Number 375, November–December 2013

3

Mapping Camp MonticelloArcheology of a World War II Italian Prisoner of War Camp

Jodi Barnes, Ph.D. – Arkansas Archeological Survey, Monticello

The UAM research station, along with a great team of archeologists from around the state, has been busy

researching Arkansas’s World War II Home Front Heritage.Camp Monticello (3DR305), located on the University of Arkansas at Monticello (UAM) campus (Fig.1), opened as a training facility for the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) in 1943 and served as a Prisoner of War (PoW) camp for Italians from 1943 to 1946. The PoW camp consists of three compounds that housed enlisted men, two compounds that held officers, a hospital, and other facilities. Ongoing research at the camp has the potential to yield new information about Arkansas’s role in World War II and the personal lives of the WAAC, the prisoners of war, and the U.S. servicemen who ran the camp. This article offers an overview of the history of Camp Monticello, a brief introduction to the archeology of PoW camps, and the preliminary results of our ongoing research.

Home Front Heritage: Prisoner of War CampsIn 1943, President Roosevelt stated: “Every combat

division, every naval task force, every squadron of fighting planes is dependent for its equipment and ammunition and fuel and food . . . on the American people in civilian clothes in the offices and in the factories and on the farms at home.” Home Front heritage includes places, landscapes, objects, structures, memories, and stories that represent the wartime mobilization that occurred in the United States and its territories and possessions between 1939 and 1945 (Harper et al. 2004; Kelly 2004). Monticello, Arkansas played an important role in World War II and has a distinct Home Front heritage.

World War II impacted the landscape of the United States. Thousands of factories, government office buildings, research laboratories, housing projects, military bases, PoW camps, United Service Organization (USO) canteens, day care centers, and schools were built or expanded during the war. There were approximately 500 camps for the prisoners of war held in the United States (Harper et al. 2004:23). The early 1940s witnessed the unprecedented detention of an estimated 650,000 persons, including Japanese Ameri-cans, Axis war prisoners, citizens of Italy, Germany, and Japan, Americans with “suspicious” surnames, Japanese living in Latin America, and registered conscientious objec-

tors. German military personnel taken prisoner in North Africa during 1943 were the first enemy troops brought to U.S. PoW camps. By June 1945, more than 425,000 Axis prisoners—371,000 Germans, 50,000 Italians, and 4000 Japanese—were housed in about 125 main camps and 425 smaller branch camps across the country (Kelly 2004). The PoW camps were located in rural, isolated areas (Kelly 2004). They were a desirable economic boost to the coun-ties in which they were built, as well as reminders to their neighbors of the overseas war.

The 1929 Geneva Convention regulated many as-pects of the conditions within the PoW camps (Krammer 1983:27). The treaty stipulated that the PoWs should be treated the same as the troops of the retaining power. Therefore, the PoW camps in the U.S. were built to the standards of American camps. Initially PoW camps were placed within existing military reservations, but later, as the numbers of PoWs rose, camps were built outside of military bases, with some on newly acquired land and others at for-

Figure 1. Location of 3DR305.

Field Notes

4

mer CCC camps. New town-like camps were quickly built from military plans with basic one-story frame barracks, latrines, laundries, communal showers, warehouses, mess halls and kitchens, staff housing, medical facilities, chapels, and recreation areas arranged in grid layouts with open firebreaks and bounded by wire fences and guard towers (Figs. 2 and 3).

In Arkansas, PoWs began arriving in 1943. Initially three facilities were constructed to house them, two for German PoWs (Fort Chaffee, near Fort Smith, and Camp Robinson, near Little Rock) and one (Camp Monticello) for Italian PoWs (Smith 1994). Two Japanese American Relocation Centers were also established in Arkansas—Rohwer and Jerome. In 1944, Jerome was closed and the internees were transferred to Rohwer. Jerome was then converted into a German PoW camp, Camp Dermott, be-coming the third facility for German PoWs (Pritchett and Shea 1978; Smith 1994).

Archeology and PoW CampsArcheologists are increasingly interested in research

on prisoner of war camps. Research in Europe, Canada, and the United States has fostered new understandings of the camps and their inmates (e.g., Carr and Mytum 2012; Doyle et al. 2010; Myers 2013; Myers and Moshenska 2011; Mytum 2013; Pringle et al. 2007; Waters 2004). The archeological research is important not only because the documentary sources are limited or have been destroyed and archeology can “fill some of the gaps” but because it offers a distinctive and highly valuable lens on the times, places, and experiences under consideration. Archeologi-cal research has resulted in artifacts reflecting everyday life in the camps. Many of the artifacts were handmade or personalized by camp inmates, serving as a reminder of the rich potential for a biographical approach to PoW camp artifacts (Moshenska and Myers 2011; Myers 2013). In a place where the spatial arrangement, architecture, and material culture were structured according to the central principles of surveillance, discipline, and control, inmates of an institution live in a world of enforced conformity, with their food, clothing, and possessions provided by the institution. Yet excavations at PoW camps have shown that PoWs attempted to regain some of their individual-ity through acquisition or creation of personal or unique items (e.g., Myers 2013; Waters 2004). In addition, several archeologists have initiated successful programs of com-munity collaboration and public interpretation with former internees and descendants, among others, visiting the site and working with the archeologists (e.g., Camp 2013;

Clark 2008; Skiles and Clark 2010). At places like this a synthesis of archeological, documentary, and oral history information can yield insights that go far beyond what can be learned from any one of those sources by themselves.

Michael R. Waters (2004) investigated Camp Hearne in Texas. Camp Hearne was designed to house 3000 prisoners and its layout consisted of three prisoner compounds with attached guard and support facility areas, roughly similar to what is found at Camp Robinson and Camp Chaffee in Arkansas. Research included metal detecting, archeological test excavations, extensive archival research in American and German military records, oral histories with former guards and prisoners, and local historical research. Founda-tions for the mess hall, theater, barracks, decorative ponds, and fountains were documented, and everyday artifacts recovered.

In Arkansas, archeologists have examined Camp Rob-inson and Fort Chaffee. At Camp Robinson (3PU641) in Pulaski County, Arkansas, C. Andrew Buchner and Eric Albertson (2005) conducted archival research, mapped the structures using a total station, and conducted a shovel test survey. John Northrip and W. J. Bennett (1990) conducted archeological investigations at Fort Chaffee (3SB1090) in Sebastian County, Arkansas (see also Blakely and Northrip 1991). The project documented the existing architectural

Figure 2. Guard tower at Camp Monticello.

Number 375, November–December 2013

5

Figure 3. Plan Map of Camp Monticello.

Field Notes

6

remains of this World War II era facility, and conducted archeological research to determine whether the distribution and extent of subsurface deposits provided information significant to understanding the Fort Chaffee historical landscape. Although the layouts of Camp Hearne, Fort Chaffee, and Camp Robinson are different from Camp Monticello, the occupants of the camps were German rather than Italian, and the research at each site concluded with different results, the studies along with research at other PoW camps provide a basis for comparing prisoner of war experiences, artifact assemblages, and camp layout at Camp Monticello.

Camp MonticelloPlans for Camp Monticello began in

early July (Dermott News 1942a) and work began in early August of 1942 (Dermott News 1942b). In March of 1943, the Dermott News reports that the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps are to train at Camp Monticello (Dermott News 1943a, 1943b). In 1941, Representative Edith Rogers of Massachusetts introduced a bill in Congress to establish the WAAC. Rogers had been in France during World War I and had seen women working as hospital nurses and as tele-phone operators without any veteran benefits or compen-sation (Droessler 1999). The bill was passed to establish a corps of 25,000 women authorized to serve with the Army in noncombatant roles. In December 1942, President Roo-sevelt signed an executive order authorizing the WAACs to recruit up to 150,000 women (Hampf 2010). Women applied and enlisted in large numbers and new training facilities were needed (Droessler 1999). The housing at Camp Monticello was available because the Army had few prisoners at that time (Treadwell 1954). The Corps trained at Camp Monticello for three months (Fig. 4). While they were there, they made efforts to make the camp more comfortable. The Advance Monticellonian (1943) reports on the ways in which the women soldiers did a “bit of interior decorating” turning crates and mattresses covered with fabric into davenports, nail kegs into chairs, and wooden boxes into desks.

Significant numbers of Axis prisoners of war began arriv-ing in the United States in early 1943 (Dermott News 1943d), soon after the successful conclusion of Allied operations in North Africa. Within a few months, Italian PoWs replaced

the WAAC at the camp (Dermott News 1943c) and it was occupied until January of 1946 (Dermott News 1946).

Fall 2013 Fieldwork at Camp MonticelloThe first map I found of the camp showed three com-

pounds, the hospital, and the garrison echelon (Fig. 3). The camp plan looks very similar to Camp Hearne and other PoW camps. While discussing the project with members of the Department of Forest Resources at UAM, I learned about another map (Fig. 5), which shows two additional compounds. Local people told me different stories about the two maps. The first thing I was told was that two ad-ditional officers’ compounds were proposed, but only the south compound had been built. But a general walking sur-vey of the area showed that buildings and roads had been constructed in the northern compound. In response to this news, I was told that the northern officers’ compound was built but was not occupied.

All of the PoW camps in Arkansas were similarly constructed. Most of the buildings were wooden frame structures covered with black tar paper and had concrete foundations. The camps contained common dining halls, toilets, and showers for enlisted men. Officers had separate quarters. Barbed wire, armed guards with machine guns on top of guard towers, and search lights surrounded the PoW camps and the Japanese-American internment centers (Smith 1994). An important part of this research is testing what was proposed to be built and the way it was planned to be used with what was actually constructed and used.

Figure 4. Members of the Women’s Auxiliary Corps at Camp Monticello. Photo courtesy of Adele & Joseph Brenner.

Number 375, November–December 2013

7

One of the first questions we considered was whether the officers’ compound to the north of the camp was built and occupied. The vast majority of occupants of Camp Monticello were officers. Of the 1850 men on the camp’s roster in 1944, there were 15 generals, 37 colonels, 29 lieutenant colonels, 51 majors, 77 captains, 297 first lieu-tenants, 413 second lieutenants, 522 non-commissioned officers, and 389 enlisted men (Smith 1994). Since there were so few enlisted men among the Italian PoWs, military authorities did not believe it was necessary to construct a separate camp for them as was done with the German PoWs (Metraux 1944; Smith 1994). Knowing this, occupa-tion of the officers’ compound seemed likely.

Based on the research at other camps, I was interested in whether there is archeological evidence of the personal lives of the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps, the prison-ers of war, or the U.S. servicemen that ran the camp. To

address these questions, I have been conducting archival research at the UAM library, the Drew County Historical Museum, and the Arkansas State Archives. I have been going through newspapers for accounts of the camp and through military reports from the camp. From September 7–18, we conducted a total station mapping project of the building foundations and other above ground features at the site and a metal detector survey in some of the com-pounds. We had a very successful two weeks and a brief overview of what we did and what we learned follows.

We began the mapping project in the remaining sec-tions of the northern officers’ compound. As you can see in Figure 5, part of the compound has been lost with the con-struction of an industrial park. In the officers’ compound, we identified the water tower, the mess hall, latrines, and other buildings, but there were few above ground features where the barracks should have been located, so we were

Figure 5. Map of Camp Monticello showing two additional compounds.

Field Notes

8

still not certain whether the compound was oc-cupied.

We also mapped the three enlisted men’s com-pounds, or what would have been considered to be enlisted men’s compounds at other camps. Since there were so many officers at Camp Monticello it is not certain whether officers occupied these compounds too. We mapped the infirmary, the PX or recreation hall, mess halls, and administration buildings in each compound, but there was little evidence of the barracks.

The hospital compound, which also housed the steam plant that provided electricity to the camp, was the more difficult compound to map. There were fewer cement foundations, but lots of stone footings and lots of fallen trees. It was difficult to determine where a building started and stopped as there were concrete footings and rebar throughout the compound. Dr. Carl Drexler (Ar-kansas Archeological Survey, SAU research station) pulled up the total station data for the hospital (Fig. 6). We were interested in the number of features recorded between buildings. Dr. Jamie Brandon (Arkansas Archeological Sur-vey, SAU research station) located a photograph of Camp Robinson (Fig. 7) and we realized that Camp Monticello’s hospital compound most likely looked similar with covered walkways between buildings.

Most of the fieldwork was dedicated to mapping, but we did spend a few days systematically metal detecting the officers’ compound to determine if it was occupied. We re-covered lots of nails and tacks, some with the tar paper still attached, showing that the barracks had been constructed. We also recovered a bubbler valve for a water fountain, a door latch, two knife handles, a fork, and a number of per-sonal items, including Burma shave tubes and a lid, buttons, eyelets from a shoe, and buckles.

One of the most interesting things we found was a PoW identification tag, or a dog tag (Fig. 8). The identification tag appears to be issued by the U.S. to an Italian PoW. It includes the name of the PoW, an identification number and a C in the bottom corner that could refer to religion, as Catholic, or blood type. The “8” in the identification number may refer to the prisoner having been captured in North Africa and the “W” may refer to “Western Allies,” meaning that either U.S. or British troops made the capture or accepted the surrender (Michael Pomeroy, personal communication, 2013). The “I” most likely refers to Italian. Identification tags are often important in determining the

treatment to be afforded the prisoner of war. The number may identify the rank of the prisoner of war at the time of capture. This would determine whether the captive is to be treated as an officer or enlisted person as the duties expected of prisoners of war varied with rank. The tag was recovered in the officers’ compound, so there is a good chance that Angelo Balestri was an officer.

Finding the “Personal” at Camp Monticello

Research at Camp Monticello is in its preliminary stages. From what we have learned so far, we can now confidently say that the northern officers’ compound was constructed and occupied. The artifacts recovered have the potential to provide insight into the personal lives of the PoWs. But additional research is necessary. Additional map-ping, archival research, and archeology will provide further information about Angelo Balestri and the other PoWs. The fact that Camp Monticello housed both enlisted men and officers provides a unique opportunity for archeologi-cal comparisons of the camp compounds. Future research may also recover information about the WAACs, and the U.S. military personnel at the camp as well as insight into the interaction between local Arkansans who worked at the camp and the prisoners of war.

AcknowledgmentsA number of people joined us from around the state and helped

make the first field season so successful. Jessica Howe and I would like to thank Dr. Don Bragg, Dr. Jamie Brandon, Dr. Carl Carlson-Drexler,

Figure 6. Map of the hospital with an overlay of total station points.

Number 375, November–December 2013

9

Mike Evans, Paul Francis, Vanessa Hanvey, David Jeane, Aden Jenkins, Dr. Jami Lockhart, Paul Knapp, Cheri Miller, Jared Pebworth, Mike Pomeroy, Larry Porter, Michelle Rathgaber, Dr. George Sabo, Bob Scott, Heather Russell, and Dr. Lynne Thompson for all of their help. We will be doing more research at the camp in the coming months. We hope you will join us for future work at Camp Monticello.

Finally, we wish to thank the University of Arkansas at Monticello for their generous support of this project.

Camp, Stacey Lynn2013 The archaeology of WWII Japanese Internees impris-

oned in Northern Idaho. Electronic document, http://www.uidaho.edu/class/kicap/updates.

Carr, G., and H. Mytum2012 The Importance of Creativity behind Barbed Wire. Set-

ting a Research Agenda. In Cultural Heritage and Prison-ers of War: Creativity Behind Barbed Wire, edited by G. Carr & H. Mytum, pp. 1–15. Routledge, New York.

Clark, B. 2008 Artifact Versus Relic: Ethics and the Archaeology of the

Recent Past. Anthropology News 49(7):23.

Figure 7. Portion of the Camp Robinson hospital showing wards and covered walkways. Photo courtesy of the Arkansas National Guard Museum.

References CitedAdvance Monticellonian 1943 News from Camp Monticello. Advance Monticellonian

Thursday, April 8. Monticello, AR.

Blakely, Jeffrey A., and John D. Northrip1991 World War II Structures at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.

Fort Chaffee Cultural Resource Studies Report No. 15. Archeological Assessments, Inc.

Buchner, C. Andrew, and Eric Albertson2005 Archaeological Investigations of the POW Camp

(3PU641) at Camp Joseph T. Robinson Pulaski Coun-ty, Arkansas. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Memphis.

Figure 8. Back of an Italian prisoner of war dog tag.

Field Notes

10

Dermott News 1942a War Prison Camp to Be Constructed near Monticello:

Enemy Aliens, Prisoners of War to be Confined. Project Different from Jerome, Rohwer. Dermott News 2 July. Dermott, AR.

1942b Work Started on Enemy Camp near Monticello Mon-day. Dermott News 6 August. Dermott, AR.

1943a Putting WAACs in Prison Only a Temporary Move! Dermott News 11 March. Dermott, AR.

1943b WAACs Begin Training at Camp Monticello. Dermott News 15 April. Dermott, AR.

1943c Monticello to Swap WAACs for Prisoners. Dermott News 3 June. Dermott, AR.

1943d Prisoners Are Arriving at Camp Monticello: Italians Glad to be in America. Seem Surprised at Treatment by Yanks. Dermott News August 12. Dermott, AR.

1946 Three Thousand Prisoners Leave Local POW Camp: Germans Leave for New York. Italians Start for Italy via West Coast and the Panama Canal. Dermott News Thursday, January 24. Dermott, AR.

Doyle, R, L. Babits, and J. Pringle 2010 Yellow Sands and Penguins: The Soil of “The Great

Escape.” In Sod and Culture, edited by E. Landa and C. Feller, pp. 417–429. Springer, New York.

Droessler, William1999 The WAACS are Coming: Monticello’s Three-Month

Affair with the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps. Drew County Historical Journal 14:4–9.

Hampf, M. Michaela2010 Release a Man for Combat: The Women’s Army Corps dur-

ing World War II. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.

Harper, Marilyn, John W. Jeffries, William M. Tuttle, Nelson Lichtenstein, and Harvard Sitkoff2004 World War II and the American Homefront: A National

Historic Landmarks Theme Study. National Historic Landmark Program, National Park Service, Washing-ton, D.C.

Kelly, Roger2004 America’s World War II Home Front Heritage. CRM

Journal Summer: 34-50.

Krammer, Arnold1983 Nazi Prisoners of War in America. Stein and Day, New

York.

Metraux, G. S. 1944 Inspection and Field Reports. International Red Cross,

Swiss Legation, October 1944, Record Group 389, Records of the Provost Marshal General, Enemy Infor-mation Bureau, Inspection and Field Reports. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Moshenska, Gabriel, and Adrian Myers2011 An Introduction to Archaeologies of Internment. In

Archaeologies of Internment, edited by A. Myers and G. Moshenska, pp. 1–20. Springer, New York.

Myers, Adrian2013 The Archaeology of Reform at a German Prisoner of

War Camp in a Canadian National Park During the Second World War (1943–1945). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University.

Myers, Adrian, and Gabriel Moshenska (editors) 2011 Archaeologies of Internment. Springer, New York.

Mytum, Harold2013 Prisoner of War Archaeology in an Interdisciplinary

Context. In Prisoners of War Archaeology, edited by H. Mytum and G. Carr, pp. 321–332. Springer, New York.

Northrip, John D., and W. J. Bennett1990 Archeological Investigations at the German Prisoner

of War Camp Location, Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. Fort Chaffee Cultural Resource Studies No. 14. Archeologi-cal Assessments, Inc.

Pringle, J., P. Doyle, and L. Babits 2007 Multidisciplinary Investigations at Stalag Luft III Allied

Prisoner-of-War Camp: The Site of the 1944 “Great Escape,” Zagan, Western Poland. Geoarcheology: An International Journal 22(7):729–746.

Pritchett, Merrill R., and William L. Shea1978 The Afrika Korps in Arkansas, 1943–1946. Arkansas

Historical Quarterly 37(1):3–22.

Skiles, S., and B. Clark 2010 When the Foreign Is Not Exotic: Ceramics at Colo-

rado’s WWII Japanese Internment Camp. In Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History and Prehis-tory, edited by C. Dillian and C. White, pp. 179–192. Springer, New York.

Smith, C. Calvin1994 The Response of Arkansans to Prisoners of War and

Japanese Americans in Arkansas 1942–1945. Arkansas Historical Quarterly 53(3):340–366.

Treadwell, Mattie E. 1954 United States Army in World War II: Special Stud-

ies: The Women’s Army Corps. Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

Waters, Michael R. 2004 Lone Star Stalag: German Prisoners of War at Camp

Hearne. Texas A&M University Press.