNM is not only dated, but also incomplete, and in some cases inaccurate 

for site-specific locations. 

Despite these inadequacies in archeological documentation, there are definitive 

concentrations of archeological resources within the APNM. These 

concentrations, which are identified in Exhibit 47, possess known or potential 

resources from the various periods of APNM landscape development. These 

major concentrations are related to Spanish and French colonial settlement, early 

American settlement, and Civil War engagement on the site (Exhibit 47). 

No significant prehistoric resources have been identified at APNM however 

(Exhibit 40).

349 Known to Native Americans for thousands of years prior to 

European exploration and settlement, native Americans from several cultures 

ranging from the Archaic through the late Mississippian periods would have 

used the site periodically for hunting and gathering for almost 10,000 years. 

While there have been several attempts to locate Native American village sites, 

none have been identified within the APNM. At present it appears unlikely that 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 407 

December 2005 

any of the four known Quapaw villages on the Arkansas River mentioned by the 

first Europeans would have been located within the boundaries of the area 

addressed in the CLR. It does, however, appear possible that the town sites 

visited by the de Soto entrada would have been located within the MenardHodges site, which is being added to the APNM. Although future investigations 

may reveal information about the prehistory of the area included in the CLR 

boundaries, at this point it appears more prudent to concentrate archeological 

investigations on the new addition of the Menard-Hodges site and to focus the 

APNM’s Native American interpretation on that portion of the memorial. 

The APNM possesses three main areas of archeological resource concentrations. 

These include the area south of Park Lake to the bluffs adjacent to the Arkansas 

River, the area west and north of Park Lake and the portion of site between Post 

Bend to the east and Post Bayou the west in the area south of the maintenance 

facility and north of Alligator Slough. 

 349 The relative dearth of Indian cultural materials may be attributed to the relatively limited extent of archeological investigations and the likelihood 

that periodic flooding and the shifting course of the Arkansas River have eroded away many artifacts and structural remains. In addition, at the time 

of primary Native American habitation, the current peninsula area of the modern Post was quite a distance from the river. In addition, the current 

peninsular area of the modern APNM was wilderness during the primary period of Indian habitation, and was actually located at quite a distance 

from the water. 
408 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Archeological resources dating from the earliest era of European habitation exist 

primarily in the southern portion of the APNM south of Park Lake and the 

visitor center. The various archeological investigations to date have confirmed 

the French and Spanish presence in this portion of the site during the early 

eighteenth-century and the early American settlement in the early nineteenth 

century. Analysis of the pottery and other artifacts found in the southern part of 

the site are consistent with the historical documentation of French and Spanish 

use during this period. Below-ground structural remains have also been 

identified in these investigations. Future archeological investigations combined 

with accurate GPS mapping may be able to determine the extent to which these 

resources still exist in light of the extensive erosion that has occurred since the 

earliest archeological work was conducted in the 1950s. Regardless of resource 

survival, twentieth-century archeological findings can be used to interpret this 

important period of the French and Spanish colonial experience at the APNM 

and updated to reflect the most current historical information available. 

Evidence of early American use in the period 1803 to 1863 has also been found in 

the southern portion of the APNM. Evidence of two brick structures as well as 

other artifacts helped to identify the locations of early American activity on the 

site. 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 409 

December 2005 

Civil War 

Resources related to the American Civil War period from 1856 through 1865 are 

concentrated in the area between Post Bend to the east and Post Bayou the west, 

bounded on the north by the maintenance facility and on the south by Alligator 

Slough (Exhibit 47). There was extensive development and activity at the site 

during this period (Exhibit 4). Recent trench excavations for a new electrical 

system throughout the park exposed some materials that are potentially related 

to the Civil War period. The area includes the historic location of the battle lines 

of the Union Army during its assault on the Confederate Fort Hindman. The 

existing picnic ground access road represents the division line between the 

Union and Confederate positions. The Union position was on the north side of 

the road, while the Confederate position was on the south side of the road. 

During trenching items were observed and collected that “suggest a multiple 

component historic site which incorporates an early 1830s to circa 1900 

occupation,” and “circa 1860-1920 occupation area t the southern portion of the 

site.” 350 The quantity of objects observed during this linear excavation suggests 

that a preponderance of archeological artifacts are likely to exist in the area. A 
410 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

greater understanding of these resources would add to the interpretive program 

at the APNM. 

Analysis of Landscape Integrity 

The analysis and evaluation of landscape integrity provided herein follows 

guidelines provided by the National Park Service and National Register 

standards. In particular, National Register Bulletin 30: Guidelines for Evaluating 

and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes was used as a guide.351 

Cultural landscape integrity is present when a landscape retains the ability to 

convey its historical significance because historic landscape characteristics and 

features are present in much the same way as they were historically. No portion 

of the APNM landscape appears to possess substantial integrity for the historic 

periods identified for the memorial. In most instances, integrity can be found 

primarily in individual remnant features that survive from a historical period, 

but not in any holistic sense. 

 350 Hunt, Bill, Memorandum: Trip Report, Archeological monitoring of electrical line excavation trenches at Arkansas Post National Memorial (11 

April 2003, MWAC A2624, addressed to the Manager of the Midwest Archeological Center), pp. 1-3. 

351McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick, National Register Bulletin 30, Guidelines for Evaluating 

and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service; Interagency Resources Division, Interagency Resources 

Branch, U.S. Government Printing Office). 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 411 

December 2005 

While the potential for archeological resources is substantial, the loss of 

aboveground landscape features has diminished overall landscape integrity in 

most areas. The landscape possesses some surviving landscape features with 

varying degrees of integrity that may help to represent or interpret the sequential 

significant historical periods associated with the site. Surviving historic 

landscape features function primarily as placeholders that allow the landscape to 

be better understood because they exist. In assessing integrity, both the degree 

to which historical landscape character is present has been considered as well as 

the reversibility of landscape changes that have diminished integrity. 

All seven aspects of integrity–association, location, design, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and setting–have been considered in the context of the 

landscape’s ability to represent the several historical periods discussed in the 

Chapter 3 Site History. 

Association is the strongest aspect of the APNM landscape because there are 

direct links between the historical events that occurred on the site and the 

landscape. The APNM is the actual site of the French and Spanish colonization, 

served as the territorial capital of Arkansas, and played a significant role in the 
412 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Civil War. Integrity of location is severely diminished because of the many 

changes to the shape of the land itself, the widening of adjacent water bodies, the 

alteration of the historic land/water edge, the physical loss of significant built 

structures, and the loss of even the town where the historical events occurred. 

The features that gave the landscape its character during each successive historic 

period survive only as faint fragments of the historic landscape. 

There are few visible points of historic identity that facilitate site orientation and 

promote an understanding of the site’s layout during its various historic periods. 

Landscape integrity is diminished further by the loss of most of its historic fabric 

since examples of historic design, materials, and workmanship are largely absent 

from the site. There are only a few indications of how landscape features were 

constructed, planted, or installed; how they were combined to create 

fortifications, towns, and farmsteads; and the techniques that were used in the 

crafting and care of the landscape. Even integrity of feeling is affected since there 

is so little landscape expression of the aesthetic or historic values evident within 

the memorial site. Views from land to water and even across water have 

changed considerably. Familiar structures and small-scale features have 

disappeared from the landscape, imparting the site with a feeling unlike that 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 413 

December 2005 

present during any historic period. In fact, it is difficult to imagine people using 

the landscape in their everyday lives at Arkansas Post. Historic land use is rarely 

evident or observable and there is little sense of the landscape organization that 

characterized the site historically. The APNM setting has changed considerably 

with the loss of its broad flood plains and the widening of the historic waterways 

that were so significant in the establishment and development of Arkansas Post 

for most of its history. Its physical environment and cultural landscape have 

been altered irrevocably with a corresponding loss of historic landscape 

integrity. 

Effects of Invasive Vegetation on Integrity 

With each subsequent period, new vegetative species have been introduced to 

the APNM. Exotic species, also known as alien, introduced, or non-indigenous 

vegetation, have joined native vegetation on the site. In most instances, this 

introduced vegetation has remained localized or has disappeared over time. 

Three species–trifoliate orange, Japanese honeysuckle, and privet –have become 

invasive and now appear in major concentrations throughout the site, 

threatening indigenous vegetation or other vegetation that may possess cultural 

or natural value within the APNM. Although there are other examples of 

invasive species (some are native), including but not limited to grapevine, 
414 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

greenbriar, poison ivy, and poison oak, these three species are the most 

threatening at the present time. During field investigations, both the UAM team 

and LCA personnel have observed these species throughout the APNM and 

found them interspersed within various vegetative types. They are major threats 

to vegetative integrity of other site vegetation. 

Integrity Evaluation 

Landscape integrity can best be evaluated in the context of archeological 

significance with surviving landscape features associated with significant 

periods of history considered in much the same way as are archeological artifacts 

that may enhance archeological significance. Since few historic landscape 

features, other than remnant vegetation, remain within the APNM boundaries, 

the role of site vegetation is being evaluated according to National Register 

criteria by assessing how vegetative features contribute to the significance of the 

landscape. While vegetation has always been a part of the APNM landscape, it 

appears that the site’s strategic location on the Arkansas River has been the 

singlemost important factor through most historical periods, whether the site 

was being developed and used as a defensive fortification, a territorial capitol, or 

a state park. Existence during a historical period may not necessarily indicate 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 415 

December 2005 

that a single plant or even an aggregation of plants contributes to the significance 

of the site. 

Vegetation appears to have the strongest association with historic use, perhaps, 

during the less well-documented agricultural settlement period of the late 

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This period does not appear to meet 

National Register criteria for significance. Even during those periods, however, 

it is not the vegetation itself or the nature of the vegetation that characterized the 

settlements but rather their agricultural land uses, cluster arrangements, and 

perhaps cultural traditions that contribute to significance under criterion C of the 

National Register. Despite the fact that this vegetation may not be significant, 

where vegetation that was associated with cultural uses does survive, it 

contributes to cultural interest and enhances historical associations. 

An integrity evaluation has been made for each historic period, whether it is 

considered a significant period or not. These evaluations have been made to 

provide continuity between periods and to facilitate understanding of the site’s 

chronology. A preliminary list of extant features follows each integrity 

discussion. The lists of extant features are cumulative, listing all features from 
416 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the earliest period that survived through each succeeding period and remain 

today. These features may have the potential to contribute to significance and 

integrity in later periods as well as in the period in which they were first 

established or known to exist. 

Contributing Features from Pre-1673 Period 

The lack to date of discovery of archeological resources dating from pre-1673 

weakens integrity of cultural associations. The intensive uses of the site in later 

periods, periodic flooding, and the subsequent Army Corps of Engineer flooding 

have substantially altered the character of the APNM and its natural ecology. 

Although plant materials with possible ethnographic associations exist within 

the APNM landscape, their locations, concentrations, and vegetative associations 

are likely to differ from those present in the pre-1673 period.352 Since original 

locations cannot be documented, integrity of location cannot be determined. 

There is no integrity of design or workmanship since no artifacts or aboveground 

landscape features survive from this period. There is some integrity of setting 

and feeling since the site is still surrounded by water and there are some densely 

forested areas. The character of the bluff landscape that exists today, however, 

varies substantially from its appearance during the prehistoric period. Without a 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 417 

December 2005 

similar but undisturbed geographic context for comparison, however, it is 

difficult to evaluate the integrity of the regenerated forested areas. 

Contributing Features (Exhibit 40) 

• peninsular landform353

• moderate-dense forest north of the picnic area entry drive354

• ethnographic-associated vegetation355 

• potential pre-1673 archeological resources identified through future research 

Contributing Features from 1673–1803 

The APNM retains few landscape features associated with the French and 

Spanish colonial periods. The present landscape does little to evoke the feeling 

of either period although two intersecting streets may be the Spanish 

predecessors of the nineteenth-century Main and Front Streets that are 

interpreted today. The potential for archeological resources related to this period 

may strengthen integrity of association. The loss of landscape features combined 

with erosion, flooding, and navigation projects diminishes integrity of location 

 352 Furthermore, the absence of a complete ethnographic study makes determining cultural associations difficult and imprecise. 

353 The terms “peninsula” and “peninsular” are used to describe a site almost entirely surrounded by water throughout its history. The peninsular 

formation survives although modified through late twentieth-century erosion and navigation and flood control projects. The southern end of the 

peninsula retains more of the shape of the pre-1673 period than the northern portions of the peninsula. 

354 While there are no virgin stands of forest surviving and the visual character would differ from the pre-1673 period, this primarily hardwood 

forest may provide something of a “wilderness” feeling that is evocative of the pre-1673 period. 
418 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

for this period and also integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. There 

is some integrity of feeling in a portion of the southern part of the memorial 

where there is open land. The existing vegetation at the extreme southern end of 

the APNM detracts from the ability of the memorial to represent this period since 

this area was open historically. The increased width of the adjacent waterways, 

the loss of the historic floodplain, and the associated altered relationship of bluff 

and lowground diminish integrity of setting for this period. 

 

Contributing Features (Exhibit 41)

• Spanish and French colonial archeological resources 

• cleared land in southern portion of the site 

Contributing Features from 1804–1855

Although the APNM retains few landscape features associated with the 

Arkansas territorial and early statehood period, the present landscape possesses 

integrity of association and location as the first Arkansas capitol. Specific sites, 

such as the Bank of Arkansas, associated with this use have been documented 

and identified but there is little sense of the density and dynamics of this 

 355 Ongoing field investigations, research, and analysis of vegetation will be used to determine if extant vegetation believed to have been associated 

with this period is significant and if integrity is present based on location, concentrations, rarity, and strength of association. 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 419 

December 2005 

community. The potential for archeological resources related to this period may 

strengthen integrity of association. The restored cistern and well contribute 

somewhat to integrity of design, workmanship, and materials but as restorations 

and rare survivors of auxiliary structures from this period, they cannot 

compensate for the loss of other more substantial structures that would help 

define landscape organization if they were still present. The interpreted street 

grid contributes to landscape integrity although the loss of buildings and 

structures from this period seriously diminishes overall integrity. The loss of 

landscape features combined with erosion, flooding, and navigation projects 

diminishes integrity of location for this period. There is some integrity of feeling 

in a portion of the southern part of the memorial where there is open land. The 

encroaching vegetation at the extreme southern end of the APNM detracts from 

the ability of the memorial to represent this period. The increased width of the 

adjacent waterways, the loss of the historic floodplain, and the associated altered 

relationship of bluff and lowground diminish integrity of setting for this period. 

Although the northern portion of the site was forested during this period, the 

majority of the present memorial was open land used for either cultivation or 

pasture. Since the majority of the site today is forested, integrity of setting and 
420 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

feeling is altered. The present site character gives little indication of the density 

of settlement and land use present historically. 

Contributing Features (Exhibit 42)

• territorial townsite grid layout356

• Frederick Notrebe cistern 

• well 

• several deciduous trees that may date from this period 

• archeological concentrations associated with Post of Arkansas 

• archeological concentrations associated with Town of Rome 

• archeological concentrations associated with Town of Arkansas 

• archeological concentrations associated with the Hewes Scull farm buildings 

• archeological concentrations associated with the John and Cecelia Jodelais 

farmstead 

• other potential 1804–1855 archeological resources to be identified through 

future research 

• possible north-south road trace fragments 

 

356 A portion of the town grid has been approximated and paved to represent the layout of the town. 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 421 

December 2005 

• possible east-west road trace fragments leading from Jodelai farmstead to 

Town of Arkansas and intersection with north-south road trace (later Jodelais 

Street) 

• possible north-northwest/south-southeast road trace fragments leading from 

Post of Arkansas to Hewes Scull farm 

• possible northwest–southeast road trace fragments from the Post of Arkansas 

to Alligator Slough and then on to the Jordelais farmstead 

Contributing Features from 1856–1865 

The memorial's well-documented Civil War history contributes to integrity of 

association, as does the site line to the Fort Hindman location. The increased 

width of the adjacent waterways, the loss of the historic floodplain, and the 

associated altered relationship of bluff and lowground especially diminish 

integrity of setting for this period because the site's defensive location and 

character were integral to its role in Civil War history. The Confederate rifle pits 

contribute to integrity of design, material, and workmanship although it is 

possible that they have been altered as a result of agricultural uses. The full 

extent of the earthwork is not visually apparent, nor do the pits reflect their 

historic depth. The earthworks, however, contribute to integrity of feeling for 
422 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

the Civil War period although their historic setting would have differed from 

present conditions. During this period, the area south of the rifle pits was 

cleared and cultivated, and the area to the north was eroded land covered with 

scattered stumps, logs, trees and brush. Today it is a mature, deciduous, 

hardwood forest. The ravine was filled with water during this period, giving it 

an appearance not totally unlike that of today's lake although undoubtedly the 

water levels would not have been similar and its configuration would have 

fluctuated. There is some integrity of feeling in a portion of the southern part of 

the memorial where there is open land. The encroaching vegetation at the 

extreme southern end of the APNM detracts from the ability of the memorial to 

represent this period. 

Contributing Features (Exhibit 43)

• views east to approximate Fort Hindman location 

• Confederate trench and rifle pits357

• water-filled ravine (future Park Lake location) 

• archeological concentrations associated with the Civil War 

 

357 It is possible that these rifle pits could have been reconstructed or modified during the State Park era. 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 423 

December 2005 

• central road trace fragment of Old River Road running southwest-northeast 

from north-south road across Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou) 

• road trace of Jordelais Street extension to Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou) 

• fragment of southwest-northeast road trace from west Jordelais Street (near 

Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou)) linking the APNM to points further north 

• road trace running northwest-southeast from Old River Road to southern end 

of the site and forking (in flood plain currently underwater) to two southern 

routes crossing Post Bayou (Moore’s Bayou) at Flatboat Bridge and Old 

Steamboat Bridge 

Contributing Features from 1866–1928 

Some individual farm and house sites are identifiable because of surviving 

vegetation or small-scale features, but very little of the site's dispersed rural 

settlement character during this period is apparent today. Although there are a 

few remnants of agricultural and domestic life, the historic mosaic of cultivated 

fields and pastures is no longer apparent, and no major structures survive from 

this period. Consequently, there is little integrity of association or location. The 

loss of the vernacular rural architecture of this period detracts from integrity of 

design and workmanship although some architectural materials survive as 
424 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

fragments and there is some remnant vegetation. In addition, the increased 

width of the adjacent waterways, the loss of the historic floodplain, and the 

associated altered relationship of bluff and lowground diminish integrity of 

setting for this period as they do for earlier periods. Since the ravine was not 

water-filled during most of this period when it was referred to as eroded ground, 

there is little integrity of feeling and setting in the lake vicinity for this period. 

The loss of the activity and variety associated with daily living, however, is 

probably the most serious impediment to integrity of setting and feeling for this 

period. Although they postdate the period of significance, remnant landscape 

features from this period do represent human habitation and serve as markers 

for sites of domestic life and activity in the pre-park and memorial era.

Contributing Features (Exhibit 44)

• moderate forest cover north of existing picnic area entry drive 

• small clearing along existing north-central boundary 

• open, unwooded land (for cultivation) in existing prairie south of existing 

picnic area 

• open, unwooded land in southern part of site in the Post of Arkansas vicinity 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 425 

December 2005 

• archeological concentrations in the central section of the memorial, associated 

with late nineteenth and early twentieth-century rural life 

• road trace extending through existing site beginning at the old Jordelais Street 

alignment and extending northwest to cross Little Post Bayou and continuing 

outside the existing boundaries toward Gillett and Dewitt 

• possible fragments of road trace extending north-south near eastern shoreline 

between the old north-south road and the road to Flatboat Bridge 

• fragments of road traces in extreme northeastern corner of the existing 

memorial 

• fragments of interior road traces in the area north of existing Park Lake and 

south of the existing picnic area entry drive (in the area north and west of the 

former Town of Rome) 

• remnants of domestic, commercial, and agrarian life in central APNM that 

include but are not limited to portions of building foundations, brick walks, 

house yard and field fences, fenceline and boundary vegetation, shade and fruit 

trees, the cattle corral and dipping vat site, cisterns and wells, and ornamental 
426 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

vegetation, such as daffodils, lily of the valley, dragon wort, crepe myrtle, privet, 

and daylilies358

• State Bank Monument 

Contributing Features from 1929-1963 

Although it was the site of an Arkansas State Park, the current memorial retains 

few of the earlier park features, apart from the lake on the site of the old ravine. 

There are few features that survive from the state park period to contribute 

integrity although there is gross-scale integrity of association and location, 

particularly the continued use of the name Arkansas Post. Land use, spatial 

organization, and even a substantial portion of the circulation, however, has 

changed. State park buildings and structures no longer survive on site, and there 

is no integrity of design, materials, and workmanship for the state park period. 

Although traces of road alignments from this era are discernible in places, they 

no longer link park functions and possessed diminished integrity as a result. In 

addition, the increased width of the adjacent waterways, the loss of the historic 

floodplain, and the associated altered relationship of bluff and lowground 

diminish integrity of setting for this period as they do for earlier periods. 

 

358 There are believed to be remnants associated with the Clarence Owens Residence, John Hudson House and Buildings, George Connie House, 

Quandt House, Reeves Farm Buildings, Ina Hudson House, Richard Stovall house, Rena Bass house, Ambros Bass house, Emma Battles House, 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 427 

December 2005 

Contributing Features (Exhibit 45)

Park Lake 

Earth dam 

Concrete spillway 

Alignment of park road (basis for elliptical trail around Park Lake) 

Road trace of park road linking lake area with AR 169 during state park era 

Civil War Centennial marker and other state park interpretive signs 

Non-Contributing Features (Exhibit 46)

Features that appeared on the site, or were constructed and installed following 

NPS acquisition of the property, are assumed to postdate any potential period of 

significance, to be non-contributing features, and to possess no cultural 

landscape significance at this time. Non-contributing features also include those 

that changed considerably after 1966, or that threaten resources related to the 

mission of the APNM. All NPS features date from the period 1964–1999 and may 

be reevaluated in the context of NPS planning and design in the future. Most 

NPS projects were planned either at the end of or following the NPS Mission 66 

planning and design initiative. Although APNM reflects the Mission 66 goal of 

 Hudson Store, Conine Stoe, and AME Church. 
428 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

providing maximum public access to historic and natural resources, APNM does 

not appear to possess significant Mission 66 features.359

List of Non-Contributing Features 

Visitor center 

Maintenance building 

Superintendent’s residence 

Staff residence 

Drilled well 

Sewage lagoon 

Picnic area and comfort station 

APNM entrance sign 

Fishing Pad 

Auxiliary sheds and support structures 

Concrete culvert 

Interpretive waysides 

Trails and trail bridges 

 

359Kasparek, “Master Plan of Arkansas Post National Memorial” (October, 1964) Chapter 2, “Area Objectives,” pp. 1-8; Questions and Answers: 

Mission 66 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, United States Department of Interior, ca. 1956), pp. 1-5; Fred B. Sarles, “Master Plan for the 

Preservation of Arkansas Post National Memorial - Mission 66 Edition” (March, 1961), Initial unnumbered page stating NPS and Mission 66 

objectives. 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 429 

December 2005 

Parking areas 

Prairie plantation 

Shoreline revetment and riprap 

Invasive exotic vegetation (trifoliate orange, privet, Japanese honeysuckle) 

Wooden cross 

DAR exhibit 

Summary of Analysis and Evaluation  

Change has been such a significant factor affecting the Arkansas Post National 

Memorial landscape that its landscape is most appropriately evaluated as a 

layered landscape archeological site that retains remnant features from several 

historic periods (Exhibit 47). Some concentrations of archeological resources 

relate more specifically to the site’s history and possess value in illustrating 

historical contexts and interpretive themes. Archeologists believe that future 

investigations may reveal significant archeological resources. The memorial, 

however, does not retain adequate aboveground features to represent even one 

historic period landscape adequately. Despite its significant associations with 

the French and Spanish colonial experience in the Mississippi-Arkansas river 

delta, the territorial capitol of Arkansas, and the Civil War, the site retains little 
430 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

landscape integrity for any of these periods. Further research and archeological 

investigations would be necessary to evaluate the significance of the dispersed 

rural home sites that developed between the Civil War and the period of state 

park development. Even if further research and analysis using appropriate 

contexts for evaluation would reveal significance, this significance would be at 

the local level and not at the state and national levels associated with the earlier 

periods. Furthermore, the fragmented nature of survivals from this post-Civil 

War period has resulted in a loss of integrity, even to represent this relatively 

recent historical period. It is also likely that other, better preserved, and more 

intact rural sites exist in the region that better represent rural life between the 

Civil War and the Great Depression. Similarly, it does not appear that the state 

park development that occurred would have been an exemplary design of 

national significance. As with other periods, the state park layer does not 

survive intact and major features associated with its development have been 

removed. 

In addition, major changes associated with navigation and flood control projects 

have altered the significant land/water configuration associated with the APNM 

throughout its history. The property remains surrounded by water on three 
 Chapter 5, Analysis and Evaluation • 431 

December 2005 

sides but has lost its traditional wide flood plains and narrow river and bayou 

channels. 
432 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 








 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Treatment 

Recommendations
6. TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

This chapter includes overall preservation treatment recommendations for the Arkansas 

Post National Memorial landscape and also proposes specific recommendations for 

implementing those treatments. The treatment plan is illustrated in a conceptual 

design/development plan (Exhibit 48). Recommendations address the management 

issues introduced in Chapter 2 and in the existing conditions and analysis discussions 

in Chapters 4 and 5. All recommendations are in keeping with the constraints of 

applicable laws and NPS policies, guidelines, and standards. Chapter 7, which follows, 

includes specific project statements and Class “C” cost estimates for each. 

During the time that this CLR has been in progress, a GMP was prepared for the park. 

The treatment recommendations herein reflect the GMP preferred alternative for the 

Memorial Unit of the park (Alternative B—Maximize understanding of cultural 

diversity and interaction while ensuring historic integrity, protection of resources, 

recreational opportunities, and visitor enjoyment). The GMP authorizes the acquisition 

and management of an additional unit to the memorial, the Osotouy Unit. This CLR 

does not address management at the Osotouy Unit. 
442 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

Treatment Approach 

The findings of the completed research, existing conditions assessments, and analysis 

considered in tandem with identified management issues support cultural landscape 

treatment recommendations based on a rehabilitation approach. This CLR treatment 

approach is resource-based and is intended to facilitate aspects of implementation of 

other NPS plans, such as the General Management Plan. Rehabilitation is a flexible 

treatment intended to accommodate landscape alterations that are desirable to enhance 

the visitor experience, and yet still preserve those features of the landscape that help to 

convey the history of the APNM. Rehabilitation is defined in The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment 

of Cultural Landscapes as appropriate 

when repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when 

alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or 

continued use ....359

The rehabilitation recommendation is informed by extensive site-related research, field 

investigations, the findings presented in the previous chapters, reviews of other NPS 

documents, as well as discussions with NPS personnel. The implications of treatment 

were discussed on site during a meeting in November 1999 attended by representatives 

 

359 NPS recognizes four approaches for treatment of a cultural landscape; they include preservation, 

rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Charles Birnbaum with Christine Capella Peters, ed., The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1966), p. 46. 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 443

December 2005 

of NPS from the APNM and the Midwest Regional Office, and the consultant team 

Quinn Evans|Architects, and LCA. 

The absence of many of the cultural landscape features associated with the identified 

historic periods precludes an overall restoration treatment approach. In addition, 

research indicates that there is not adequate documentation to reconstruct most of the 

missing features from these periods. Given the extent of cultural resource loss, 

restoration to any historical period is not feasible. Moreover, reconstruction is not a 

realistic alternative since there is an absence of accurate historical documentation of 

physical features. Finally, a preservation approach is not desirable since that approach 

would eliminate possibilities for enhanced interpretation, desired recreational uses, 

future management needs, and visitor services and amenities. It is unlikely that future 

research and archeological investigations will produce information that would make 

restoration or reconstruction feasible. 

The absence of a critical mass of surviving significant historical landscape resources 

suggests that rehabilitation with enhanced interpretation of well-documented missing 

features is the preferred course of action. The large site size, the remoteness of some 

significant areas, and the unwillingness of many visitors to endure extreme 

temperatures and the risks and inconveniences associated with biting insects suggest 

that landscape interpretation relying on digital media, audio-visual presentations, 
444 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

printed media, and traditional interior exhibits and displays may be more realistic than 

outdoor landscape interpretation. 

Rehabilitation will accommodate increased and enhanced interpretation of both the 

landscape and of its rich and diverse site history and meet management needs and 

objectives. Finally, rehabilitation is consistent with the site’s legislative mandate as a 

memorial commemorating the events associated with the site, accommodates visitor 

recreational uses, facilitates improved interpretation, ensures protection for the site’s 

surviving significant cultural resources, and respects the scientific and interpretive 

value of the site’s natural resource values. Rehabilitation will enhance stewardship of 

the site’s historic and natural resources, facilitate efficient management, and improve 

site operations. Rehabilitation will allow removal of invasive exotic species that 

threaten other cultural and natural features. 

Treatment Plan (Exhibit 48)

The intent for the treatment plan to provide a rehabilitation plan for the landscape that 

allows the APNM site to represent better the diverse cultures that contributed to the 

development of the site over time and the natural, economic, and other forces that 

contributed to the character of the site today. To achieve this, several primary goals 

have been addressed: 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 445

December 2005 

1) Enforce the site’s legislative mandate as a memorial by commemorating the 

events associated with the site. 

2) Cultural Resources: Preserve the extant features and qualities that survive from 

significant historical periods or possess the ability to evoke those eras and 

contribute to integrity of the APNM.

3) Cultural Resources: Increase appreciation and awareness of the extant features 

by expanding interpretive approaches to educate visitors about these resources.

4) Natural Resources: Protect the scientific and interpretive value of the site’s 

natural resources.

5) Natural Resources: Remove invasive exotic species that threaten other natural 

and cultural features.

6) Interpretation: Enhance and expand interpretation to emphasize the role of the 

landscape in both historic site selection and outmigration from the site to Little 

Rock and other areas. To do this, 

a. Interpret the cultural groups significant in APNM’s history and the 

significant events associated with the site.

b. Interpret the natural ecology of the site, particularly in relation to natural, 

political, and cultural changes over time. 

c. Create an environment in which even the most casual recreational user 

can become better acquainted with and understand the events associated 

with this landscape and its role in the history of the state, nation, and local 

community while using the site for outdoor enjoyment. 
446 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

7) Accommodate visitor recreational uses. 

8) Facilitate efficient management of the site and improve site operations.

The plan includes some recommendations that apply to the overall APNM Memorial 

Unit as well as others that address particular areas of the site, specific issues, or groups 

of interrelated resources. The physical aspects of the plan recommend improved and 

enhanced interpretation, retention of the existing vehicular circulation, minor expansion 

of the pedestrian trail system, expansion of visitor facilities on the current visitor center 

site, expansion of the existing maintenance and employee housing area as the 

administrative/operations center of the APNM, preservation of vegetation that helps to 

identify historic component landscapes, protection of native plant species, control of 

invasive exotic vegetation, and continued archeological investigations that would 

inform future management, interpretive, and treatment decisions. (Exhibit 48). 

Recommendations 

Recommendations have been developed to address management issues and existing 

conditions addressed in the CLR. In general those issues and conditions are related to 

the following topical areas: overall site management and operation, circulation, 

vegetation and wildlife management, archeology, and interpretation. The following 

recommendations have been grouped below with management actions preceding those 

most closely associated with physical treatments for each topical area. In addition, 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 447

December 2005 

Table 6.1 provides a list of all of the contributing landscape features to be preserved, 

and Table 6.2 provides recommended treatments for each of the non-contributing 

features identified in Chapter 4. 

Overall Site Management and Operation 

• Monitor and participate in other governmental planning or development processes 

that are likely to have an effect on the APNM, particularly those affecting adjacent 

areas. 

• Preserve the contributing landscape features identified in Chapter 4 and itemized in 

Table I of this Chapter. 

• To the greatest extent possible, adopt sustainable landscape practices and 

management policies. 

• Expand and rehabilitate the visitor center to better highlight the park’s cultural and 

natural resources as directed in the GMP. 

• Continue to present the “maintained” appearance the public expects of the NPS 

adjacent to the entry road, and in the visitor center, maintenance and employee 

housing, and picnic areas. 

• Continue a utilitarian and standard NPS approach to design, avoiding designs that 

attempt to replicate or imitate historical styles and periods. Consider siting new 

facilities and vehicular and pedestrian systems to take advantage of natural 
448 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

characteristics that may help to visually absorb new construction. Continue in a design 

tradition that is compatible within a rural environment. 

• Employ a careful site planning process that exploits the potential for views and vistas, 

and other characteristics that would encourage visitors to engage in outdoor recreation 

to become actively involved in and aware of the cultural landscape, even if visiting the 

site for other purposes. Encourage an understanding of the cultural landscape. 

• Update existing site furnishings as necessary with a coordinated, contemporary 

system, in keeping with the rural character of the site. Avoid trying to portray a historic 

appearance. 

Circulation 

• Retain existing vehicular and pedestrian circulation since the existing system provides 

continuity and physical linkages with historic site circulation and historic land uses. 

While the system itself is not historically accurate, it incorporates historic alignments in 

places and provides either physical or visual access to areas of the site that are 

associated with significant historic uses and resources. 

• Retain existing trail surfaces to provide accessibility to the most visited portions of the 

site. Where these trails approximate historic routes, interpret the character of the 

historic streets and walks. 

• Retain existing parking areas. 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 449

December 2005 

• Develop an informal overflow parking area for use during special events. Avoid 

developing additional parking where there are cultural resource concentrations or 

known or likely archeological resources. 

• Consider extending the trail system to link with and include the historic alignment of 

the historic rural road that extended from the existing entry road west to its intersection 

with the north-south concrete trail and that continues west and south to the cleared area 

north of the lake. This alignment provides access to the several late nineteenth- and 

early twentieth-century dispersed rural sites, including the cattle dipping vat vicinity. 

• Consult with a qualified archeologist before implementing the trail extension to 

evaluate the effects of existing and future compaction associated with trail usage. 

Develop and undertake mitigation measures to safeguard archeological resources that 

may be present on or adjacent to the trail alignment. Design the specific alignment to 

avoid resource damage. Interpret any known component cultural landscapes, 

landscape features or fragments associated with those landscapes, and any in-progress 

archeological activities adjacent to the trail. 

• Consider new trail surfaces that will be appropriate in a rural setting and that 

facilitate an enjoyable walking experience for visitors. The trail experience should feel 

much like walking a country road. 

• Keep the proposed trail width and crown consistent with the conditions and character 

of the early twentieth century. Avoid clearing a wide right-of-way adjacent to the trail, 

and allow vegetation to grow to the trail edge. If no archeological evidence is available 
450 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

to confirm the historic width, maintain the trail at the observable width of the road/trail 

traces. 

• Consider adopting a recognizable logo, such as a motif based on a Civil 

War era canon for identifying all Civil War associated sites and/or views both adjacent 

to roads, trails, and visitor use areas, and on printed media to identify these sites. 

Vegetation Management 

• Acknowledge and interpret the natural resource value of native species and 

undertake management practices designed for their protection. Undertake appropriate 

methods of eliminating or reducing the incidences of invasive exotic vegetation where 

they threaten to overwhelm native species. 

 • Reduce mowed areas by establishing meadows consisting of native grasses and forbs 

in areas indicated on Exhibit 48. Continue to mow within four feet of all trails and 

roads, and in areas that are currently mowed and not indicated for establishment of 

meadows. Discontinue routine mowing in these areas and instead mow only one or 

two times during the season to discourage the growth of woody plants. Monitor the 

growth of exotic invasive species. If exotic invasive species become a problem, use 

proven methods to eliminate them (different methods apply to different species) and 

consider planting native grasses and forbs to replace invasive species. 

• Manage woodland areas to retain or improve vegetative diversity and protect native 

plant species. 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 451

December 2005 

• Acknowledge that vegetation occurred in different locations and in different 

concentrations at various times during the identified periods of significance. 

Plants Traditionally Used by Native Americans

• Continue to investigate and conduct research related to identifying plant species 

traditionally used at the APNM by affiliated Native American groups. It is difficult to 

suggest actions to protect these plant species when the specific species and their uses 

have not been documented definitively; such information is necessary prior to 

implementing management decisions designed to protect this resource. 

• Until and unless such information becomes available, retain, protect, and interpret 

vegetative species traditionally used by Native Americans (See Chapter 4, Table 1).

Invasive and Noninvasive Exotic Plant Species

• Evaluate the relative value of exotic vegetation associated with identified cultural 

landscape component areas. Identify areas where preservation of vegetation with 

cultural associations is feasible and warranted in the context of relative resource value, 

the extent of projected threat to native vegetation, and relative maintenance burden. 

Adopt a vegetative management policy that identifies in priority order vegetation with 

cultural associations warranting preservation. 

• Control light infestations of Ligustrum japonicum (common privet), Lonicera japonica 

(Japanese honeysuckle), and Poncirus trifoliata (trifoliate orange) by clearing with a 

shovel or grubbing hoe, provided the entire root system is removed. Larger scale 
452 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

clearing or burning may provide short-term control, but without continual repeated 

treatments, growth of these species will likely increase. 

• For the most probable effective method of controlling large scale infestations of 

invasive exotic vegetation, consider applications of a glyphosate herbicide immediately 

following cutting in order to kill rootstock. Glyphosate herbicides are recommended 

because they are biodegradable and begin to break down into harmless components on 

contact with soil. However, these herbicides are not selective, and will affect all green 

vegetation on which they are applied. 

Vegetative Burns

• Conduct research to determine and document responses of understory, overstory, 

and exotic vegetation to fire at the park. Do not initiate a burning policy in the wooded 

areas of the park until a better understanding of these responses is developed. Burning 

in the wooded areas at APNM has potential serious consequences that need to be 

carefully considered. 

• If fire is used to help maintain existing forest communities, a burning cycle longer 

than 2-3 years would probably not aid in control of exotic, invasive species, and could 

have the reverse effect of increasing their growth, thus effectively encouraging their 

spread. Historically, fires at APNM were probably a result of drought-related burns 

moving from prairies and upland forest into bottomlands, and possibly occurred every 

5 – 8 years. This is longer than that necessary for aiding in the control of exotic species. 

However, fires mimicking historical burn cycles in combination with an aggressive use 

of other exotic species control methods mentioned above may be an alternative for 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 453

December 2005 

maintaining existing forest communities while controlling exotic species. Without 

periodic burns, fire-intolerant species are expected to increase, and herbaceous plant 

species abundance and diversity will likely decrease. Without control of invasive exotic 

species, their dominance will increase. Periodic burns mimicking historical burn cycles 

combined with a very aggressive control of invasive exotic plants could lead to more 

open understories, an increase in native herbaceous plant diversity and abundance, and 

a decrease or at least a moratorium, on spread of invasive exotic species. 

• Because of the potential serious consequences of burning at APNM, undertake the 

necessary research prior to initiating a burn plan to evaluate appropriate burning cycles 

and associated responses of understory, overstory, and exotic vegetation to fire. 

• Undertake cool winter burns to enhance understory structure, plant diversity, and 

wildlife habitat, but pay particular attention to potential invasions of exotic species. 

Any indication of increased spread of invasive exotic species should be controlled 

immediately. 

• Avoid hot summer burns. Trees on APNM have not been subjected to fire on a 

regular, sustained basis and should not be subjected to severe conditions. Burn cycles 

should mimic historical fire occurrences at the APNM area, possibly every 5 - 10 years. 

• Acknowledge that this cycle is not often enough to control invasive plant species, and 

may serve to increase their growth and spread unless they are aggressively controlled. 

• Allow areas that have been burned by a hot fire in the last few years to recover before 

being burned again. Areas to be targeted for future burning depend directly on the 

desired future conditions of APNM. 
454 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

Prairie 

• Reevaluate and modify prairie management practices based on scientific 

consultations. Reconsider the appropriateness of maintaining the existing prairie since 

it has no historical precedent and has not achieved significance for scientific value. 

Consider the following questions to determine the appropriateness: 

• Is the prairie management achieving stated goals? 

• What was the basis for establishing the prairie at this site? 

• Was the basis for establishing the prairie at this site consistent with management 

goals for the Memorial? 

• What are the positive and negative aspects related to maintaining the existing 

prairie? 

 • Define the desired future conditions for the site based on information provided 

within this CLR, as well as the information gained from the prairie management 

program. 

• If the prairie is retained, interpret it as a recent development without historical 

precedent and clarify its scientific and interpretive intent. 

• If the prairie is maintained, prairie management should continue to evolve. Continue 

to study and stay current with prairie management philosophies, practices, and 

technologies. Modify prairie management to control invasive woody species and exotic 

species through prairie management techniques, as new scientific information becomes 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 455

December 2005 

available. Develop a monitoring program to determine if the prairie is progressing 

toward the goals. 

• Ensure human safety and protect other cultural and natural resources and NPS 

infrastructure and facilities during prairie burns (see above). 

• Address areas where land uses contribute to compaction and erosion. 

Archeology 

• Continue to take advantage of opportunities for archeological investigations that will 

reveal information related to the cultural landscape. Interpret ongoing archeological 

investigations while they are in progress and incorporate the findings of these 

investigations into the APNM interpretive program. 

• Continue to protect all known and potential archeological sites. 

• Coordinate treatments with a qualified archeologist. Undertake archeological 

investigations prior to any proposed ground-disturbing activities. 

 Interpretation 

• Explore and implement opportunities to provide expanded and improved landscape 

interpretation. 

• Interpret the landscape evolution of the APNM as an illustrative example of the many 

cultures, institutional uses, individuals, and families that have inhabited the site during 

successive historical periods. 
456 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

• Enhance interpretation of resources associated with the Civil War. 

• Expand the interpretive focus to include the major cultural groups represented at the 

APNM over time, including but not necessarily limited to American Indians, and 

French, Spanish, British, and Americans settlers, including African-Americans. 

Make as many interpretive linkages as possible to the continuities and connections 

between and among these groups and the APNM landscape. 

• Interpret the role of governmental, economic and social change on the cultural 

landscape of the APNM. 

• Explore opportunities to expand interpretation to include the history of the everyday 

rural landscape of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

• Develop cultural landscape interpretation based on historic land uses. Facilitate an 

understanding of historic ways of life, and the relationships to circulation and 

movement patterns, density, layout, and spatial arrangements. In developing 

interpretive plans, use each historic landscape component site as part of a coordinated 

interpretation that covers each landscape period of significance and varied land uses. 

• Undertake archeological studies of these sites to inform their interpretation and 

modify cultural landscape treatments as new information becomes available. 

• Emphasize the role of geography and natural resources in the political, economic, 

military, and social history of the APNM. Interpret the role of the environment and the 

site’s geography as instrumental in both its selection and abandonment as a center of 

commerce and government. Link natural resource interpretation to the story of site 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 457

December 2005 

selection and development by clarifying the role that the site’s natural resources played 

in making site development and use desirable during different historical periods. 

• Interpret the evolved land/water relationship that has resulted in a current landscape 

that differs substantially from the landscape of any identified historic period. 

• Promote an understanding of land use, land development, and conservation. 

• Explore innovative interpretive opportunities to decrease dependence on traditional 

outdoor interpretation and interpretation based on physical treatments. Strive to 

interpret more of the relationship between the natural and cultural history of the site. 

Interpret the interrelationships between plant and animal communities and the 

significance of both native and introduced vegetation in understanding the history and 

the ecology of the site. 

• Coordinate the interpretation of the above sites with the existing and expanded 

pedestrian trail network linking them together. Use the interpretive sites located 

adjacent to pedestrian trails to illustrate cultural landscape responses to this 

environment. 

• Develop more mapping or waysides to locate the visitor to the physical environment 

(“you are here”) and to relate the place to the historic periods. 

• Explore opportunities for expanded landscape interpretation in conjunction with 

visitor center expansion. Concentrate on ecological change, historic land use change, 

and changes in the land/water configuration over time. Interpret the changing role of 

the river and its historical role in commerce, transportation, and defense. Interpret the 
458 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

Corps of Engineers changes in the context of twentieth-century water management, 

politics, and outdoor recreation. 

• Explore innovative electronic/digital and other interpretive alternatives that would 

have fewer permanent visual effects on the landscape. Such alternatives also would 

facilitate greater landscape understanding among visitors who do not have adequate 

time to explore the large site or who are unwilling or unable to explore remote areas. 

• Consider the needs of all handicapped visitors, including the visually and hearing 

impaired when planning cultural landscape interpretation. Address the unique sensory 

aspects of the APNM’s bayou and riverine setting, including the sights and sounds of 

adjacent bodies of water, the light quality, and the presence of wildlife. 

Future Studies 

• Continue to conduct archeological studies and investigations to provide more 

accurate information regarding the site’s history and physical development. While 

such studies are almost always desirable, they are particularly critical for the APNM 

since so few aboveground historic resources survive. In addition, there are 

differences of opinion concerning what may or may not survive underwater in 

inundated areas. Undertaking archeological studies in and adjacent to areas that 

were once above water would help to resolve such conflicts. 

• Conduct research to determine a long-term burn plan that addresses appropriate 

burning cycles and associated responses of understory, overstory, and exotic 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 459

December 2005 

vegetation to fire. Research is necessary as there is potential serious consequences of 

burning at APNM. 

• Conduct research providing information on snag dynamics (recruitment, decay 

rates, and mortality) and their utilization by wildlife to enhance the understanding 

of the role dead, standing trees play on the APNM landscape. 

• Conduct research to develop and test tick control strategies. A current study at 

APNM is evaluating tick abundance, their vegetation associations, and the 

prevalence of tick-borne diseases. Using this project, provide baseline data to begin 

developing strategies to control tick populations. 

• Conduct additional research to evaluate the health and population dynamics of the 

APNM deer heard. The white-tailed deer herd on APNM potentially impacts native 

vegetation. An ongoing study is addressing this concern. However, through this 

study, additional concerns have been raised over overall deer herd health and 

associated moralities. 

• Conduct research to provide information on species composition and roosting 

habitat to provide important baseline data for understanding this resource and its 

value to APNM. Several bat species potentially occur at APNM. Their ecological 

value for controlling insects is high, particularly in an area such as APNM that is 

mostly surrounded by water. 

• Establish baseline inventories by vegetation type for avian, mammal (including 

bats), amphibian, and reptile communities. Use this information to evaluate the 

effect of APNM management activities on wildlife populations. 
460 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

• Conduct projects to document, evaluate, and interpret vegetative communities and 

land use change over time. Use this information to develop a more complete picture 

relative to how relationships between land use and historical vegetation have 

shaped the history of APNM. 

• Conduct further research to better understand alligator ecology in this area and 

potential implications for visitors at APNM. A current study of the American 

alligator population in and around APNM will provide some information on 

abundance and habitat utilization. 

• Conduct research to gather information on abundance, distribution, movements, 

and food habits for furthering understanding of the functions wildlife species play at 

APNM. Because of a variety of interspersed vegetation types and an established 

system of trails and roads all encompassed within a relatively small area, a diversity 

of these species occur throughout APNM. This diversity is a result of the 

combination of edge effects and habitat distribution. This condition also benefits 

predator species because of the abundance of prey. Mid-sized carnivores, such as 

skunks and bobcats, can play an important role in ecological systems such as that 

found at APNM. Yet, little information is available for these species at APNM. 

• Consider conducting research to further understand the human dimension in 

regards to the interaction with wildlife populations and natural areas. The manner 

in which visitors perceive and interact with the natural environment directly 

influences their experiences at APNM. This understanding can aid in planning 

management activities to help enhance visitors' experiences. 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 461

December 2005 

Table 6.1: Contributing Features to be Preserved and their Related Historic 

Periods 

Contributing Feature Historic Period 

Peninsular landform Pre-1673 

Moderate-dense forest north of the picnic area entry drive. Pre-1673 

 

Spanish and French colonial archeological resources 1673-1803 

Cleared land in southern portion of the site 1673-1803 

 

Territorial townsite grid layout 1804-1855 

Frederick Notrebe cistern 1804-1855 

Well 1804-1855 

Deciduous trees that may date from this period 1804-1855 

Archeological concentrations associated with Post of 

Arkansas, Town of Rome, Town of Arkansas, Hewes Scull 

farm buildings, and John and Cecelia Jodelais farmstead 

1804-1855 

 

Contributing Feature Historic Period 

Views east to approximate Fort Hindman location 1856-1865 

Confederate trench and rifle pits 1856-1865 

Park Lake (was the water-filled ravine during this period) 1856-1865 

Archeological concentrations associated with the Civil War 1856-1865 

Central road fragment of Old River Road running 

southwest-northeast from north-south road across Post 

Bayou 

1856-1865 

Road trace of Jordelais Street extension to Post Bayou 1856-1865 

Fragment of southwest-northeast road trace from west 

Jordelais Street (near Post Bayou) linking the APNM to 

points further north 

1856-1865 

Road trace running northwest-southeast from Old River 

Road to southern end of the site and forking (in flood plain 

currently underwater) to two southern routes crossing Post 

Bayou at Flatboat Bridge and Old Steamboat Bridge 

1856-1865 

 

Contributing Feature Historic Period 

Moderate forest cover north of existing picnic area entry 

drive 

1866-1928 

Small clearing along existing north-central boundary 1866-1928 

Open, unwooded land (for cultivation) in existing prairie 

south of existing picnic area 

1866-1928 
462 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 

Open, unwooded land in southern part of site in the Post of 

Arkansas vicinity 

1866-1928 

Archeological concentrations in the central section of the 

memorial, associated with late nineteenth and early 

twentieth-century rural life 

1866-1928 

Contributing Feature Historic Period 

Road trace extending through existing site beginning at the 

old Jordelais Street alignment and extending northwest to 

cross Little Post Bayou and continuing outside the existing 

boundaries toward Gillett and Dewitt 

1866-1928 

Fragments of road traces in extreme northeastern corner of 

the existing memorial 

1866-1928 

Fragments of interior road traces in the area north of existing 

Park Lake and south of the existing picnic area entry drive 

1866-1928 

Remnants of domestic, commercial, and agrarian life in 

central APNM that include but are not limited to portions of 

building foundations, brick walks, house yard and field 

fences, fenceline and boundary vegetation, shade and fruit 

trees, the cattle corral and dipping vat site, cisterns and 

wells, and ornamental vegetation such as daffodils, lily of 

the valley, dragon wort, crepe myrtle, privet, and daylilies 

1866-1928 

State Bank Monument 1866-1928 

 

Contributing Feature Historic Period 

Park Lake 1929-1963 

Earth dam 1929-1963 

Concrete spillway 1929-1963 

Alignment of park road (now the trail around Park Lake) 1929-1963 

Road trace of park road linking lake area with AR169 during 

the state park era 

1929-1963 

Civil War Centennial marker and other state park 

interpretive signs (consider removal of signs if they contain 

inaccurate or confusing information) 

1929-1963 
Chapter 6, Treatment Recommendations • 463

December 2005 

Table 6.2: Non-Contributing Features 

Non-Contributing Feature Treatment Recommendation 

Visitor center Expand (see Chapter 7) 

Maintenance building 

Superintendent’s residence 

Staff residence 

Drilled well 

Sewage lagoon 

Picnic area and comfort station Maintain 

APNM entrance sign Maintain 

Fishing Pad Maintain 

Auxiliary sheds and support structures 

Concrete culvert 

Interpretive waysides 

Trials and trail bridges 

Parking areas 

Prairie plantation 

Shoreline revetment and riprap 

Invasive exotic vegetation (trifoliate 

orange, privet, Japanese honeysuckle) 

Wooden cross 

DAR exhibit 
464 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report

December 2005 
Arkansas Post

National memorial

Exhibit 48

Conceptual design/ development plan

Cultural Landscape Report

Map prepared by Land and Community Associates, October, 1998;

Revised April, 1999.

This map is for planning purposes only.

0 300 600 900ft N

Map Scale: 1"= 600' (approximate)

ARKANSAS RIVER

Approximate 1980 Channel

Navigation Pool #2

POST (MOORE'S) BAYOU

ARKANSAS POST CANAL

POST BEND

Navigation Pool #2

Flooded 1967; 1974 Water Elevation 162.00

Obliterated Road

Existing Building

Wooded

Vegetation

Key:

Former Building Site/

Building Remnant

Bluff Line

Interpretive Stop Trail

Remnant Fence

Notable Groundcover

Lot Line/ Spanish Land Grant Boundary

Current Boundary

Notable Trees

Map Notes:

1. Waterline illustrates 1980 channel conditions.

2. Landscape physiography illustrates Exhibit 7 "NPS Development 

Period" conditions.

3. See respective Historic Period Exhibits 1-8 for primary sources.

Proposed Trail 

Conceptual Design/

Development 

Strategies

Retain existing vehicular and pedestrian 

circulation.

Consider adopting a recognizable logo for 

identifying all Civil War associated sites.

Manage woodland areas to retain vegetative 

diversity and protect native plant species.

Preserve and manage large diameter trees.

Reduce overall size of mowed areas and replace 

previously mowed with meadow consisting of 

native grasses and forbs.

Retain, protect, and interpret vegetative species 

traditionally used by Native Americans.

Control infestations of Ligustrum japonicum 

(Common Privet), Lonicera japonica (Japanese 

Honeysuckle), and Poncirus trifoliata (Trifoliate 

Orange by removing root systems.

Cut large scale infestations of Ligustrum 

japonicum (Common Privet), Lonicera japonica 

(Japanese Honeysuckle), and Poncirus trifoliata 

(Trifoliate Orange) and immediately apply 

bio-degradable herbicides.

Protect culturally significant vegetation from 

herbicides.

Continue to protect all known and potential 

archeological sites. Investigate selected sites.

Revised by Quinn|Evans Architects, December 2005.

Continue current management and maintenance 

policies for visitor center.

Continue current management and maintenance 

policies for maintenance/employee housing area.

Overow Parking Area

Reduce mowed area by establishing

meadow consisting of native grasses

and forbs. Continue to mow within four

feet of trails and roads, and in areas that are

currently mowed and not indicated for 

establishment of meadow.

Consider expanding the existing visitor center to

accommodate an expanded cultural and natural 

resource interpretive program.

Reduce mowed area by establishing 

meadow consisting of native grasses

and forbs. Continue to mow within four 

feet of trails and roads, and in areas 

that are currently mowed and not 

indicated for establishment of meadow.

Retain existing parking areas. Avoid developing 

additional parking where there are cultural 

resource concentrations or known or likely 

archeological resources.

Consider reversion of 

prairie to woodland.

Consider extending the trail system to

provide access to dispersed rural sites.

 (

Water Line

Water Line
Arkansas Post

National memorial

Exhibit 49

INTERPRETIVE LANDSCAPE FEATURES

Cultural Landscape Report

Map prepared by Land and Community Associates, October, 1998;

Revised April, 1999.

This map is for planning purposes only.

0 300 600 900ft N

Map Scale: 1"= 600' (approximate)

Revised Quinn|Evans Architects, November 2005.

large hardwoods

restored

prairie

restored

prairie

Main Street

Townsite Introduction Interpretive Exhibit

De Tonti Post (Great Cross);

first site

Arkansas Gazette

Interpretive Exhibit

Arkansas River

Interpretive Exhibit

Frederic Notrebe Interpretive Exhibit

Trading Factory Interpretive Exhibit

Montgomery's Tavern Interpretive Exhibit

A R K A N S A S R I V E R

Approximate 1980 Channel

Navigation Pool #2

POST (MOORE'S) BAYOU

ARKANSAS POST CANAL

POST BEND

Navigation Pool #2

Flooded 1967; 1974 Water Elevation 162.00

Obliterated Road

Existing Building

Wooded

Vegetation

Key:

Former Building Site/

Building Remnant

Bluff Line

Interpretive Stop Trail

Lot Line/ Spanish Land Grant Boundary

Remnant Fence

Notable Groundcover

Current Boundary

Notable Trees

Map Notes:

1. Waterline illustrates 1980 channel conditions.

2. Landscape physiography illustrates Exhibit 7 "NPS Development 

Period" conditions.

3. See respective Historic Period Exhibits 1-8 for primary sources.

 Extant Features Related to Pre-1673 Period:

 1. Peninsular landform

 2. Moderate-dense forest north of the picnic area

 entry drive.

 3. Ethnographic-associated vegetation (througout site).

 Extant Features Related to 1673-1803 Period:

 4. Spanish and French Colonial archaeological resources. 

 5. Cleared land in southern portion of the site.

 Extant Features Related to 1804-1855 Period:

 6. Territorial townsite grid layout.

 7. Frederick Notrebe Cistern.

 8. Frederick Notrebe Well

 9. Several deciduous trees may be associated with this period.

 10. Archaeological concentrations associated with the 

 Post of Arkansas. 

 11. Archaeoloical concentrations associated with the 

 Town of Rome, 

 12. Archaelogical concentrations associated with the 

 Town of Arkansas.

 13. Hewes Scull Farm.

 14. John and Cecelia Jodelais Farmstead

 Extant Features Related to 1856-1865:

15. Views east to approximate Fort Hindman

 16. Confederate trench and rifle pits

 17. Water-filled ravine (Park Lake)

 18. Archaeological concentrations associated the Civil War.

 Extant Feartures Related to 1866-1928 Period:

 19. Small Opening along existing north-central boundary.

 20. Open, unwooded land in existing prairie.

 21. Open, unwooded area.

 22. Archaeological concentrations in central section of the 

 Memorial, associated with late nineteenth and early 

 twentieth-century rural life.

 23. Civil War Centennial and other state park interpretive 

 signs.

  

S.R. 169 

SR 169

bridge

alligator

slough

Trail (State Park Road)

Confederate Fort 

Interpretive Exhibit

Colbert Incident

Interpretive Exhibit

The Arkansas Post

Interpretive Exhibit

Battle of Arkansas Post 

Interpretive Exhibit

Fort Hindman

Marker

De Tonti Post (Great Cross); current site

Notrebe's Gin

Interpretive Exhibit

State Bank

Interpretive Exhibit

Obliterated S.R. 169

Civil War Rifle Pits

 

Contributing Features

Town of ARKANSAS 

4 Town of ROME 

Post of Arkansas

1

2

5

6

7

8

11

12

10

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

5

Park Entrance Road

(Old County Road/ Old Post Road)

4

Perritt Residence

Site

orchard

apple trees

4

21

22

Quandt Store Site

Rainey Farm Site

Picnic Area 

and Comfort Station

Emma Battles 

House Site

Richard Stovall House

Site

Quandt Residence 

Site

Post Office/Store Site

Louis C. Jones

Hudson House/Building 

Site

George Connie House

Site

Hewes Scull Farm

Site

John and Ceceila Jordelais

Site
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Implementation 

Guidelines 
7. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES 

This chapter is comprised of general recommendations for phasing the cultural 

landscape treatments recommended in Chapter 6. It also includes project statements 

(also known as Resource Management Plan statements) as well as “Class C” cost 

estimates for implementing the recommended discrete phases or packages of the 

cultural landscape report. These project descriptions are presented so they may be 

easily developed as budget request statements. 

The CLR proposes an overall landscape rehabilitation intended to provide additional 

resource information from further archeological study, enhance the rural qualities of the 

site, strengthen connections between natural and cultural resources, guide maintenance 

decisions, particularly as related to historic and invasive exotic vegetation, and provide 

visitor interpretation. Implementation of the CLR treatment recommendations can be 

accomplished incrementally and coordinated with implementation of the General 

Management Plan (GMP) and interpretive plan revisions. Implementation can be 

assisted also through additional natural resource, archeological, and hydrological 

studies. The treatment plan presented and outlined in Chapter 6 Treatment Plan has 

been divided into several discrete projects for implementation. 
468 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

These projects are discussed in this chapter with a project description, justification, 

accomplishment, and budget detailed for each. These recommendations can be 

accomplished through a combination of APNM personnel, regional NPS personnel, and 

NPS contractors. Some work may be accomplished with volunteer assistance from the 

local community or through cooperative agreements with colleges and universities. 

Some projects can be implemented independently; others require at least partial 

implementation of the GMP before they can be accomplished. Management 

recommendations set forth in Chapter 6 that can be accomplished with existing staff 

and operations are not itemized with costs in Chapter 7. 

Overall Site Management and Operation 

• Expand the Visitor Center 

Description 

Landscape Rehabilitation Related to Visitor Center Expansion. Areas adjacent to the 

visitor center that are disturbed during construction activities need to be returned to 

their pre-construction condition. Maintaining a manicured lawn in this vicinity is 

consistent with traditional APNM practices and compatible with the design of the 

visitor center. 

Estimated Cost: This cost should be determined as a part of the design package for the expansion 

of the Visitor Center. The cost of this project should be included in the construction project. The 

overall cost of the project as estimated in the GMP is $983,000. 
Chapter 7, Implementation • 469 

December 2005 

• Update Existing Site Furnishings 

Description 

Replace existing furnishings with coordinated, contemporary furnishings that are in 

keeping with the rural character of the site, but do not attempt to portray a historic 

appearance. Consider benches such as Dumor Bench no. 165, with black powdercoat 

finish and recycled plastic timbers, or Landscape Forms Plainwell Bench with black 

powdercoat finish. Alternately, consider Dumor Bench no. 118 with a black powdercoat 

finish. Consider Landscape Forms Scarborough trash can for a refuse container. 

Estimated Cost: $1,000.00 per bench, $800.00 per refuse container 

1 

Dumor Bench no. 118 Dumor Bench no. 165 

 

Landscape Forms: Plainwell Bench Landscape Forms: Scarborough Trash Can
470 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Circulation 

• Expansion of the Existing Pedestrian Trail System 

Description 

Conduct site preparation and construct approximately one mile of additional pedestrian 

trail. The trail should be “unpaved,” utilizing compacted earth as a surface. If this 

surface is not desirable, consider using wood chips or crushed fines of limestone for the 

trail surface. Design the trail to avoid erosion impacts and treat it like a nature trail. 

Determine the trail width by conducting archeological investigations of the historic 

width of the route. Also, consult with an archeologist to determine possible impacts 

from compaction and visitor use. The main cost associated with this project is the 

archeological investigations. This total project can be implemented independently of 

other recommendations. Operational costs will be associated with the development of a 

new trail segment. There will be a net increase of approximately one mile of trail that 

will require maintenance. There may be indirect costs, such as increased maintenance, 

security associated with making largely inaccessible areas of the APNM more available 

for visitation. Work can be accomplished by a combination of APNM personnel, 

volunteers, and/or contractors. 
Chapter 7, Implementation • 471 

December 2005 

Estimated Cost of the Project: $45,000 - $60,000 (Cost depends greatly on archaeological 

monitoring and potential resource protection. $25-$35K should cover monitoring given the 

limited excavation that would be involved. However, the Arkansas SHPO might require more 

investigation at known site locations, such as the house sites.) 
472 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

• Develop an Informal Overflow Parking Area 

Description 

Designate an area on the east side of the entrance road, immediately before the entrance 

gate and across from the park housing/operations area as an overflow parking area. 

This site will be maintained as a meadow when not in use for overflow parking. When 

necessary for parking, walk the area to determine if the soil is dry and stable. If the soil 

is dry and stable, mow the meadow before the event. Delineate the parking area with 

temporary/reusable markers and signs. Assign necessary personnel to direct traffic 

during the event. Patrol the site after the event to remove any refuse and repair damage 

from vehicles. This project can be accomplished by NPS personnel or contractors at any 

time. If the soil is not dry and stable, do not mow or use for parking. 

Estimated Cost of the Project: Cost associated with establishment of the project: $500.00 for 

purchasing temporary/reusable parking lot markers and signs. In addition, each event will 

require staff time and machinery for mowing, setting up signs and markers, directing traffic, and 

clean-up. 
Chapter 7, Implementation • 473 

December 2005 

Vegetation Management 

• Establish Meadow Vegetation in Currently Mowed Areas 

Description 

Establish meadow in areas that are currently mowed, as indicated on Exhibit 48. The 

area delineated on the plan is between approximately 18 acres in size. Discontinue 

routine mowing in these areas and instead mow only one or two times during the 

season to discourage the growth of woody plants. 

Estimated Cost of the Project: No initial cost. Implementation of the immediate 

recommendation will result in a savings in park operations cost, due to the reduction of mowing. 

(However, if invasive exotic species become a problem, removal of exotics and planting of native 

plant seed will need to occur. The cost will vary based on the type of exotic species that are 

problematic. A rough cost of $7,000 to $10,000 per acre may be applicable to areas needing this 

additional treatment.) 

• Site Planning for views and vistas 

Description 

Employ a careful site planning process that exploits the potential for views and vistas, 

and other characteristics that would encourage visitors to engage in outdoor recreation 

to become actively involved in and aware of the cultural landscape. Develop a plan 

addressing views and vistas. This could be accomplished by staff at the memorial with 

assistance provided by regional historical landscape architects. The estimate below 

represents project cost if an outside consultant is hired to develop the plan. The cost of 

implementing the plan will need to be developed as a part of the plan. 

Estimated Cost: $20,000 
474 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

• Conduct Research to Determine Responses of APNM Woodland 

Vegetation to Fire 

Description 

Conduct research to determine and document responses of understory, overstory, and 

exotic vegetation to fire at the park. 

Estimated Cost of the Project: The cost of this project should be estimated based on a detailed 

scope of work prepared by the researchers.

• Evaluate Prairie Management Practices 

Description 

Evaluate the appropriateness of the management of constructed prairie at APNM. 

Address the following research questions: Is the prairie management achieving stated 

goals? What was the basis for establishing the prairie at this site? Was the basis for 

establishing the prairie at this site consistent with management goals for the Memorial? 

What are the positive and negative aspects related to maintaining the existing prairie? 

Estimated Cost of the Project: The cost of this project should be estimated based on a detailed 

scope of work prepared by the researchers.
Chapter 7, Implementation • 475 

December 2005 

Archeology 

• Archeological Studies and Investigations 

Description 

Archeological studies and investigations are necessary as the foundation for the 

APNM’s interpretive and education programs and are essential to inform treatment 

decisions. All major areas of historical development that have not been investigated 

need to be addressed through a phased implementation over the course of several 

years. The project can be accomplished by NPS archeologists, private subcontractors, or 

through cooperative agreements with colleges and universities or other non-profit 

archeological research entities. Investigations can take place over several years in 

conjunction with planned physical projects involving ground disturbance or preceding 

major initiatives such as upgrading interpretation. 

Estimated Project Cost: Unable to estimate cost. 
476 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

Interpretation 

• Prepare an Interpretive Plan that Enhances Cultural Landscape 

Interpretation 

Project Description 

Prepare an interpretive plan that incorporates information from the CLR and includes a 

comprehensive landscape interpretation component. Address the interrelationships of 

the APNM’s natural and cultural features and historic land uses. Provide 

recommendations for using innovative technologies that are less intrusive than 

waysides. 

Consider interpreting individual landscape features by explaining their relationship to 

specific historic periods and themes associated with the history of the Memorial. 

Chapter 5 includes descriptions of contributing features related to six historic periods 

and Exhibits 40 through 45 illustrate their locations within the Memorial. Following is a 

list of the known extant features that relate to each historic period and interpretive 

suggestions: 

Extant Landscape Features Related to Pre‐1673 Period:

   1.  Peninsular landform.

   2.  Moderate‐dense forest north of the picnic area entry drive.

   3.  Ethnographic‐associated vegetation.

Interpretive Suggestions for Extant Features Related to the Pre‐1673 Period:

• Interpret these elements using exhibits in the visitor center, walking tour

brochures, and interpretive presentations or other interpretive techniques.   
Chapter 7, Implementation • 477 

December 2005 

• Interpret the changes that have occurred to the peninsular landform throughout

the site’s history.   

• Consider developing presentation graphics that utilize Exhibits 1 through 8 and

40 through 45 to help visitors understand the development of the landscape over

time, and the association of the extant features to the historic significance of the

site.  

Extant Landscape Features Related to 1673‐1803 Period:

   4.  Spanish and French Colonial archaeological resources.

   5.  Cleared land in southern portion of the site.

Interpretive Suggestions for Extant Features Related to the 1673‐1803 Period:

• Interpret these elements using exhibits in the visitor center, walking tour

brochures, and interpretive presentations, or other interpretative techniques.   

• Consider developing presentation graphics that utilize Exhibits 2 and 41 to help

visitors understand the conditions of the landscape during the historic period,

and the association of the extant features to the historic significance of the site.

Extant Features Related to 1804‐1855 Period:

   6.  Territorial townsite grid layout.*

   7.  Frederick Notrebe cistern.*

   8.  Well*

   9.  Several deciduous trees may be associated

10.  Archaeological concentrations associated with; Post of Arkansas, Town of        

         Rome, Town of Arkansas, Hewes Scull farm, John and Cecelia Jodelais         

         farmstead.

Interpretive Suggestions for Extant Features Related to the 1804‐1855 Period:

• Consider interpreting all of these elements using exhibits in the visitor center,

walking tour brochures, interpretive presentations, or other interpretative

techniques.   

• Continue to identify the locations of the Territorial townsite grid layout, the

Frederick Notrebe cistern, and the former location of the Post of Arkansas in the

park brochure on the park map.   

• Consider identifying the location of the well, the Towns of Rome and Arkansas,

Hewes Scull Farm, and John and Cecelia Jodelais farmstead, on the map.   

• Interpret these elements using exhibits in the visitor center, walking tour

brochures, and interpretive presentations, or other interpretative techniques.   
478 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

• Consider developing presentation graphics that utilize Exhibits 3 and 42 to help

visitors understand the conditions of the landscape during the historic period,

and the association of the extant features to the historic significance of the site.

Extant Features Related to 1856‐1865:

11.  Views east to approximate former location of Fort Hindman*

12.  Confederate trench and rifle pits*

13.  Water‐filled ravine (Park Lake)*

14.  Archaeological concentrations associated the Civil War*

15.  Central road trace fragment of Old River Road running southwest‐northeast      

          from north‐south road across Post Bayou (Mooreʹs Bayou)

16.   Road trace of Jordelais Street extension to Post Bayou (Mooreʹs Bayou)

17.  Fragment of southwest‐northeast road trace from west Jordelais Street    

         linking the APNM to points further north

18.  Road trace running northwest‐southeast from Old River Road to southern    

         end of the site and forking to two southern routes crossing Post Bayou    

         (Mooreʹs Bayou) at Flatboat Bridge and Old Steamboat Bridge.

Interpretive Suggestions for Extant Features Related to the 1856‐1865 Period:

• Continue to identify the approximate location of Fort Hindman in the park

brochure on the map.   

• Consider establishing a permanent marker in the bayou to indicate the former

location of the fort.   

• Continue to interpret the former site of the fort with an interpretive sign at the

overlook site.   

• Manage vegetation to preserve the view between the overlook and the former

Fort location.   

• Consider increasing the interpretation of the Fort using exhibits in the visitor

center, walking tour brochures, and interpretive presentations, or other

interpretative techniques.   

• Consider changing the interpretative sign at the Civil War rifle pits to more

clearly indicate the location of the pits and Confederate trench, and their

significance.   

• Continue to show the locations of these features in the park brochure on the map.   

• Consider increasing the interpretation of the Fort using exhibits in the visitor

center, walking tour brochures, and interpretive presentations, or other

interpretative techniques.   
Chapter 7, Implementation • 479 

December 2005 

• Consider limiting growth of woody vegetation at the rifle pits and Confederate

trench by using hand tools to cut seedlings and saplings before they grow large

enough to impact the below‐ground resources.  Consult with an archaeologist

before removing any large woody plants from the area.   Allow growth of

herbaceous species as long as they do not visually obscure the resources.   

• Monitor visitor use in this area to ensure that trampling of the resources does not

occur.

• Consider indicating the locations of road remnants in an interpretive exhibit or

brochure.

• Consider preserving the road remnants by discouraging the growth of woody

vegetation in these areas.  Utilize hand tools to cut young woody vegetation.  

Allow established trees to remain unless they are impacting archaeological

resources.  Allow growth of herbaceous species according to natural resource

management goals.

• Consider developing presentation graphics that utilize Exhibits 4 and 43 to help

visitors understand the conditions of the landscape during the Civil War, and the

association of the extant features to the historic significance of the site.   

Extant Features Related to 1866‐1928 Period:

19.  Moderate forest cover north of existing picnic area entry drive.

20.  Small clearing along existing north‐central boundary.

21.  Open, unwooded land in existing prairie south of existing picnic area.

22.  Open, unwooded land in southern part of site in vicinity of Post of Arkansas.

23.  Archaeological concentrations in central section of Memorial, associated with

         late nineteenth and early twentieth‐century rural life.

24.  Road trace through existing site beginning at the old Fordelais Street        

         alignment and extending northwest to cross Little Post Bayou.

25.  Fragments of road traces in extreme northeastern corner of the Memorial.

26.  Fragments of interior road traces in the area north of existing Park Lake and    

         south of the existing picnic area entry drive.

27.  Remnants of domestic, commercial, and agrarian life in central APNM.

28.  State Bank Monument.*

Interpretive Suggestions for Extant Features Related to the 1866‐1928 Period:

• Consider interpreting all of these elements using exhibits in the visitor center,

walking tour brochures, interpretive presentations, or other interpretative

techniques.   
480 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 

• Consider developing presentation graphics that utilize Exhibits 5 and 44 to help

visitors understand the conditions of the landscape during the Civil War, and the

association of the extant features to the historic significance of the site.   

• Consider indicating the locations of road remnants in an interpretive exhibit or

brochure.

• Consider preserving the road remnants by discouraging the growth of woody

vegetation in these areas.  Utilize hand tools to cut young woody vegetation.  

Allow established trees to remain unless they are impacting archaeological

resources.  Allow growth of herbaceous species according to natural resource

management goals.

• Continue to identify the location of the State Bank Monument in the park

brochure on the park map.

Extant Features Related to 1929‐1963 Period:

29.  Park Lake*

30.  Earth dam*

31.  Concrete spillway*

32.  Alignment of park road*

33. Road trace of park road linking lake area with AR 169 during state park era

34.  Civil War Centennial and other state park interpretive signs.

Interpretive Suggestions for Extant Features Related to the 1929‐1963 Period:

• Consider interpreting all of these elements as they relate to the historic period,

using exhibits in the visitor center, walking tour brochures, interpretive

presentations, or other interpretative techniques.   

• Consider developing presentation graphics that utilize Exhibits 6 and 45 to help

visitors understand the conditions of the landscape during the historic period,

and the association of the extant features to the historic significance of the site.

Estimated Cost of Project (Preparation of Interpretive Plan): $80,000 
Chapter 7, Implementation • 481 

December 2005 

• Develop a Logo for identifying Civil War Sites 

Project Description 

Develop a logo and that can be used for identifying Civil War sites in several different 

formats (on-site signage, walking-tour brochure, maps, etc...). 

Estimated Cost of Project: $5,000

• Develop Mapping or Waysides to interpret the Historic Landscape 

Project Description 

Develop exterior exhibits and brochures to help visitors understand where they are in 

relation to the historic periods and events that have occurred at the site. 

Estimated Cost of the Project: Development of signs/exterior exhibits and/or brochures or maps: 

$40,000. Fabrication and installation: $100,000. 

• Develop Electronic/Digital alternatives to Interpretation 

Project Description 

Develop electronic/digital alternatives to interpretation to help to minimize the impacts 

of exterior exhibits on the landscape. These should facilitate greater landscape 

understanding among visitors who do not have adequate time to explore the large site 

or who are unwilling or unable to explore remote areas. 

Estimated Cost of the Project: Unable to estimate. This cost should be included in the cost of 

exhibit designs for the expansion/rehabilitation of the visitor center as directed by the GMP. 
482 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

December 2005 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Bibliography 
Bibliography • 483 

BIBLIOGRAPHY WITH SELECTED ANNOTATIONS

Primary Sources 

Government Correspondence 

This subsection of the bibliography is organized chronologically rather than alphabetically to 

correspond to the development of the site. 

Bernard Deverges, Chief Engineer in Louisiana(?). Description of the French fort at 

Ecores Rouge, March 1755. Translation included as Appendix A in Mattison, pp. 99-113. 

This translation, which Morris S. Arnold states is “not entirely reliable,” provides a 

detailed description of the French works constructed at Arkansas Post between 1751 

and 1755. 

Balthazar de Villiers. Letter to Bernardo Galvez, Governor of Louisiana, July 11, 1781. 

Translation included as Appendix B in Mattison, pp. 114-117. This letter describes Spanish 

Fort San Carlos III constructed at Arkansas Post in 1781. 

Andres Lopez. New Orleans Court Declaration, July 31, 1788. Translation and 

summary contained in Faye, “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,” 

pp. 695-697. Lopez’s testimony provides details on Arkansas Post’s French vernacular 

architecture. 

Francisco Caso y Luengo and James B. Many. Inventory of Fort Esteban (Fort Madison), 

March 23, 1804. Translation included as Appendix D in Mattison, pp. 126-127. This 

inventory, which corresponds to most features identified in John B. Treat’s “Map of the 

Fort of the Post of Arkansas in 1807,” describes Spanish Fort Esteban constructed at 

Arkansas Post in 1791-1792. 

John B. Treat. Letter to Superintendent of Indian Trade Davy, October 6, 1805. Excerpt 

contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History of the Post of Arkansas,” pp. 22-23. 

Treat’s letter describes two of Arkansas Post’s French vernacular buildings. 

John B. Treat. Letter to Superintendent of Indian Trade Davy, November 15, 1807. 

Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History of the Post of Arkansas,” 

pp. 23-27. Treat’s letter describes the Arkansas Post settlement and construction of the 

U.S. Government Trading Factory. 

John B. Treat. Letter to Superintendent of Indian Trade Davy, July 1, 1806. Excerpt 

contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History of the Post of Arkansas,” pp. 28-29. 
484 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Treat’s letter describes the ground of Arkansas Post’s U.S. Government Military 

Reservation and construction of the U.S. Government Trading Factory. 

Samuel Treat. Letter to Superintendent of Indian Trade Mason, September 30, 1810. 

Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History of the Post of Arkansas,” 

pp. 30-31. Treat’s letter provides a detailed description of the buildings comprising the 

U.S. Government Trading Factory. 

Colonel Warren Stewart (USA), Report - January 10, 1863, in Robert N. Scott. Ed. The 

War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate 

Armies, Series 1, Volume 17, Part 1. Reprint, The National Historical Society, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania [1886], 1971 (hereinafter cited as ORA 1, 17, 1). 

Admiral David D. Porter (USN), Report - Ca. January 1863, in Official Records of the 

Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 23, p. 399. 

Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History of the Post of Arkansas,” p. 

273. 

Major General William T. Sherman (USA), Report - January 11, 1863, ORA 1, 17, 1. 

Sherman’s report provides a detailed description of Arkansas Post’s terrain and 

Confederate fortifications, including a correct measurement of the length of the 

southern rifle pit line. 

Colonel Giles A. Smith (USA), 8th Missouri Infantry, Report - January 11, 1863, ORA 1, 

17, 1. 

Lieutenant Colonel William H. Baldwin (USA), 83rd Ohio Infantry, Report - January 12, 

1863, ORA, 1. 17, 1. 

Lieutenant Colonel Oscar Malmborg (USA), 55th Illinois Infantry, Report - January 12, 

1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. 

Colonel Richard Owen (USA), 60th Indiana Infantry, Report - January 12, 1863, ORA, 1, 

17, 1. 

Captain Ambrose A. Blount (USA), 7th Ohio Battery, Report - January 13, 1863, ORA 1, 

17, 1. 

Lieutenant Frank C. Wilson (USA), Chicago Mercantile Battery, Report - January 13, 

1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. 

General David Stuart (USA), Report - January 14, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. 

Brigadier General Peter A. Osterhaus (USA), Report - January 14, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. 
Bibliography • 485 

Brigadier General Andrew J. Smith (USA), Report - January 16, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. 

Brigadier General George W. Morgan (USA), Report - January 17, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. 

Morgan’s report includes a detailed description of Arkansas Post’s topography and the 

Confederate lines.

Major General John A. McClernand (USA), Report - January 20, 1863. McClernand’s 

report provides a detailed description of Arkansas Post’s terrain and Confederate 

fortifications. However, he incorrectly estimates the length of the southern rifle pit line. 

Colonel James Deshler (CSA), Report - March 25, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. Deshler’s report 

describes construction of the Confederate rifle pit line in detail. 

Brigadier General Thomas J. Churchill (CSA), Report - May 6, 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 1. 

Colonel Robert R. Garland (CSA), 6th Texas Infantry, Report - Ca. July 1863, ORA, 1, 17, 

1. Garland’s report describes construction of the Confederate rifle pit line in detail. 

William R. Hogan. Letter to Dallas Herndon, Arkansas State Historical Commission, 

August 19, 1935. Box 2, p. 00441 (page number assigned by the Arkansas Archeological 

Survey Staff, no file number), APNM Administrative Files. This letter informs the 

commission that Arkansas Post State Park is eligible for CCC development funds. 

Warranty Deed for Sale of Arkansas Post African Methodist Episcopal Church Building, 

January 20, 1960. Box 2, File 12, APNM Administrative Files. 

Ben H. Thompson. Memorandum to Major General R.G. MacDonnell, Director of Civil 

Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, June 15, 1962. Box 2, File 13, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

Lieutenant General W.W. Wilson (USA). Letter to the Honorable Charles A. Buckley, 

Chairman, House Public Works Committee, June 20, 1962. Box 2, File 13, APNM 

Administrative Files. Wilson’s letter includes a detailed discussion of the various 

schemes considered for protection of Arkansas Post National Memorial during 

construction of the Arkansas River Navigation System. 

H. Raymond Gregg. Memorandum to Sam Dickinson, the Arkansas Democrat, August 

14, 1962. Box 2, pp. 00598-00600 (page numbers assigned by the Arkansas 

Archeological Survey Staff, no file number), APNM Administrative Files. 

Elbert Cox. Memorandum to Executive Director, Arkansas Publicity and Parks 

Commission, October 9, 1963. Box 2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files. 
486 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

“Governor Faubus Presents Deeds for Arkansas Post National Memorial.” United 

States Department of the Interior News Release, June 24, 1964. Box 2, File 16, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Regional Director, Southeast Region, July 28, 

1964. Box 2, File 9, APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Ovie Bradford, Arkansas Post National 

Memorial, July 29, 1964. Box 2, File 9, APNM Administrative Files. Photos of Arkansas 

Post State Park’s log cabins are attached to the letter. 

Ovie Bradford. Memorandum to Superintendent Hot Springs National Park, August 1, 

1964. Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files. A list and description of Arkansas Post 

buildings being considered for disposal is attached to this letter. 

R.M. Lisle. Memorandum to Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, August 4, 

1964. Box 2, File 9, APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Assistant Regional Director, Operations, 

Southeast Region, August 14, 1964. Box 2, File 9, APNM Administrative Files. 

Historic Trail Project Construction Proposal, August 24, 1964. Box 4, File 22, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

Ovie Bradford. Memorandum to Bernard T. Campbell, Hot Springs National Park, 

August 31, 1964. Box 2, p. 00532 (page number assigned by Arkansas Archeological 

Survey Staff, no file number), APNM Administrative Files. 

“Agreement” between the Arkansas Publicity and Parks Commission and the National 

Park Service governing use of house trailer at APNM, September 1, 1964. Box 1, File 20, 

APNM Administrative Files. 

Arkansas Post National Memorial Highlight Briefing Statements 1965 Calendar Year. 

Box 2, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. This briefing statement contains a detailed 

list of projects funded and constructed during the initial phase of APNM’s 

development. 

T. Reid Cabe. Memorandum to Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, September 

4, 1965. Box 1, File 11, APNM Administrative Files. 

Courtland T. Reid. Memorandum to Superintendent, September 8, 1964. Box 2, File 1, 

APNM Administrative Files. 
Bibliography • 487 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Regional Director, Southeast Region, April 30, 

1965. A copy of the April 1965 Arkansas State Highway Minute Order agreeing to the 

NPS’s proposal for rerouting State Highway 169 is attached to this memorandum. 

Acting Assistant Director, Operations, Southeast Region. Memorandum to Director, 

July 30, 1965. Box 2, File 17, APNM Administrative Files. 

Arkansas Post National Memorial Highlight Briefing Statement, 1966 Calendar Year. 

Box 2, File 21, APNM Administrative Files. This briefing statement contains a detailed 

list of projects funded and constructed during the initial phase of APNM’s 

development. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Arkansas County, Arkansas Judge John L. 

Peterson, March 17, 1966. Box 1, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Southeast Regional Director, March 23, 1966. 

Box 2, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Letter to NPS Regional Director, Southeast Region, March 26, 

1966. Box 2, File 21, APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Management Assistant, Arkansas Post, April 

19, 1966. Box 2, p. 00492 (page number assigned by Arkansas Archeological Survey 

Staff, no file number), APNM Administrative Files. 

Memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior to the Honorable 

Wayne H. Aspinall, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, May 

6, 1966. Box 1, File 18, APNM Administrative Files. This memorandum discusses 

projects funded during the initial phase of APNM’s development. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to C.J. Sutton, Owner, Sutton Construction 

Company, November 2, 1966. This letter includes a detailed description of the visitor 

center/maintenance building and employee residence constructed at APNM in 1966-

1967. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Director, December 1, 1966. Box 1, File 10, 

APNM Administrative Files. This memorandum identifies the titles of early 

interpretive signs at APNM. 

Arkansas Post National Memorial Highlight Briefing Statements 1967 C.Y., January 12, 

1967. Box 2, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. This briefing statement includes a 
488 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

detailed list of projects funded and constructed during the initial phase of APNM’s 

development. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Director, January 30, 1967. Box 1, File 25, 

APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Regional Director, Southeast Region, February 

10, 1967. This memorandum discusses construction of APNM’s early historic loop trail. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Management Assistant, Arkansas Post, March 

2, 1967. Box 1, File 12, APNM Administrative Files. 

National Park Service News Release Announcing Donation of “Quandt” (“Hinman”) 

House to the Arkansas Post County Museum, August 14, 1967. Box 1, File 10, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Arkansas County, Arkansas Judge John L. 

Peterson, November 28, 1967. Box 1, File 11, APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to C.C. Stuart, Department of Education, 

Arkansas County, Arkansas, January 24, 1969. Box 1, File 23, APNM Administrative 

Files. Campbell’s letter contains a general summary of early APNM development. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Regional Director, Southeast Region, August 5, 

1969. Box 2, File 5, APNM Administrative Files. An attachment to this memorandum 

lists APNM’s ca. 1969 “Management Objectives.” 

Shipping Document Transferring Residence Trailer from Mammoth Cave National Park 

to Arkansas Post National Memorial, ca. 1970. Box 1, File 7, APNM Administrative 

Files. 

Memorandum “Project Requirements and Maintenance and Operations Instructions -

Entrance Road Reconstruction, Arkansas Post National Memorial,” ca. 1970. Box 1, File 

3, APNM Administrative Files. 

Frank B. Hastings. Memorandum to the Superintendent, Hot Springs National Park, 

February 5, 1970. Box 1, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. 

A.R. Mortensen. Memorandum to Mrs. J. Clayton Johnson, October 8, 1970. Box 1, File 

12, APNM Administrative Files. This memorandum discusses planning for the 

Daughters of the American Revolution exhibit at Arkansas Post. 
Bibliography • 489 

Frank B. Hastings. Memorandum to Chief, I&RM, Hot Springs National Park, January 

25, 1971. Box 1, File 25, APNM Administrative Files. This memorandum discusses the 

inadequacy of APNM’s early historic interpretation program. 

National Park Service Contract with C. J. Sutton Construction Company, July 14, 1971. 

Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files. 

Bernard T. Campbell. Memorandum to Director, Southeast Region, August 17, 1971. 

Box 1, File 4, APNM Administrative Files. This memorandum contains justification for 

additional employee housing at APNM. 

Frank E. Hastings. Memorandum to Director, Southeast Region, August 24, 1971. Box 

1, File 20, APNM Administrative Files. This memorandum contains justification for 

additional employee housing at APNM. 

“Specifications” for “Road Construction Separating Historic and Picnic Areas, Project 

No. 7310-4399,” No Date (probably prepared in the early 1970s). Box 1, File 20, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 

“Specifications for Visitor Center and Boat Dock, Arkansas Post National Memorial, 

Arkansas County, Arkansas,” November 24, 1975. Box 6, APNM Administrative Files. 

“Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas” Park Brochure. Government Printing 

Office, 1993 - Additional Printing of 1991 Reprint. 

Private Letters and Correspondence 

This subsection of the bibliography is organized chronologically rather than alphabetically to 

correspond to the development of the site. 

Pedro Rousseau. Diary Entry, February 3, 1793. Excerpt contained in Westbury, 

“Archeological Assessment of Arkansas Post,” p. 13. Rousseau’s diary entry provides 

the most comprehensive known description of Arkansas Post in the mid-1790s. 

Daniel T. Witter. Letter to Robert Trimble, September 26, 1877. Trimble Papers, 

Arkansas History Commission. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural 

History, Post of Arkansas,” p 18. Witter’s letter describes the remains of Arkansas 

Post’s Fort Esteban (Fort Madison) as they appeared in 1819. 

William Woodruff. Letter to Robert Trimble, 1876. Trimble Papers, Arkansas History 

Commission. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of 
490 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Arkansas,” pp. 17-18. Woodruff’s letter describes Arkansas Post and the remains of 

Fort Esteban (Fort Madison) as they appeared in 1819. 

Minutes of the February 11, 1930 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. 

Copy of minutes located in the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The minutes provide detailed information on the decisions and 

policies involved in the park’s development. 

Minutes of the October 15, 1930 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. 

Copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The minutes provide detailed information on the decisions and 

policies involved in the park’s development. 

Minutes of the December 18, 1930 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. 

Copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The minutes provide detailed information on the decisions and 

policies involved in the park’s development.

Minutes of the January 10, 1931 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. 

Copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The minutes provided detailed information on the decisions and 

policies involved in the park’s development. 

Minutes of the April 7, 1931 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. 

Copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The minutes provide detailed information on the decisions and policies 

involved in the park’s development. 

Minutes of the February 2, 1933 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. 

Copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The minutes provide detailed information on the decisions and 

policies involved in the park’s development, including the commission’s difficulties in 

financing completion of the park. 

Minutes of the July 19, 1934 Meeting of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission. 

Copy of minutes located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The minutes provide detailed information on the decisions and 

policies involved in the park’s development, including the decision to petition the 

Arkansas State Board to assume responsibility for the park because of the commission’s 

financial problems. 

Fuhrman, Lille. Note to Harold L. Reem, September 1998.
Bibliography • 491 

Memoirs and Travel Accounts 

Featherstonehaugh, G.W. Excursion Through the Slave States from Washington on the 

Potomac to the Frontier of Mexico with Sketches of the Popular Manners and Geological 

Notices, Vol 2. London, 1844. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural 

History, Post of Arkansas,” pp. 16-17. Featherstonehaugh describes Arkansas Post in 

the late 1830s. His account includes a vivid description of the effects of erosion on the 

Post’s landscape.

Flint, Timothy. A Condensed Geography and History of the Western States, or the Mississippi 

Valley, Vol. 1. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1828. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, 

“Structural History, Post of Arkansas,” p. 11-12. Flint describes the appearance of the 

Post and its eroded landscape in 1819. 

Nuttall, Thomas. Travels in the Arkansas Territory, 1819. Edited by Reuben G. Thwaite. 

Cleveland, Ohio, 1905. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, 

Post of Arkansas,” pp. 7-9. Nuttall describes the appearance of Arkansas Post and its 

landscape in 1819. 

Pope, William F. Early Days in Arkansas, Being the Most Part Personal Recollections of an 

Early Settler. Little Rock, 1895. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural 

History, Post of Arkansas,” p. 15. Pope describes the appearance of Arkansas Post in 

1832, including a depiction of the settlement’s French vernacular architecture. 

Snydor, Charles S., and B.L.C. Wailes. Eds. “Diary of a Journey in Arkansas in 1856.” 

The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 22 (1935), pp. 419-433. Excerpt contained in 

Bearss and Brown, “Structrual History, Post of Arkansas,” p. 17. 

Census Records 

1870 United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas. National Archives Microfilm M-593, 1870 United States Population Census, 

Roll 47, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

1880 United States Population Census, Arkansas Post, Arkansas Township, Arkansas 

County, Arkansas. National Archives Microfilm T-9, 1880 United States Population 

Census, Roll 38, National Archives, Washington, D.C. This is the only federal census 

that identifies either the Post of Arkansas or Arkansas Post as a separate community. It 

contains detailed information on the number of the Post’s inhabitants and their 

occupations. 
492 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

1900 United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas. National Archives Microfilm T-623, 1900 United States Population Census, Roll 

49, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

1910 United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas. National Archives Microfilm T-624, 1910 United States Population Census, Roll 

43, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

1920 United States Population Census, Arkansas Township, Arkansas County, 

Arkansas. National Archives Microfilm T-625, 1920 United States Population Census, Roll 

53, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

Post Office Department Records 

Arkansas Post and Fair Dale Arkansas Post Office Contract Record, August 1867. 

National Archives Microfilm M-1126, “Post Office Records of Site Locations, 1937-1950,” 

Roll 22, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Report on Establishment of Post Office at Arkansas Post, Arkansas, September 1939. 

National Archives Microfilm M-1126, “Post Office Records of Site Locations, 1837-

1920,” Roll 22, National Archives, Washington, D.C. This report lists the populations of 

Arkansas Post and the immediately adjacent area in 1939.

Works Progress Administration Records 

Arkansas Post WPA Work Project Project Folder File (Project File No. 65-63-204), 

Microfilm A3112, Roll 151, Federal Works Agency, Works Progress Administration - 

Record Project, National Archives, Washington, D.C. The documents in this file, 

particularly the Arkansas Post State Park WPA Project Proposal, provide a detailed list 

and costs of all the WPA and CCC projects constructed at the site.

Interviews 

Keller, Genevieve P., and Harold L. Reem. Oral Interview of Kevin Eads, APNM 

Resource Management Specialist, at APNM Headquarters, March 1998. Historian Eads 

provided a general orientation to the park and APNM’s archives during the project 

historian’s March 1998 site visit. 
Bibliography • 493 

Keller, Genevieve P., and Harold L. Reem. Oral Interview of Ms. Lille Fuhrman, 

Director, Arkansas Post Museum, Gillett, Arkansas, at Arkansas Post Museum 

Headquarters, March 1998. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Interview of Judge Morris S. Arnold, Little Rock, Arkansas, June 

22, 1998. Judge Arnold reviewed primary and secondary materials available for 

research on Arkansas Post, including the strengths and weaknesses of some of the 

major sources; and offered excellent suggestions regarding avenues of research. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Telephone Interview of Judge Morris S. Arnold, June 25, 1998. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Telephone Interview of Judge Morris S. Arnold, February 5, 1999. 

Judge Arnold provided information about Arkansas Post’s Spanish land grants, 

including the range of dates during which the grants were made, the requirements for 

receiving a grant, and a reference that might contain descriptions of the Spanish grants 

similar to the land and vegetation descriptions contained in General Land Office 

surveyors’ field notes. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Interviews of Ms. Kathleen H. Cande, Senior Project 

Archeologist, Sponsored Research Program, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas, June 24-27, 1998. Archeologist Cande provided an excellent 

orientation to the materials contained in the Arkansas Post National Memorial 

Administrative Files, which were being inventoried and microfilmed at the Arkansas 

Archeological Survey. She also reviewed the state of existing archeological work at the 

site, and offered suggestions for research on the Quapaws and other Native American 

tribes associated with Arkansas Post’s history. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Telephone Interviews of Ms. Kathleen H. Cande, Senior Project 

Archeologist, Sponsored Research Program, Arkansas Archeological Survey, September 

1998. 

Archeologist Cande provided incisive suggestions regarding mapping materials used in 

preparation of the base map for the study’s historic period plans. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Interview of Mr. Richard W. Davies, Executive Director, 

Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, Little Rock, Arkansas, June 23, 1998. Mr. 

Davies discussed the history of the Arkansas State Park System, and provided access to 

the Department of Parks and Tourism’s historic files, which contained invaluable 

primary materials on the history of Arkansas Post State Park and the State Park System. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Telephone Interviews of Ms. Lille Fuhrman, Director, Arkansas 

Post Museum, Gillett, Arkansas, June-September 1998. Ms. Fuhrman provided 

invaluable information on the locations of various structures in Arkansas Post State 

Park. 
494 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Telephone Interview of Dr. John House, Station Archeologist, 

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Station, Arkansas Archeological Survey, February 

8, 1999. Dr. House provided information about archeological resources located at 

APNM’s newly-authorized Menard-Hodges or Osotouy unit, including possible 

continuity between Mississippian artifacts and pottery found in the Menard complex 

and alleged Quapaw assemblages. 

Reem, Harold L. Oral Interviews of Mr. Robert Mainfort, Research Administrator, 

Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas, June 25-26, 1998. Archeologist 

Mainfort provided leads for historical research on Arkansas’ Native American tribes. 

Maps and Plans

Arkansas Post National Memorial Interim Master Plan Drawing NMEM-AP 3007 (Ca. 

1967 undated drawing depicts dirt farm road incorporated into historic loop trail) . 

Copy of drawing attached to Memorandum from Campbell to Southeast Regional 

Director, February 10, 1967, APNM Administrative Files.

Arkansas State Highway Commission. “General Highway and Transportation Map, 

Arkansas County, Arkansas. Arkansas: 1936. Arkansas County, Arkansas Map File, 

Geography and Maps Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 

Arkansas State Highway Commission. “General Highway and Transportation Map, 

Arkansas County, Arkansas. Arkansas: 1947. Arkansas County, Arkansas Map File, 

Geography and Maps Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 

Bradford, Ovie. “Buildings at Arkansas Post for Proposed Disposal.” Hand drawn 

sketch map attached to Memorandum from Ovie Bradford to Superintendent, Hot 

Springs National Park, August 1, 1964, Box 2, File 2, APNM Administrative Files. This 

map provides excellent information on the locations and physical conditions of 

buildings at Arkansas Post in the early 1960s. 

 

Brown, T.S. “Nineteen Sketches Exhibiting the course of the Arkansas River from Fort 

Gibson to Its Mouth with the Channel, Sand Bar, etc., etc., May 8th , 1833.” Sheet 17 of 

19. Drawer 123, Sheet 1, Record Group 77, Records of the War Department, Office of 

the Chief of Engineers, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. Brown’s map 

depicts the location of the Arkansas River and its sandbar opposite Arkansas Post, and 

shows the locations of Main and Front Streets and some buildings at the 1833 Post. 

However, the information in this map cannot be completely reconciled with the 
Bibliography • 495 

information on the Post’s buildings and streets contained in Edmond Saulnier’s map of 

the Post, which was prepared in 1832. 

Chouteau, Auguste. “A Map Exhibiting the Territorial Limits of Several Nations and 

Tribes of Indians.” 1816. Map No. 84, Record Group 75, Central Map Files, National 

Archives, College Park, Maryland. Copy of map included as Figure 3 on p. 15 of David 

J. Wishart. An Unspeakable Sadness: The Dispossession of the Nebraska Indians. Lincoln, 

Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1994. Chouteau’s map shows the territories 

claimed by the Quapaws in the early nineteenth century. 

“Circa 1820 Old Spanish Land Grants from Surveyors’ Plat Book, Dewitt.” Copy of 

map in Tube 1, APNM Map Files. A copy of this map—the surveyed plat book for 

Arkansas, County, Arkansas—also appears as Figure 21, “Old Spanish Land Grants 

near Arkansas Post,” in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” This 

map provides information on the ca. 1820 course of the Arkansas River, and on land 

ownership at early nineteenth-century Arkansas Post. 

Department of the Gulf. Map “Gulf 11, 1864,” Sheet 2 of 2, Record Group 393a, 

Records of United States Army Commands, Civil War Departments Series, National 

Archives, College Park, Maryland. This map provides information on Arkansas Post’s 

Civil War-era road network. 

“1816-1820 Surveys with boundaries, descriptions, and sketches of PS Nos. 2296, 2297, 

2300, 2304, 2305, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2338, 2339, 2340, 2354, 2362, 2363, 2364, 2430, 2432, 

and 2433 by William Russell and Nicholas Rightor, Deputy Surveyors.” Copy of map in 

Tube A-3, APNM Map Files. This map provides information on the ca. 1820 course of 

the Arkansas River, and on land ownership at early nineteenth-century Arkansas Post. 

Fendall, C. “Approaches to Fort Hindman, Arkansas Post on the Arkansas River.” 

January 12, 1863. Copy of map from Record Group 23, National Archives, College Park, 

Maryland, in Tube A-8, APNM Map Files. Fendall’s map depicts the January 1863 

course of the Arkansas River and the locations of adjacent Confederate defenses in 

detail. 

Fitton, Henry F. “Plan of the Battle of Arkansas Post fought Sunday January 11th 1863.” 

Ca. January 1863. Map 278, Map Files, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, 

Arkansas. A copy of this map is also located in Tube A-8, APNM Map Files. Fitton’s 

outstanding map describes the January 1863 Post’s landscape, and shows the locations 

and architecture of the State Bank building and numerous other structures. 

Frank, H.L. “Grant # 2339, T8S, R3W.” May 30, 1938. Box 2, File 12, APNM 

Administrative Files. 
496 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Fuhrman, Lille. Handdrawn sketch map showing locations of major buildings and 

structures at Arkansas Post State Park. July 1998. The buildings and structures are 

plotted on a copy of the National Park Service’s November 8, 1960 map “Boundaries, 

Arkansas Post National Memorial Project” that the project historian provided to Ms. 

Fuhrman. This map was invaluable for preparation of the “1929-1963 Historic Period 

Plan” that depicts the Post during the State Park period. 

“Indian Reservations west of the Mississippi between the Red and Missouri Rivers 

Showing lands ceded by the Osages at Fort Clark, Nov. 20, 1808, by the Quapaws, Aug. 

24, 1818, and by the Osages, Sept. 25, 1818, compiled in the General Land Office.” Map 

IR 19, Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Headquarters 

Map File, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. This map shows the boundaries 

of the 1818 Quapaw reservation to the west of the Post. 

Jenny, W.L.B. “Plan of Fort at Post Arkansas Captured January 11th 1863.” January 20, 

1863. Sheet 2.3, Drawer 123, Record Group 77, National Archives, College Park, 

Maryland. Copy of Map is also located in Tube A-8, APNM Map Files. Jenny’s map is 

a detailed architectural plan of Fort Hindman. 

“Lot given to the Bank of Arkansas by Colonel Notrebe” (copied from Plat #3 in the 

Arkansas County Surveyor’s Record). 1840. Figure 12 in Bearss and Brown, “Structural 

History, Post of Arkansas.” The lot plotted on this map encompasses the remains of the 

Bank of Arkansas—one of the few precisely-located sites on Arkansas Post’s landscape. 

When combined with the material contained in other maps and in property records, it 

provides information to reconstruct the Post’s early nineteenth-century street grid. 

“Lots purchased by Eli Lewis from James Scull in Post of Arkansas” (copied from plat 

in Arkansas County Deed Book C, p. 50). 1818. Figure 10 in Bearss and Brown, 

“Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” When combined with the information 

contained in the map of Preston Holder’s archeological investigations and additional 

cartographic and documentary sources, this map provides information to reconstruct 

the Post’s early nineteenth-century street grid. 

Lyon, Sidney S. “Diagram of Post Arkansas and Outworks.” Ca. January 1863. 

Published copy of map on p.713 of Robert N. Scott, Ed., The War of the Rebellion: A 

Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 1, Volume 17, 

Part 1. Reprint, The National Historical Society, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania [1886], 1971. 

Lyon’s map depicts vegetation patterns and the locations of roads, buildings, the 

Confederate fortifications, and other features on the Post’s January 1863 landscape. 

“Map of Arkansas Post’s New Fort - ca. 1783.” Map 2195, Map Files, Arkansas History 

Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. This map shows the probable configuration of Fort 
Bibliography • 497 

San Carlos III, and includes notes describing the fort and the adjacent Post of Arkansas 

village. 

“Map of the Town of Arkansas, 1819” (copied from Arkansas County Deed Book B, p. 

467). 1819. Figure 9 in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” This 

map, the original plat of the Town of Arkansas, shows the location of all lots in the 

town. 

“Map of Arkansas County Showing System of State Highways, Arkansas State 

Highway Department & County Primary Highway System.” 1936. Copy of map in 

APNM Administrative Files. 

Map (hand drawn sketch) showing locations, functions, and occupants of early 

twentieth-century Arkansas Post buildings located within APNM’s boundaries. 1964 or 

later. Copy of map in Box 2, File 2, APNM Administrative Files. In conjunction with 

other cartographic and documentary sources, including census records, this map 

provides a wealth of information for reconstructing the Post’s early twentieth-century 

landscape. 

Marquette, Jaques. Map of the Central Mississippi Valley Depicting the Quapaw 

Villages near the Mouth of the Arkansas River, 1673-1674. Copy of map contained on 

pp. 22-23 of Jim Merritt. The Arkansaw Indians in Desha County, Arkansas. Dumas, 

Arkansas: Clarion Publishing Company, 1980. Marquette’s map shows the location of 

the Quapaws during the first part of the European contact period. 

Maxwell, M. “Plat of Parts of Townships 7 & 8 South, Ranges 3 & 4 West North of 

Arkansas River Showing Survey made for L.C. Jones of 90 Acres off the South End of 

Spanish Land Grant No. 2428 with accretion thereto . . . , February 19 & 20 1907.” Copy 

of map in Tube A-60, APNM Map Files. 

Maxwell, M. “Plat of Private Survey No. 2363 and Tracts of Land Contiguous, Showing 

Survey made for F. Quandt June 1st, 2nd, and 5th 1900, to determine accretions to said 

Private Survey No. 2363.” Copy of map in Tube A-78, APNM Map Files. 

Maxwell, M. “Plat Showing Survey made for L.C. Jones to locate 4.50A in Spanish 

Grant No. 2307, Apl 11th 1903.” Copy of map in Tube A-4, APNM Map Files. 

Pitzman, Julius. “Plan of the Fortification at Post-Arkansas Surrendered to U.S. Forces 

Jan. 11th 1863 - Destroyed After the Evacuation.” January 1863. Record Group 77, 

Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Fortifications Map File, National 

Archives, College Park, Maryland. A copy of this map also located in Tube A-8, APNM 

Map Files. Pitzman’s scaled plan, which Major General William T. Sherman judged to 
498 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

be “very accurate for the time allowed in making the survey,” depicts vegetation 

patterns and the locations of roads, buildings, the Confederate fortifications, and other 

features on the Post’s January 1863 landscape. 

“Plat of lot owned by Pryor, Richards, and Sampson divided by four commissioners in 

January 1821” (copied from plat taken from Arkansas County Deed Book C, p. 647). 

1821. Figure 11 in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” When 

combined with the information contained in the map of Preston Holder’s archeological 

investigations and other cartographic and documentary sources, this map provides 

information to reconstruct the Post’s early nineteenth-century street grid. 

“Plat of Private Survey 2339 showing location of the Town of Rome” (copied from 

Arkansas County Deed Book B, p. 467). 1818. Figure 7 in Bearss and Brown, 

“Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” This map, the original plat of the Town of 

Rome, shows the location of all lots in the town. 

“Plat prepared by Nicholas Rightor of Spanish Land Grants 2363 and 2432” (copied 

from plat taken from Arkansas County Deed Book C, p. 480). Ca. 1819. Figure 6 in 

Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” 

“Post Arkansas Captured Jan. 11, 1863 by the Army of the Mississippi under Maj. Gen. 

J.A. McClernand.” Ca. January 1863. Map examined and approved by Lt. Col. A 

Schwartz. Published copy of map on p.713 of Robert N. Scott, Ed., The War of the 

Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 

1, Volume 17, Part 1. Reprint, The National Historical Society, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania [1886], 1971. Schwartz’s map depicts vegetation patterns and the 

locations of roads, buildings, the Confederate fortifications, and other features on the 

Post’s January 1863 landscape. 

Quertermous, F.M. “Quertermous’ Sectional Map of Arkansas County, Arkansas.” St. 

Louis, Missouri: Gast Bank Note Company, Map Publishers, 1912. Arkansas County, 

Arkansas Map File, Geography and Maps Division, Library of Congress, Washington, 

D.C. Quertermous’ map identifies the names of major landowners at early twentiethcentury Arkansas Post. 

Quertermous, F.M. “Sectional Map of Arkansas County, Arkansas.” St. Louis, 

Missouri: Aug. Gast Bank Note & Litho. Company, 1896. Arkansas County, Arkansas 

Map File, Geography and Maps Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 

Road Map included in Arkansas Post and Fair Dale, Arkansas Post Office Contract 

Record. August 1867. National Archives Microfilm M-1126, “Post Office Department 

Records of Site Locations, 1837-1950,” Roll 22. National Archives, Washington, D.C. 
Bibliography • 499 

Roeser, C., Jr. and the Post Office Topography Office. “Post Route Map of the State of 

Arkansas and of Indian and Oklahoma Territory with Adjacent Portions of Mississippi, 

Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and Louisiana Showing Post Offices with the 

Intermediate Distances and Mail Routes in Operation the 1st of August 1891.” Map 2 of 

2. Record Group 28, Records of the Post Office Department, Series - Regional Postal 

Route Maps before 1894, Folder 26, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. This 

map provides information on Arkansas Post’s late nineteenth-century road network. 

Saulnier, Edmond. “Map of Arkansas Post, January 13, 1832.” Copy of map and 

translation from French on pp. 84-85 of Patrick E. Martin. “An Inquiry into the 

Locations and Characteristics of Jacob Bright’s Trading House and William 

Montgomery’s Tavern.” Arkansas Archeological Survey Publications on Archeology, 

Research Series No. 11. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1977. 

Saulnier’s map provides detailed information on the locations of streets, buildings, and 

other features at the 1832 Post. However, the information in this plan, which is neither 

drawn to scale nor correctly oriented, cannot be completely reconciled with the data on 

the Post’s buildings and streets contained in T.S. Brown’s map of the Post, which was 

prepared in 1833. 

“Sketch Map - Arkansas Post National Memorial,” ca. 1970. Copy of map located in Box 

2, File 11, APNM Administrative Files. This map contains information on the 

configuration of Arkansas Post National Memorial during the early phase of National 

Park Service development. 

State of Arkansas State Highway Commission, “Plan and Profile of Proposed State 

Highway 169 Alterations (Lock & Dam Number 2), Arkansas County,” Map compiled 

by State of Arkansas in 1965 and published as National Park Service Drawing 411-

40,005 in September 1964. Map 9-9, APNM Administrative Files. 

Strode, Thomas. “Map of Arkansas Post State Park, Arkansas with Relation to 

Archeological Research Excavation Area.” Map in Preston Holder. “Archeological 

Field Research on the Problem of Locations of Arkansas Post, Arkansas, 1686-1804.” 

Richmond, Virginia: The National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Region 

One, September 15, 1957. Strode’s map contains an accurate depiction of the 

boundaries of Arkansas Post State Park. 

Strode, Thomas. “Map of National Park Service Archeological Explorations Near 

Arkansas Post State Park, Arkansas.” Map in Preston Holder. “Archeological Field 

Research on the Problem of Locations of Arkansas Post, Arkansas, 1686-1804.” 

Richmond, Virginia: The National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Region 

One, September 15, 1957. When combined with the material contained in other maps, 

property records, and architectural studies, Strode’s map of Holder’s archeological 
500 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

investigations provides information to reconstruct the Post’s late eighteenth and early 

nineteenth-century street and lot patterns. 

Strode, Thomas. “Plat of P.S. 2363 Showing Changes in the Course of the Arkansas 

River and Ownership.” 1947. Copy of map in Tube A-78, APNM Map Files. 

Taft, Chas. E. “Map of the Arkansas River from Little Rock, Arkansas to the Mouth 

consisting of 22 Sheets,” Sheet 16 of 22. Made under the direction of H.S. Taber, 

Captain, U.S. Corps of Engineers, by Chas. E. Taft, Asst. Engineer, U.S. Engineer Office, 

Little Rock, Ark, March 1st, 1886. Map Q541-16, Record Group 77, Records of the Office 

of the Chief of Engineers, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. Taft’s map 

depicts the location of the Arkansas River and its sandbar opposite Arkansas Post, 

shows the Post’s late nineteenth-century vegetation patterns, and identifies the locations 

of several buildings. 

Tanner, H.L. “A Map of the Arkansas River intended to illustrate the Travels of Thos. 

Nuttall.” Ca. 1821. Copy of map in Tube A-1, APNM Map Files. Tanner’s map depicts 

the road running northwest across the Grand Prairie from Arkansas Post to Little Rock. 

 

Treat, John B. (?). “Map of the Fort of the Post of Arkansas in 1807.” Record Group 107, 

War Records of the Office of the Secretary of War, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

Copy of map contained on pp. 14-15 of Morris S. Arnold. Colonial Arkansas, 1686-1804: 

A Social and Cultural History. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 

1991. Treat’s scaled map depicts the buildings and structures comprising Fort San 

Esteban (Fort Madison) and shows the location of the United States Trading Factory. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. “Site Survey - Dam No. 2 Site, Arkansas River, 

Arkansas,” Map/Drawing Serial-AR8149,53/11, February 1962. Map 9-7, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. “Boundaries, Arkansas 

Post National Memorial Project,” Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, November 

8, 1960. Map 5-10, APNM Administrative Files. The boundary of Arkansas Post State 

Park shown in this map is inaccurate. The map’s Spanish land grant boundaries, 

however, more accurately depict the historic grant boundaries used to demarcate 

property boundaries on the Post’s nineteenth- and twentieth-century landscape than the 

land grant boundaries shown on the current United States Geological Survey map of the 

site. Consequently, an adjusted version of the grant boundaries depicted on this 1960 

NPS map was used to calculate the approximate locations of many of APNM’s cultural 

resources shown in the historic period plan exhibits. For a full discussion of this issue 

see pp. 3-7 and 3-8 of the text and accompanying explanatory footnote. 
Bibliography • 501 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 

“Arkansas Post National Memorial Land Classification.” Drawing 411/20,005, June 

1973. Copy of Map contained on p. 17 of the “Arkansas Post National Memorial Master 

Plan - 1975.” This map shows the zoned land classification system that guided work at 

Arkansas Post National Memorial during the later phase of National Park Service 

development. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Arkansas Post 

“Overall Site Plan.” Drawing 411/41,013, ca. 1975. Sheet 2A. Map 10-6, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

National Park Service. “Comprehensive Design, Arkansas Post National Memorial,” 

Drawing 411/41,007, January 1975. Map Sheets 12-1/2/3/5/6/26, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

National Park Service. “Proposed Acquisition - Arkansas Post National Memorial,” 

Drawing 411/30.001A, October 1974. Copy of map in Box 2, File 11, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

National Park Service. “Road Construction Separating Historic & Recreation Areas, 

Arkansas Post National Memorial,” Drawing 411/41,006, September 1974. Copy of 

map in Box 1, File 1, APNM Administrative Files. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Eastern Office, Design 

and Construction. “Topographic Base Map, Part of the Master Plan, Arkansas Post 

National Memorial.” Drawing NMEM-AP 3000, April 1, 1961. Map 10-5, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Eastern Service Center, 

Office of Environmental Planning and Design, Survey Branch. “Topographic Sheet, 

Preliminary Base Map, Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas County, Arkansas.” 

Drawing 411/40,000, 1971. Map 8-1, APNM Administrative Files. 

United States Geological Survey. 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic) Map, “Arkansas 

Post, Arkansas” Quadrangle. Washington, D.C.: 1972. The presumably correct Spanish 

land grant boundaries shown on this current USGS map do not correspond to the 

historic land grant boundaries used to identify the locations of cultural resources at 

APNM. Consequently, an adjusted version of the more accurate grant boundaries 

shown on the NPS 1960 plan “Boundaries, Arkansas Post National Memorial Project” 

was used to calculate the approximate locations of the historic features shown in the 
502 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

historic period plan exhibits. For a full discussion of this issue see pp. 3-7 and 3-8 of the 

text and the accompanying explanatory footnote. 

Venable, Richard M. “Dept Transmississippi Topographical Map, District of Arkansas, 

Compiled from Surveys and Military Reconnaissance by Order of Lieut’ Col H.T. 

Douglas, Chief of Engineer Dept.” Ca. July 1865. Sheet 1 of 2. Drawer 123-15, Record 

Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, National Archives, College 

Park, Maryland. This map provides information on Arkansas Post’s Civil War-era road 

network. 

Vicksburg Engineer District, Army Corps of Engineers. “Arkansas River Survey, 1931, 

Yancopin to Pine Bluff.” Sheet No. 8. File ARPO 75-8431, APNM Administrative Files. 

This invaluable map shows vegetation patterns and the locations of roads and 

structures at early twentieth-century Arkansas Post. 

Villiers, Balthazar de. “Etablissement du Poste des Akansas aux Ecores Rouges de 17 

Mars 1779” (“Establishment of Arkansas Post at Red Bluffs on 17 March 1779”), Archivo 

General de Indias, Seville, Spain. Copy of map contained on pp. 14-15 of Morris S. 

Arnold. Colonial Arkansas, 1686-1804: A Social and Cultural History. Fayetteville, 

Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 1991. When combined with the material 

contained in other maps, property records, architectural studies, and Holder’s 

archeology report, de Villiers’ scaled plan provides information to reconstruct the Post’s 

late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century street and lot patterns. 

Westbury, William. “Arkansas Post. Broad lines and blocks indicate excavated areas, 

trenches, and features.” Figure 1 on p. 2 of William Westbury. “Archeological 

Assessment of Arkansas Post.” Southern Methodist University Archeology Research 

Program – Research Report 96, 1976. Westbury’s map depicts the locations of all 

archeological investigations conducted at the Post through the mid-1970s. 

Photography

Most photographs used in the CLR are contained in various materials cited in the bibliography, 

and their sources are identified in the annotations accompanying their figure numbers. 

However, the following photographic collections and individual photographs were especially 

useful. 

S.G. Davies, Director of Arkansas State Parks. Eight photos of Arkansas Post State Park 

taken in 1937. Photos found in H.V. Glenn Papers and copies provided by Lille 

Fuhrman, Director of the Arkansas Post Museum. 
Bibliography • 503 

Photo Files, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Arkansas 

History Commission’s photo files contain several photos and illustrations of Arkansas 

Post from the time of the Civil War through the mid-twentieth century. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Aerial photo of Arkansas 

Post State Park and surrounding area, February 17, 1950. Frame CCB-1F-47. Arkansas 

Post Photo File, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. This extremely 

useful photo provides an excellent view of the Post’s landscape during the state park 

period. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Aerial photo of Arkansas 

Post State Park and surrounding area, November 7, 1955. Frame CFG-2P-?. Map 141, 

Map Files, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Aerial photo of Arkansas 

Post in 1969. Figure 5 in Edwin C. Bearss and Lenard E. Brown, “Structural History, 

Post of Arkansas, 1804-1863, and Civil War Troop Movement Maps, January 1863.” 

Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Office of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern Service Center, April 1971. 

Secondary Sources

Books

Arnold, Morris S. Colonial Arkansas, 1686-1804: A Social and Cultural History. 

Fayetteville, Arkansas: The University of Arkansas Press, 1991. Arnold’s indispensible 

book is the best work on colonial Arkansas Post. It includes information on the Post’s 

geography, society, and civil and military architecture. The book also contains a 

published copies of de Villiers’ 1779 scaled plan of the Post and John B. Treat’s 1807 

map of Fort San Esteban (Fort Madison). 

Arnold, Morris S. Unequal Laws Unto a Savage Race: European Legal Traditions in 

Arkansas, 1686-1836. Fayetteville, Arkansas: The University of Arkansas Press, 1985. 

Baird, W. David. The Quapaw Indians: A History of the Downstream People. Norman, 

Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980. Baird’s book is the single best work on 

the history of the Quapaws. 
504 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Bearss, Edwin C. Special History Report: The Colbert Raid, Arkansas Post National 

Memorial. Denver, Colorado: Denver Service Center, Historic Preservation Team, 

National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, November 1974. 

Bearss’ study provides a detailed narrative of the 1783 Colbert Raid.

Bevington, Deirdre, et al. National Geographic Historical Atlas of the United States. 

Revised Edition. Washington, D.C.: The National Geographic Society, 1993.

Coleman, Roger E. The Arkansas Post Story: Arkansas Post National Memorial. Santa Fe, 

New Mexico: Division of History, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Southwest 

Region, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Professional Papers No. 12, 

1987. Coleman’s study, which includes maps and photos, provides a good general 

history of Arkansas Post through the Civil War. Coverage of the late nineteenth and 

twentieth century periods, however, is thin.

Committee of the Regiment. Military History and Reminiscences of the Thirteenth Regiment 

of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. Chicago, Illinois: Women’s Christian Temperance 

Publishing Association, 1892. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural 

History, Post of Arkansas,” p. 284.

Czaya, Eberhard. Rivers of the World. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 

1981. This book contains an analysis of the hydrodynamics of meandering rivers such 

as the Arkansas, and examines how these forces shape a landscape like that found at 

Arkansas Post.

Davis, Hester A. Ed. Arkansas Before the Americans. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas 

Archeological Survey Research Series No. 40, 1991. The essays in Davis’ work discuss 

the question of Quapaw ethnogenesis and other issues in Arkansas’ Native American 

past. 

Dougan, Michael. Arkansas Odyssey: The Saga of Arkansas from Prehistoric Times to 

Present. Little Rock, Arkansas: Rose Publishing Company, Inc., Publishers, 1994. An 

excellent general history of Arkansas that provides context for Arkansas Post’s 

development from the prehistoric period through the mid-twentieth century. 

Edwards, Jay D. Louisiana’s Remarkable French Vernacular Architecture, 1700-1900. Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana: The Fred B. Kniffen Cultural Resources Laboratory, Department of 

Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, 1988. Edwards’ work 

describes the various forms of French vernacular architecture that were quite likely 

found at eighteenth and nineteenth-century Arkansas Post. 

Glassie, Henry. Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analysis of Historic 

Artifacts. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press, 1975. 
Bibliography • 505 

Glassie, Henry. Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States. 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968. Glassie’s book 

provides an excellent introduction to the various types of French, Upland South, and 

other forms of vernacular architecture found in the southeastern United States. 

Halli Burton, W.H. A Topographical Description and History of Arkansas County, Arkansas 

from 1541 to 1875. Reprint, Southern Historical Society Press, Easley, South Carolina [ca. 

1903], 1978. Halli Burton’s book includes a few passages describing Arkansas Post’s 

landscape. 

Horse Capture, George P., et al. Robes of Splendor: Native American Painted Buffalo Hides. 

New York: The New Press, 1993. This book, which includes superb photos, analyzes 

the scenes depicted on Indian buffalo hides, including a Quapaw hide showing one of 

the eighteenth-century French Arkansas Post settlements and its buildings.

Kennedy, Roger G. Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American 

Civilization. New York: The Free Press, 1994. 

Lewis, Emanuel Raymond. Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory 

History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1979. This book contains a 

discussion of Columbiads—the principal type of artillery found in Confederate Fort 

Hindman.

Mason, Frank. The Forty-Second Ohio Infantry: A History of the Organization of that 

Regiment in the War of the Rebellion. Cleveland, Ohio, 1876. Excerpts contained in Bearss 

and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas,” pp. 261, 269, 271, 276. 

McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick. 

National Register Bulletin 30, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic 

Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 

Interagency Resources Branch, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Meinig, D.W. Atlantic America, 1492-1800. Vol. 1 of The Shaping America: A Geographical 

Perspective on 500 Years of History. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 

1986.

Meinig, D.W. Continental America, 1800-1867. Vol 2. of The Shaping of America: A 

Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale 

University Press, 1993.

Merritt, Jim. The Arkansas Indians in Desha County, Arkansas. Dumas, Arkansas: Clarion 

Publishing Company, 1980.
506 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Mink, Claudia Gellman. Cahokia: City of the Sun. Collinsville, Illinois: Cahokia 

Mounds Museum Society, 1992.

Noble, Alan G., and Richard K. Cleek. The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North 

American Barns & Other Farm Structures. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers 

University Press, 1995. Noble and Cleek’s book provides an excellent introduction to 

the various types of French, Upland South, and other forms of vernacular farm 

architecture found in the southeastern United States. 

Noel Hume, Ivor. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 

Inc., 1970. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 1991. 

Pringle, Laurence, and the Editors of Time-Life Books. Planet Earth: Rivers and Lakes. 

Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1985. This book contains an analysis of the 

hydrodynamics of meandering rivers such as the Arkansas, and examines how these 

forces shape a landscape like that found at Arkansas Post.

Questions and Answers: Mission 66. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, United 

States Department of the Interior, ca. 1956. This short study provides basic information 

about the National Park Service’s Mission 66 program.

Steele, Ian K. Warpaths: Invasions of North America. New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1994. Steele’s book contains an excellent short account of Hernado de Soto’s 

entrada. 

Tucker, David M. Arkansas: A People and Their Reputation. Memphis, Tennessee: 

Memphis State University Press, 1985. This brief general history of Arkansas provides 

context for Arkansas Post’s development from the early 1800s through the middle of the 

twentieth century. 

Vlach, John M. Back of the Big House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery. Chapel Hill, 

North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1993. Vlach’s excellent study 

includes detailed descriptions of cotton gins and other forms of plantation industrial 

architecture. 

Weber, David J. The Spanish Frontier in North America. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale 

University Press, 1992. 

White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes 

Region, 1650-1815. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Reports, Studies, and Dissertations
Bibliography • 507 

“Annual Report of Work Accomplished at Arkansas Post State Park, Arkansas Post, 

Arkansas, 1931.” Report located in Box 2, pp. 00462-00464 (page numbers assigned by 

Arkansas Archeological Survey Staff, no file number), APNM Administrative Files. 

This invaluable report, which was quite likely prepared by P.C. Howson, the landscape 

architect who designed the state park, contains a detailed chronological summary of 

development work at the park in 1931. 

“Arkansas Post National Memorial Interpretive Prospectus - 1971. Copy of prospectus 

located in File ARPO 75-8438, APNM Administrative Files. The interpretive prospectus 

discusses the background and development of the interpretive program that was 

implemented during the later phase of Arkansas Post National Memorial’s 

development. 

“Arkansas Post National Memorial Environmental Assessment - 1975.” Copy of 

assessment located in File ARPO 75-8438, Box 3, APNM Administrative Files. The 

assessment describes both Arkansas Post National Memorial’s early evolution and 

various elements of the master plan implemented during its later phase of 

development. 

“Arkansas Post National Memorial Master Plan - 1975.” Copy of plan located in Box 5, 

APNM Administrative Files. The plan includes a detailed discussion of the park 

development program implemented during the late 1970s and early 1980s, including a 

discussion of the zoned land classification system that governed the site’s evolution. 

“Arkansas State Parks Under 1961 Conditions - A Confidential Report Prepared by the 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Region One, 

Richmond, Virginia, for the Arkansas Publicity and Parks Commission.” January 1962. 

Copy of report located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, 

Arkansas. The report provides contextual background information on the Arkansas 

State Park system. 

Arkansas State Parks Commission. Arkansas State Park Commission Second Annual Report 

- Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1938. State Capitol: Little Rock, Arkansas, December 5, 

1938. Copy of report located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. The report provides contextual background information on the 

Arkansas State Park system, including some specific data on Arkansas Post State Park. 

Arkansas State Parks Commission. Arkansas State Park Commission Third Annual Report 

from July 1, 1938 to June 30, 1939. Little Rock, Arkansas, December 5, 1939. Copy of 

report located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, Little Rock, 

Arkansas. The report provides contextual background information on the Arkansas 

State Park system, including some specific data on Arkansas Post State Park. 
508 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Arkansas State Planning Board in Cooperation with the State Parks Commission and 

National Park Service. Park, Parkway, and Area Survey. Little Rock, Arkansas: State 

Capitol, June 1940. Copy of report in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, 

Little Rock, Arkansas. The report provides contextual background information on the 

Arkansas State Park system, including some specific data on Arkansas Post State Park. 

, Edwin C., and Lenard E. Brown. “Structural History, Post of Arkansas, 1804-1863, and 

Civil War Troop Movement Maps, January 1863.” Washington, D.C.: United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of History and Historic 

Architecture, Eastern Service Center, April 1971. Bearss’ and Brown’s excellent study, 

which includes a number of maps and figures, contains a wealth of summarized and 

excerpted primary materials (letters, travellers’ descriptions, land records, military 

reports, etc.) describing the Post’s landscape from the first years of the nineteenth 

century through the Civil War. It is an indispensible source for research on the Post. 

Bearss, Edwin. “The Post of Arkansas.” Undated typescript paper located in Box 5, 

APNM Administrative Files. This thoroughly-researched paper contains a detailed 

description of the January 1863 Battle of Arkansas Post. 

Bursley, Allyn P. “Arkansas State Parks Under 1955 Conditions - A Confidential 

Report to the Arkansas Publicity and Parks Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas, By the 

United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, Region One Office.” 

September 14, 1955. Copy of report located in Arkansas Department of Parks and 

Tourism Files, Little Rock, Arkansas. The report provides contextual background 

information on the Arkansas State Park system, including a discussion of park system 

maintenance problems found in the mid-1950s. 

Cande, Kathleen H. “Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History, and Prospects, 

Narrative to Accompany a Cultural Resources Base Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas” - 

AAS Project 961 Draft Report. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey, 

September 30, 1997. Cande’s thorough study reviews the Post’s history, including the 

question of Quapaw ethnogenesis, summarizes archeological work at the site, and 

offers suggestions for future historical and archeological research. The document also 

contains an excellent bibliography 

“Deed is Given to Ark. Post Park: Five Hundred Attend Picnic on Tuesday When Deed 

is Presented to Commission.” Typescript paper, pp. 00445-00450 (page numbers 

assigned by Arkansas Archeology Staff, no file number), Box 2, APNM Administrative 

Files. The report describes the ceremony establishing Arkansas Post State Park. 

Dye, David H., and Ronald C. Brister, Eds. “The Proto-Historic Period in the MidSouth, 1500-1700: Proceedings of the 1983 Mid-South Archeological Conference.” 
Bibliography • 509 

Jackson, Mississippi: The Mississippi Department of History and Archives, 1986. The 

essays in this work discuss the question of Quapaw ethnogenesis and other issues in 

Arkansas’ Native American past. 

Gonzalez L. B., M. Carmen. “Spain in the Mississippi Valley: Spanish Arkansas, 1762-

1804.” Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, May 

1983. A good general history of Spanish Louisiana that provides context for Arkansas 

Post’s development.

Holder, Preston. “Archeological Field Research on the Problem of the Locations of 

Arkansas Post, 1686-1804.” Richmond, Virginia: The National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior, Region One, September 15, 1957. Although Holder’s 

conclusion that he located the remains of de La Houssaye’s French fort and Fort San 

Carlos III has been superseded, his study thoroughly describes the artifacts he found 

during the first archeological excavations at the Post of Arkansas. 

Howson, P.C. “History of Arkansas Post.” Ca. 1931. Unpublished paper attached to 

Letter from Dallas T. Herndon, Secretary, Arkansas History Commission, to Arkansas 

State Park Commission, June 4, 1935, Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, 

Little Rock, Arkansas. Howson, the landscape architect who designed Arkansas Post 

State Park, describes the state park’s development. 

Kasparek, Robert. “Master Plan of Arkansas Post National Memorial,” Chapter 1, 

“Basic Information.” October 1964. Copy of plan located in Box 2, File 5, APNM 

Administrative Files. 

Kasparek, Robert. “Master Plan of Arkansas Post National Memorial,” Chapter 2, 

“Area Objectives.” October 1964. Copy of plan located in Box 2, File 5, APNM 

Administrative Files. Kasparek’s plan presents early NPS thinking on the development 

of Arkansas Post National Memorial. 

Martin, Patrick E. “An Inquiry into the Locations and Characteristics of Jacob Bright’s 

Trading House and William Montgomery’s Tavern.” Arkansas Archeological Survey 

Publications on Archeology, Research Series No. 11. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas 

Archeological Survey, 1977. Martin’s report, which summarizes much of the previous 

historical and archeological work on the site, presents research models for 

distinguishing the archeological remains of the Post’s French and American vernacular 

structures, and for positively identifying the various uses of the site he investigated. 

Based upon his models, he concludes that his excavations located the sites of Bright’s 

trading house and Montgomery’s tavern. 

Mattison, Ray H. “Report on the Historical Investigations at Arkansas Post, Arkansas.” 

Omaha, Nebraska: National Park Service, Region Two, September 25, 1957. Mattison’s 
510 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

discussion of the locations of Arkansas Post has been superseded by subsequent work, 

including Judge Morris S. Arnold’s recent analysis of the question, but the report does 

contain useful contextual information on the French and Spanish posts. Perhaps the 

most valuable portion of Mattison’s study are the appendices containing transcripts of 

eighteenth and early nineteenth-century descriptions of the Post’s forts. However, 

Arnold notes that the translation of the Louisiana chief engineer’s description of the 

1751-1756 fort “is not entirely reliable.”

“Report of Arkansas State Parks Commission - 1936.” Arkansas Post State Park Section. 

Copy of report section located in Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Files, 

Little Rock, Arkansas. The report section describes facilities at Arkansas Post State Park 

in 1936, including improvements constructed by the WPA and CCC. 

Sarles, Fred B. “Master Plan for the Preservation of Arkansas Post National Memorial - 

Mission 66 Edition.” March 1961. Copy of plan located in Box 2, File 5, APNM 

Administrative Files. Sarles’ draft of the memorial’s master plan, which may have 

never been formally approved, presents the Park Service’s earliest thinking on 

development of the site and includes a number of concepts implemented over the next 

two decades. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System: 

Norrell through David D. Terry Dams.” Little Rock, Arkansas: Department of the 

Army, Little Rock District, Corps of Engineer, No Publication Date. This pamphlet 

provides a brief description of the Arkansas River Navigation System, including Lock 

and Dam Number 2 and the navigation pool bordering Arkansas Post National 

Memorial. 

U.S. Public Health Service. “Environmental Health Report, Arkansas Post National 

Memorial, Gillett, Arkansas.” July 29, 1968. Box 1, File 12, APNM Administrative Files. 

Walker, John W. “Excavation of the Arkansas Post Branch of the Bank of the State of 

Arkansas.” United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast 

Archeological Center, Division of Archeology, Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, 1971. Walker’s study provides a detailed discussion of the architecture, 

construction, and destruction of the bank building. The thoroughly-researched and 

documented “Provisional Plan of the Village of Arkansas Post, 1819-1840” contained in 

the study was used as one of the base maps for the “1804 - 1855 Historic Period Plan.” 

Westbury, William. “Archeological Assessment of Arkansas Post.” Southern 

Methodist University Archeology Research Program - Research Report 96, 1976. This 

report, which contains much useful historical background information, summarizes 

pre-1975 archeological work at the site, and makes recommendations for future 

excavations. 
Bibliography • 511 

Westbury, William. “Investigations at Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas.” 

National Park Service Archeology Research Program, 1975. Westbury’s report 

summarizes his 1974 archeological excavations on the site of the current park visitor 

center, which concluded that the location was devoid of significant remains associated 

with the eighteenth or nineteenth-century Post.

Periodicals, Anthology Articles, and Newspapers 

Arkansas Post County Museum Staff. “Arkansas County Museum: Honoring Arkansas 

Post - Birthplace of Arkansas.” Current Edition of Museum Pamphlet. The pamphlet 

contains historical data on the museum’s “Quandt” or “Hinman” house, which 

formerly served as park headquarters at Arkansas Post State Park and (briefly) at 

Arkansas Post National Memorial. 

Arnold, Morris S. “Eighteenth Century Arkansas Illustrated.” Arkansas Historical 

Quarterly 53 (Summer 1994), pp. 119-136. Arnold’s excellent article analyzes the 

eighteenth-century painted Quapaw buffalo hide in Paris’ Musee de l’Homee (Museum of 

Man) that depicts one of France’s Arkansas Post settlements and its buildings. 

Arnold, Morris S. “The Relocation of Arkansas Post to Ecores Rouges in 1779.” 

Arkansas Historical Quarterly 39 (Winter 1993), pp. 317-331. Arnold examines the various 

sites of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Post of Arkansas, including the 

settlement’s final move to the Post’s current location in 1779. 

Deane, Ernie. “Keep History in Mind When You Visit Arkansas Post.” Arkansas 

Gazette, May 8, 1963. Copy of article located in Arkansas Post History in Brief Place File, 

Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Din, Gilbert. “Arkansas Post in the American Revolution.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 

39 (Spring 1981), pp. 3-30. 

Din, Gilbert . “Spanish Fort on the Arkansas, 1763-1803.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 

42 (Autumn 1983), pp. 271-293. 

Faye, Stanley. “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: French Domination.” The Louisiana 

Historical Quarterly 26, No. 3 (July 1943), pp. 633-721. Faye’s article provides contextual 

background information on the French post. 

Faye, Stanley. “The Arkansas Post of Louisiana: Spanish Domination.” The Louisiana 

Historical Quarterly 27, No. 3 (July 1944), pp. 629-716. Faye’s article provides contextual 
512 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

background information on the Spanish post, and includes several passages describing 

the settlement’s military and civilian architecture. 

Glenn, H.V. “Arkansas Post State Park.” Grand Prairie Historical Society Bulletin 4, No. 1 

(1969), pp. 9-10. Glenn’s article discusses the creation of the state park. 

Halliburton, W.H. “An Arkansan Visits Arkansas Post.” “Sunday Magazine Section,” 

Arkansas Gazette, January 22, 1939, p. 2. Copy of article located in Arkansas Post Place 

File, Arkansas WPA Federal Writers Project Folder II, Arkansas History Commission, 

Little Rock, Arkansas. Halliburton’s article describes Arkansas Post State Park’s 

facilities, and notes the architectural types of some of the residences found in the early 

twentieth-century Arkansas Post farming settlement. 

Hampton, Mildred Barnes. “Return of a Post Office: Post Office at Arkansas Post, 

Second Oldest in Arkansas, Was Recently Re-Established at Site of State’s Historic First 

Capital.” “Sunday Magazine Section,” Arkansas Gazette, October 22, 1939, p. 3. Copy of 

article located in Arkansas Post Place File, Arkansas Federal WPA Writers Project 

Folder II, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Hobbs, Harlan. “Stirring Memories of State’s Historic First Days Retained at Arkansas 

Post.” Arkansas Democrat, June 6, 1937. Copy of article provided by Lille Fuhrman, 

Director, Arkansas Post Museum. 

Howson, P.C. “Arkansas Post: Site of 246-year-old settlement becomes state park.” 

“Your Home” (probably a section of an Arkansas newspaper, possibly the Arkansas 

Gazette), March 1932, pp. 3, 12-13, 18. Copy of article provided by Lille Fuhrman, 

Director, Arkansas Post Museum, Gillett, Arkansas. In this invaluable article Howson, 

the landscape architect who designed Arkansas Post State Park, describes the state 

park’s development. Four photos of the park facilities are interspersed throughout the 

text. 

Johnson, Boyd W. “Frederick Notrebe.” Grand Prairie Historical Society Bulletin 5, No. 2 

(1962), pp. 26-34. Johnson’s article is a biography of one of Arkansas Post’s leading 

early nineteenth-century citizens. 

Peterson, Charles E. “The Houses of French St. Louis,” in John Francis McDermott, Ed. 

The French in the Mississippi Valley. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1965, 

pp. 17-40. 

“The Arkansas Gazette, Saturday, November 20, 1819 (Vol I, No. 1). Excerpt published in 

the Grand Prairie Historical Society Bulletin 11, No. 2 (1968), pp. 5-6. 
Bibliography • 513 

Wilson, Samuel, Jr. “Colonial Fortifications and Military Architecture in the Mississippi 

Valley,” in John Francis McDermott, Ed. The French in the Mississippi Valley. Urbana, 

Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1965, pp. 103-122. 

Woodruff, William. Article in the first edition of the Arkansas Gazette,, November 20, 

1819. Excerpt contained in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas,” p. 

13. Woodruff describes Arkansas Post and its landscape as they appeared in 1819.

Worley, Ted R. “Arkansas Post as a Historical Site.” Grand Prairie Historical Society 

Bulletin 9, No. 4 (1966), pp. 14-16. Worley’s article describes the history of the Post and 

its development as a state park.

Worley, Ted R. Untitled typescript of July 20, 1956 Arkansas Gazette article discussing 

the enactment and provisions of Senator Fulbright’s 1956 Arkansas Post site survey bill. 

Arkansas Post Survey Correspondence Folder, Arkansas Post Place File, Arkansas 

History Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Maps and Plans

Arnold, Morris S. “Locations of Arkansas Post, 1686-1991.” Figure 4 on p. 13 of Morris 

S. Arnold. Colonial Arkansas, 1686-1804: A Social and Cultural History. Fayetteville, 

Arkansas: The University of Arkansas Press, 1991. The definitive map depicting the 

Post’s several locations throughout more than 300 years. 

Arnold, Morris S. “Map of the Arkansas Region in Colonial Times.” Figure 1 on p. 4 of 

Morris S. Arnold. Colonial Arkansas, 1686-1804: A Social and Cultural History. 

Fayetteville, Arkansas: The University of Arkansas Press, 1991. 

Bearss, Edwin C. “Historical Base Map Post of Arkansas, January 1863.” Figure 2 

in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” This map, which provides 

much of the information for the “1856-1855 Historic Period Plan” is extremely 

informative, but it does have some shortcomings. It is incorrectly scaled, fails to depict 

some cultural features, and infers that other features were located within Arkansas Post 

National Memorial’s boundaries when they were actually located outside the park. 

Bearss, Edwin C. “Historical Base Map Arkansas Post National Memorial, 1818-1840.” 

Figure 1 in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History, Post of Arkansas.” A generally 

comprehensive and accurate map that depicts most of the cultural features at Arkansas 

Post during the 1820s and 1830s. The plan has been supplemented with a few 

additional features in the “1804-1855 Historic Period Plan.” 
514 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Bearss, Edwin C. “Troop Movement Map of the Post of Arkansas - Forenoon, January 

11, 1863.” Figure 3 in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History: Post of Arkansas.” An 

excellent map that depicts the locations of Union and Confederate units during the 

Battle of Arkansas Post, and provides the basis for a description of the Post’s January 

1863 landscape based upon these troops’ writings. 

Bearss, Edwin C. “Troop Movement Map of the Post of Arkansas - 5 P.M., January 11, 

1863.” Figure 4 in Bearss and Brown, “Structural History: Post of Arkansas.” An 

excellent map that depicts the locations of Union and Confederate units during the 

Battle of Arkansas Post, and provides the basis for a description of the Post’s January 

1863 landscape based upon these troops’ writings. 

Cande, Kathleen H. Draft “Cultural Resources Base Map,” Arkansas Post National 

Memorial (August 1998 version). Map prepared as a companion to Kathleen H. Cande. 

“Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History, and Prospects, Narrative to Accompany 

a Cultural Resources Base Map, Arkansas County, Arkansas” AAS Project 961 Draft 

Report. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey, September 30, 1997. 

This Geographical Information Systems product precisely plots the positions of several 

historic cultural features on the Post’s landscape, including the location of the Arkansas 

Post branch of the Arkansas State Bank and the network of trenches that delineate 

historic lot lines and part of the Post’s historic street grid. The draft map, however, 

incorrectly identifies several of APNM’s NPS-era roads and trails as Arkansas Post State 

Park roads/trails. It also mistakenly labels the NPS paved network of interpretive trails 

on the site of the early nineteenth-century American Post, which only approximates 

parts of the settlement’s street grid, as “Historic Road Trace[s].” Cande’s draft map was 

used in conjunction with the NPS 1998 APNM base map to produce the base map used 

for the historic period plan exhibits. 

Hanson, Gerald T. “Indian Tribes of Arkansas, 1690.” Map on p. 27 of Michael B. 

Dougan. Arkansas Odyssey: The Saga of Arkansas from Prehistoric Times to Present. Little 

Rock, Arkansas: Rose Publishing Company, Inc., Publishers, 1994. 

Lockhart, Jami, Courtney Waugh, and Michael Evans. “Portion of the Lower 

Mississippi River Valley Showing Locations of Grand Prairie Ridge and Macon Ridge.” 

Figure 1 on p. 2 of Kathleen H. Cande. “Arkansas Post (3AR47): Archeology, History 

and Prospects, Narrative to Accompany a Cultural Resources Base Map, Arkansas 

County, Arkansas” - AAS Project 961 Draft Report. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas 

Archeological Survey, September 30, 1997. 

Quertermous, F.M. “Post of Arkansas, Territory of Arkansas, 1829.” Dewitt, Arkansas: 

ca. 1929. Map 5-10, APNM Administrative Files. Quertermous’ map, which was 

apparently distributed to members of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission during 

the ceremonies marking the establishment of Arkansas Post State Park, contains 
Bibliography • 515 

numerous errors. It incorrectly identifies the Post’s Main Street as Front Street, 

erroneously depicts the location of the Arkansas Post branch of the Arkansas State 

Bank, and shows a large European-style bastioned star fort—a structure that was never 

built—occupying virtually the entire southeastern tip of the site. 

Quertermous, F.M. “Post of Arkansas, Territory of Arkansas, 1829” with Arkansas Post 

State Park and Arkansas River overlay data. Little Rock, Arkansas: Arkansas Publicity 

and Parks Commission, ca. 1955. Copy of map in Tube A-16, APNM Map Files. This 

map, which includes an overlay showing the state park and Arkansas Post’s mid-1950s 

road network, perpetuates the numerous errors contained in Quertermous’ original ca. 

1929 historical map. 

 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Arkansas Post site plan 

contained in “Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas” park brochure. 

Government Printing Office, 1993 (additional printing of 1991 Reprint). 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. “Arkansas Post 

National Memorial Base Map,” 1998. This map, which has an incorrect scale, was used 

in conjunction with Kathleen H. Cande’s draft APNM “Cultural Resources Base Map” 

to produce the base map used for the historic period plan exhibits. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Arkansas Post site plan 

contained in “Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas” park brochure. Ca. 1998. 

Walker, John W. “Provisional Plan of the Village of Arkansas Post, 1819-1840, Arkansas 

Post National Memorial.” Figure 33 on p. 205 of John W. Walker. “Excavation of the 

Arkansas Post Branch of the Bank of the State of Arkansas.” United States Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Division of 

Archeology, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 1971. This excellent and 

well-documented map was used as one of the base maps for the “1804 - 1855 Historic 

Period Plan.” 
516 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. appendix
Appendix A • 517 

APPENDIX A 

Archival Collections Consulted During Site History Research 

Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas

Research at the Arkansas Archeological Survey focused solely on Arkansas Post 

National Memorial’s administrative files, which were temporarily located at the Survey 

for inventorying and microfilming. Documents contained in this rich collection span 

the period from the 1930s to the early 1980s. The collection consists of fragmentary 

materials on Arkansas Post State Park, including copies of some Arkansas Post State 

Park Commission meeting minutes and a detailed report on work accomplished at the 

park in 1931; copies (including several drafts) of all or most of the memorial’s early 

master plans, environmental assessments, and interpretive prospectuses; a vast 

correspondence (mostly letters and memorandums) discussing the site’s roads and 

trails, buildings, and interpretive exhibits; numerous photos; a large number of historic 

and site planning maps; and copies of all archeological reports on the Post. 

Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, Little Rock, Arkansas

Mr. Richard Davies, the Executive Director of the Arkansas Department of Parks and 

Tourism, opened the Department’s archives for research, and collected materials on 

Arkansas Post State Park and the operation of the Arkansas state park system. 

Materials included a complete or almost complete set of the Arkansas Post State Park 

Commission’s meeting minutes; several other documents discussing establishment of 

the park, including landscape architect P.C. Howson’s unpublished “History of 

Arkansas Post”; the Arkansas State Parks Commission’s annual reports on the 

operation of the park system between 1936 and 1940; and copies of 1955 and 1962 

National Park Service reports evaluating the operation of the Arkansas state park 

system.
518 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock Arkansas

Research at the Arkansas History Commission included review of the Arkansas Post 

materials contained in the Commission’s photo, map, and Arkansas Post place files. 

The photographic files contained several useful illustrations and photographs of the 

Post from the Civil War and twentieth-century periods. A number of useful items were 

also archived in the map files, including a copy of a ca. 1783 map of the Post’s new fort 

and Captain Henry Fitton’s original January 1863 map of the Battle of Arkansas Post. 

The folders located in the Commission’s Arkansas Post place file contained a partial set 

of the Arkansas Post State Park Commission’s meeting minutes as well as several 

helpful newspaper and magazine clippings, a few of which included photographs of 

Arkansas Post State Park.

Arkansas Post Museum, Gillett, Arkansas

Ms. Lille Fuhrman, the Director of the Arkansas Post Museum, culled several invaluable 

sources of information on Arkansas Post State Park from the museum’s files. These 

materials included P.C. Howson’s published 1932 “Arkansas Post” article; S.G. Davies’ 

1937 photos of the state park, which are filed in the H.V. Glenn Papers; and several 

additional photographs and articles. 

Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas County, Arkansas

Sources consulted at Arkansas Post National Memorial headquarters included the 

park’s map files, slide files, books, and periodicals in the memorial’s library, and several 

microfilm collections. The park’s map files, which are extensive but not exhaustive, 

contained a number of useful charts dating from the early nineteenth century through 

the twentieth century, including plat maps, Civil War-era plans, maps of the Arkansas 

River, and several historic period plans. The library’s files encompassed a number of 
Appendix A • 519 

books and periodicals, including the Grand Prairie Historical Society Bulletin, as well as 

copies of Bearss’ and Brown’s indispensable “Structural History, Post of Arkansas” and 

several other reports. Other park collections consulted included the memorial’s 

microfilm copies of the Arkansas Gazette; “Letters Received by the Superintendent of 

Indian Trade, 1806-1824”; “Letters Received by the Office of the Secretary of War 

Relating to Indian Affairs, 1800-1812” (National Archives Microcopy No. 271); the 

Arkansas “Territorial Papers” (National Archives Record Group 59); the “Letter Book of 

the Arkansas Trading House, 1805-1810”; materials from the “Papeles de Cuba” in the 

Library of Congress; and various eighteenth-century French materials located at the 

Chicago Historical Society. Because of limited time and research hours, however, 

review of these microfilm collections was cursory. Nevertheless, as Judge Morris S. 

Arnold notes, most (although not necessarily all) of these collections’ documents 

describing Arkansas Post’s landscape have been cited both in his work and/or other 

secondary sources reviewed for the project, including Bearss’ and Brown’s “Structural 

History,” and the material should therefore be reflected in the site history. 

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

In addition to review of books and periodicals in the library’s general collections, 

research at the Library of Congress included examination of maps contained in the 

Arkansas County, Arkansas file in the Geography and Maps Division. This file 

contained a number of useful items, including twentieth-century Arkansas County 

highway and transportation maps, and late nineteenth and early twentieth-century 

county plat maps depicting farm property boundaries and (in the case of a 1912 map) 

the names of Arkansas Post’s major landowners.
520 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 

National Archives, College Park, Maryland

Research at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland was limited to review of 

several maps in the Archives’ cartography section. These plans included an 1818 map 

of Native American land cessions in Arkansas, Civil War-era maps of Arkansas Post 

and the surrounding region, postal route maps, and nineteenth-century Army Corps of 

Engineers Arkansas River survey maps, which depict not only the river but also 

Arkansas Post’s streets, buildings, and vegetation patterns. According to both National 

Archives and National Park Service archivists, none of Arkansas Post National 

Memorial’s records are included in Record Group 79, the National Park Service’s 

Central Classified Files, which are archived at College Park. Instead, because the park 

is relatively new, all of its records are still maintained on site in the memorial’s 

administrative files—a conclusion verified by the research conducted in these records.

National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. encompassed review of several 

applicable microfilm collections. These collections included United States population 

census records, especially those covering late nineteenth and early twentieth-century 

Arkansas Post; Post Office Records of Site Locations, which provided information on 

the Post’s road network and population; and the Works Progress Administration’s 

(WPA) project records, which included a detailed record of all WPA work performed at 

Arkansas Post State Park.
Appendix B • 521 

APPENDIX B 

Plant List with Tribal Affiliation 
522 • Arkansas Post National Memorial Cultural Landscape Report 
Appendix B • 523