Leveraging Science to Find the Fallen

Figure 1 (above) shows today's rural Virginia farmland and rolling pastures, part of historic “Pageland,” where Civil War troop movements and encampments occurred. This land — located immediately across from Manassas National Battlefield Park — was approved by the Prince William Board of County Supervisors for development as a 2100-acre data center campus and likely contains "lost" Civil War burials. [i]

Pageland is a name long to be remembered by the members and friends of the ‘15th Alabama regiment.’ ‘Tis here the reaper commenced the harvest of death … Young Dr. Thornton of Eufaula was the first who fell …. Beneath the genial rays of a mild September moon his sun-browned comrades consigned him to the solitude of his Virginia home. The rumbling clods sounded his funeral dirge, and the evening zepher sang his last sad requiem. Many have followed. Beneath the soil of Prince William, now slumber in quiet repose, secure from summer's heat and winter's cold, from the cares of life and shock of strife, the noblest and best of the regiment.

Private Samuel D. Lary, Co. B, 15th Alabama Infantry Regiment

Veterans Day 2024 – Reflections on Finding the Fallen

In Prince William County, Virginia, land development proposals typically require some degree of archeological survey work (commonly called a Phase I survey) which includes archival research, a pedestrian field survey, shovel pit testing and metal detecting prior to the County formally considering a proposal for approval.

In the course of conducting these archeological surveys, and sometimes after the development has actually begun, Prince William and other nearby locales have discovered unknown, unmarked or forgotten Civil War soldier (Union and Confederate) burials and/or cemeteries.

Let’s take a look at three recent Civil War soldier burial discoveries which occurred at Centreville, Virginia; Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia; and Bristoe Station Battlefield Heritage Park, Virginia.

Centreville, Fairfax County, Virginia

This discovery of “lost” Civil War soldier graves became locally known as the “Centreville Six” (Figures 2 and 3).

Initially, a single set of remains was discovered by a relic hunter doing metal detecting. [ii] He reported the find to authorities and “Two years later, teams from the Smithsonian Institution and Fairfax County supervised an archaeological dig to excavate the grave.”

This ultimately led to the remains of six Union soldiers being recovered at the site. “The soldiers were believed to have been [from the 1st Massachusetts Infantry Regiment and] killed in the Battle of Blackburn’s Ford, which occurred on July 18, 1861.” After recovery and forensic study, the soldiers’ remains were transferred to and reinterred at the Massachusetts National Cemetery, Bourne, Massachusetts.

Dogan Ridge, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Prince William County, Virginia

This discovery of an unmarked Civil War surgeon’s limb pit and soldier burials occurred at Dogan Ridge on the Manassas National Battlefield Park (Figures 4 and 5).

The National Park Service (NPS) is always cautious regarding any land disturbance on a battlefield, and in 2014, “bone fragments were recovered during archaeological monitoring of [NPS-] sanctioned earth moving on Manassas National Battlefield Park (MNBP) in Prince William County, Virginia.” [iii]

According to Bruwelheide (2024), “Human bone fragments were discovered during archaeological monitoring of earth moving on Manassas National Battlefield Park in Virginia. Later mitigation recovered bones in situ—two skeletons and seven amputated limbs.” The authors concluded that “The absence of other types of bone and [anatomical] evidence … suggested a surgeon’s pit linked to a field hospital.”

Archival research corroborated this site as a field hospital following the 1862 Battle of Second Manassas “Its central and strategic position made it an ideal staging ground for gathering the wounded from surrounding points on the battlefield. It was close to a main thoroughfare for transporting the injured back to Washington and offered shelter, shade, and water, all available on or near a rise from which to survey the surrounding fields for incoming supply wagons and ambulances.”

According to an NPS post “After the remains were identified as soldiers, the Army expressed interest in giving the men a permanent resting place at Arlington National Cemetery.” [iv]

Bristoe Station Battlefield Heritage Park, Prince William County, Virginia

“Lost” Civil War soldier cemeteries are also suspected at the Bristoe Station Battlefield in the central portion of Prince William County, Virginia (Figures 6 and 7).

An important stop on the Orange and Alexandria Railroad, Bristoe Station offered Civil War forces a reliable water supply and ready access to supplies and rail transportation. [v] In fact, Bristoe Station was the site of the August 1862 Battle of Kettle Run and the October 1863 Battle of Bristoe Station. However, let’s examine Bristoe Station’s Civil War role in the winter of 1861-2.?

“In the aftermath of the First Battle of Manassas [21 July 1861], several Confederate units established encampments in the woods and fields around the station, nominally called Camp Jones after Col. Egbert Jones of the 4th Alabama Infantry.” [vi] At Camp Jones were Confederate infantry regiments from Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. [vii]

With so many men concentrated in a small area, sickness soon ran rampant through the camp “resulting in an extremely high death toll from diseases such as meningitis, smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid, measles, and pneumonia, which were ravaging camps in both armies in the early stages of the war.” [viii] These epidemics took their toll, and each regiment established its own separate burial ground.

Although “park historians have only been able to identify the 10th Alabama Cemetery where approximately 100 Alabamians are buried,” [ix] they believe that “the remaining 1861 Confederate burials plus the graves of Southerners killed in the fighting here in August 1862 and October 1863 are mostly unmarked and defy identification.” [x]

Can We Do Better?

As these examples show, when unknown burials are discovered/uncovered, the gravesites are archeologically investigated, with any remains recovered and reinterred.

However, the key is when in the development process the graves are uncovered and how the graves/remains are subsequently preserved and protected. Unfortunately, the location of many Civil War (and other) burials/cemeteries have been lost, so these sites remain at-risk to on-going economic developmental pressures. Given this reality, how can we reduce the risk of disturbing “lost” burials/cemeteries?

Today’s Art of the Possible

Modern science has brought forward a variety of new techniques to augment more traditional archeological survey practices (recall the Phase I surveys mentioned above). Let’s take a look at archeological methods which are quickly evolving into modern best practices.

Large-Scale Searches

“Large-scale” searches encompass broad swaths of terrain. For example, farm parcels (like the historic “Pageland”) encompassing tens to hundreds, or more, of acres. Reliably searching such large parcels for unknown and/or unmarked burials can significantly benefit from taking advantage of techniques which complement human feet on-the-ground.

Aerial LiDAR. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) describes Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) as “a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure ranges (variable distances) to the Earth. These light pulses – combined with other data recorded by the airborne system – generate precise, three-dimensional information about the shape of the Earth and its surface characteristics.” [xi]

Large-scale topographic LiDAR data is commonly recorded from aircraft flying over a terrain of interest, and then combined with GPS-data to generate “precise, three-dimensional information about the shape of the Earth and its surface characteristics.”

A recent application of aerial LiDAR has been mapping World War I battlefields — which was facilitated by the Belgian Flanders Region’s LiDAR mapping efforts during 2013-2015. [xii]? Since LiDAR penetrates foliage, “geographers can also make maps of what the landscape would look like without vegetation …. [Map archeologists found that] ’12 percent of the landscape in our research area still bear features of the war [e.g., trenches, campsites, etc.] ….’” [xiii]

Human Remains Detection (HRD) Dogs. Another large-scale search method coming to the fore are human remains detection (HRD) dog teams which are: [xiv]

trained to identify human remains scent from decomposed human bodies using olfactory cues. Decomposed bodies change the physical and chemical properties of the soil they interact with through the release of nutrients and energy. This interaction produce[s] an odor that is detectable by properly trained HRD dogs. The odor can remain in the soil or on the surface long after the remains have completely decomposed, and no bone is left.

For example, one of the large-scale search methods employed at the American Revolutionary War’s Kettle Creek Battlefield was HRD dog teams. Bigman (2023) found that

In a span of 3 days total … the HRD dogs were able to complete full coverage of over 40 acres and help localize high probability sites for further geophysical investigations. The distribution of HRD dog alerts suggest that fallen soldiers were likely buried at or near the location of death. The total number of HRD dog alerts suggests an individualized burial strategy of fallen soldiers rather than a single mass grave or aggregated cluster of graves ….

Localized Searches

Localized searches involve smaller, more well-defined land parcels. As the Virginia Department of Historic Resources notes: [xv]

Remote sensing may be used to augment more traditional survey methods by identifying high potential areas for subsurface testing. Remote sensing (using metal detectors, proton magnetometers and ground penetrating radar, etc.) may be appropriate for certain types of sites associated with the Contact Period or Civil War, and is particularly useful for identifying burials.

Magnetometers and Magnetic Gradiometers. Magnetometers are passive instruments that are “good at detecting pit-type features, including storage pits, cooking pits/earth ovens, refuse pits, and areas of burning, as well as iron objects and igneous or other magnetic rocks … [and] can be used in rural or urban sites….” [xvi]

According to Turner, et al. (2018), a “gradiometer is a specially configured type of magnetometer that measures variation in … the earth's existing magnetic field to detect buried objects by using two magnetometers vertically separated by a given distance.” [xvii],

Kalos (2015) used a magnetic gradiometer at the Revolutionary War’s Paoli Battlefield where it was able to discern where the soil profile had been disturbed – such as where trash pits or post holes had been dug. As Kalos observed “a magnetic gradiometer offers a more practical tool because it can detect small soil differences, as well as camp hearths and other burn features.” [xviii]

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). Another geophysically-based remote sensing method, described in Ohio (2022) is ground-penetrating radar (GPR) which

transmit radiowaves of a set frequency range into the ground and then wait a designated amount of time for reflections to return to the surface. Reflections are created by objects (e.g., rocks, metals) and layers (e.g., soil/sediment or archaeological midden) that slow down or speed up the radio wave’s velocity. The instrument records the intensity of the reflections and their two-way travel time. This information is then plotted as a profile, or radargram, of the ground beneath the radar, tracking its location as the radar is moved across the site.… Radar is excellent for mapping hard targets such as stone foundations. It can also detect some pit- and shaft-type features, such as graves, wells, and storage/refuse pits.

Interestingly, Bigman (2023) used GPR to independently validate locations which the HRD dog teams had identified and found that

All of the 11 HRD dog alerts investigated during the Phase 1 of GPR work, except for one, had a corresponding GPR anomaly…. Most of the GPR reflection anomalies indicative of a possible burial occurred within 1–2 m of a HRD dog alert and all GPR anomalies were generally recorded uphill from the HRD dog alerts as expected…. Cases where the GPR did not record an anomaly associated with an HRD dog alert … likely means that any burials were only identified by one technique, the remnant scent left by a decomposing human body which is detectable by the trained HRD dogs, but the location of a burial pit could not be always successfully recorded with GPR.

Terrestrial LiDAR. LiDAR systems are not always aerial. Using a LiDAR system elevated above the surrounding land surface on a tripod, Corcoran (2018) found that: [xix]

localized elevation change at human burial and non-burial disturbance surfaces is measurable and separable from changes at undisturbed surroundings. Three observable – and potentially overlapping – phases of elevation change are noted from our limited collections: (1) localized elevation gain following initial burial, (2) localized elevation loss during soil settling and decomposition, and (3) stasis, characterized as uniform elevation change across all surfaces. Measuring elevation change with terrestrial LIDAR may prove useful in identifying a disturbance signature for narrowing down unmarked graves.

Bridging the Methodological Divide

Clearly, when the presence of unknown, unmarked and/or forgotten burials is a possibility on land proposed for disturbance, the reliability of traditional archeological survey practices (e.g., a Phase I survey) for detecting lost burials can be significantly enhanced by incorporating modern (and still evolving) archeological best practices.

But how can we do this?

A recent episode of PBS’ Secrets of the Dead provided a clear example of the potential benefits which can be derived from integrating modern and traditional field archeology methods. [xx] Towards the end of the Civil War, a detachment of U.S. Colored Cavalry (USCC) was attacked by partisan raiders near Simpsonville, Kentucky and around 20 troopers lost their lives.

Over the intervening years, local memory of where these troopers were buried faded until one dedicated history researcher began assembling clues from local documents, maps, unit histories and the like. Ultimately, this local historian’s persistence began to pay off as “University of Kentucky archaeologist Dr. Philip Mink and the university’s EduceLab Mobile Team, researchers examine[d] the land around where the Simpsonville Massacre occurred, hoping to find the lost burial grounds of the slain soldiers.”

The last approximately one-third of this Secrets of the Dead episode is a textbook example of the benefits derived from combining traditional archeological survey methods with modern large-scale LiDAR aerial imaging, localized drone-based aerial GPR and magnetic testing, followed by terrestrial GPR mapping to locate the likely mass grave of the 20 USCC troopers.

A Call for Action

It is imperative that the suite of archeological methods recommended by/employed by localities (like Prince William County, Virginia) to locate lost burials keep pace with ongoing advances in archeological science.

Modern archeological best practices offer county governments, developers, historians and preservationists robust, science-based methodologies for finding unknown, unmarked and/or forgotten burials. For example, consider this prototypical framework for a burial search strategy expressed by three guiding principles:

I. Use a phased, hierarchical approach to fieldwork – work from broad-based to ever more focused locational methods.

II. Leverage multiple, complementary (traditional and modern) archeological methods – don’t let a single archeological technique be the driving determinant on the presence or absence of lost burials (especially on land parcels near known battlefields and encampments).

III. Be prepared for collateral discoveries – research efforts combining archival, traditional fieldwork and more modern (often technologically-based) fieldwork are more likely to reveal long-forgotten historical and cultural resources.

This past Memorial Day, in another LinkedIn article, I shared some considerations entitled “How an Ounce of Prevention Can Save a Pound of Regret: Using Technology to Better Inform Land-Use Decisions.” The paragraph below, extracted from this article, motivated me to take this deeper look at the value modern, best-practice archeological methods will bring to searching for unmarked Civil War soldier burials (e.g., at Pageland): [xxi]

Specifically, my thoughts have focused on the possibility of unrecorded Civil War-era burials within a proposed 2100-acre data center development area. In 2023, the PWC Historical Commission’s Major Land Use Impacts Advisory Committee carefully researched this possibility and concluded it is very possible that between 50 to 150 unmarked Confederate soldier gravesites are located in (or near) the historic Pageland farm (which is within the proposed data center development area).? Subsequently, I began wondering if PWC could leverage proven remote-sensing technology to discover and document the gravesites of soldiers, families and enslaved populations to better inform its future land-use/developmental considerations?

Figure 8 shows how land is typically transformed during the early stages of a data center campus’ site development—initially the ground is stripped bare of vegetation and then the parcel’s topography is extensively reworked to suit building design needs.

What this data center construction photograph makes perfectly clear is that a county or locality only has one chance to make the correct decision regarding a land parcel’s historical and cultural value and its potential for preservation!

While some may argue that the modern archeological techniques described in this paper are too difficult or too costly, perhaps we should pause for a moment on this Veterans Day and ask ourselves:

When land bound for industrial development is selling at $1+ million per acre, can a concerned community actually afford to NOT pursue every means at their disposal for Leveraging Science to Find the Fallen and thereby help preserve and protect the community’s historical and cultural legacies?

Endnotes

[i] Wight, W. E. (ed.), (Winter 1956). “Sam Lary’s ‘Scraps from my Knapsack’”, The Alabama Historical Quarterly, Alabama State Department of Archives and History, Vol 18, No 4, p. 511. Accessed at https://archive.org/details/alabama-historical-quarterly-v18n04 on 6 June 2023. (Note: Dr. Wight was a Department of Social Science faculty member at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Dr. Wight edited and published a compendium of the writings of Private Samuel D. Lary, Co. B, 15th Alabama Infantry Regiment (who served 3 July 1861 – 15 April 1862) from which this quote is extracted.)

[ii] Ambrose, Kevin, “The forgotten graves of soldiers killed 157 years ago, during the oppressively hot Battle of Blackburn’s Ford,” Washington Post, 18 July 2018, downloaded from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/18/the-forgotten-graves-of-soldiers-killed-157-years-ago-during-the-oppressively-hot-battle-of-blackburns-ford/ on 25 Oct 2024.

[iii] Bruwelheide, K. S., et al., “A Civil War Surgeon’s Pit at Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia,” Historical Archeology, (2023). Downloaded from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41636-023-00436-w#citeas on 4 Nov 2024.

[iv] National Park Service, Manassas National Battlefield Park, “Surgeon’s Burial Pit Discovered at Manassas,” last updated 12 June 2024, accessed at https://www.nps.gov/mana/learn/historyculture/surgeons-burial-pit-discovered.htm on 4 Nov 2024.

[v] Department of Historic Preservation, Prince William County, VA, “Bristoe Station Battlefield Heritage Park,” (undated) accessed at https://www.pwcva.gov/department/historic-preservation/bristoe-station-battlefield on 8 Nov 2024.

[vi] Department of Historic Preservation, Prince William County, VA. (Undated)

[vii] “Confederate Cemeteries” Historical Marker, Department of Historic Preservation, Prince William County, VA, (Undated).

[viii] Department of Historic Preservation, Prince William County, VA. (Undated)

[ix] Department of Historic Preservation, Prince William County, VA. (Undated)

[x] “Confederate Cemeteries” Historical Marker. (Undated)

[xi] “What is lidar?” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, accessed from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/lidar.html (last updated 16 June 2024) on 30 May 2023.

[xii] Perello, Ada, “Elevations for the Nations Part II,” LIDAR Magazine, 22 Sept 2024 accessed at https://lidarmag.com/2024/09/22/elevations-for-the-nations-part-ii/ on 8 Nov 2024.

[xiii] Stockton, Nick, “Laser-Shooting Planes Uncover the Horror and Humanity of World War I,” Wired, 9 July 2018, downloaded from https://www.wired.com/story/lidar-archaeology-world-war-1-ypres-salient-belgium/ on 30 May 2023.

[xiv] Bigman, D. P., et al., “Large-scale forensic search for fallen soldier burials from the American revolutionary war at Kettle Creek battlefield, Georgia, USA,” Forensic Science International: Reports, Is 7 (2023).

[xv] Virginia Department of Historic Resources, “Chapter 6: Conducting Archaeological Investigations,” Guidelines for Conducting Survey in Virginia, unpublished (April 2009).

[xvi] Ohio State Historic Preservation Office, “Archaeology Guidelines Supplement: Geophysical Survey,” Ohio History Connection, Columbus, Ohio (2022).

[xvii] Turner, J. R., et al., “A Comparison of Ground-Penetrating Radar, Magnetic Gradiometer and Electromagnetic Induction Survey Techniques at House in the Horseshoe State Historic Site,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Vol 20 (Aug 2018), pp. 33-46.

[xviii] Kalos, M. A., (2015). “Methodology for Surveying an Ephemeral Military Encampment and Battlefield,” Chapter 2 in The Archaeology of Engagement: Conflict and Revolution in the United States, edited by D. L. Pertermann and H. K. Norton, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

[xix] Corcoran, K. A., et al., “A novel application of terrestrial LIDAR to characterize elevation change at human grave surfaces in support of narrowing down possible unmarked grave locations,” Forensic Science International, Vol 289 (2018).

[xx] Public Broadcasting System, “The Civil War’s Lost Massacre: Radar Technologies Aid in Search for Civil War Burial Site”, Secrets of the Dead, Season 22 Episode 1, (undated) 2:48 video clip available at https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/drone-technology-searches-for-civil-war-burial-site-tcdiic/8185/ and accessed 8 Nov 2024.

[xxi] Peterson, David K., “How an Ounce of Prevention Can Save a Pound of Regret: Using Technology to Better Inform Land-Use Decisions,” LinkedIn, 27 May 2024 accessed at https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/how-ounce-prevention-can-save-pound-regret-using-better-dave-peterson-203le/?trackingId=T6BYHLR6Qiae%2FgRHftLTnA%3D%3D on 8 Nov 2024.

All photographs by author.