Archaeological and Historical Investigations at Fort Johnson, SC

THE PROPERTY NOBODY WANTED: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT FORT JOHNSON, S.C.

Research Series 43

Michael Tnnkley Natalie Adams Deb] Hacker

Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus Dnve ColumbIa, South Carolina 29202 803/787-6910

Prepared For Calcara Duffendack Foss Manlove, Inc. Kansas City, Missoun 64105

June 1994

ISSN 0882-2041 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Trmkley, Michael. The property nobody wanted archaeologIcal and hlStoncal mvestlgatlons at Fort Johnson, S.C. / Michael Trmkley , Natalie Adams, Debi Hacker. p. em. -- (Research serelS, ISSN 0882-2041 , 43) Includes bibliographIcal reference 1. Fort Johnson (S.C.) I. Adams, Natalie, 1963 - II. Hacker, Deb!. III. Title. IV Senes: Research senes (ChIcora Foundation) , 43. F279.F65T75 1994 975 7 ' 91--dc20 94-27306 CIP

The paper used m this publicatlOll meets the mmunum requirements of Amencan NatlOnal Standard for Information SCiences - Permanence of Paper for Prlllted Library Matenals, ANSI Z39 48 - 1984. 00 IrratIonally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. -- Aldous Huxley

ii ABSTRACT

ThIS study reports on an mtenslve exceptIonal SIgnificance. In fact there IS only one archaeological and hlStoncal survey of the Fort area of the tract, amountmg to less than 6 acres, Johnson facility on James Island ill Charleston on WhICh no resources have been found. Elsewhere County, South Carolina. Jomtly owned and the hlStonc and archaeological resources are managed by the S.C. Department of Wildlife and abundant. More Importantly, these resources are Manne Resources, the College of Charleston, and likely to be severely damaged or destroyed by the Medical Umversity of South Carolina, the 90 contmued development of the facility. Some, such acre tract mcorporates a Wide range of hlStoncal as standing structures and archaeologIcal sites and archaeologIcal sites spannmg the penod from withm heavily used areas, are likely to be damaged about 1000 B.C. to at least A.D. 1940. The current or destroyed by even contmued routme operations. study was undertaken to mventory these resources It IS essentIal that Fort Johnson develop a and explore long-term management options for the preservatIon plan to ensure that these hIStone property's umque resources. resources are protected. To aSSISt, thIS study offers some prelimmaryrecommendations regardingdaily The entIrety of Fort Johnson's 90 acres operatIon and use of the facility, short and long­ were placed on the National RegISter of Histonc term growth optIons, mtegratlon of hIStone Places m 1972, largely because ofthe site's military resources mto facility management, and hIStory which spans Queen Anne's War, the mterpretatlon of the site to the public and staff. Amencan RevolutIOn, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. In addition to these hIStone resources With the heavy mvolvement of federal the current study has also Identified likely funding, which mvokes the NatIonal Histone plantatIon sites, additIOnal Native Amencan Preservation Act, as well as the recently adopted encampments, and the extenswe development of Protection of State Owned or Leased Histone the tract dunng the late nmeteenth and early Properties (S.C. Code of Laws § 60-12-10 through twentieth centunesas a quarantme statIon. In 60-12-90), it IS essentIal that a clearly defined plan order to facility management of the resources, the for management of these resources be developed current archaeological site number, 38CH69/71 has and unplemented. Further losses of archaeologtcal been extended to cover the entIre facility, with 10 and hlStoncal resources at Fort Johnson would be areas ofspecific occupation or hIStonc Significance mconslStent with not only these legISlatIVe acts, but Identified by thIS mvestIgatlOn. also the commonly perceIVed need to safeguard South Carolina's dwIndling resources. Sites under ThIS study found that while the site has the Junsdictlon of state agenCIes offer rare suffered noticeable losses through development opportunities to ensure that future generations of activities, construction, and everyday use, many of South Carolimans are able to understand therr the resources remam mtact and are clearly of heritage.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISt of Tables vii

LISt of Figures vii

Acknuwledgements IX

IntroductIon 1 Background 1 Goals 2 CuratlOn 5

Natural Settmg 6 PhysIography 6 Geology and Soils 8 Climate 10 FlOnstlCS 12

PrehlStonc and Histone OveIVlew 14 PreVIous Research at Fort Johnson 14 PreViously Identified ArchaeologIcal Sites on Fort Johnson 22 PrehlStonc Archaeology 23 Early Woodland Middle Woodland Late Woodland A Histoncal SynOPSIS of Fort Johnson 30 Eighteenth Century ActIvitIes at Fort Johnson Fort Johnson m the Nineteenth Century Fort Johnson and the Civil War Postbellum Use of Fort Johnson as a Quarantme StatIon The Modern Penod The Need for Further Research 65 ImplicatIons 65

Research Strategy and Methods 75 IntroductIon 75 ArchIVal Research 75 Field Survey Methodology 75 LImitatIOns of the Survey Methodology 78 Laboratory and AnalyslS Methods 85

Identified ArchaeologIcal Sites 86 Area 1 88 Area 2 88 Area 3 89 Area 4 90 Area 5 92

v Area 6 93 Area 7 95 Area 8 95 Area 9 96 Area 10 102

Identified Architectural Sites 103 Standing Architectural Sites 103 Marshlands House Powder Magazme Quarantme Officer's House Other Quarantme StatIOn Structures Post-Quarantme Structures Safeguarding Histone Sites 112 Mamtenance DlSaster Plannmg and Recovery Landscape Features 115 Earthworks Mamtenance and DlSaster Recovery ConsIderatIons

ConclUSIOns and Recommendations 118 Histoncal Findings 118 ArchaeolOgIcal Findings 119 Architectural Findings 121 IdentificatIon of Significant Areas 121 Re-evaluation of Goals 123 EssentIal Management Actions 123

Sources 127

VI LIST OF TABLES

Table l. Major hurncanes 12 2. Areas of subsurface cultural matenal 86 3. Artifacts recovered from Area 1 88 4. Artifacts recovered from Area 2 89 5. Mean ceramIc date for Area 2 90 6. Artifacts recovered from Area 4 90 7 Artifacts recovered from Area 5 92 8. LISt of artifacts recovered from Area 6 94 9 Mean ceramIc date for Area 6 95 10. Artifact pattern for Area 6 96 11. Artifacts recovered from Area 7 96 12. Artifacts recovered from Area 9 97 13. Mean ceramIC date for Area 9 97

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicmity of Fort Johnson on James Island, S.C. 2 2. Vicmity of Fort Johnson on James Island m the Charleston Harbor 7 3. Sea level changes for South Carolina 9 4. CeramIc assemblages 24 5. Windmill Pomt m 1697 30 6. Mouzon's 1776 map 31 7 ArtISt's reconstructIon of first Fort Johnson 34 8. Drawmg of 1737 fort 36 9 DeBrahm's plan for Fort Johnson 38 10. 1780 DesBarres map showmg Fort Johnson 39 11. Late eIghteenth century map of outer fortificatIons 42 12. 1775 survey of Fort Johnson 43 13. Clinton's 1780 SIege map of Charleston 43 14. 1787 plan of Fort Johnson 45 15. 1800 plan of Fort Johnson 46 16. 1821 plan of Fort Johnson 48 17 1833 plan of Fort Johnson 49 18. A portIon of Johnsonville ill 1842 50 19 Seymour's drawmg of Fort Johnson m 1861 52 20. Charleston's defenses 53 21. Delafield's 1865 survey of Fort Johnson 54

Vll 22. Boutelle's 1865 sUlVey of Fort Johnson 55 23. Photograph of Fort Johnson after the Civil War 57 24. Fort Johnson and Johnsonville 57 25. 1880 plat of Quarantme StatIon 59 26. View of maritlll1e sanitatIon buildings 60 27 View of sterilizatIon cylinder 60 28. Intenor of marit1llle sanitation building 61 29 View of Quarantme Officer's house 61 30. 1919 topographIc map of Fort Johnson 63 3l. 1943 topographIc map of Fort Johnson 64 32. Projected eIghteenth century site locatIons 66 33. Projected antebellum site locatIons 68 34. Projected Civil War site locatIOns 70 35. Projected postbellum site locatIons 72 36. LocatIon of survey transects 77 37 Artifact density at Fort Johnson 79 38. DIStnbutIon of hIStonc artifacts 80 39 DlStnbution of hIStonc architectural artifacts 81 40. DIStnbutIon of hIStonc kitchen artifacts 82 4l. DlStnbution of prehIStonc artifacts 83 42. DlStnbutlon of shell 84 43. Areas of Identified sub-surface remams 87 44. Area of martello tower 91 45. ErOSIOn at Area 2 91 46. Extenor of tabby structure at Area 6 98 47 lntenor of tabby structure at Area 6 98 48. Bnck powder magazme at Area 9 99 49 Cistern at Area 9 99 50. BastIOnete exposed at low tIde 100 51. Tabby and bnck sea wall 100 52. View of waste treatment plant on Confederate battery 101 53. ConstructIon on Confederate earthworks 101 54. North facade of the Marshlands House 104 55. South facade of the Marshlands House 104 56. Quarantme Officer's House 109 57 Kitchen assocIated with the Quarantme Officer's House 109 58. Radical alteratIon and loss of hIStone fabnc and context 110 59 Pump House 110 60. PortIon of Civil War earthworks 111 61. Civil War earthworks 111 62. Areas of antICIpated hIgh, moderate, and low cultural Significance 122

viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ThIS study was funded by the NatlOnal Histone Preservation Office (S.C. Department of OceamcandAtmosphencAdmmlStration (NOAA) ArchIVes and History) for hIS reVIew and comments through the architectural firm of Calcara on the study. In addition, we have received Duffendack Foss Manlove, Inc. We espeCIally WISh techmcal reVIew comments from one additIonal, to thank Mr. Steven D. Evans, AIA for thIS anonymous, peer reVIewer selected specifically for profeSSIOnalism and support of our efforts, as well hlStoncal and military hIStOry expertISe. ThIS as those mvolved m the contraetmg office of additIOnal mSIght has Significantly Improved the NOAA, espeCIally the Contractmg Officer's usefulness of the study, Identifymg several Techmcal RepresentatIVe, Mr. Dail R. Hobbs. In mconsIStencles. As always, however, the ultl1Ilate additIon, we apprecIate the assIStance of those at responsibility for the study lies with us. Fort Johnson who have coordinated the study, mcluding Dr. Pat FaIr with the NatIOnal Marme Fishenes ServIce, Southeast Fishenes Center and Mr. Foster Folsom with the S.C. Department of Wildlife and Manne Resources. Mr. Willis Keith was, as always, of exceptIonal assIStance m helpmg us to more fully understand the hIStone resources of Fort Johnson and also locate a vanety of obscure references. Without hIS cooperatIon our study, while reachmg the same conclusIOn, would be less complete and certamly less nch.

We also want to thank those who assISted us with the hlStoncal and background research, mcluding Mr. Keith Dertmg and Ms. Sharon Peckrul at the S.C. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Mr. Steve Tutle and Dr. Tracy Powers of the S.C. Department of Archives and History, and Ms. Sharon Bennett and Ms. Martha Zierden of The Charleston Museum. The staffs of the City ofCharleston ArchIVes, NatIOnal ArchIVes CartographiC and Architectural Branch, Natlonal ArchIVes Still Pictures Branch, the South Carolimana Library, and the Thomas Cooper Map Repository as usual offered therr excellent aSSIStance durmg the proJect.

The fieldwork was conducted by Ms. Lynn Roberts, Mr. Jason Smith, and Mr. ChrIS Nichols -­ we apprecIate theIr dedicatIon and good humor durmg the long transects through dense undergrowth.

Finally, we want to thank Mr. Niels Taylor, Staff ArchaeolOgISt with the South Carolina State

IX INTRODUCTION

Background on April 4 and It was verbally accepted by Calcara Duffendack Foss Manlove, Inc. about a week later, The archItectural firm of Calcara with an agreement prepared and SIgned by both Duffendack Foss Manlove, Inc., under contract to partIes on April 28. While presumably the the Department of Commerce/NatlOnal Oceamc proposal, or at least the sampling deSIgn, was and Atmosphenc AdmmIStration as an mdefimte reVIewed by the DOC/NOAA Contractmg Officer, delivery contractor for architecture/engmeermg the S.c. Department of ArchIves and History, and semces, requested on March 25, 1993 that ChIcora the S.c. Institute of Archaeology and FoundatIon prepare a proposal for an mtensive Anthropology (as stipulated by the Scope of archaeolOgical and hlStoncal survey of the 90 acre Work), no comments were receIved. Histoncal Fort Johnson facility. While not espeCIally detailed research for the project was mitlated on May 2 and calling at one pomt for only a "reconnaISsance" and contmued mtemuttently through May 20 by level survey, the scope of work specified that the Dr. Michael Trmkley and Ms. Debi Hacker. The mvestigattons were bemg conducted m antiCIpatiOn field mvestlgattons were conducted between May 3 of a proposed Manne and Envrronmental Health and 10, 1994 WIth Ms. Natalie Adams servmg as Laboratory, suggestmg that an "intenSIVe" survey field director. AsSIStant ArchaeolOgISts mcluded was actually needed. Further, the scope noted that: Ms. Lynn Roberts, Mr. Jason SmIth, and Mr. Chns Nichols. A total of 256 person hours were spent in the survey shall mclude the field, with an additlOnal 48 person hours spent subsurface sampling techmque on hIStoncal and background research. based upon random placement of test cores throughout the sItes A management summary was proVIded to [Fort Johnson] as descnbed m Calcara Duffendack Foss Manlove, Inc. on May 6, Research Manuscnpt No. 93 of with additIonal follow-up conversatIOns held on the Institute of Archeology [SIC] May 12 and May 16. The mittalletter summanzmg and Anthropology or an the research and the subsequent conversations eqUIvalent sampling deSIgn emphaSIZed the umque nature ofthe Fort Johnson ("Statement of Work to Identify site and the heavy density of archaeologIcal and Specific Requuements and hIStone remams found durmg the survey. Develop DeSIgn Criteria and Schematlc Plans for Proposed The report productIOn, mcluding Marme and EnVIronmental catalogmg and analysIS of recovered collectIons, Health Laboratory at Charleston, synthesIS ofhIStonc documents, and preparation of S.c.," dated February 5, 1994, thIS techmcal report, was conducted at ChIcora's reVISed February 23, 1994). ColumbIa, South Carolina office durmg the latter half of May 1994. And finally, the document also correctly noted that the entrre 90 acre facility had preVIously been The proposed actIVItIes at Fort Johnson placed on the NatIOnal RegISter of Histonc Places would mitIally conSISt of at least a 3600 square foot -- an mdicatIOn that Its archaeologIcal and building and a 1000 square yard parkmg facility hIStoncal potentIal was recogmzed and that the (letter from Ms. Donna H. Gibson to Mr. Steven survey would need to attempt to delimit areas of Smith, dated February 17, 1993). The work would concern. likely mvolved clearmg, grubbmg, filling, and grading of roadways; the placement of water and ChIcora FoundatIon submItted a proposal sewer lines, underground utilities, and perhaps

1 additional faciliues such as salt-water lines for February 25, 1993). tanks; cleanng, grubbmg, and grading of the building and parkmg foot prmts; constructIon damage aSSOClated with supply stockpiles, mobile offices, and assocIated stagmg areas; and finally The pnmary goals of the Fort Johnson consIderable disturbance assocIated with survey were, first, to Identify the archaeologIcal landscapmg and contourmg the surrounding resources on the undeveloped portIons of the grounds. These actIvitIes will result m conSiderable facility; second, to gauge the extent of hIStone land alteratIon with potentIal damage to resource loss on the tract; and thud, to assess the archaeologIcal and hIStoncal resources WhICh may ability of the remammg resources or SItes to eXISt m the project area. contribute SIgnificant archaeologIcal, hlStoncal, or anthropological data. The second goal essentIally The project area IS situated on mvolves the sites' eligibility for mclUSIon on the approXImately 90 acres on the eastern edge of NatIOnal RegISter of Histonc Sites, although James Island across the harbor from the City of ChIcora FoundatIon only prOVIdes an opinIon of Charleston (Figure 1). The study tract mcorporates NatIonal RegISter eligtbility and the final maritime forest, cleared areas, and sectIOns of determmatIon IS made by the SC State Histonc extenSIve preVIOUS development. In fact, today Preservation Officer at the South Carolina there are 18 buildings on the parcel, most of WhICh Department of ArchIves and History. have been built smce about 1973. While some preVIOUS archaeolOgical research has been These goals were ObVIously tIed to conducted on the property, these past compliance with the requuements ofthe NatIOnal mvestIgatlons have explored limited areas and have Histone Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665, as been keyed to specific expanSIOn plans. No amended), the AdVISOry Council on Histone PreservatIon's regulatIons (36CFR800), and the State ...... Fort Johnson ...:.Macr1iie::B ii:if og IcalSta of South : ·:.. n~~ifiat;:::.~.:: ..:.: :'.:.~ .'. CarolIna's ProtectIon of ~ State Owned (- ....:.. ..• or Leased \- HIstorIC / - Properties --- .~. '\ ~~~e oi ~~s § 60-12-10 through 60­ _/ 12-90). o 2000 4000 Secondary goals were, SCALE IN FEET fIrst, to examme the Figure 1. Viclmty of Fort Johnson on James Island, overlookmg the Charleston, S.c. harbor. development and Impor­ tance of Fort comprehenSIve survey of Fort Johnson, capable of Johnson's military sites through time; second, to prOVIding a detailed mventory of the hIStone determme if very early eIghteenth century resources, has been conducted (see letter by Mr. phllltation sites could be Identified on the tract; Keith Dertmg to Ms. Donna Gibson, dated

2 and thrrd, to examme NatIve Amencan settlement ThIS evaluatIVe process typIcally mvolves on thIS small section of James Island. PreVlous five steps., formmg a clearly defined, explicit work by Stanley South (1974, 1975) clearly ratIOnale for either the loci's eligibility or lack of revealed the mtense military use of Fort Johnson, eligibility. Bnefly, these steps were: although he did not have the opportunity to fully explore the site either temporally or spatially. • IdentificatIon of the SIte's data These mvestIgatlons, therefore, would build on sets or categorIes of South's earlier work, offermg a more complete archaeologIcal mformatlon such hlStoncal and archaeologIcal understanding ofFort as ceramICS, lithICS, subSIStence Johnson. It was also clear from the early hlStoncal remams, architectural remams, or research that the Fort Johnson tract, pnor to its sub-surface features; military use, was a plantatIon settlement m the last decade of the seventeenth century and the first • IdentificatIon of the hIStonc decade of the eIghteenth century. Ifsites could be context applicable to the site, Identified from thIS very early penod of South proVlding a framework for the Carolina's hIStOry they would help us better evaluatIVe process; understand not only life at thIS penod, but also the establishment of plantations on the Carolina • Identification of the Important frontIer. ThIS IS an area of extraordinarily limited research questIons the site mtght preVIOUS research. While the survey tract 15 limIted, be able to address, gIVen the data it mcorporates both estuanne and sound areas, sets and the context; offenng the opportunity to examme the diversity of NatIVe Amencan settlement optIons. While it IS • evaluation of the SIte's unlikely that sites would be found at the edge of archaeologIcal mtegnty to ensure the sound, there IS little mformatlon about thIS that the data sets were suffiCIently specific enVIronmental zone. In additIon, thIS well preselVed to address the research would agam seek to expand, refine, or research questIons; and perhaps only confirm South's earlier study (see South and Widmer 1976) WhICh found shell • Identification of "important" mIddens on dune ndges, but occupation areas on research questIons among all of the mtervenmg troughs. those whIch mIght be asked and answered at the SIte. Normally, once Identified, all of the sites m the survey area would be evaluated for theIr ThIS approach, of course, has been developed for potentIal eligibility for mclUSIon on the NatIOnal use documentmg eligibility of SItes bemg RegISter of HiStonc Sites. In thIS case, however, nommated to the NatIOnal RegISter of Histonc Fort Johnson has already been placed on the Places where the evaluatIon process must stand NatIonal RegISter. In additIon, we chose to define alone, With relatIVely little reference to other only one site covenng the entIre tract. Instead of documentation and where only, typIcally, one site definmg clusters of artifacts as sites, they were IS bemg conSidered. defined as lOCI or areas of occupatIon withm the preVIously Identified Fort Johnson site. These lOCI Some components of the Fort Johnson were then evaluated m much the same way as a SIte, such as those aSSOCiated WIth the U.S. Public "SIte" would be. Health Department operatIon of the quarantme statIon from 1906 through the Second World War, It IS generally accepted that "the may seem relatively recent. The remams from thIS SIgnificance of an archaeologIcal site IS based on penod, however, are over 50 years old. It IS the potentIal of the site to contribute to the lffiportant to pomt out that even if they were not, SCIentific or humamstlc understanding of the past" they would likely still be eligible gIven therr (Bense et al. 1986:60). LoCI SIgnificance m thIS unusual contribution to the development of both survey was evaluated usmg the recently published local and natIOnal hIStory (Sherfy and Luce n.d.. !). process of Townsend et al. (1993).

3 The quarantme station represents a contmuatlon of outlined m the followmg sectIons of thIS study, medical efforts to control (successfully) the whIch prOVIde an overvIew of the prehIStoric and mtroductlon of contagIous disease. The transfer of hIStone archaeology and research for the regIOn. the statIon from city/state control to federal control The IdentificatIon of "important" research goals represents a exceptIOnal step m the broadenmg of was achieved by mcorporatmg research goals and federal powers dunng the first quarter of the questIons, agam outlinmg SIgnificant questions to twentieth century. The use ofthe facility durmgthe the disCIpline and the public. Second World War as a Coast Guard facility, trammg facility, antI-aIrCraft gun trammg statIon, OtherwISe, the evaluatIve process was and even listenmg post for German V-boat actIvity, essentIally the same as outlined by Townsend et al. emphaSIZes and documents the effect of the war on (1993). For each lOCI or area the data sets the local populatIon. As such it IS likely that these Identified durmg the survey, such as the presence twentIeth century actIVitIes would be eligible for of pottery or the likelihood of archItectural mclusion on the NatIonal RegISter under Critena features, were discussed. At tImes the absence of A and D, that IS through both linkage to Important data sets dommates the disCUSSIOns, such as when events and also for theIr mformatlon potentIal. the Identified area had been thoroughly mIXed by Contnbutmg resources would mclude both the preVIous development or when It conSISted of fill archaeologIcal remams and also those structures matenal. Reference was made back to the hlStonc still standing whIch date from thIS penod, such as context and the research questIons a particular the quarantme officer's house. area mIght be able to address, while at the same tIme the loci's mtegnty was clearly defined. We The Civil War components at the Fort opted to use the mtegrity areas developed by Johnson site should likely be evaluated m therr Townsend et al. (1993:17-23) smce they are more context as encampments, fortificatIons and commonly used With National RegISter sites than battlefields (see Andrus 1992). As encampments the archaeolOgIcal propertIes developed by and fortificatIons they· are likely eligible for therr Glassow (1977). Those most Important for mformatlon content under NatIonal RegISter archaeologIcal sites bemg evaluated for eligtbility Critenon D, although theIr role m firmg the first under Critenon D (sItes that have yIelded, or may shots of the Civil War and defending Charleston be likely to Yield, mformatIon Important m from the Vmon blockade mdicate equal prehIStory or hIStOry) are loeatIonal mtegrity, Importance under Critenon A, theIr linkage to deSign mtegrity, mtegnty of matenals, and events of exceptlonalImportance. As a battlefield, aSSOCIatIve mtegrity Fort Johnson may also be conSIdered an eligible property under Critena C, as well as preVIously LocatIOnal mtegritymeansthatdiscemable mentIoned Criteria A and D. The earthwork pattemmg IS present. If a site lacks patterning, if deSign, constructIon of the vanous battenes, and the artifacts are displaced, if actIVity areas are no modificatIons of eXlStmg facilities represent longer recogmzable, then It likely lacks locatlonal Important engmeenng features charactenstlc of mtegrity. Integrity of deSIgn IS most often Confederate fortifications, many of which m the addressed as mtra-site artifact and feature Charleston area have been destroyed. pattemmg. Integrity ofmaterIals IS typIcally seen as the completeness ofthe artifact/feature assemblage In the case of a survey WhICh Identifies or the quality of feature or artifact preservation. multIple sItes, or multIple areas, the process Finally, aSSOCIatIVe mtegnty IS often exammed m outlined by Townsend et al. (1993) can become the context of how strongly assocIated the data set burdensome. Consequently thIS study has elected IS with lffiportant research questIons. Clearly the to combme some of the steps, makmg the process evaluatIon of mtegrity IS somewhat subJectIve, but more streamlined, WIthout substantIvely altermg thIS research found that most site areas either the clear goal -- to ensure that lOCI capable of clearly exhibIted mtegnty, or clearly lacked prOVIding SIgnificant mformatlon are prOVIded the mtegrity. There were relatively few over whIch protectIon afforded m the hIStonc preservatIOn there could be any real debate. process. The development of a hIStonc context was not undertaken for each lOCI, but IS found bnefly The tOpIC of research questIons IS perhaps

4 more controversIal, smce every archaeologISt can Curation develop research tOpICS WhIch may, or may not, be of mterest to hIS or her colleagues. What makes a The archaeologIcal SIte forms at the South research tOpIC Important can be debated -- IS it Carolina InstItute of Archaeology and somethmg that partIcularly mterests the public? IS Anthropology have been updated to reflect the lOCI it somethmg that can offer methodologIcal numbermg system employed m thIS study. advancement? IS it somethmg that can assISt m better management ofarchaeologIcal resources? It The field notes, photographIC matenals, seems, frankly, that all of these are must be and artifacts resultmg from ChIcora FoundatIon's consIdered valid if we WISh to preserve as real mvestIgatlons at Fort Johnson have been curated sense of the past. Of even greater controversy IS at the South Carolina InstItute ofArchaeology and when a research ISsue IS settled and how much Anthropology. The artifacts have been cleaned testmg a conclUSIOn should have before It IS and/or conserved as necessary. Further mformatlon accepted. After all, it IS never possible to "prove" on conservatIon practIces may be found m the theones; they can only be disproved. Most of the sectIon ofthIS study dealingwith Research Strategy research areas eVIdenced by Fort Johnson have and Methods. All ongmal records and duplicate receIved little preVIOUS mvestIgatIon so there was copIes were prOVIded to the curatonal facilitIes on rarely any real concern over redundancy of data. pH neutral, alkaline buffered paper and the photographIC matenals were processed to archIVal It IS lIDportant to at least bnefly reVIew the permanence. CopIes ofthe field records have been Fort Johnson NatIOnal RegISter nommatlon as It prOVIded to Calcara Duffendack Foss Manlove, currently eXISts, espeCIally smce some may wonder Inc. as stipulated by the scope of work. why we didn't SImply evaluate the lOCI as either "contnbutmg" or "non-contnbutmg" resources to the eXlStmg nommatIon. Regrettably the Fort Johnson nommatIon, prepared over 20 years ago, offers little m the way of substantIve gUIdance regarding what mIght be VIewed as contributmg. Although the nommaUon IS titled "Fort JohnsonJPowder Magazme," both the boundary descnptlOn ("90 acres" with four mclUSlVe latItude andlongitude coordinates) andthe category C'site") clearly reveal the mtent to mclude the entIre tract as a somethmg approachmg a hIStonc distnct. Specifically mentIoned as "Areas of Significance" are the site's military and archaeologIcal hentage. The nommatIon, while mcluding a number of factual errors, concentrates on the property's long military use, clearly mcluding all of the vanous penods from milIal constructIOn through the Civil War. We do not believe, however, that the nommatlon IS suffiCIently clear to a pnon conSIder eIther the NatIve Amencan, late seventeenth century plantatIon, or late nmeteenth and early twentleth century quarantme statIon remams as not contributmg to the SIgnificance ofthe sIte. QUIte to the contrary, these additIOnal penods of occupatlon make Fort Johnson an even more exceptIonal hIStonc resource, tracmg the development of Charleston over the past 3000 years.

5 NATURAL SETIING

PhysIOgraphy James IS classified as a sea ISland. It IS situated between Folly Island to the south and Charleston County IS located m the lower Charleston to the north. James Island IS separated Atlantic Coastal Plam of South Carolina and IS from Folly by the Folly RIver and frolll the bounded to the east by the Atlantic Ocean and a mamland by the Wappoo Creek, Elliott's Cut, and senes of marsh, barner (such as Folly), and sea the Charleston Harbor. It IS separated from Johns (such as James) ISlands (Mathews et al. 1980:133). Island to the west by an expanse of marsh and the ElevatIons m the County range from sea level to Stono River (see Figure 2). about 70 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The mamland topography, which consISts ofsubtle ndge The ISland lacks beach access and and bay undulatIons, IS charactenstIc of beach therefore have limited erOSIOn, largely confined to ndge plams. Seven major dramages are found m creek banks. A notable exceptIon, of course, is the Charleston County. Four of these, the Wando, erosIOn which charactenzes the harbor exposure, Ashley, Stono, and North Edisto, are dommated by which has hIStoncally lost over 200 feet. The island tIdal flows and are saline. The three with IS 7 miles long and about 7 miles m WIdth, sIgnificant freshwater flow are the Santee, formmg encompassmg about 11,000 acres of high ground the northern boundary of the County, the South and 4,800 acres of marsh -- makmg it the thud Edisto, formmg the southern boundary, and the largest South Carolina sea ISland, followmg Hilton Cooper, whIch bISects the County. Because of the Head and St. Helena. low topography, many broad, low-gradient mtenor drams are present as either extenSIOns of the tIdal ElevatIons on the ISland range from sea nvers or as flooded bays and swales. level to 30 feet MSL while on Fort Johnson elevations average about 10 feet, but range from 5 Coastal ISlands are generally placed mto to nearly 27 feet MSL. The tract IS basically a three major groupmgs, based on geomorphology, "penmsula," bordered to the north and northeastby area, sediment composition, and enVIronment of the Charleston Harbor, and to the southeast and deposition. The claSSIC sea ISlands such as south by marsh and tidal creeks. The western DaufuskIe, Hilton Head, and James ISlands, are boundary IS artifiCIal, reflectmg hIStonc property erosIOnal remnants of coastal sand bodies lines. The property IS bISected east-west by a paved deposited dunng the PleIStocene. Some, such as road which only very approXImately follows the Hilton Head, also have a ocean fnnge of beach hIStone locatIon ofthe Fort Johnson Road. To the dune ndges developed durmg the more recent south of thIS road, m the southwestern corner of Holocene penod. Barner ISlands, m contrast, are the tract, the topography IS dommated by several composed of alternatmg beach ndges and low sand ndges paralleling the creek and marsh. To the troughs or lagoons onented roughly parallel to the east and north the property becomes more level, present shoreline, deposited durmg Holocene high although local rISes are still present and tend to sea level stands. Marsh ISlands, such as Raccoon dommate the landscape (thIS topography is even Key and Moms Island, are composed of ISolated more notIceable, and spectacular, when the tract IS orWIdely spaced Holocene sand ndges surrounded cleared of understory vegetatIon). The northeastern by recent salt marsh. They are typIcally situated m comer of Fort Johnson has been extensIvely the filled lagoons behmd the barner ISlands, developed, WIth a portIon of the penmsula bemg although they are also found frontmg the AtlantiC formed from recent ballast deposits. Ocean where erOSIOn has removed the protectmg barner ISlands. The mean tidal range for James Island IS

6 ~

Cummings 1 Point

~. -Pt:' :J:~'\~ 0'lUU \)" \ ~\;<::::::: .. l~ ) 2 3 4 . 1 # -,.-V q Jar"n Cd, 7 0

SCALE IN MILES

-....l approXilllately 5.2 feet, wIth a Spnng tIdal range of Charleston "foul," eVldencmg hIgh levels of apprmamately 5.9 feet. These tIdes generate strong ammoma. currents m the tIdal mlets and major tidal channels. There IS extenSIve documentatIon of wells bemg dug on the sea and barner ISlands by UnIOn Geology and Soils troops durmg the Civil War. Copp noted:

Coastal Plam geologIcal formatlOns are m our camp at Hilton Head, unconsolidated sedimentary depOSIts ofvery recent every company had its well, by age (PleIstocene and Holocene) lymg diggmg through the sand to a unconformable on anCIent crystalline rocks (Cooke depth of from four to SIX feet, 1936; Miller 1971.74). The PlelStocene sediments empty barrels would be mserted, are organlZed mto topographIcally distmct, but and the well as complete, with litholo~callysImilar, geomorphIc umts, or terraces, plenty ofwater although brackISh parallel to the coast. Kiawah Island IS classified by to the taste It was not as bad as Cooke (1936) as part ofthe Pamlico terrace, WhICh we were frequently obliged to use mcludes the land between the recent shore and an m our later campaIgns (Copp abandoned shore line 25 feet above present sea 1911:94). leveL He notes that the fine sandy soils are typIcally underlam by a blue or gray somewhat On nearby Folly Island Barlow remarked: sandy clay. all the water used on the ISland On an ISland such as James, water appears was obtamed by diggmg below to be plentiful, yet sources of fresh water are tIde-mark and curbmg with scarce. The pnnClpal deep water aquifers are the barrels. The finest and best limestone of Eocene age known as the Santee protected well m camp was made FormatIOn and the sands ofCretaceous age, known by cuttmg mto a sand dune and as the Pee Dee and Black Creek formatIons, makmg a wmding passage to the although these are at depths of 400 to 500 feet and water, thus placmg the water 1600 to 2000 feet respectIVely. The Santee contmually m the shade and FormatIon has been pumped so heavily that there protectmg it from dust and dirt

IS now a "cone of depreSSIon It with the result that blowmg around the camp (Barlow chlonde levels exceed 400 mgll m some areas (S.C. 1899:158). Water Resources ComnussIOn 1973:100). It IS therefore clear that durmg the hlStonc penod Lynch et al. note that colomal wells rarely wells were m common use, although shallow wells exceeded 20 feet mto the sands WhICh were probably tended to be less healthy andmore saline. "everywhere saturated with the water WhICh it receIVed from a ramfall averagmg 43.78 mches Another SIgnificant aspect of coastal each year" (Lynch et al. 1882:258). Consequently, geology to be conSIdered m these disCUSSIOns IS the wells 12 to 15 feet deep proVided "an unfailing fluctuatIon of sea level dunng the late Pleistocene supply of water of the very best quality" (Lynch et and Holocene epochs. Pnor to 15,000 B.C. there IS aL 1882:259). Water quality gradually declined as eVIdence that a warmmg trend resulted in the the populatIon mcreased and antebellum wells gradual mcrease ill PleIStocene sea levels became deeper, although they rarely exceeded 60 (DePratter and Howard 1980). Work by Brooks et feet m downtown Charleston. One antebellum al. (1989) clearly mdicates that there were a bnck-lined well on Damels Island, about 5.5 miles number offluctuatIons durmg the Holocene. Therr northeast of Charleston, was only 10.7 feet ill data suggest that as the first Stallings phase SItes depth (Zierden et al. 1986:4-44). Cisterns, ill along the South Carolina coast were occupIed common use throughout Charleston, could prOVIde about 2100 B.C. the sea level was about 4.2 feet very safe, potable water, although LynCh et al. lower than present. Followmg that penod there (1882:292-293) also found many of the CISterns m was a gradual fall m the sea level to about 11.0

8 feet below current levels by 1850 B.C. Sea levels formatIon of soils m the study area IS affected by gradually mcreased dunng theThom's Creek phase thIS parent materIal (pnmarily sands and clays), the to a level withm about 2.0 feet of the current temperate climate (to be discussed later m thIS stands by 1650 B.C. Followmg thIS was a second sectIon), the vanous soil organIsms, topography, lowermg about 1250 B.C., to a level of 9 7 feet and tIme. below that of today The sea level mcreased The mamland soils are PleIStocene m age and tend to have more distmct honzon development and

EARLY WOODlAND MIDDLE WOODLAND LAli WOODLANDIMISSISSIPPIAN diversity than the 1 I younger soils of the 4000 Be 3000 BC 2000BC lOOOBC o 1000 AD 2000 AD sea and barfler ~~ Islands. Sandy to A r- !' / "-./ loamy SOlIs A(\ / V I predommate m the level to gently slopmg / f I II / v mamland areas. The \ " " , I V ISland soils are less , "1 V diverse and less well developed, frequently lackmg a well-defined ~ 18 " o B honzon. Orgamc ~ 21 l:Q matter IS low and the ~ soils tend to be aCldic. es 24 r.. The Holocene deposits typIcal of bamer ISlands and found as a frmge on Figure 3. Sea level changes for South Carolina (after Brooks et a1. 1989). some sea ISlands, conSISt almost entrrely of quartz sand WhICh through the late Thorn's Creek phase to a hIgh exhibits little orgamc matter. Tidal marsh soils are about 2.8 feet below modem levels by 1050 B.C. Holocene m age and consISt of fine sands, clay, Another low, about 9.7 feet, occurred at 350 B.C. and organIc matter deposited over older after WhICh the sea levels tend to mamtam a PleIStocene sands. The soils are frequently covered gradual nse to therr modem levels (see Figure 3). by up to 2 feet of saltwater dunng hIgh tides. Histoncally, marsh soils have been used as Data from the nmeteenth and twentIeth compost or fertilizer for a vanety of crops, centunes suggest that the level IS contmumg to mcluding cotton (Hammond 1884:510) and Allston rISe. Kurtz and Wagner (1957:8) report a 0.8 foot mentIons that the sandy soil of the coastal regIOn, rISe m Charleston, South Carolina sea levels from "bears well the admlXture of salt and marsh mud 1833 to 1903. Between 1940 and 1950 a sea level with the compost" (Allston 1854:13). rISe of 0.34 foot was agam recorded at Charleston. These data, however, do not distmguISh between While a range of soil senes occur on sea level nse and land surface submergence. James Island, only one IS found withm the Fort Johnson tract. The Wando loamy fine sands are Withm the coastal zone the soils are found throughout the survey area and are Holocene and PleIStocene m age and were formed charaetenzed as deep, excessIvely dramed to well from materIals that were depOSIted durmg the dramed soil that IS sandy throughout. The Ap vanous stages of coastal submergence. The hOrIZon, about 0.7 foot m depth, IS a dark-brown

9 loamy sand overlymg a C1 horIZon ofbrown loamy afterwards hauling out the loose sand up to 2.8 foot m depth (Miller 1971:30-31). dirt with a hoe, thus leavmg an The season hIgh water table IS 5 or more feet open ditch, if it may be so below the surface (Miller 1971.Table 7). termed, a foot or more m depth (Hammond 1884:509). Soil dramage may reasonably be expected to Impact prehIStonc and hIStonc settlement Climate patterns, as well as cultIvatIon (and hence plantatIon wealth) dunng the antebellum penod. John Lawson descnbed South Carolina, m Plants such as mdigo and cotton requITe well 1700, as havmg "a sweet AIr, moderate Climate, dramed soils, while nce requITes flooding (and and fertile Soil" (Lefler 1967:86), although he therefore soils capable of holding the water) tended to romanticIZe Carolina. In December 1740 (Hammond 1884; Hilliard 1975; Huneycutt 1949). Robert Prmgle remarked that Charleston was A number of penod accounts discuss the havmg "hard frosts & Snow" charactenzed as Ita IDlportance of soil dramage. Seabrook explamed: great Detnment to the Negroes" (Edgar 1972:282), while m May 1744 Pnngle states, tithe weather subsoil so close as to be havmg already Come m very hottt! (Edgar IDlpefVlous to water; so that the 1972:685). excess of the rams of wmter cannot smk. Nor can it flow off, The major climatIc controls ofthe area are because of the level surface latitude, elevation, distance from the ocean, and The land thereby IS kept locatIon WIth respect to the average tracks of thoroughlywater-soaked untillate mIgratory cyclones. Fort Johnson's latitude of m the sprmg. The long contmued 32°37'N places it on the edge of the balmy wetness 15 favorable only to the subtropIcal climate typIcal of Flonda, further growth of coarse and sour grasses south. As a result, there are relatIVely short, mild and broom sedge aCid and wmters and long, warm, humId summers. The large antISeptIc qualitIes of the soil amount of nearby warm ocean water surface sponge-like power to absorb and produces a manne climate, WhICh tends to retam water IS barren, (for moderate both the cold and hot weather. The useful crops) from two causes ­ AppalachIan Mountams, about 220 miles to the excessIVe wetness and great northwest, block the shallow cold aIr masses from aCidity. The remedies requITed the northwest, moderatmg them before they reach are also two; and neither alone the sea ISlands (Mathews et a1. 1980:46). will be of the least useful effect, with the other also. Drammg must The average hIgh temperature on James remove the wetness - calcareous Island ill July IS 81°P, although temperatures are manures the aCidity (Seabrook frequently m the 90s dunng much of July (Kjerlve 1848:37). 1975:C-4). Mills noted:

Hammond expanded on thIS, mentlOnmg: m the months of June, July, and August, 1752, the weather m dramage has of necessity Charleston was warmer than any always been practIced to some ofthe mhabitants before had ever extent. The remarkably hIgh beds expenenced. The mercury m the on which cotton IS planted here, shade often rose above 90°, and bemg from 18 mches to 2 feet for nearly twenty succeSSIVe days hIgh, subserve thIS purpose. The vaned between that an 101° (Mills best planters have long had open 1972 [1825]:444). drams through theIr fields. These were generally made by runnmg Much of coastal Charleston normally expenences two furrows with a plow and a hIgh relatIve humIdity, adding greatly to the

10 discomfort. Kjerfve (1975:C-5) found an annual m a pamful state of aDXlety, not mean value of 73.5% RH, with the hIghest levels knowmg what course to pursue, occumng dunng the summer. Prmgle remarked m not knowmg what IS be to be

1742 that guns lIsufferr'd wIth the Rust by Lymg so done (Ramsay, quoted m Long here, & whIch affects any Kind of Iron Ware, Calhoun 1983:2). much more m thIS Climate than m Europe" (Edgar 1972:465). The coastal area IS a moderately hIgh nsk zone for tropical storms, with 169 hurrIcanes bemg The annual ramfall on James Island IS 49 documented from 1686 to 1972 (about one every roches, farrly evenly spaced over the year. While two years) (Mathews et a1. 1980:56). Table 1 lists adequate for most crops, there may be penods of the major storms of the seventeenth, eIghteenth, both excessIVe ram anddrought. Kjerfve (1975 :C-8) and nmeteenth centunes. notes that the Charleston area has recorded up to 20 mches of ram m a smgle month and the ramfall The climate of the Charleston area, over a three month penod has exceeded 30 Illches regardless of storms, temperature, humIdity, or no less than 9 tImes m the past 37 years. LikeWISe, ramfall, was often VIewed as harsh and unhealthful, penods of drought can occur and cause espeCIally for the white populatIon. Mills states: conSIderable damage to crops and livestock. Mills remarks that the "Summer of 1728 was the numerous swamps, bays, and uncommonly hot; the face of the earth was low grounds WhICh mdent the low completely parched; the pools of standing water country, retam the waters that fall dned up, and the field reduced to the greatest m rams; and m consequence of distress" (Mills 1972 [1825]:447-448). In 1818 the these, occasIOn thick fogs streqIDS went dry. Another stgnificant hIStoncal throughout the nIght, dunng the drought occurred m 1845, affectmg both the Low summer months. Under such and Up Country. The drought of 1848 caused such Clfcumstances it IS a matter of low fIVer flows m the Low Country that a tIdal little surpnse that fevers prevail. salinity mvaSIon severely damaged nce crops. The two fevers most dreaded here, are, what are commonly The annual growmg season IS 295 days, termed the country and yellow one of the longest III South Carolina. ThIS mild fever. The first IS peculiar to the climate, adequate ramfall, and long growmg country, and to aVOId it, the season, as Hilliard (1984:13) notes, IS largely planters are ill the habit either of responsible for the presence of many southern reSiding m Charleston dunng the crops, such as cotton and sugar cane. SIckly season, or retUlllg to the Sea Islands or Sand hills. The Hilliard also pomts out that "any second belongs exclUSIVely to the desCflptlon of climate III the South, however bnef, CIty, and IS generally fatal to would be mcomplete without reference" to a strangers only, who have not, as it meteorolOgIcal event frequently Identified with the IS termed, become climatlZed reglon -- the tropIcal humcane. Humcanes occur (Mills 1972 [1825]:140-144). m the late summer and early fall, the penod cntIcal to antebellum cane, cotton, and nce Expounding on the evil of the swamps, Mills also growers. These storms, however, are caprICIOUS m explamed: occurrence: that to the extenSIve swamps and ill such a case between the dread stagnant pools, which cover Its of pestilence m the city, of surface, are we to attnbute the common fever ill the country, and cause of our epIdemIcal diseases. of an unexpected humcane on The rank luxunance of vege­ the ISland, the mhabltants are tatIon on these waste lands, therr at the close of every warm season perpetual mOISture, and the

11 operation of a powerful sun, pro­ thickets). Of these the Oak-Pine forests are most duce at certam seasons of the common, constitutmg over half of the forest year, m a degree mdeed ex­ communities m the area. In some areas palmetto tenSIve, the rapId de-compositIOn becomes an Important sub-dommant. TYPIcally of thIS vegetable matter: the these forests are dommated by the laurel oak With mIasma ansmg from thIS pme (pnmarily loblolly WIth mmor amounts of longleaf pme) as the major canopy co-dominant. Hickory IS present, Table l. although uncommon. Major Hurncanes Through the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centunes Other trees found are the sweet gum and magnolia, Date Loeanon Oassifieatlon Damage With sassafras, red bay, August 25. 1686 Charleston Major Flooding, WUld damage September 14/16. 1700 Clarleston Great Flooding, at least CJ7 deaths Amencan holly, and wax September 5/6, 1713 O1arleston Major Flooding. perhaps 70 deaths myrtle found m the September 13/14, 1728 Charleston Major 23 shIps damaged or lost, forests leveled understory. September 15, 1752 O1arleston Extreme ExtenSive flooding. damage, death September 1784 Charleston Major C) Flooding. extensIVe property loss September 7/8. 1804 Savannah Great 7 foot storm tIde, 500 deaths lD SC In the Mixed Oak August V. 1813 Cbarleston Great Severe WlDds, tIdes, mueh crop loss Hardwood forests pine IS September 27, 1822 O1arleston Major Extensive crop losses, 300 deaths September, 7/9 1854 Savannah Major 90 milelhour WlDds reduced m trnportance and August 27, 1881 Savannah Major 16 foot tIde. 700 deaths lD Georgla and SC the laurel oak IS replaced August 25. 1885 Beaufort Extreme 21 deaths lD O1arleston, 125 mile/hour WInds by the live oak. Yaupon August 27, 1893 O1arleston Extreme 17 to 19 foot storm tide. up to 2000 deaths October 13, 1893 Charleston Major Flooding. several deaths holly and red bay or September 28129. 1896 Savannah Major 12 deaths, WlDds of 75 miJeslhOUI magnolia are found in the August 31. 1898 Savannah Humcane 100 mile/boUI \IVlDds understory. The Palmetto October 2. 1898 Savannah Humcane 12 foot storm tIde October 31. 1899 Myrtle Beach Major 58 miles/hour WInds lD Charleston forests are charactenzedby open palmetto stands with an understory of wax myrtle, red cedar, Yaupon decomposition contammates the holly, and magnolia. The Low Oak woods or surrounding aIr, WhiCh afterwards thIckets are found as a band behmd the hIgh IS wafted by the wmds over the dunes. ThIS aSSOCIation IS contmuous with the Oak­ country, and pOISons, more or Pine-Palmetto forests. The mIScellaneous wooded less, the whole atmosphere (Mills areas mclude wax myrtle thIckets found in low 1972 [1825]:462). areas behmd the dune fields.

Flonstics Mills, m the early nmeteenth century, remarked that: James Island exhibits three major ecosystems: the marittrne forest ecosystem WhICh South Carolina IS nch m native conSISts of the upland forest areas of the ISland, and exotIc productions; the the estuanne ecosystem of deep water tIdal vanetles of its soil, climate, and habitats, and the palustrme ecosystems WhICh geolOgical positIons, afford plants conslSt of essentIally fresh water, non-tIdal of rare, valuable, and medicmal wetlands (Sandifer et al. 1980:7-9). qualitIes; fruits of a lUSCIOUS, refreshmg, and nounshmg nature; The maritIme forest ecosystem has been VInes and shrubs of exqUISite found to consISt of five prmcipal forest types, beauty, fragrance, and luxunance, mduding the Oak-Pine forests, the Mixed Oak and forest trees of noble growth, Hardwood forests, the Palmetto forests, the Oak m great vanety (Mills 1972 thIckets, and other mIScellaneous wooded areas [1825]:66). (such as salt marsh thIckets and wax myrtle

12 The loblolly pme was called the "pItch or While shellfish are only bnefly itemIZed by Frankmcense Pine" and was used to produce tar Mills ill the context of a food source, he elaborates and turpentme; the longleaf pme was "much used m hIS disCUSSIon of building matenal, observmg m building and for all other domestIc purposes;" that: trees such as the red bay and red cedar were often used m furniture makmg and cedar was a favonte lime IS obtamed from bummg for posts; and live oaks were recognIZed as yIelding oyster shells. It makes a very good "the best of tlffiber for ShIp building;" (Mills 1972 mortar, where good sharp sand IS [1825]:66-85). Mills also observed that: used, though it IS not equal to the stone hme (Mills 1972 m former years cypress was much [1825]:460). used m building, but the difficulty of obtammg It now, compared While the prlIDary hIStonc use of shellfISh may with the pme, occaSIOns little of It have been for the productIon of lime, the large to be cut for sale, except m the numbers of shell mIddens m coastal area clearly shape of shmgles; the cypress IS a mdicate the 1ll1portance of shellfish ill the most valuable wood for durability abongmal diet (see Tnnkley 1991:214-215). and lightness. BeSIdes the two names we have cedar, poplar, The last enVIronment to be briefly beech, oak, and locust, WhICh are discussed IS the freshwater palustnne ecosystem, or may be also used m building WhICh mcludes all wetland ecosystems, such as the (Mills 1972 [1825]:460). swamps, bays, savannas, pOCISms, and creeks,where the salinitIes measure less than 05 ppt. These The "Oak and hICkory hIgh lands" palustnne ecosystems tend to be diverse, although according to Mills were, 'well suited for com and not well studied (Sandifer et a1. 1980:295). It IS prOVISIons, also for mdigo and cotton" (Mills 1972 likely, however, that small freshwater ponds will be [1825J:443). The value of these lands ill the IDld­ found m vanous troughs scattered across the 1820s was from $10 to $20 per acre, less expensiVe ISland. Others may represent remnant freshwater than the tIdal swamp or roland swamp lands sloughs WhICh filled and became maetlVe as the sea (where nce and, with dramage, cotton could be levels rose and therr gradients decreased. A grown). number of forest types may be found m the palustnne areas WhICh would attract a vanety of The estuanne ecosystem m the Vlcmity terrestnal mammals. The typIcal vegetatIon might mcludes those areas of deep-water tIdal habitats conSISt of red maple, swamp tupelo, sweet gum, and adjacent tIdal wetlands. Salinity may range red bay, cypress, and vanous hollies. Also found from 0.5 ppt at the head of an estuary to 30 ppt would be wading blfds and reptiles. It seems likely where it comes ill contact with the ocean or the that these freshwater envrrons were of partIcular open harbor. Estuanne systems are mfluenced by 1D1portance to the prehIStonc occupants. ocean tIdes, preCIpitatIon, fresh water runoff from the upland areas, evaporatIon, andwmd. The mean tIdal range for James Island 15 5.2 feet, mdicatlVe of an area swept by moderately strong tIdal currents. The system may be subdiVIded mto two major components: subtIdal and mtertldal (Sandifer et a1. 1980:158-159). These estuanne systems are extremely lIDportant to our understanding of both prehIStonc and hIStonc occupatIons because they naturally contam a hIgh bIOmass (Thompson 1972:9). The estuarme area contnbutes vascular flora used for basket makmg, as well as mammals, brrds, fish (over 107 speCIes), and shellfish.

13 PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC OVERVIEW

Previous Research At Fort Johnson research on the site of the proposed construction. A proposal for the research with the College of In late 1972 the S.C. Institute of Charleston and the SCDWMR specified that the Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) entered work was intended to be "testing and exploratory," into discussions with the College ofCharleston and although it might also incorporate "major salvage" the S.C. Department of Wildlife and Marine to allow the area to be "entirely cleared for the Resources (SCDWMR) regarding the continuing planned construction at no further inconvenience" development of Fort Johnson. In a November 16, (Anonymous n.d.:l). While the procedures may be 1972 letter then State Archaeologist Dr. Robert unusual by today's standards of "compliance Stephenson remarked that: archaeology," twenty years ago such agreements by a wide range of archaeologists were all too the entire area of Fort Johnson is common. The proposal is perhaps more important now on the National Register for since it conveys information on the state of Historic Places. If there is any knowledge regarding Fort Johnson at the time. It danger to historic resources ... is quoted at length for the historical perspective it we should have an opportunity to provides: evaluate the potentialloss and see if there isn't a way to avoid such the sea wall is still to be seen on as loss (letter from Dr. Robert the east and west sides of the Stephenson to Mr. W.J. Keith, peninsula. It also extended dated November 16, 1972). through the yacht basin where the wall was found during the By that time the ca. 1759 sea wall (forming part of excavation for that feature. one of the early forts) had already sustained Judging from this, it would be extensive damage from the construction of a large expected that the wall may be laboratory complexandplacement ofmodem drain found beneath the yard of the pipe. Plans were being developed for the Medical University property in construction of additional facilities by the College the area of the huge cistern .... of Charleston and the SCDWMR ("New Building is Planned for Fort Johnson Center, Charleston It was not possible to see Evening Post, October 27, 1972). Perhaps these inside the "powder magazine" plans stirred local interest as well, since Robert structure, but several important Stockton shortly afterwards also wrote an article observationswere made regarding discussing the difficulty dating the various the exterior of this structure. The structures at Fort Johnson and the need for more structure is of brick, rectangular historicalandarchaeological research ("Pinpointing in shape, with three [there are Fort's Date Tough," News and Courier, October 30, actually only two] buttresses on 1972). the north and south sides. The roof is of brick that has been SCIAA eventually entered into a cemented over, but this has memorandum of agreement with the College of cracked and allowed water and Charleston (aswell as presumably with SCDWMR, soil to enter, and grass is now although no copy of that agreement could be growing there. Large cracks are to immediately located) to conduct about a month of be seen in several places, where

14 the pressure on the roof is forcing and a single window, provided the the walls outward. This building is window is original (a point which in serious need of repair to save it remains to be checked).l from rapid deterioration. Since this is the oldest and most No rectangular structure complete above-ground structure such as this is shown on the still standing from the earlier Moultrie Fort map of 1800, historic period of the site, it is through there is a possibility that imperative that steps be taken the structure is the prison or the toward saving this structure. magazine shown on this map, structures that stoodabout twenty The interior of the or so feet apart. The fact that the original brick structure has had a structure we now see is thick liner of brick added to rectangular and the map shows strengthen and thicken the walls. square buildings is not necessarily This may have been done at the an indication that the present time of the Civil War when the building is not one of these entire building was beneath a structures, but it surely points to sand embankment added to it not being one of the Moultrie protect the contents of the Fort buildings. This question is structure, during the time it significant in interpreting the served as a magazine. The early fort maps, particularly the buttresses on the exterior of the 1800 map, in relationship to the structure were added at a time present site. Archaeology here in after the original building was the area of this structure, to the built. In order to do this and to east, south, west, and north, insure a tight fit between the should help toward interpreting addedbuttresses and the standing this structure in relation to the brick wall, the bricks were remains of other structures in the chiseled out of the wall to allow area. It is suspected that this Civil the buttresses to be tied into the War "powder magazine" is a wall. In doing this it was structure built in the period of necessary to cut through the construction on the site after the bricks in the wall, and this 1800 map was made. The evidence is clearly revealed in the buttresses may have been added area where the buttresses join the at the time of the Civil War, brick wall. before the covering of soil was added. Such buttresses would The question arises as to have insured that the brick walls what function the brick building were strong enough to support served originally, and since it was the weight of the soil being used known as a "powder magazine" to cover the building (Anonymous during the Civil War, this name n.d.:1-4). has tended to influence interpretations regarding its The proposal also specifies the work which was to .original use. The narrow slit for ventilation on the side, and the single window at the end might Subsequent historical research has indicate that it served originally as documented that this structure was a powder magazine, a magazine, but it could also have although it was always plagued by dampness.. Only in served as a jail, which would need the Second World War was it known to be temporarily no more than a slit for ventilation used as a military jail.

15 be undertaken by SCIAA. occurred ill thIS sectIon of the site, and that constructIon of a building here would not damage 1. To reveal any archaeologIcal rums" (South 1974:4). In addItIon to archItectural features m the area the research m the VIcmlty of the laboratory to the east and south of the "Hit building, South also bnefly mentIons that some shaped building between that additIonal testmg was conducted "across the road building and the road. toward to the east to the west of the water tank tower" where houses were proposed, and 2. To cut profile trenches "near the entrance gate to the property, on the to the west, east, and north of the south SIde of the road" where a Food and "powder magazme" to locate Technology Building was planned. While South archaeologIcal features and to found some eVIdence ofthe Civil War fortificatIons proVIde an mterpreted date for m the former area, he adVISed that constructIon constructIon of thIS building. "should pose no major damage to the configuratIon of the works unless conSIderable bulldozmg was 3. To cut an exploratory carrIed out" and that "no major hIStone rum" trench to the north of the uRu would be damaged (South 1975b:4). The latter shaped building to determme if a area was "probed" and, finding nothmg, "there tabby fort wall can be seen m the appeared to be no reason why constructIOn could area where rums m the marsh to not proceed" (South 1975b:5). the east mdicate that it might be. The results of the testmg conducted for 4. To cut exploratory the SCDWMR was published m October 1975 trenches to locate the tabby wall (South 1975b). ThIS study prOVIded a synOpSIS of found durmg recent mstallatton of Fort Johnson's hIStory begmnmg with Its mception a telephone line. ill 1708 and stoppmg Just short of its extensIVe mvolvement m the Civil War. South detailed hIS 5 To photograph all mvesttgatlons at the site and also worked features located and to plot these extenSIVely to correlate the vanous maps, on the master map of the site for commentmg that hIS work was hmdered by the use m future correlatIon of the absence of an accurate map of the project area site with the hIStone documents (South 1975b:52). A number of research (Anonymous n.d..7). conclUSIons and speculatIons can be scattered throughout the study, mcluding: The proposal, pared down from a month to two weeks, was apparently accepted smce the • South found a TPQ date of work was conducted by SCIAA from May 21 1798.5 for the constructIon of the through June 1, 1973. The project conducted for powder magazme.2 Based on the College of Charleston was completed with a penod maps and additIonal five page publicatIon a year later, m June 1974 stratIgraphIc clues, he very (South 1974). South obseIVed that the hIStone reasonably suggested that the maps "did not reveal any structures other than a magazme was built durmg the tabby wall to the west of the area under War of 1812 (South 1975b:32-35). consIderatIon" and that a 1865 watercolor of the SIte area showed the project area to be low and • South recovered the marshy (South 1974:1-2). A senes of trenches were architectural and archaeologIcal excavated, along with at least one backhoe cut. remamS of the barracks built at South found only scattered artifacts and the remams of several dramage ditches. He concluded that, 'with thIS extenSIve testmg of thIS site carned 2 The termmus post quem. or TPQ. IS the date out it appeared that there was no eVIdence that after whIch the building had to be built, In thIS case would mdicate any extenSIve occupatIOn had about 1798.

16 Fort Johnson perhaps as ·early as • the "Bake House" (as shown on 1790 whIch contmued to be used the 1800 map) IS suggested to be through the Civil War, at WhICh the same structure as that shown tlffie they were "Officer's m the same area on the 1849 Quarters" (South 1975b:42). He map, and attnbutes the CISterns to thIS use • the humcane tIde line of of the building. October 1 and 2, 1803 IS at VIrtually the same locatIon as the • South suspected that the land present tIde line. face of the 1759 tabby fort was never constructed smce no attack South also suggested that based by land was antICIpated, although on thIS map research, the CISterns he cautIons that "the questIon on the site likely dated to the cannot be answered without constructIon of the U.S. Barracks knowmg more about what IS m 1796 and were placed at the gomg on beneath the ground comer of a porch to collect ram relative to the maSSIVe tabby wall water from the roof (South remammg from thIS fort" (South 1975b:46). 1975b:52). • South was also able to • South found that by overlaymg demonstrate that a senes of the 1800, 1821, and 1849 maps contours on the 1821 map are usmg the structure respectIVely positIOned "directly m the area of known as the "U.S. Barracks," the survivIng tabby sea wall and "Quarters," and "16 rooms" on the caponxer basttonette," suggestmg three maps as the focal pomt, he that the bastlOnette was built as was able to predict or mterprelate early as the War of 1812, but by the location of a number of 1821 was m rums, Just as it IS additIonal architectural features, today (South 1975b:49). including: While all of these observatIons are of • Governor William Moultne's exceptIonal Importance and will be referenced 1793 fort, agam m latter sectIons of thIS study, it IS also • the U.S. Battery of 1794, lIDportant to understand South's recommendations • the rums of the 1759 fort (as regarding constructIon. His observatIons are shown on the 1800 map), reproduced below: • the "Bake House" (as shown on the 1800 map), If the site were pnmeval • the "Hospital" (as shown on the wilderness today, havmg been 1800 map), abandoned after the Civil War, it would be a site so nch ill • the "Store House" (as shown on potentIal for hIstOrIcal the 1821 map) and the "8 room development and mterpretatton structure" (as shown on the 1849 that any Impact on such a settmg map) are suggested to the by modern constructIon would be remams of the west end of the a senous VIolatIon of the site. row of the "U.S. Barracks built However, the recently constructed m 1796," buildings by the three present • the "HospItal" (as shown on the owners, agenCIes of the State of 1800 map) IS suggested to be the South Carolina, has [SIC] so same structure as that shown ill damaged the hIstOrIcal the same area on the 1849 map,

17 development potentIal of the sIte Civil War defenses and would be that the enVIronmental, hIStoncal a senous VIolation of the hIStone Impact of yet another building mtegrity of the SIte (South takes on quite a different 1975c:2). perspectIVe than would be the case were the hypothetIcal ThIS waste treatment facility was constructed m pflIDeval state outlined above still spite of South's comments and without any further eXlStmg. ThlS does not mean that archaeologIcal or hlStoncal mvestigatlOn. we should Ignore the possibility that further constructIon will Also of concern was SIte 38CH16, likely damage histoncal- ongmally recorded by The Charleston Museum m archaeologIcal values on the the 1930s. South also recorded another nearby contrary. It does mean that shell mIdden, 38CH275. In additIon to the the owners have a more mtense prehIStonc sherds, South also found a small responsibility toward the meager collectIon of eIghteenth and nmeteenth century data that remams, for the matenal, probably aSSOCIated WIth the vanous recovery ofthIS mformatlon IS not military occupatIons at Fort Johnson. He noted for the purpose of public that to the southeast of 38CH275 and east of InterpretatIOn through the 38CH16 was an "artillery emplacement . development ofan hIStoncal park, constructed by the Confederates dunng the Civil but rather for the contnbution to War" (South 1975b:3). He suggested that barracks knowledge thatfurther excavatIon nught be nearby, supported by the occurrence of beneath the Fort Johnson soil ceramICS, bncks, and other refuse. may add to that we already know from the written documents that As a result of the mitIaI exammation of have SUrvIVed ill some abundance 38CH275, South proposed a somewhat more (South 1975b:53). detailed mvestlgatlon:

In 1975 the SCDWMR and the General a sampling of both the ndges ServIces AdmmIStratlOn contacted SCIAA [contaInIng 38CH16 and regarding plans to construct the "Southeastern 38CH275] and the low-Iymg areas Utilization Research Center"3 on a sandy ndge on around them IS needed m order the southwestern edge of Fort Johnson. South to determme WhICh components (1975c) conducted a bnef reconnaISsance on area present, therr tIme frame, September 30, 1975, at the same tIme exammmg a and the extent of these remams proposed waste treatment plant. At the waste withm the area of SIte CH275 to treatment plant he obseIVed a: be destroyed by the constructIon actIvity. Ifsuch remams are found CivilWarembankmentcontammg to be extenSIVe and Important to a sally port m the lIllII1ediate understanding the cultural past of VIcmity of the proposed plant. the site, mitIgatIon measures must ThIS proposed locatIon IS be undertaken relevant to these directly m front of, and but 20 cultural resources (South feet from, the sally port. It IS 1975b:4). directly upon the spot where federal forces attacked the fort. A Specifically, South noted that it was Important to waste treatment plant m thIS mvestIgate both ndges to allow a "companson locatIOn would Irreparably between these ndges," although it was equally damage the hIStone value of the lDlportant to mvestIgate the low-ground area to understand how perhaps earlier groups had used the enVlfonment (South 1975b:5-6). An additIonal 3 Now usually known as the NOAA building. goal of the study would be:

18 the testmg of sampling methods vanous artifact classes" (South and Widmer for locatmg sub-surface sites. The 1976:24). QUIte reasonably they found that the sampling of sItes usmg soil classes WhICh produce larger samples provide sampling augers and posthole better data than those classes for which there are diggers will be explored, and the few samples. In other words, nail distributIons are degree of reliability of such a better at predictmg hIStonc SIte locatIons than the method will be tested agamst five distributions of musket balls and oyster shell foot squares dug m the same seemed better at predietmg prehIStonc occupatIon locatIon (South 1975b:7). than pot sherds.

South also recommended that a "thorough The disperSIon of hIStone remams topographIcal, and archaeologIcal, and hIStoncal suggested to South and Widmer (1976:35) that a survey" be made of Fort Johnson to allow the "mid-nmeteenth century military occupatIon" was development of a master plan rather than concentrated on the second ndge (lymg between explormg "one sIte at a tIme as IS now the case" 38CH16 and 38CH275). ThIS correlated with the (South 1975c:5). No such survey of Fort Johnson presence of several "craters" thought to represent was conducted pnor to the current work by wells aSSOCiated WIth the Civil War encampment. ChIcora FoundatIon, nearly two decades later. In The distnbutIon of prehlStonc remams revealed a additIOn, as preViously mentiOned, the waste pattern suggestmg that the densest portIon of the treatment facility was constructed over the site was not on the ndge Itself, but Just back from ObjectIons by South. the ndge away from the tIdal marsh. The researchers suggested that "thIS locatIon Just over A study outlined by South for 38CH275, the crest of the ndges IS a more sheltered one for however, was apparently approved by the consummg oysters m wmter when cold wmds blow SCDWMR and the U.S. General SelVlces from the tIdal marshes" (South and Widmer AdmmIStratlon, and was conducted m February 1976:36, 38). Even the presence of small sherd and March 1976 (South and Widmer 1976). It concentrations suggested "small campsites m these should be realized that thIS study was umque for low lymg areas behmd the hIgher ndges" (South its tlffie t askmg baSIC methodolOgIcal ISsues, and Widmer 1976:38). The sampling program also explormg survey approaches and results, and allowed South and Widmer to Identify what was exammmg a sIte type about WhICh very little was mitIally thought to represent a smgIe component known. The mtensIVe of the survey matches or Hanover "oyster roastmg area or dwelling site" exceeds surveys bemg conducted today t nearly 20 (South and Widmer 1976:40). years later. Consequently, therr study has tremendous validity even today. Additional excavatIons m thIS area revealed a dense concentratiOn of shell mIdden Consldenng the methodologIcal ISsues about 18 feet m diameter and about a foot m South and Widmer were unable to determme depth. At the center was a Clfcular pit 5 feet m whether a random-aligned or mterval-aligned diameter and 2.4 feet deep. Radiocarbon dates sampling strategy was better. They did, however, obtamed from the aSSOCIated oyster shell yIelded suggest that for denSity studies the Important dates of 180 B.C. and 150 B.C. (South and vanable was likely not the alignment approach but Widmer 1976:45). While no post holes or other rather the number of samples, with larger samples structural eVidence was encountered thIS feature understandably prOViding vastly supenor results has often been mterpreted as a Hanover over smaller samples (South and Widmer 1976:20). [WiImmgton] house. They also found that posthole diggers outperformed pod andgate augers t although shovel The artifacts produced several mtnguing testmg and power augermg would eventually theones. One mvolved the use of clam shells as outdistance even posthole diggers. TheIr possible tools, an Idea WhICh to thIS date has still comparISon of posthole samples to 3-foot test umts not been adequately tested. At least one clam shell was limIted to testmg "the vanability ill confidence was Identified WhICh appeared to have a ground we can have m SYMAP mterpoiatlons of the surface, while a number of additiOnal shells

19 appeared to the authors to have been mtentlOnally construction of the building. altered (South and Widmer 1976:46-56). Others are outSide the Another mvolved the presence of specific actIVIty constructIOn area, but some are areas at the site. South and Widmer suggested so close that they may well be that: damaged by constructIon actMty unless care IS taken to protect two distmct actIvity areas apart these rums. These rums should from the shell mIdden are located also be protected from damage by at the sIte: a presumed landscapmg and mamtenance butchenng/food processmg area crews, as well as from vandals encrrcling the mIdden with an searchmg for Civil War relics. assoCIated fire burned area, and an occupatIOnal or actIvity area m In the same area as these the provemences north of the chmmey bases are several craters" mIdden, yet adjacent to the fire (about 20 feet across and 3-4 feet scorched area as well. The types deep) that appear to have been of actIVitIes assoCIated wIth thIS surface wells that have area are unknown (South and subsequently collapsed. It IS urged Widmer 1976:59). that these too, be preserved and not filled m as they are part of In spite of these findings, South and the story of the garnsons of Fort Widmer remarked that: ''because of the nature of Johnson m the Civil War Penod. the data already revealed, no major mItigatIOn IS recommended" (South and Widmer 1976:63). They Since these features are, also remarked that on the southern edge of therr for the most part, out of the research frame, perhaps Just outSIde the area of actual construction area the direct constructIon Impact, there were: effects on them mIght be conSidered "secondary Impact." a number of bnck chmmey-base They are located m such relatIon remams. These are from the to the constructIon area that they occupation of the site by 9ill. be preserved, without conflict Confederates and Federal forces with the constructlOn. If durmg the Civil War. Such rums construction actIvitIes cannot be are the remams ofchlDlDeys made done without damage to these of bncks salvaged from other features or if landscapmg and rums, probably combmed with mamtenance must destroy them wooded barrels or clay-lined stIck then additional archaeologIcal chmmeys ofthe type illustratedby work will be reqUITed to mitIgate Edwm Forbes who saw such the adverse effect on these chmmeys m military quarters cultural resources (South and durmg the Civil War (Dawson Widmer 1976:63). 1957). A dozen such chImney rubble piles were located withm AdditIOnal concern regarding these Civil the research frame at Fort War features was expressed by South, who Johnson. Histonans of the Civil remarked that It was difficult for hIm to believe War penod may be extremely that the construction would not cause damage mterested m these rums m the (letter from Mr. Stanley South to Dr. Robert years to come. Stephenson, dated February 5, 1976). A letter to the SCDWMR specifically called attentIon to these Three of these chImney remams: bases are wlthm the construction area and will be destroyed by the I do call your attentlon to the

20 comments regarding nearby bnck exammed the two most complete mdiVlduals. chmmeys and "craters' While, IndiVIdual 1, found to be between 18 and 22 years mamly, these are not ill the of age: desIgnated constructIon area cautIon must be used to aVOid appears to have been a petite damage to them as a secondary black female from coastal South effect of the constructIon" (letter Carolina,S' to 5'2" tall who was from Dr. Robert Stephenson to at least unIparous. She was also Dr. Edwm Joseph, dated probably nght-handed and the FebI1lary 9, 1976). lack of muscularity mdicates a farrly non-stressful occupatIon. As will be discussed m greater detail m a The absence of Lmear Enamel subsequent sectIon of thIS study these features Hypopiasias and lines of were not avoIded by constructIon and few, if any, mcreased denSIty support a could be relocated. It IS likely that most were conclUSIOn that the mdividual destroyed by either the constructIon or subsequent lived a farrly healthy and ground modificatIon. unstressed life (Cantu and Allen 1981.25). In additIon, durmg constructIOn of the facility a cemetery was discovered on one of the IndiVIdual 2 was SImilarly a small, black female ndges (although the exact spot cannot today be probably 22 to 29 years old and: Identified). The cemetery was likely mISsed by the archaeologIcal mvestlgatlons because of the low about 4'911 to 5'1" tall. No massIVe density of aSSOCIated artifacts, the SImilarity of the muscle msertlons were noted, assoCIated artifacts to the dispersIon of Civil War WhICh IndIcates a slight remams, and the absence of human bone m the musculature. However, thiS relatively shallow testmg. In fact, discovery of such conclUSIon IS tentatIVe due to the abandoned cemetenes IS very difficult and was absence of several bones clearly outsIde the scope of the conducted survey. (espeCIally those ofthe upper arm Apparently no effort was made to either and grrdle). Poor dental health mvestlgate these bunals or mstitute a rebunal may pomt to a lower econonuc program. One employee of the SCDWMR strata (Cantu and Allen 1981:41). mentIOned that the ''bones" were pIcked up after havmg been bulldozed from the site and were Summanzmg therr study, Cantu and Allen stored m cardboard boxes m the stanwell of the obselVed that: admInIStrative building for several years. Some of the remams eventually made their way to Dr. Ted the presence of coffin handles4 Rathbun, a forenSIC anthropologISt with the leads to the conclUSIon that at UnIVersity of South Carolina. He noted that the least one of the mdiVIduals was matenals were passed on to hIm under the gIVen a formal bunal. Two of the Uniform AnatomIcal DonatIon Act by the mdivlduals were small petite Charleston County Medical Exammer'sOffice after females with no eVIdence of the retrrement of Dr. Joel Sexton, although he was extreme musculanty, thus, not familiar with how the matenals came to the probably not engaged ill a very Medical Exammer's Officer (Dr. Ted Rathbun, labonous occupatIon. These facts personal communIcatIon 1994). His bnef exammatIon mdicates very fragmentary remams of four Afncan Amencan adults, mcluding three 4 Two speCImens of two lug swmg bale coffm females and one male. handles were mcluded In the collectIOn. ThIS style IS most common pnor to 1880, but use did contmue mto A more detailed study was conducted by the twentIeth century (see Hacker-Norton and Tnnkley two students, Mona Cantu and Jo Ann Allen, who 1984).

21 probably pomt to an mcome 38CH22, also recorded as 38CH74, IS one somewhere above the poverty of the more cunous sites recorded for Fort level. There are postmortem cuts Johnson. Filed m 1972, It descnbes the Marshlands on vanous bones. ThIS, as well as PlantatIon House, WhICh was moved to the facility the fact that the remams were ill December 1961 from Its ongmal Cooper RIver commgled, leads to the conclusIOn locatIon ill the Charleston Naval Yard. While the that a plow or tractor of some plantation, and the assocIated house, had a long nature massed over the skeletons hIStOry, at its current secondary locatIon the (Cantu and Allen 1981:42). structure cannot legitunately be conSIdered an archaeologIcal site. They also bnefly noted that rrregular bony deposits at the center of the ulnar notch of both IndiVIdual Site documentation for 38CH69, also 2 and 4 'WhICh could possibly mdicate a familial recorded as 38CH71, was completed m 1971. Like linkage" (Cantu and Allen 1981:39). many sites recorded durmg thIS penod we can only guess at the exact mtentions ofthe recorder. While In 1989 several sites were re-mventoned by the form stlpulates a site sIZe of between 10 and 20 PreservatIon Consultants (1989) as part of a acres, which represents only a fractIon of the Fort NatIonal Park SerVIce Survey and Plannmg Grant Johnson tract, and that the site IS sItuated "on [a] admmIStered by the S.C. Department of ArchIves pomt of land at north end of James Island Juttmg and History, with additIonal funding prOVIded by mto [the] Charleston Harbor," the descnptIOn Charleston County. Unfortunately, the only suggests the site was mtended to mcorporate not structures mcorporated mto thIS study were the only the early forts on the pomt, but also vanous Fort Johnson powder magazme (Survey Site # Civil War fortificatIons much further mland. Such 0880112), an unnamed beach battery (possibly contradictIons are the result of the SIte bemg Battery Harleson) at Fort Johnson (Survey Site recorded on the basIS of a bnef walkmg tour, #2490083) and the Marshlands PlantatIon House absent any meanmgful survey. Other portions of (Survey Site #0890096). the site form also reveal that so little was known about the complexities of Fort Johnson that no PreVIOusly Identified Archaeological reasonable, or appropnate, management Sites on Fort Johnson recommendatIons could be offered.

Six different archaeologIcal sites, with ArchaeolOgical site 38CH274, the martello eIght discrete numbers, have been preVIously tower on the north central portIon of the Fort recorded for the Fort Johnson facility. TWo sites, Johnson facility, was recorded m 1975, agam based 38CH16 and 38CH34, were ongmally recorded on a very limited exploratIOn. To further confuse with The Charleston Museum m the late 1920s by matters, the SIte form stipulated that 38CH274 IS local mdivIduals who collected small quantiUes of "part of 38CH69 " No boundanes are provided by NatIve Amenca artifacts from the along the marsh the site form, so it IS unclear whether it was edge at the southwest comer of the current Fort mtended to mcorporate only the architectural Johnson tract. The matenals collected mcluded rums, or any additIonal ground. Deptford and Wilmmgton sherds from 38CH34, and bone fragments and a "chert drill from The Native Amencan shell mIdden 38CH16 (38CH16 and 38CH34 sIte forms, S.C. 38CH275 was recorded m 1975, agam as "part of Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 38CH69." No further mformation IS provided by UnIversity of South Carolina). While unclear from the SIte form and the study by South and Widmer the eXlStmg SIte records, the current study has (1976) must be consulted for additIonal revealed that these two numbers represent only mformation. Therr study makes it clear that they one SIte. As IS common for mCldental reports such mterpreted 38CH69 to mcorporate the entITe 90 as these, the recorders saw different portIOns of acre tract, notwithstanding the recorded SIte form. the same extenswe shell mIdden and recorded each In additIon, they describe 38CH275 as occupymg, exposure as a different site. "a ndge of sand lymg east-west, measurmg 100 feet WIde by 500 feet long, separated from the ridge of

22 site 38CH16 by a distance of 100 feet of low Anderson (1975.184) further notes an apparent ground" (South and Widmer 1976:1). As therr concentratIon of Refuge SItes m the Coastal Plam, study progressed it becomes ObVIOUS that the particularly along the Santee RIver. The pottery 15 occupatIOn was not confined to the mdiVldual found mland along the Savannah RIVer (Peterson discrete sand ndges, but extends illto the 1971.151-168), although it does not extend above mtervenmg trough, or low, areas, blurrmg the the Fall Lme (see Anderson and Schuldenrem seemmgly easily defined boundanes between 1985:719; Garrow 1975.18-21). 38CH16 and 38CH275). The Refuge senes pottery IS SImilar m Consequently, the site files for the Fort many ways to the preceding Thorn's Creek wares. Johnson area are perhaps better at documentmg The paste IS compact and sandy or gntty, while the evolVlDg attitudes toward site boundanes and surface treatments mclude sloppy slDlple stamped, survey approaches than m offermg any substantIve dentatestamped,and randompunctatedecoratIons gUIde to the archaeologIcal resources. We have (see DePratter 1979:115-123; Williams 1968:198:­ synthesIZed from these discussIOns that 38CH69 208). Anderson et al. note that these typolOgies are lt was ongmally Intended to proVide t1 umbrella "marred by a lack of reference to the Thorn's coverage for all of the resources assoCiated WIth Creek senes" (Anderson et al. 1982:265) and that the hIStone occupatIon ofFort Johnson (regardless the Refuge Punctate and InCISed types are of tIDle penod or nature), although there was a mdistmgul5hable from Thorn's Creek wares. clear recogmtion that the prehlStonc resources, Peterson (1971.153) charactenzes Refuge as both while overlappmg, were not necessarily part of a degeneratIon of the preceding Thorn's Creek 38CH69 senes and also as a bndge to the succeeding Deptford senes. There 15 a small stemmed biface Prehistonc Archaeology aSSOCIated with the Savannah dramage Refuge SItes. ThIS type has been termed Groton Stemmed For the purposes of these disCUSSions the by Stoltman (1974:114-115) and Deptford Woodland Penod begms about 1000 B.C., or Stemmed by Trmkley (1980b:20-23). Peterson unmediately after the Thorn's Creek phase (see suggests that, "a change from the 'Savannah RIVer' Figure 4). Most researchers call the penod from to the small stemmed pomts, a dimmutlon about 2000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. the Late ArchaiC baSIcally, could occur durmg the Refuge" (Peterson because ofa perceived contmuation ofthe ArchaiC 1971:159), although pomts smilar to the Small lifestyle m spite of the manufacture of pottery. Savannah RIVer Stemmed contmue to occur. Regardless of the termmology employed, the penod from 2000 to 1000 B.C. IS well documented, While large Refuge shell mIddens, such as although many of the technologIcal changes and 38JA61 (Leplonka et al. 1983), occur, a SIgnificant much of the reorgamzatiOn of the cultural change m the Refuge settlement pattern and landscape IS only begmnmg to be fully realized, subSIStence base IS clearly eVIdenced. At the end of understood, and studied (see Sassaman 1993; see the Thorn's Creek phase a number of small, non­ also Tnnkley 1993 for a bnef reVIew of thIS early shell midden sites are found. ThIS pattern of small penod). sites, situatedaway from potentIalshellftsh sources, contmues m the Refuge phase (see, for example, Early Woodland Peterson 1971.164-168). Refuge pottery 15 common on coastal SItes south of the Santee RIVer, but 15 Followmg the Late ArchaiC Stallings and usually found ill sandy buned soils with few Thorn's Creek phases IS the Refuge phase, strongly features or orgalllc remams (see, for example, aSSOCIated With the GeorgIa sequence and the Tnnkley 1982 and the distributIon disCUSSIOns by Savannah dramage (DePratter 1979; LeplOnka et Anderson et al. 1982:266). al. 1983; Williams 1968). The Refuge Phase, dated from l070±1l5 B.C. (QC-784) to 510±100 B.C. It IS difficult to reconstruct the subSIStence (QC-785), IS found prIDlarily along the South base, although the SItes suggest small, seasonal Carolina coast from the Savannah dramage as far camps for small groups (Trmkley 1982). The north as the Santee RIver (Williams 1968.208). settlement fragmentatIon, which began at the end

23 SOUIllERN LOWER SANTEE NOR11IERN NORTIi CAROLINA NORTIi CAROLINA VALLEY, GEORGIA COASf PIEDMONT COAST soum CAROLINA (PHELPS 1983) (ANDERSON 1982) (DEPRATIER 1979) (COE 1964) __eJ;!AW~Y__ I GUAlE IDSfORIC WACCAMAW ------PEE DEE ASI-U...EY ALTAMAHA

MISSISSIPPIAN AD 1500 PEE DEE IRENE OAK UWHARRIE · ISLAND JEREMY SAVANNAH · SANTEE II Sf CATIIERINES AD 1000 CLEMENTS WILMINGTON SANTEE I II YADKIN

MCCLELlANVILLE WILMINGTON I AD 500 DEPTFORD III DEPTFORD II MOUNT VINCENT PLEASANT WOODLAND AD DEPTFORD II DEPTFORD I BC BADIN

..._...... _._....._.. DEPTFORD I DEEP CREEK III SOO BC ------REFUGE DEEP CREEK II REFUGE II III

REFUGE I DEEP CREEK I 1000BC - REFUGE II mOGEI mOM'S · CREEK II ·• ST SIMONS II · AROWC 1500 Be - · · mOM'S · CREEK I ST SIMONS I 2000 BC - STAlliNGS

2500 BC -

Figure 4. CeramIc assemblages and cultural penods for the Carolinas.

24 of the Thorn's Creek phase, around 1000 B.C., phases. Similar pomts have been found at a vanety probably relates to the mcrease m sea level, from of Deptford sites (see Milamch 1971.175-176; a Thom's Creek phase low of 10 feet below the Stoltman 1974:115-116, Figurd 20i-J, 40h-j). Also current hIgh marsh surface at 1200 B.C. to a hIgh found at Deptford sites are "medium-sIZed of about 3 feet below the current hIgh marsh tnangular pomts," SImilar to the Yadkm surface at 950 B.C. (Brooks et a1. 1989). ThIS Tnangular pomt (Coe 1964:45, 47, 49; Milamch mcreasmg sea level drowned the tIdal marshes (and and FaIrbanks 1980:75-76). In the Savannah RIVer sites) on WhICh the Thorn's Creek people relied. area Sassaman et a1. (1990:156-157) report that The followmg Refuge phase eVIdences the Deptford pottery appears much more strongly fragmentatIon necessary when the enVIronment, assocIated with tnangular prOjectile pomts (Badin WhICh gave rISe to large sedentary populatIons, and Yadkm types) than with the small stemmed disappeared. Hanson (1982:21-23), based on points. They note, "small stemmed bifaces are Savannah Rwer data, suggests that subsIStence attnbuted to the Early Woodland penod with the stress present durmg the Thorn's Creek phase may recognitIon that they probably persISted mto the have resulted m an expansIon of the settlement subsequent penod but were rapIdly and thoroughly system mto diverse envrronmental settmgs. It replaced by tnangular forms by 2000 B.P " seems likely; however, that the development of (Sassaman et a1. 1990:157). mature, upland tnbutanes was also an essential mgredient m thIS process. ThIS same Ifsplintenng" Perhaps of even greater mterest IS the co­ 1$ observed on the South Carolina coast. occurrence of the larger triangular pomts (such as Badin and Yadkm) with smaller tnangular forms Middle Woodland (such as Caraway) traditIonally attributed to the Late Woodland and South AppalachIan The Deptford culture takes its name from MisSISSippian penods. ThIS situatIon has been the type site located east of Savannah, GeorgIa, reported at Coastal Plam sites (Blanton et a1. WhIch was excavated ill the nud-1930s (Caldwell 1986:107), Savannah Rwer sites (Sassaman et a1. 1943:12-16). Deptford phase sites are best 1990:157), and Coastal Zone sites (Tnnkley 1990). recognIzed by the presence offine to course sandy Blanton et al. (1986) suggest that these pomt types paste pottery with a check stamped surface were used at the same tIme, but perhaps for treatment. ThIS pottery IS typIcally m the form of different tasks. a cylindncal vessel with a coDOldal base. Other Deptford phase pottery styles mclude cord Anderson (1975:186) has found Deptford markmg, SImple stampmg, a complicated stampmg wares distnbuted throughout the South Carolina which resembles early Swift Creek, and a Coastal Plam, with majorsites at the mouths ofthe geometnc stampmg WhICh conSISts of a senes of Santee and Savannah RIvers. The earliest date for carved tnangles or diamondswith mtenor dots (see Deptford, 1045:t110 B.C. (UGA-3515), has been Anderson et a1. 1982:277-293; DePratter 1979). obtamed from 38LX5 m Lexmgton County (Tnnkley 1980b:11). The most recent date comes The Deptford technology IS little better from St. Simons Island, Georgia, where a date of known than that of the preceding Refuge phase. A.D. 935±70 (UM-673) was obtamed. Milamch Shell tools are uncommon, bone tools are and FaIrbanks (1980:60) suggest a tighter range of "extremely rare" (Milamch and FaIrbanks 1980:77), about 500 B.C. to AD. 600, while Anderson et a1. and stone tools are rare on Coastal Zone Sites. All (1982:281) suggest a date range of about 800 B.C. of thIS mdicates to some researchers that ''wood to A.D. 500. must have been worked mto a vanety oftool types" (Milamch and FaIrbanks 1980:75). One type of Deptford sites on the South Carolina coast stone tool aSSOCIated with South Carolina Deptford are often small, espeCially when compared to the sites IS a very small, stemmed prOjectile pomt earlier Thorn's Creek mIddens, and they are tentatwely descnbed as "Deptford Stemmed" usually multlcomponent. Deptford Coastal Zone (Tnnkley 1980b:20-23). ThIS pomt IS the SItes, while contammg shell, do not represent CUImmation of the Savannah Rwer Stemmed maSSIve mounds, but rather thm mIddens formed reductIOn seen m the Thorn's Creek and Refuge as senes of small shell heaps WhICh have been

25 deposIted adjacent to the marsh and gradually Anderson 1979). These mtenor or upland formed contmuous masses. These heaps were the Deptford sites, however, are strongly aSSOCIated result of short penods of site use, perhaps as a with the swamp terrace edge, and thIS enVIronment base camp for shellfish collectmg (see MilaOlch IS productIve not only m nut masts, but also m and Farrbanks 1980:72-73; Tnnkley 1981b). Results large mammals such as deer. Perhaps the best data of soil chemIcal analyses from the Pinckney Island concernmg Deptford ''base camps" comes from the mIdden (Tnnkley 1981b:53-54) suggest less than LeWIS-West site (38AK228-W), where eVIdence of mtenslve occupatIon. The chemIcal studies support abundant food remams, storage pIt features, Milamch's assessment that occupatIon was not on elaborate matenal culture, mortuary behaVIOr, and the shell piles, but adjacent to them (Milamch and craft speCIalizatIon hasbeen reported (Sassaman et FaIrbanks 1980:72-73; Tnnkley 1981b:53-54). al. 1990:96-98).

Milamch (1971.192-198; see also Milamch An often offered VIew of an estuarme and Farrbanks 1980:70-73) suggests that the Deptford adaptatIon WIth romor mtenor Deptford phase settlement pattern mvolves both occupatIons must be re-evaluated based on the coastal (Le., Coastal Zone) and mland (i.e., Savannah RIver dramage work of Brooks and Coastal Plam) sites. The coastal sites, WhICh are Hanson (1987) and Sassaman et al. (1990:293-295) always situated adjacent to tIdal creek marshes, who suggest larger reSIdential base camps and eVIdence a diffuse subSIStence system. The mland foragmg zones along the Savannah RIVer, coupled sites are also small, lack shell, and are sItuated on with smaller, household reSIdences and foragmg the edge of swamp terraces. ThIS situatIon IS zones ill the uplands along small tributanes. While smtilar to that found m South Carolina, although it 15 not yet clear if these upland sites represent a there are Deptford nuddens WhICh exhibit a very perenmal settlement pattern or a seasonal focal subSIStence emphasIS (Tnnkley 1990). Sites fisslOnmg typIcal of the Late ArchaIC, it seems such as Pinckney Island (38BU67 and 38BU168; likely that the pattern was equally affected by Tnnkley 1981b) and Minm Island (38GE46; demographIc pressures and external sOCIo-politIcal Drucker and Jackson 1984; Espenshade and mfluences (see Sassaman et al. 1990:303-304). Of Brockmgton 1989) eVIdence large Coastal Zone conSIderable potentIal SIgnificance 15 eVIdence of Deptford occupations, while sites such as 38BU747 trade between coastal and mtenor Deptford (Tnnkley 1990) eVIdence only small, focal shell groups. For example, the LeWIS-West site mIdden occupatIons. Sites such as 38BK984 (38A.K228-W) has produced eVIdence of sharks' (Roberts and Caballero 1988) prOVIde eVIdence of teeth and whelk shells from the coastal regIOn. Coastal Plam non-shell midden Deptford occupatIon. The later Middle Woodland m South Carolina 15 characterIZed bya pattern ofsettlement At Pinckney Island the bulk ofthe calones mobility and short-term occupatIon. On the came from shellfish while mammals played a southern coast it 15 aSSOCIated with the Wilmmgton relatIvely mSIgnificant role (Tnnkley 1981b:57-60). phase, while on the northern coast it 15 recognIZed A slIDilar situatIon occurs at Min1lll Island by the presence of Hanover, McClellanville or (38GE46), where late spnng and summer Santee, and Mount Pleasant assemblages. occupatIon IS documented with a reliance on Wilmmgton and Hanover may be VIewed as fishmg, with mammals bemg a secondary, if not regIOnal vanetles of the same ceramIC traditIOn. mmor food source. In the fall there IS eVIdence of The pottery 15 characterIZed almost solely by Its mtenslve oyster gathermg and possible use of crushed sherd temper whIch makes up 30 to 40% nearby hICkory masts (Drucker and Jackson 1984; of the paste and WhICh ranges m SIZe from 3 to 10 Espenshade and Brockmgton 1989). mm. Wilmmgton was first described by Caldwell and Warmg (Williams 1968.113-116) from coastal Inland, SItes such as 38AK228-W, 38LXS, GeorgIa work, while the Hanover descnption was 38RD60, and 38BM40 mdicate the presence of an offered by South (1960), based on a survey of the extenSIVe Deptford occupatIon on the Fall Lme Southeastern coast of North Carolina (WIth and the Coastal PlaID, although sandy, aCIdic soils mcurSlOns mto South Carolina). The Wilmmgton preclude statements on the subSIStence base (see phase was seen by Warmg (Williams 1968.221) as

26 IUtruSIVe from the Carolina coast, but there IS (UGA-3849). The several dates currently available consIderable eVIdence for the mcluslOn ofDeptford from South Carolina (such as UGA-3512 of A.D. traits ill the Wilmmgton senes. For example, 565 ±70 from Pinckney Island) fall mto thIS range Caldwell and McCann (1940:n.p.) noted that, "the of about A.D. 200 to 900. Wilmmgton complex proper contams all of the IIlarn kmds of decoratIon WhICh occur m the The McClellanville (Trmkley 1981a) and Deptford complex with the probable exception of Santee (Anderson et al. 1982:302-308) senes are Deptford Lmear Checkstamped" (see also found pflffiarily on the north central coast ofSouth Anderson et a1. 1982:275). Consequently, surface Carolina and are charactenzed by a fine to treatments of cord markmg, check stampmg, medium sandy paste ceramIC with surface slffiple stampmg, and fabnc Impressmg may be treatment of prImarily v-shaped slIDple stampmg. found with sherd tempered paste. Anderson et a1. While the two pottery types are quite SImilar, It (1982) suggest that Hanover IS SImply a vanant of appears that the Santee senes may have later Wilmmgton m a type-vanety system, presentmg a features, such as excurvate nms and mtenor nm compelling approach to deal with thIS typOIOgI

27 one prehIStOrIC phySIcal type or abongmal group," villages were present m the Middle Woodland. for m North Carolina they are found m the context of probable IroquOlan, Siouan, and Algonqum Middle Woodland research m South populatIons (Wilson 1982:172). The available Carolina has concentrated pnmarily on the mformatlon, however, suggests a relatIVely abundant shell mIddens found along the coast. egalitanan SOCIety was common to all. Anderson Vanous means of classifymg these shell middens suggests that, "these mound/ossuary complexes have been offered (Tnnkley 1991 has offered a appear to represent prmCIpal bunal areas for lncal descnptlVe scheme, while Espenshade et a1. 1993 lineages or other currently unrecoglllzed SOCIal has offered what purports to be a more functIOnal entitles" (Anderson 1985:56). mterpretatIOn), although It seems clear from the debate that additIonal research IS necessary to fully These later Middle Woodland Coastal address both descnptlve and functIOnal questIons. Plam and Coastal Zone phases contmue the Some aspects of Middle Woodland shell mIdden Deptford pattern ofmobility. While sites are found research have been outlined by Trmkley (1993) and all along the coast and mland to the Fall Lme, Tnnkley and Adams (1993), With tOpiCS shell mIdden sites eVIdence sparse shell and concentratmg on a WIde range of ISsues: artifacts. Gone are the abundant shell tools, worked bone Items, and clay balls. Recent • The ceramICS themselves can be mvestlgatIons at Coastal Zone sites such as exammed for mformatIon on km­ 38BU747 and 38BU1214, however, have prOVIded based groups usmg cordage some eVIdence of worked bone and shell items at analysIS at an mtrasite level, Deptford phase mIddens (see Trmkley 1990). companng matenals between a vanety of discrete midden piles. In terms of settlement patterns, several Similar analysIS can also be researchers have offered some conclUSions based accomplished usmg chemIcal on localized data. MichIe (1980:80), for example, analysIS of the paste, perhaps correlates nsmg sea levels with the extenSIOn of concentratmg on a small array of Middle Woodland shell mIddens further up the trace elements. PortRoyal estuary. Scurryand Brooks (1980:75-78) find the Middle Woodland site pattemmg m the • ChemIcal analyses of the Wando RIVer affected not only by the sea level pottery may prOVIde clues to the fluctuations, but also by soil types (see also clay sources, WhICh m tum may Tnnkley 1980a:445-446). They suggest that the prOVIde mformatlon regarding strong soil correlation IS the result of upland sites seasonal (or other) rounds. These haVIng functIoned as extractIon areas, pnnCIpally analyses may also be able, once for exploitatIon of acorns, hICkory nuts, and deer. there IS a suffiCIent data base, to Shell mIdden sites, they suggest, also represent project the limIts of different seasonal camps and therefore exhibit small SIZe, groups. low artifact density, and mfrequent re-occupatIOn. Ward's (1978) work ill Marlboro County suggests • Both chemIcal analyses and that mtenor site pattemmg changed little from the cordage studies may be useful to Early to Middle Woodland. Sites contmue to be refine typologIcal ISsues, espeCially found on the low, sandy ndges overlookmg when conducted ill additIon to hardwood swamp floodplams, WhICh suggests that more traditIonal paste studies. while pottery styles changed, site locatIons, and For example, thIS battery of presumably subSIStence, did not (see also Ferguson analytIC approaches may be able 1976). Drucker and Anthony's (1978) work ill to refine our understanding ofthe Florence County, South Carolina reveals VIrtually array of clay and grog tempered contmuous short-term occupatIon along the Wilmmgton, Hanover, and St. terraces assocIated with the floodplam of Lynch's Cathennes pottery Perhaps there Lake. DePratter's (1985) work at the Dunlap site, IS good reason to reVIew the however, suggests that a few, relatIVely stable

28 Mattassee Lake report (Anderson • IncorporatIon of additIonal et a1. 1982) and adopt a type­ shellfish studies may be able to vanety system. further refine OUf understanding of seasonal use, espeCIally when • Even usmg different analytic several seasonal mdicators are approaches, such as the concept used as cross-checks from discrete of estImated vessel equIValence, midden areas. It may also be may provide a better useful to examme middens on a understanding of mter and shellfish assemblage basIS 1D an Intraslte ceramic dIVerSity effort to reconstruct specific LikewIse, makmg complete ecotonal use areas. cordage analysIS a standard feature of all studies would assISt There seems to be ample eVldence that there IS m allowmg others to adopt a still much to learn from coastal shell mIddens. colleagues work to new and Viewed from a different perspectIVe, we are not different theoretIcal approaches. even close to the pomt of redundancy at these sites. • Radiocarbon datmg, based on relatively large charcoal samples, Late Woodland could be used to date a vanety of discrete shell middens wlthm one In many respects the South Carolina Late site, with 10 to 20 dates refinmg Woodland may be charaetenzed as a contmuatlon our understanding of site ofpreVIous Middle Woodland cultural assemblages. function. It might be possible to While outside the Carolinas there were major Identify sufficient charcoal cultural changes, such as the contmued samples from distmct levels withm development and elaboratIon of agnculture, the the midden to allow for begmnmg Carolina groups settled mto a lifeway not and ending dates for mdiVldual appreCIably different from that observed for the mIddens (acceptmg one or two preVIous 500 to 700 years. ThIS situatIon would sIgIlla deVIatIOns), prOVIding even remam unchanged until the development of the closer temporal control. Further, South AppalachIan MisSISSippIan complex (see each charcoal date could be Ferguson 1971). compared to a shell date from the same midden ill an effort to Sassaman et a1. (1990) echo the beliefthat develop better alternatives when the Late Woodland eVIdences relatively little there IS msuffiClent charcoal for a change from earlier penods, observmg that it "is reliable date. difficult to delineate typolOgically from its antecedent of from the subsequent MisSISSippian • Pollen analysIS at mdiVldual penod," but that the best typolOgIcal break may be middens could explore the nature "the decline m stamped Deptford wares at about of site vegetation, testmg for 1500 B.P" (Sassaman et a1. 1990:14). eVIdence of site disturbance, second growth or weedy species. Along the central and northern South ThIS mformatIon might better Carolina coast, Anderson et a1. (1982:303-304) help us understand how, and how suggest a contmuatlon ofthe Santee senes mto the mtensIVely, the sites were used. Late Woodland. The Hanover and Mount Pleasant Such studies could be combmed senes may also be found as late of A.D 1000. With more tradItional Along the southeastern North Carolina coast, ethnobotanlcal research to South (1960) has defined the Oak Island complex, Identify wood species for cross­ which IS best known for its shell tempered ceramICS checkmg. with cord marked, fabnc 1IIlpressed, smple

29 In the late seventeenth and early eIghteenth centUrIes the area now known as Fort Johnson was called Wind Mill, Windmill, or Mill Pomt and "the Windmill" IS shown on Maunce Mathews' 1697 Carte Partlculiere de la Caroline (Figure 5). ThIS tract was likely granted to William Russell m 1694, although neither the warrant nor the grant for the 100 acres specifies the actual location (Salley 1915:58). Russel, however, sold "a plantatIon Contammg one HundredAcres ofLand known by the name of Mill Pomt bemg on James Island" to John King m .J4 1704 so It IS reasonable that the earlier CfTT1 ~ grant was the same parcel (S.C. Figure 5. Windmill Pomt shown on the 1697 Carte Partzculiere de la Caroline. Department of ArchIVes, Records of the Secretary of the ProVInce: Grants 1704-1709, Vol. D, p. 67). Since King already had possessIOn of the tract at stamped, and net Impressed surface finIShes. The the time of the grant It IS likely that he had leased phase IS bnefly discussed by Phelps (1983:48-49), the plantatIon the year before, suggestmg that he but cunously thIS manifestatIon 1$ almost unknown was already engaged ill agrIcultural actIVIties. In south of the Little RIver m South Carolina. Very August 1706, durmg Queen Anne's War (1702­ little IS known about the northern coastal South 1713) a combmed French and SpanISh forces Carolina Late Woodland complexes, although SItes attacked Charleston. When thIS was unsuccessful such as 38GE32 may document the occurrence of they attempted landings, mcluding one on James village life m the Late Woodland. Island where they burned a structure. These attacks were also repulsed with the Colony A Historical SynopsIs of Fort Johnson mflictmg heavy losses on the expedition (Wallace 1951.75). Afterwards a number of planters claImed There are a number of general oveTVlews losses, mcluding one by King for £30 (Mustard or secondary sources for the hIStOry of Fort 1963:134). Johnson, m partIcular the reVIew of Fort Johnson by Courtenay (1883), the early hIStOry of Its In spite of the threat and a failed constructIon by Mustard (1963), the details on the legISlatIve attempt to build a fortificatIOn as early events there durmg the Civil War prOVided by as 1703, Mustard clearly demonstrates that the Burton (1970), and the general synthesIS prOVided ongmal fort on Windmill Pomt was not by South (1975b). Preservation Consultants (1989) constructed to guard the harbor entrance until offer a synthesIS of James Island hIStOry WhICh IS 1708 (Mustard 1963:130). He notes that of the partIcularly mterestmg and useful to place the local ongmal act only the sectIon regarding the fort, events m a WIder context. While thIS study has entitled "An Act for the building a fortificatIon on mtegrated a number of prImary sources, mcluding Windmill Pomt, and to barr and lay Booms cross some materials from the NatIOnal ArchIves, there the Channel of Ashley RIver and to case up are a tremendous number ofprImary sources WhICh Trenches along the White Pomt and other have not been mcorporated because of either the necessary Places, and, to PrOVIde a Public Store of proJect's tIme frame or the cost of the additIOnal PrOVISIons, AmmunitIon and small Arms, and to research. Areas of future research, however, are draw Money out of the Publik Treasury to defray recommended at the conclUSIon of thIS sectIon. the Charges of Same," has fortuitously been preserved (see Trott 1736:153). Amanuscnpt letter Eighteenth Century ActIVIty at Fort Johnson

30 to the Board of Trade, dated Septer; r17,1708 appraISers to value hIS "house and land thereunto explamed, "at the entrance to the J rb Jur IS a belongmg, conslStmg of 100 acres, or thereabouts, place called Windmill Pomtwithm car ,)) eS Shott as also some damage done to the Crops of the said of which all vessels must pass by, IS w !)uilding King by negroes employed by the public last and almost finIShed a tnangular for which Summer" (Mustard 1963:131). The appraISal came when finIShed will be the key and bl: ark of the back at £140, WhICh presumably was eventually Provmce" (Records m the BntlSh } \)lL Office paId. Relatmgto South Carolina 1701-171(, 2(}3-210). The fortifications were certamly , 'nr1ete by The hIStOry of the fort dunng the first half February 1709 when representatlVes :h> House of the eighteenth century was relatIvely peaceful. A May 7, 1709 statute established a guard of a Captam, (0 LIeutenant, and 12 men (Cooper 1837' 333). A road was ordered cleared and built from Fort Johnson to "causey leading to Wappoo Bndge" m 1719 (Cooper 1838:111:103). ThIS IS likely the same road shown on the Charleston Harbor mset of Mouzon's 1776 An Accurate Map of North and South Carolina (Figure 6). By 1723 the guard was bemg encouraged to "clear, fence, jI'/ plant prOVISIons, make gardens and ,: other Improvements to theIr own .JA .t11'; .\' I.1 I. A " /) proper use," likely to encourage them to stay close to the fort and also to ~J reduce the cost of upkeep (Cooper 1838:III:236). Figure 6. Fort Johnson shovm on Mouzon'c 1776 map. On June 12, 1724 the Commons House received a report on the conditIon of Fort Johnson. They VISited the site, although it was not until P. Jri! that found the carnages, arms, and ammunItIon all In a commander, Captam Jonathan Dra:e, was good order, although the fort itself was showmg selected (Mustard 1963:121). While it IS u'lcertam conSIderable SignS of detenoratton. Specifically whether all the armament was actually p'-oVlded, they reported that: the "New Fort at the entrance of the H;mor on Mill pomt" was allocated, "16 Guns Cann'D 42lbs it IS absolutely necessary That Shott" and "12 Demi Cannon6 36 lb Shott" large QuantitIys of Ballast Stones (Mustard 1963:131). It was also not utiI May Should be thrown at the foot of 1709, however, that the ISsue ofcompensatmgJohn the Piles of the Battery WhICh the King for hIS plantation was brought up. At that Committee are of Opmlon IS the tIme King appeared before the House and only way for effectually preservmg t requested £300. In reply the House sent out the same ag • all Hurncanes and Incroachments of the Sea. the North East Pomt Ought to be 5 Carbme or carabme, IS a kmd of fire-arm, Secur'd with Pine Saplins, Marsh shorter than the musket and often used by t"e cavalry mudd & Oyster Shell a Lare of and other troops. each m the same manner IS already done WhICh they find to 6 As the name Implies. the demI-cannon has a stand fIrm and good, and that the smaller bore than a cannon.

31 same be forthwIth done before plank of the EmbrazIer7 on the the hurrIcane tIme approaches. battery IS mtrrely gone & great several BastIons ought to be part of the mudd wall washed floar'd wIth Cypress plank & ShIp away & that the Com'ittee are of Carnages made for the Guns opmlOn great part of the thermo the Parts m the remamder will likewISe be carned Battery ought fortwith to be fac'd off. The Com'ittee are ofOpmlOn wIth Bncks and Cypress pland. that between the Pallasadoes of that two wells ought to be Sunk the outward breast work be filled m the Battery for the use of the up WIth oyster Shells from the Great Guns m case of an pomt adjommg to the Fort. That Engagement. upon reVIewmg the breach m the North east pomt the Magazme find it unfett to still IS unrepaued & grows worse preserve powder wIthout some by every storm so that there IS an more effectual method be taken absolute neceSSIty for repamng by makmg Draught for AIr as thereof & Ballast as shell thrown shall be thought proper by before it to protect it form the makmg Funnels for an Inlett to encroachmt. of the Water. That the same. Cpt House the South West BastIon IS m great Armoury and Store Room danger; if not timely secur'd With ought to be RalS'd Eight foot large ballast & other out works. hIgher, Convement Windows putt That there IS an absolute m to gIVe AIr to the Arms (Salley neceSSIty of an lII1lIlediate reparr, 1944:29-30). of the dwelling house there bemg nothmg done smce the last View. The next day the Commons House receIved a That outward draw bndge IS proposal made by Arthur Hall to secure the mtrrely rotten. That the gun's northeast bastIon of the fort. Specifically he ought to be lifted to See what suggested makmg: ConditIon the carnages & Axsel threes are m; & that the a Mudd Wall Eighty feet Long magazme IS not a fit place to Twenty feet WIde Six foot of keep any quantity of powder m. WhICh to be solid Mudd & the that Ladles Ram'ers & Remr of Timber & Oyster Shells Spunges8 are Wantmg (Salley the saId Wall to be Six foot hIgh 1945:50-51). the Front whereof to be secured by piles drove m the Ground for ThIS plea for repaIrs was taken more senously and WhICh ConSIderatIon doe expect £634.2.0 were appropnated for at least some ofthe the Sum'e of Two hund'd & fifty needed reparrs (Salley 1945:69) although CUrIously, pounds & the pnvilege of gettmg thIS seems to have had little Impact. the Timber that's wantmg for the s'd Worck off the Publick's Lands (Salley 1944:37). 7 Embrasure, an opemng, WIdemng from By the next year the reVIew commIttee found little WIthm, made In the parapet for the purpose of allOWIng positive change, suggestmg that Hall's proposalwas a gun to be fired through It. rejected: 8 The sponge was used to clean the barrel and extmgulsh sparks WhICh mIght remam from the preVIOUS charge. The ladle was used to measure the correct charge of powder. The rammer was used to ram the charge horne, or compact It.

32 13 In 1726 the Commons agam heard of the 20 Hand Spikes , defectIVe problems at Fort Johnson and the committee's In the Magazme report IS quoted at length below' 60 lb: of powder, but damp First m the N .E. Bastlon9 In the Battery A Gun of Six pound called the 15 Gu'ns of 12 lb & 9 Ib sIgnal Gun the carnage broke. 1 dismounted 3 carnages bad 1 of 3 lb m Camage much honey The Condition of the Fort comb'd, Flaft staff Front of the Battery much Sunk Flagg and Pendant. & the work read to fall to pIeces, In the Curtam10 between the N.E. The Embrasseurs qUIte gone & BastIon the Tenaillell on the the Platt form so rotton cannot N.W Angle of the Fort. be used, so that there IS a 2 gun's of 6 lb: each ill lID'mediate necessity for thIS carnages m good order whole work to be through out 1 of Ditto carnage broke repaIred. and dismounted The foundatIon of the N.E. In the Tenaille comer of Ravelin 14 before the 1 Gun' of 2 lb: draw bndge undermmed and the dismounted & an old carnage work down. The Pallasadoes m In the S.W BastIon the Ditch & the other parts of the 1 Gun' of 2 lb: m a Fart mostly decayed. carnage m good order The bndge gomg mto the Ravelin Withm the Fort between 15 and wants much repaIr & the frame of 16 rounds of Round and Barr the Gate and Draw bndge m Sd. Shott Ravelin must be mtrrely new, the a Cooper ladle for the 12 lb: Parapett of that work IS quite Gun } level it havmg been left 12 Spunges & Ram'ers } unfinIShed when the last RepaIrS In Good order were made; The bridge leading 1 Worm12 40 launces } from the Ravelin mto the Fort IS 12 small Arms } m pretty good order requrrmg 12 Cartouch boxes filled as the only two or three new Planks but Capt. says rope IS wantmg for Pullies to the 12 DO. empty mner draw bndge. The Parapett of the S.W Bastion & some part on the Tenaille IS still unfinIShed & severall of the Parapetts round the Fort must be 9Diamond-shaped bastIons allowed cannonsto repaIred it havmg been much be pOSItioned so as to create a deadly cross fire Wlth shaken by finng of the Gu'ns those In an adjacent bastIOn. while the work was new. Platforms for all the Gun's withm 10 TIus IS the plaIn wall of a fortificatIOn the Fort are wantmg ----- connectIng two bastIons.

11 Tenaile, a small low work conSIstIng of one 13 These were most likely bars used as levers to or two re-entenng angles placed before the curtaIn wall tram the pleces by mOVlng the carnages from Slde to between two bastlOns. SIde.

12 ThlS was a corkscrew-like deVIce used to 14 ThIS lS a tnangular over work shIelding the remove unburned fragments of cartndge wrappIngs. fort's entrance from enemy fire.

33 of the FortificatIons & Johnsons Fort 500..0..0 (Salley 1946:78-80).

These detailed accounts allowed Ivers to reconstruct the appearance of thIS first fortificatIon, although at least some of the details Figure 7. ArtIst's reconstructIOn ofthe first fortification at Fort Johnson are speculatIve (Figure 7): (after Irvers 1970). the tnangular shaped fort sat on a low hill The Guard house m good RepaIr at the harbor's edge. & the Capt. house raISed and may A moat surrounded the structure be finIShed. on the land SIde, and the mud Cartndge paper & match & 6 from the moat, alternated WIth sIZable ladles are wantmg a Gin layers of pme saplings and oyster to mount several of the Gu'ns. shells, formed the wall. A palisade Ifthe Magazme ofJohnson's Fort was planted along the bottom of was filled m about three feet wIth the moat. At each comer of the bnck & alI funnels make 'twould wall was a bastIon with mounted prevent the damp WhICh distroys cannons. The entrance to the fort the powder kept there. was protected by a ravelin, a The Captns: account of expenee of detached 'V" shaped earthen wall powder not ready but promISes to and palisade. A drawbndge lay it before the Com'ittee m two spanned the ravelin's moat and or three days. another spanned the pnnClpal The Front of the moat between the fort and Battery & Platt ravelin. Guarding the harbor form to be mterely entrance was a battery of heavy new cannons constructed at the fort's The FoundatIon of base, or harbor side, several feet the Revelin lower than the fort Itself. The repaIred. The several battery wall, constructed of earth Parapetes to be retamed by dnved piles was finIShed, New Platt protected from the sea by a large forms to be made number of ballast stones. withm 4000..0..0 Although the number and the Fort. The gate composition of buildings mSIde of the Ravelin to be the fort vaned from decade to new & the Drawbndge decade, there was usually a repaIred commander's house, a barracks, a The Pallisadoes round guardhouse, a magazme, and a the Fort all new & storehouse. The houses were ten new Carnages a constructed by sldemg a frame of New Gin &ca heavy, hewn tIDlbers WIth clapboards and roofing it with For two Pernagoes shmgles. Durmg most of the to secure the ballast colonIal penod the barracks were for the servIce probably crude, post-framed, and of the several parts clapboard-SIded huts havmg

34 earthen floors (Ivers 1970:26). Thomas Brougton came to the defence of Sutherland, askmg the Assembly· A drawillg of the fortificatIon, made m 1737, reveals how accurate Ivers descnptIon IS (Figure conSIder with me, that as the last 8). The drawmg, commISSIoned by the Humcane made such great Conmllssioners on Fortifications, also reveals that DestructIon of that Fortress, as three structureswere present, the Captam'sHouse, well as ill the Buildings &c, as m the "Old Barracks,1I and the powder magazme. dismountmg and burymg the Guns m the Sand; it cannot be Not only was the fort almost always ill expected he could put the Same poor conditIon, but at least one of its commanders ill Order without bemg enabled was embroiled m controversy. Captam James and directed, WhICh cannot find Sutherland was appomted to command the fort m he has been (Easterby 1951.273). 1722, but was removed by the South Carolina Council ill 1729 Sutherland remarked that he was Broughton also added an additIOnal plea that the discharged ''without any regard to my past ServIces Assembly also conSIder lithe movmg Cercumstances or any Just Reason or Complamtll and the position of hlIDSelf and Family.1I Somehow Sutherland was IIsold to a Hatter who IS an utter Stranger not sUTVlVed the charges he was agam remstated ill only to Military DISCipline, but to the Use & 1739, only to die m 1740. While he receIved hIS almost Name of Armsll (letter from James back pay of a little over £81, the Assembly refused Sutherland,ca. 1729-1730, South Carolina Historual to pay hIS estate the £200 owed for the current Magazzne 68:81). He eventually receIVed a Royal year's salary (letter from James Sutherland, ca. CommISSIon and was remstated, only to be 1729-1730, South Carolina Histoncal Magazzne removed agam m 1737 after a Commons House 68:79n). mvestIgation found the fort and equIpment dilapIdated, the soldiers either ill-eqUIpped or While there are a number of mventones of absent from theIr posts, and Sutherland·'s two-year· the military Items and ordinance, at Fort Johnson, old son on the muster role (Ivers 1970:52). The a 1736/7 mventory prOVIdes a rare glimpse of the account of the fort mdicated that it was "in a more routme Items, mcluding a lantern, "speakmg rumous and defenseless ConditIon." It noted that: tl)lmpet," two "large lfon pots," an axe, a spade, a grmdstone, an lfon pestle and mortar, eIght there are at Present lodged ill the "narrow hoes, one com mill and one "iron Crow"lS saId Fort 190 Dutch twelve pound (Easterby 1951.261-262). ThIS mventory suggests Shot, unsIZable for the Cannon that life was spartan at Fort Johnson, WIth belongmg to the saId Fort, 60 relatIvely few of the Items expected for even a Twelve pounds SIZable, 170nme modest sIZe plantation -- and certamly not pounds Shot, 28 SIX pounds Shot, adequate eqUIpment to mamtam the fort's 30 lbs. of Powder, two Pieces of earthworks. Cannon fit for semce and 19 unfit. the Guns upon the A 1740 appraISal of Fort Johnson found upper Platform are grown rusty that the "Captam's House IS not habitable" and a and unfit for ServIce, through carpenter adVISed that It was not even worth Neglect of the Commanding repamng -- the culmmatIon of at least 16 years of Officer. the CarrIages are neglect. The comnllttee recommended rebuilding very much lIDparred for Want of the house "from the Bnck Work, which IS tIS frequent movmg, and that the Foundation." In additIOn, the commIttee Shot lay buned m Sand, and by recommended that barracks, a kItchen, and a store that Means have contracted so house be built, suggestmg that earlier facilitIes had much Rust that they can't with Safety be made Use of (Easterby 1951.234). 15 Possibly a reference to a crowbar. but more likely a grappling hook.

35 ~ 0\

.,..

;. J. ] \ J1 j~ .;. ri a • ...... - \ \ \I .-.- ·-..r·· 2l"""",.,.A.. "j.y. . \1 . rlt ~,..~,u;,. ~."". ,~(,(; ,.: 7t ~ "r l' .,.~... ". It.... ,/',,.,. flrT..\ ""'. . .A ell,.'" ,;r. ... . ~ C ()!I13",t",J ;r,. ,. ,,4. ,.. .iT. If" ,,1 r J'".11 y""r,..';.,.. .. ~ "Jl.~ ~.JnI/fltlt..l"JJ"""i II' )I,..y ,., ~.f' ,-i .. 11 _, J'lTtof .,,ltl, ,.?,.... 11t __ .... ./,,4 .....~" ... ,., ....1 .. J ,..,." ..,.,.. ".,;.,.~ 0,.,~l) J,;... fi.. n ......

: .. ... eo, ,:'(,'; I... C f' ";'e r" ,. ('-

Figure 8 Drawing of 1737 fortifications at Fort Johnson (National Archives, RG 77, P&R File, #270-2) completely collapsed (Easterby 1952:269). m good Order" (Easterby 1962:272). Apparently some level of mamtenance was undertaken smce ill 1742 the Assembly reported The French and Indian War, WhICh began that "it IS great SatISfactIon to us that Fort Johnson m 1754 and whIch was offiCIally declared two years IS already put mto a good Posture of Defence" later, caught South Carolina off guard. The (Easterby 1954:18). In 1744 additIonal funds were hurncane of September 15, 1752 was perhaps the raISed for the constructIon of new barracks worst South Carolina had SUrvIVed smce its (Easterby 1955:83). By 1745 the fort's armament founding (Ludlum 1963). The damage to low lymg lllcluded 33 cannon of 18, 12,9,6 pound shot with structures was extenSIve and Governor James Glen a garnson of up to 25 men. In spIte of the fort noted that the "shadow" fortificatIOns as he called belllg m the best conditIon smce Its ongmal them, were wrecked. In an effort to strengthen the constructIon, the Assembly was nohcmg that It colony from feared French attacks, William wasn't likely to be a very effectIve fort: DeBrahm was IDVlted to VISIt and offer hIS expertISe. [the fort] cannot be remforced under some Hours by the MilitIa DeBrahm wrote that Fort Johnson was of that Island, WhICh consISts of about 2% miles southeast of Charleston and that between seventy and eIghty Men, the fort had barracks for 50 men (prOVIding unexperIenced In the additIonal support for the pOSIted expansIOn). He Management ofgreat Guns orthe remarked that: Defence of fortified Places. That beSIdes thIS there IS an open thIS Fort lays on a hIgh Bluf, unguarded Channel through Hog commands the Channel, WhICh IS Island Creek. By a late Survey of hear only % of a mile WIde, but WhICh It appears that any Vessel the ConstructIon and Age of thIS that can come over Charles Town place cannot afford much Bar may pass out of the Reach of Defence, unless from a new the Guns of Fort Johnson Battery, whIch IS lately erected at (Easterby 1955:477). its Foot, mountmg fifteen 18 pounders and five 9 pounders, m While South Carolina couldn't do much about the all twenty cannons, rather too deep water channels or the range of the guns, weak a Battery to stop a vessel Governor James Glen urged the Assembly that from passmg. they could mcrease the SIZe of the command at Fort Johnson: The Author proposed Anno 1755 to Governor Glen a the Barracks of Fort Johnson are Project of a new Fort at the same not capable of contammg more place, with two (VIde, a high and Men than are already there, low) battenes of 200 cannons though it IS absolutely necessary together, and a Bastion detachee to encrease the Number, neither m the Channel to mount 50 IS there the smallest Cannons more, and a Boom to AccommodatIons for any of the barncade the Channel between Officers. I therefore hope you will the Fort and Its detached Bashon come to ResolutIon of enlargmg (DeVorsey 1971:91). the Barracks for the Use of Forty pnvate Men and theIr Officers While thIS ambitIous new plan, shown m Figure 9, (Easterby 1956:109). mIght have accomplished all that DeBrahm promISed it, like most of hIS other schemes (such At least some ofthe requested changes were made as constructmg a moat to make Charleston an smce m 1749 the Assembly heard that "Fort ISland), was far too costly for South Carolina and Johnson but lately finIShed, and was not long ago

37 .- i ,I ;' I I / .' .. / I' I ~ i / /

.. .~ .

Figure 9. DeBrahm's plan for the Fort Johnson fortificatlOns, WhlCh were never lmplemented.

38 was never Iffiplemented. Its sIgnificance IS purely gorge19 closed, the gate protected by an earth­ that of a hlStoncal cunosity, revealing the many work, [and] a defensible sea wall of tapia extended efforts to make somethmg useful out of Fort the fortificatIon to the West and Southwest" Johnson. (Courtenay 1883:473). LIpscomb (1991.15) notes that the fort was reparred and plans were developed by LIeutenant Emmanuel Hess, an engmeer WIth the Royal Amencan RegIment, to enlarge the fort through the constructIon of a tabby hornwork on the land SIde. As the threat subSIded so too did the enthusIasm of the Assembly to pay for the work and constructIon was apparently never completed. Although no copy of the ongmal plan can today be Identified, a contemporary DesBarres map shows an eccentnc groundplan whIch suggests that he may have had access to Hess' plans and smply mcorporated them mto hIS drawmg without verifymg therr accuracy (LIpscomb 1991.15) (Figure 10).

Between the end of the 1750s and the begmnmg of the RevolutIOnary War there IS little record of actIVItIes at Fort Johnson. Although erOSIon certamly contmued, there were no major RG 77, Drawer 64, humcanes, so it IS likely that munediate threats to the fort seemed remote. In 1764 cracks appears m the seaward face ofthe old fort, some extending all the way down to the foundatIon. In spite of Its In spite of the Impending crISIS, m 1756 an rapIdly detenoratmg conditIon, Fort Johnson act was passed WhICh requrred all vessels to anchor obtamed notonety m 1765 as the landing place for at Fort Johnson for an mspection by a phySICIan. a supply of BntISh stamped paper carned by a The fort, for the first tlIDe m its hIStOry, was BritISh sloop-of-war. The local citJZenry formed a assocIated with the mamtenance of Charleston's battalion ofabout 150 men under the leadershIp of health (Cooper 1838:IV:28). In that same year a FranCIS Manon, Charles Pinckney, and Barnard report described the fort as conslStmg of only a Elliott and marched to Fort Johnson under cover thm case of bnckwork filled with loose sand. At of darkness, surprISed the garnson placmg them the water level, below the upper fort, a lower under guard, and securmg the stamped paper. The barbette16 battery had been constructed WhICh local forces raISed a flag with a blue field and three would probably present a greater threat to enemy white crescents. At daylight a BritISh officer was ShIpS than the mam fortificatIons (LIpscomb sent from the sloop to ascertam the meanmg ofthe 1991.15). By 1759 funds were finally approved for flag. Upon seemg the preparatIons and bemg told new constructIon at Fort Johnson and Courtenay that the volunteers mtended to burn the paper if it reports that atapal or tabby fort was built, wasn't retneved, the BritISh forces accepted the probably on the SIte of the first fort (Courtenay cargo and retreated from the harbor. ThIS action 1883:472). The new fort was apparently tnangular, was unprecedented, "Charleston paraded armed 18 "wIth salients!7 bastIoned and pnest-capped , the men by authonty of a Town meetmg, captured a BntISh fort while under the authonty ofthe crown,

16 TIns IS a platfonn or mound on WhICh guns are raIsed so they can be fired over the parapet. 18 A pnest-cap was an outwork With three 17 These are lines of earthworks whIch meet at salient and two re-entrant angles. an angle. 19 The gorge was usually the neck of a bastIOn. 39 and displayed a blue flag wIth three whIte a severe gale of wmd from the crescents, " ten years before the Amencan east WIth heavy ram. dnven RevolutIon ~legan (Courtenay 1883:474). ThIS by the gale about two miles verSion, hov,ler, has been disputed by Mary A. westward of the fort. Here they Sparkman, Secretary ofthe Histoncal CommISsIon, landed, WIthout a dry thread upon who noted that: them; theIr ammunitlon all wet, and therr match ropes and port It IS true that the stamped paper fires20 all fUmed. They WhICh arnved from England marched forward and fortune October 18, 1765, was placed at favored therr brave enterprISe. Fort Johnson, and the stamp They met no oppOSitIOn; not officers, Saxby and Lloyd went even the challenge of a sentmel there, feanng the wrath of the was heard; the BntISh troops had people ill Charles Town. But It eVidently abandoned the fort m was not until Monday mornmg haste; the guns were dismounted the 28th (of October) that a party or overturned, and everythmg left went over to Fort Johnson, m great confuSIOn. Every thmg fnends of the stamp officers, to bemg wet with the ram, they bnng them up to town under could not flash a pIStol, or therr protectIOn, They came otherwISe strike a light. William ashore at noon from a boat ill the Johnson bemg a pnvate ill head of which was hOISted a Captam Heyward's company, was UnIon flag (Le. a BntISh UnIon one of thIS expedition; while Jack) with the word "liberty" m gropmg hIS way m the dark, hIS the centre and a laurel branch on foot struck agamst somethmg m the top of the staff. ArrIved m one of barracks, WhICh, on town the stamp officers gave therr exammatton, proved to be bag voluntary, solumn pledge to an belongmg to the BntlSh gunner. assembled crowd, not to distnbute On openmg it, the first thmg that the stamps at that tIme, so the he put hIS hand upon was a tmder two men were allowed to go m box and matches. These gave hlffi peace to therr homes (notes on light, and kmdled a fire. Then, he file, City of Charleston ArchIVes). found m the bag a hammer, a cold chISel, and files; then gnnlets, At the start ofthe Amencan Revolution m nails, &c. They could now see the 1775 Fort Johnson was once agam seIZed, although situation of the cannon and thIS tIme by an order of the Council of Safety. No carnages, and could now proceed reSIStance was met and the South Carolina actIvely to clear and remount captured twenty-one guns (Courtenay 1883:474). them. By the dawn of day Johnson prOVIdes a detailed account of the attack: three of the cannon were mounted, ammunitIon and balls orders were accordingly ISsued to found m the fort, the guns Col. Motte, who detached loaded, and everythmg ready for Captam T Heyward's company of defence As soon as the the Charleston Artillery, WIth kmg's ship discovered that the others, to effect thIS duty. They fort was m the hands of the rebels embarked after dark, ill open they drew off, anchored near boats with every thmg Sullivan's Island, and were necessary to take the fort and retaIn possess of It Unfortunately, Just after they had 20 Port fires consIsted of a flammg compound embarked, they were overtaken by on a short stIck used to fire artillery pIeces.

40 subsequently expelled from that Lamboll. Since the plat bore the positIon also, bearmg off Lord date of 29 June 1775, however, William Campbell wIth them to the SUspICIon ames that the JamaIca (Johnson 1851:63-65). colomsts were more mterested m collectmg military mtelligence By at least November of 1775 work was underway about the defenses of Fort to erect a redoubt west of Fort Johnson, Johnson than m settmg a presumably to protect the fort from land attack boundary dispute (LIpscomb (Hemphill 1960:115). Courtenay reports that thIS 1991:16). supportmg battery mounted twelve guns and was loeated five hundred and forty-eIght yards (about In June of the followmg year General 0.3 mile) west of the fort (Courtenay 1883:474). Henry Clinton receIVed a report saId to be from About the same tIme Col. William Moultne, two Amenean deserters "of the Artillery mounted havmg been made commander of the fort, was for the Defence of the Town & Harbour of mstructed to stop and search all boats leavrng Charlestown, South Carolina." At thIS tlII1e Fort Charleston "in order that no correspondence be Johnson was thought to have sIXty guns of 26, 24, earned on, whIch mIght prove mJunous to the and 18 pounds (South CarolinIana Library, Ms. of colony m its present state" (Hemphill 1960:112). Henry Clinton, June 6, 1776). ThIS mformatlon was ofcourse bemg collected as the BritISh prepared to An undated map m the National ArchIVes attack Charleston. The June 28 attack was (RG 77, Drawer 64, Sheet 1) a copy of WhICh IS m mtended to land soldiers on Long Island, cross the files at nearby Fort Moultne, shows the outer Breach Inlet (separatmg Long from Sullivan's earthworks aSSOCIated with Fort Johnson, as well as Island) while the BritISh navy attacked Fort several structures (including a store house and the Moultne on Sullivan's Island. The plan resulted m "General's Quarters"), as well as the "West a SIgnificant loss for the BritiSh -- over 100 men Battery:' It seems possible that thIS map dates dead and at least one ShIp sunk (Rosen 1982:53). from the last quarter of the eIghteenth or first decade of the nmeteenth century and shows the While successful, perhaps thIS general area as it appeared shortly after the confrontation with war caused the General Amencan RevolutIon. It IS, however, notable that Assembly to react more favorably than it had m the earthworks between the harbor and the marsh the past when requested to Improve the defenses. to the south are different ill form thanthose shown A plan by General Robert Howe to case the old on the sIege map (Figure 11). masonry of the fort with palmetto logs was apparently approved, with the deSIgn mtended to A survey made m June 1775 by BenJamm prevent enemy cannon fire from shockmg the walls Lord, Deputy Surveyor, at the request of the and causmg theIr failure. LIpscomb also suggests CommISSioners of Fortifications, found Fort that by the late 17705 the fort may have taken on Johnson to mc1ude 89% acres "exclUSIve of the a quadrilateral shape (LIpscomb 1991.15). fort" (South CarolinIana Library, Horatio Gouverneur Wnght, May 8, 1883) (Figure 12). Charleston afterwards saw three years of The survey also reveales that the fort was not peace and some prosperity smce the harbor was situated on hIgh land, but was on a "bank of open. However, the SIege of Charleston began on shells." with the sea wall protectmg its northeastern April 13, 1780 and lasted for a month with the flank. LIpscomb notes that thIS survey was town finally surrendermg. Charleston remam conducted: occupIed by the BritISh for the remamder of the war and Rosen remarks that the "Revolutlon was ostensibly to settle a seventeen~ almost as much a CIvil war ill Charleston as it was year-old dispute over the a war for mdependence" (Rosen 1982:55). One boundary line between the public SIege map of Charleston (Figure 13) reveals the land and the adjommg property shape of the fort present at the tme, as well as belongmg to the helTs of Thomas earthworks thrown up between the harbor to the

41 +:0­ N

~\J.. ... ~ ~~ 1.. l{(!~3 • I'~

~ Oi..~.::-,,·//" ~' ...... - I ,~""",' 1-0 /. ". . ~~ ~".; ~~' ~-1!, -~ ~i .~ '~ It~\~~~"

-. ~-.------. l'

J ttf J'r .. , •,•• ...... ,- £" '!~- .~~~ G4" - I l

Figure 11 Late eighteenth century map showing outer defensive \oVOrks at Fort Johnson (National Archives, RG 77, Drawer 64, Sheet 1) A ,-~}I LEY KJ VEl\.

Otdo./I".-I", I.)'~ ~, '1flH A

-....

0,"

Figure 12. 1775 survey laYIng out the boundanes of Fort Johnson (NatIOnal ArchIves, RG 77, Drawer 118, Sheet 86).

north and a tributary of LIghthouse Creek to the south. A somewhat slffiilar BritiSh map (NatIonal ArchIves, RG 77, 1-14) shows the "enemy works" protectmg the rear of Fort Johnson, as well as the fortification and associated sea wall. Sir Henry Clinton's Siege Map of 1780 deSIgnates Fort Johnson as "destroyed" after the military actIon (National ArchIves, RG 77, Drawer 64, Sheet 77), although Courtenay remarks that "whether by military order or by I S LA ND storms IS not known" (Courtaney 1883:475; however, see below for Figure 13. 1780 sIege map shOWIng Fort ohnson (S.C. Department 0 ArchIves and History, SC Map CollectIon, MB 2-6). another commentarywhich suggests the fort was destroyed by the retreatmg coloniSts). Engmeer for the State of South Carolina, for an After the BntiSh evacuated Charleston at enclosed battery of eIght guns, near the locatIOn of the end of the RevolutIon on December 14, 1782 the old fort, WhICh IS shown on the drawmg dashed attentIon was agam turned to the defence of the lines, suggestmg an advanced state of disrepaIr. harbor. Courtenay reports that m 1787 plans were More lffiportantIy, the map shows the barracks, submItted by Col. John Chnstian Senf, the four unlabeled structures, the "Commandant's

43 House" as a cluster of at lest three buildings on a bake house and the Artificers21 shop. nse, and the Gunner's House conslStmg of two structures also on a nse. Nearby IS "Bunker Hill" One of the few references to the fort m (Figure 14). thIS penod IS a June 28, 1800 letter from the commander of the fortifications to Washmgton, In 1791, dunng George Washmgton's D.C. where he declined a shIpment of drugs southern tour, he VISited the garrnon at Fort mtended for the hospital. He noted that: Johnson and LIpscomb reports that Washmgton: unfortunately I am at present walked a short distance east and without a Surgeon's Mate -- Dr. mspeeted the rums of the fort Thomas who has been appomted (1708-1779). He described the ill the place of Dr. Dalcho, has works as "quite fallen." An earlier been here but two mghts and one VISitor's travel diary had been day; he offered hIS reSIgnatIon to more specific: "The Irregular the Secretary of War and left me works, ofno partIcular strength or Without medical aSSIStance (South compass, are run up of oyster­ Carolimana Library, Constant shells and lime, They were ill part Freeman, June 28, 1800). blasted by the Amencans themselves when they abandoned Beyond thIS, an April 1807 report by LIeutenant thIS fort m [1779], and storms and Colonel Jonathan Williams reported that, "Nothmg waves have done the rest" has been saId as to the present state of Fort (LIpscomb 1993:34). Johnson, as the subscriber does not perceIve that Fort Johnson ill the Nineteenth Century any part of the rums can be brought m to use unless it be by formmg a mass m front to prevent Although Senfs plans had not been the future depredatIon of the sea" (South implemented by the tune of Washmgton's VISit m Carolimana Library, HoratIO Gouverneur Wright, 1791, they were still alive and a vanatIon were built May 8, 1883). to the rear of the preVIous forts by William Moultne m 1793 (Courtenay 1883:475, South It appears that sametnne between 1800 Carolinmna Library, HoratIo Gouverneur Wnght, and 1807, perhaps as the result of the September May 8, 1883). ThIS work was later repaIred by the 7, 1804 hurncane, that the fort was abandoned. U.S. Government (Courtenay 1883:475). An 1800 Whether gamsoned or not, it seems clear that its map (Figure 15) proVides exceptIonal aSSIStance ill conditIon had been allowed, once agam, to decline.

I1puttmgtogether" many ofthese eIghteenth century By 1812, when hostilitIes with England were forts. It shows the plan of the 1793 fort built by certaill, re-establishmg the fort was agam critIcal Moultne, as well as how much of thIS fortificatIon and General J.G. Swift reported that two battenes was destroyed by the October 1800 "gale." It also at the fort would be ready for seIVlce m a short shows the additIonal battery built by the U.S. tIme (South Carolimana Library, HoratIo Government ill 1794 and the barracks added ill Gouverneur Wnght, May 8, 1883). While sources 1796. At least some of the early 1759 tabby works at NatIOnal ArchIVes have not been explored to are also shown to the west of the current forts, Identify maps of these battenes and assocIated along the edge of the water (and WIth a bastion m defenSIve works, it seems that the effort was the water). The palmetto works from the limited and perhaps even ·'half-hearted." In 1815 RevolutIOnary War are also shown north and east of the current fort, as well as some additIOnal LIeutenant James Gadsden of the works erected by Moultne. The map also reveals Engmeers reported to General the locatIon of three wells, the forfs hospital, the

21 An artificer was a soldier-mechamc attached to the ordnance, artillery. or engmeer seIVIce to construct and repaIr military matenals.

44 ~ ~ A ",,~,,~~~"""~':'~~JI1i AshlJ - River rtWii5<"))

...M... w.w..f . -' ~<"'L .J .!.' ::::. ,It _• ,.- L' PLAN L?~? ofall mc~sed 0'\ 13aLteTj 11' \ // 11{ £lI.r !,NjU'Sf!d, to It J; .L..Q..I.f;~ -c mId/,: ~7td; onJ/zmes 1:I'R~r... '?~ 7lca'llle ..:J>-Iaa tf -ae ot -_:~~~+; .~.itm" _ 1181~ ~-:, ~--'\ " . -, .r~<~~..l&? ~. 1.' • ~: . ~ 0 _- .. ~v~ "- '~~ ~-~ :'),;:.: 4­ ~ I~ ., ·vl--...w.- '" ------. '~':'..:. ~heb~7/k·~ I~ :'>-f: .'_.~ ~::' ~.~~)'-*- __ ~- __ ::.....;fi~~ 1 ....:>. ,-of .f? .~ r(-.u<~ ,,0 N t- ~ .='J__ ~ ...... _-- .' 'J. • *"\. - ..... ~ ~- -~ ...... J .. ~. .. ~',~ - ~,-..l;...:-:' -- -.M.~ - ~ ~,:'II .,~ ~ ,~. ~:.; ~.... ~,,~II/II _~:>~~ -~... ~-=- -':f._4:"_.~!<,=--':-~~J/;>:. ~ ~ ~~~ ::.~ _ ~.- .fllrT7'J"h -u...- .,.. ---oiloo.- ?:::;); -~ ~F\~'~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r· 0 -'"'------,- 71/it: IIi,S' 0 , -w.a.- - ~. _ -- _ ..IV.. - --- ...... )/. \ t.....<...... ,:\ ...... ~ "U/.1I : .... _- ~ -. '.:-.. \." S" ' -~l' ~ ~ -:~ ~. ;r ..,>J!I!!",- ~ .. ... - '( ~ .. -.-.lII6-. --- t2 "' )(' ~~:\ - ~ ~ _ ~ ~. ::@ :;/' , \- <~ ~,,-"'~ -~ (J(~,,,L.U,:r";ftJ,g;fJJ/,""{7X/.. I~ 4. .• '._--§~~\ ~~;:::===:::...... e.-. -"'- a«a.,.Hup --:1 rf7J nr.t. ""'~"FCJ4'~·Ot(7."..~>J~ / ~ .I ~~ ~ - 'W§': -;"#~(III:~~ ~. - -= 7 //) /7 // CAJ' ,- // ~ :1 Ie ~ 0." .. ~~J!:..jif/III\~~ --~~ _. r-n~7~utf~6/~vrd'~.71~&-~ / (~ I.,,> { I N::==-.I.II"'\\~~.:Jo..... -. ~ ~ I vj<' g-~ "I.G;Q ~ ~ :,.....~ __ . L:I\I~;~~:'\I\\\~:\' '1\\:'-"-- _ --A!. - _~I' c/d ~-J.#~K"-~0;-h/un-/~J.~/-/~"7 ,v I _ ,,, I', 11 ", , ,.-- ,v -. t:)V" } ,liAl~n'~~~¥WJ!I~~~,I't~'I;\\.ft"'.. "::""(,'"- .:;....-' .... 1 rn<~~~ a-~ht.e.£~7f~~d~ t??V ...... r& 0' '~ ." 1l~\\~ ~.~ • I\~\ ~ -~:: 0" ~ ~(?ad; ~~ :f'u~/~~ \•. ;_._f,e: - ...... -. /~r,1~- ~~ ~ ~. £- Y ilL.:' . _- --J'. • -~ -- ",.. --.L- - Figure 14 1787 plan of the Fort Johnson area by Colonel John Christian Senf +>­ VI ,o~o J a.'t'US ..i-";.,tJo·- '.ft. ·to .t.:>-r,.Pi 'Y: Ck't'leV ~ S',,-.l<,"'.:: ":-.::~­ ::'1 64 ya~'d~ ~-(Y.l':W W :Ful'~ 1v.te~.~I~"~~_ , .. C;"'"~""·."':'C':'T. - ~ \; \

~ \

\\\ \ \ \ \ \

Chal.. les{.Oll If a.rl ,j Oc:t..obe,.. 1Soo

Figure 15. "Plan of Fort Johnson" datmg to 1800.

46 Swift as follows. Fort Johnson IS little better than rooms for the garrISon and haVIng a platform on a battery m rums the gale of 1813 havmg nearly top for the mountmg of one or two guns. The destroyed it. LIeutenant Gadsden recommended name comes from Cape Mortella m CorISlca where the abandonment of the site and the constructIon a tower of thIS type was captured only with some of a new work a 12 gun battery a short distance ill difficulty by the English on two separate occaslOns. the rear of it (South Carolinlana Library, Horatlo The English were so Impressed with these towers Gouverneur Wnght, May 8, 1883). that a number were built for the defence of the BritISh ooast. There are a number SUrvIVIng on Another survey was conducted ill 1821 by Captam England's south coast, m Ireland, on the Channel W.T Poussm of the TopographIc Engmeers and Island, and elsewhere. As late as the 1867 the fort was still shown m rums, no Improvements publicatIon ofSailors Workbook the martello tower havmg been made (Figure 16). The survey does, was noted to be an excellent defenSIVe work smce however, show the locatIon of a storehouse, bemg round, It was difficult to hIt WIth cannon fire. quarters, barracks, and the powder magazme. The fortificatIons present are shown on thIS survey and Sutcliffe reports that very few towers were conSISt of remnants of several preVIOUS "forts. In built ill North Amenca and only two were located March 1826 the Board of Engmeers referred to on the AtlantIc coast of the United States. One Fort Johnson has havmg "a few remams." The very was ill GeorgIa at the mouth of the Savannah next year the descnptlon was downgraded to RIVer and the otherwas on James Island. Although "scarcely a vestIgage remams" (South Carolinxana the date of constructIOn has not been verified, Library, HoratIO Gouverneur Wnght, May 8, Sutcliffe remarks that It was likely the first of the 1883). Courtenay reports, from unspecified two, bemg built perhaps as early as 1821 (Sutcliffe sources, that m spite of these reports two 1972:153). When new It measured 38 feet III permanent buildings and a martello tower were heIght, had a base diameter of 52 feet, and ItS added to the fortificatIon sometune later. walls were 10 feet thIck. Cunously, unlike ItS European counterparts, the James Island martello An 1833 map of the Fort (Figure 17) tower had no central pillar to support the flat roof, mdicates that while the fortifications had been "but mstead there was an unWIeldy constructIon of allowed to fall mto rums, Fort Johnson was a radiatmg beams not unlike the spokes of an thnvmgmamtenance facility for the U.S. Board of umbrella" (Sutcliffe 1972:153). By 1833 the tower Engmeers. Figure 17 illustrates that the fort reqUITed extenSIVe repaIrs, the flat roof and mcluded a wharf and two small docks; the parapet haVIng rotten, and some alteratIons were engmeer's quarters (or barracks); quarters for the undertaken. The walls of the tower were used as clerks, master carpenters and masons, and the parapet, lowermg the wooded barbette floor by commISary; store rooms and offices, mcluding the about 8 feet. The other recommended alteratlons Doctor's office; a carpentary work shop; the were apparently not 1IIlplemented smce a 1846 overseer's tool house; a blacksmith shop; the "old draWIng reveals the structure to be the same as It magazme" (still standing), WhICh was mtended to was drawn 10 1833. KeIth reports that the wooden be used as a CIStern; a house for the overseer, Mr. members burned ill 1859 and the tower was never Peronneau, WhICh also prOVIded boarding for rebuilt (Keith 1984). mechanICS; a house for the steamboat captam, Mr. Maxcy, whIch also served as a boarding house; and The 1833 plat, however,also reveals that "negro houses." The map also shows two sheds "in the summer village, discussed below, covered an rums," as well as four "pumps," WhICh appear to be area of 900 feet south of the fort area. Other CISterns and/or wells. To the southeast of the structures were scattered over the 90 acre SIte facility are the begmnmgs of a summer planters' (NatIonal ArchIves, RG 77, Drawer 64, Sheet 9). village (discussed m more detail below). Included were houses for Dr. Lebby (likely Dr. Robert In 1843, Edmund Ruffin VISIted Fort Lebby) and Captam RIVers, as well as a church. Johnson durmg hIS survey of the state. At the tme a Captam Bowman was commander of the Martello towers were small CIrcular forts fortificatIon. Bowman was also spending much of with maSSIVe walls, usually contammg vaulted hIS tIme collectmg and transportmg oyster shells

47 &

lJraWtr6j: Skeet .9.

_".B

~nj k~lI>ll f {' ,J/,yt,,,,,,:t',,, ('n~?~....i" nUl

) , / T",n', /,In>L .21'J~ "t\ I 3 f,,, bi~e.,,1 p~' r;;r< II "'" III I I .. , 'i'. -\ /;1' al(111.: -J' nt. L,~/'d" 1""/. J" 1',,_ .I" /"' I I'

L i F m Br: ~.. /" ? L J. ... 11>, ~f .t::~ ~~

7!v!:-/, .,. /:h !'..e-AA ..~·1W'l....._""'~4...'If'!f.!-;"'~-"'".. _. ~#/'II hi tA, f'~L.'td Figure 16 1821 survey of the Fort Johnson fortifications (National Archives, RG 77. Drawer 67. Sheet9) / /

,_.. _ .. ~CA.l...1'. C''}' S~l'."'i' .....'h...].. &. I... ,ftl zC;

Figure 17 1833 map ofFort Johnson shoWing actIVItles assocIated WIth the U.S. Board ofEngmeers (NatIOnal ArchIves. RG 77. Drawer 67. Sheet 14).

49 I Al.AJ:1Y'iT:Al Jl., ~RAI)ViJ··jfAV'rr. ~/,(;',." .."-j.'f-(j,,,1"-01<'<'''/00.0/('hi .,.('~ r/ .PO/}7' J £I';'..I.,/yJ O/X: Clzarl....d(1n /f",.!,cHU· .r.e .hOWUI/fih",rf'ON

I/~ ---,----.1/3 /,. / / ./

r= r ...

Figure 18. A portIon of Johnsonville planters' village In 1842 (National ArchIves, RG 92, P&R File, Map 270-3).

50 from a nearby oyster bank or rake, although Ruffin Presbytenan Church, but also a school house. does not explam if the shells were bemg used at Although commeraal establishments are not the fort. It IS possible that they were bemg used to shown, the lower part of the map IS cut off and stabilize the shore and retard further erosIon. other plats, while not labeled, reveal that thIS likely Ruffin descnbed hIS VISit m some detail: represents only a quarter of the total village.

Old Fort Johnson two miles By 1848 Tuomey's chief mterest m Fort below Charleston, IS no longer Johnson was to note that the remams there offered mamtamed for defence & mdeed an mterestmg example ofcoastal processes. Notmg there IS no fortification, except for that ongmally built on dry land, "the foundatIon a ndiculous watch [?] Tower. ThIS may now be seen on the strand, at low water" site of the fort IS used by the (Tuomey 1848:198). planters of the ISland as theIr summer resIdence, & there IS By 1842 there was renewed mterest m quite a village ofsmall houses, of attemptmg to mamtam Fort Johnson and a senes plam &unpretending appearance. of yearly plans were developed for Jetties, shell I heard here some cunous facts m piles, log emplacements, and sand filled berms -­ regard to the local limits of the all deSIgned to cease the contmued erOSIOn. One malana from WhICh thIS spot IS plan (National ArchIVes, RG 77, Drawer 67, Sheet exempt, though no person's life 22) reveals that a manne railroad had been built at would be safe if sleepmg one the northwest comer of the property. OtherwISe, mght but 100 yards back from the the buildings shown on earlier maps were still ill beach. The old hospital stood place and bemg used m a SImilar fashIon. about half as far m the rear; & every phySICIan who succeSSIVely attended it was of the opmIon Fort Johnson and the Civil War that one end was healthy & the other SIckly, from bemgsubject to Fort Johnson apparently did not see a malana. A few of the houses of great deal of actIOn, nor did it generate any the summer reSIdents are below specific mterest, agam until the Civil War. There & a little back from the water are a number of references datmg from thIS penod behmd a narrow marsh. ThIS and thIS synOpSIS will mention only a few, situatIon IS as healthy as the concentratmg of events and maps which are most others on the beach; but it IS likely to help mterpret and evaluate the site. supposed that directly between Confederate forces occupied the fort sometlDle these houses & the others, though pnor to April 12 and had constructed two battenes not 150 yards apart, there was an descnbed at some length by Robert Lebby, who mterval subject to malana, & to was statIOned at Fort Johnson dunng thIS penod aVOId walkmg through WhICh at and who later served as the Quarantme Officer: mght, a foot bndge was made across the narrow marsh to the there were two mortar battenes beach (Mathew 1992:102). erected at Fort Johnson for the reduction of Fort Sumter. One One of the more mterestmg maps of thIS village IS situated on the front beach, reproduced here as Figure 18 (NatIOnal ArchIves, ffildwaybetween old Fort Johnson RG 92, P&R File, Map 270-3). It shows the names and the Lazaretto pomt, and of at least a few reSidents, mcluding Joseph directly west of Fort Sumter, and Hinson, Jonothon Rivers, Robert Lebby, John known as the beach, or east, Minot, William Godber, William Mathews, Horace battery, and the other was RIVers, Mrs. Calder Michel, Elijah RIVers, William located due northwest of the Seabrook, Thomas Legare, and Winborn Lawton. former on a hill near some houses It also reveals that the village had not only a and contiguous to the present

51 Figure 19 Captam T. Seymour's draWlng of the Fort Johnson area as seen from Fort Sumter m April 1861.

quarantme resIdence. The seems likely that the second, or hill, battery remams of thIS battery are still mentIoned by Lebby could not be seen by Seymour plamly VISible. It was known as and was therefore not mcorporated mto hlS VIew. the hill, orwest, battery. The east, LikeWISe, the seaward battery was probably not orbeach,battery has been washed mentIoned by Lebby smce It was not a mortar away by the sea The post battery and did not partICIpate m the mitlal Fort Johnson consISted, at that shelling. But perhaps of greatest Importance m date [April 12, 1861], of these two Seymour's drawmg are the number of houses battenes of mortars and a compnsmgthe planters'summervillage (Figure 19). company of mfantry as reserves, all under command of Captam The first shot begmnmg the Civil Warwas George S. James, South Carolina fIred from the east, or beach, battery on April 12, State troops (Lebby 1911:142). 1861, with the second shot commg from the west battery seconds later. After thIS mitIal few hours of Lebby also reveals that the mfantry were encamped glory, or mfamity, Fort Johnson lapsed mto a not far away, near the martello tower and the military routme dommated by fatIgue duty. A letter Confederate troops attempted to blow up at least from William Gyles to hIS mother m February 1862 one of the nearby houses, owned by a Mr. Greer, suggests that the pace contmuedthroughout much feanng that it was too close to the hill, or west, of the war, "we have been workmg very hard the battery (Lebby 1911.143, 144). ThIS house was last few days buildingbattenes" (South CarolinIana almost certamly one of the summer houses Library, William Alfred Gyles, February 22, 1862). mentIoned by Ruffin m 1843. The "Map ofCharleston and Its Defenses" A senes ofpanoranncdrawmgs were made drawn m 1863 (Figure 20) illustrates at least In by a Captam T Seymour from Fort Sumter m general form the earthworks at Fort Johnson, as February 1861. The one for Fort Johnson well as the locatIon of Battery HarlestoD to the illustrates the beach battery, describmg it as bemg southwest, an unnamed battery to the southeast, "constructed upon the beach of sand, with plank and Battery Simpkms at the end ofShell Pomt. Off revetment. A line of sand-bags on the east, for the project tract were Battenes Wampler and mfantry fire. Number of mortars unknown." The Cheves. An essentIally IdentIcal map, Map of the martello tower locatIon IS shown WIth the notatIon Defenses of Charleston Harbor, 1863-65," wa~ that it had been "destroyed by fire some years produced some years after the Civil War by JohIJ smce," mdicatmg that it was m rums (but still Johnson. standing) pnor to 1861. A second battery IS shown on the pomt, "constructed of sand its form. In April 1863 the Dmon forces madt Three embrasures, two ofwhich are directed upon theIr first, unsuccessful, attempt to take For the anchorage toward Castle Pinckney, the thIrd Sumter. While Fort Johnson was m range of thl toward, but not upon, Fort Sumter. They contam attack, Burton notes that smce all its guns werl three guns of light caliber saId to be 24 pdrs." It tramed on the mner harbor, they were not able tf

52 partiCIpate m the battle (Burton 1970:138-140). A Wnght explams that: second effort III September of the same year was no more successful, although Fort Johnson did when it [Fort Johnson] fell mto partiCIpate m repulsmg the Umon forces (Burton the hands of the United States m 1970:192). Another bnef bit of hIStory occurred at February 1865 the armament was

I Fort Johnson on August 30, 1863 when the as follows: : submanne Hunley, tied up at the wharf, was flooded and drowned five of her crewmen (Burton Water Battery 1970:230-231). 210" Columblad rifled & banded 2 10" Smooth bore I The fIrst of two amphibiOUS assaults on Extreme Left , Fort Johnson came on July 3, 1864 when troops of 4 10" Columbl3.ds smooth I the 52nd Pennsylvama Volunteer Infantry, the bore 127th New York Volunteer Infantry, and the Thrrd Flankmg Guns Rhode Island Artillery mtended to land south of { eight field pIeces Fort Johnson as part of a larger assault. Only a { one 8 siege howitzer small number of the troops, all from the 52nd one 32 pounder rifled & PennsylvanIa Volunteers, actually made landfall. banded Fired on by both Fort Johnson and Battery two 10" sea coast mortars SimpkIns the UnIOn forces were routed With no hope ofremforcements the Umon forces surrender The fort with its outworks formed an (Burton 1970:287). A second assault was made on entrenched camp of conSiderable strength July 10, 1864, although Keith remarks that "reports & capacity (South CarolinIana Library, of thIS second attack are scant and not much HoratIo Gouverneur Wnght, May 8, Importance seemed to have been placed on it 1883). (Keith 1975a:39). ThIS effort also failed, ending Courtenay (1883:477) notes that thIS account IS mcorreet, prOViding i tI!'. :u' I a different mventory of armament, although there seems to be little reason to debate the actual number of placement ofthe various pIeces, at least for the current study.

Shortly after occupatIon by UnIOn forces Fort Johnson and the other harbor defenses came under scrutmy and,a senes of plans were produced, mcluding two reproduced here (Figures 21 and 22). The first, sUlVeyed in between March and May 1865 by Brevet Major General R. Delafield proVides very detailed Figure 20. Charleston's defences dunng the Civil War around Fort mformatIOn on the fortificatIOns, Johnson. Including earthworks, gun emplacements, bombproofs, Battenes Harleston and Simkms, the remnant of the abortIVe attempts by the Umon forces to take the tabby seawalls, several structures, a cIStern, and Charleston. Fort Johnson was never assaulted the "remams of the Old Fort." An essentIally agam and stood until evacuated along with the Identical sUlVey was produced under the directIon other harbor defenses on the mght of February 17, of C.O. Boutelle, also m 1865 While It fails to 1865 illustrate any of the details outside the

53 Vl .;:::.

. "'",..'- ".ll.. ". ~,.. /~~ /._ ~-~~ pt" .".::'.. ",/ (te;:".~ f!.,., / ~~~ ~ ,/ ~ '-~- /'

&I."'~~~."~""

.•.;~:.;..~:..~~;~ .":.- ~~L~" 'r-

,'~ -.. :,;,\,,'r, ~ .. ~' \ : " . '\ ,"", All' """ 'u 0- ;~wh }, "'."""."F .... t ",," J ;::~,:;r " .1':,.,..., , ,.,."" .. .::-~ ;••U.I'7""II""'" ''\'!~J

Figure 21. Delafield's 1865 survey of Fort Johnson. .~J~,'(..... If!.~;..~. ,/u,w,.,d 1(,,,,,..,'1 III /1" ...." .~,.,,' •• , ,J.. ,Y',Vr.

"1,« I J...r~ u~'"

/! ~/~ "itll

1Il1lN~IlN ,JJrA~r:t,· _,....._~~ 1\\\ IEIIY t;lnv!-:n u \rT~H\ W\MI I t:1t 1'1lItl __ 3{ . f,). <",'_ "yl I~ ...... ,.. 'fowl ,.:...

0-7-.,.-.. ., .... lo-_J"o_ ~')'~~~:.I

H~"",,.·'i"" ..,.IlIw.,.'.... : _....,. ;; " "•...0;.";:: '_ 0' 1~~ ~1l.!L .'l' "~~.~_, , ~I.:-j,-'.'" :~-::::' . ~ '. __ •• '" .'. . '. ... ',"'.:"" ..... ~."\ .,,",.m,-,,~'C~, ~~~ ~ 'n -:-- ~ <

~ _!!~~~ ...."

~---::;-;~ ~~ ~; ,* .jf!j,rL i ~2\~~«~ ~. f,"

=~

~

_~"\....Cl_ ~-~ IlK

II \I 11':111 1l\!'lKAII ...·,.1 , ... No.! ~~~~._--~ L:\.-.L}. ." ...... ,. .. or .... _ .... 11 H CU\!'\I Ml'l\\ E' '~' _CL~ D~_-.L\ nEFI~NCES LL...... Cl _ ... . or CHAHLESTON I1AHBOH ""('./1$

FnnlIF1('''IION~ON .1Al\Il... S I~LANI) R'IJ(;l.u ~ u./~~" -vnllin of 111 ",vn", '''''.,m I '~Ir"lIIfltI, II' I, tI,;"''''"J" III rfJ.lJuul,lI" 1...... / ("nll'. , .. ~1r:=J\ ~~~v.":\__~ I~" I'.;~fr Ilf II'd/,.,tlu; 1,1'1 -:;j:,.~ 0,:,." I.~M -..~~ ~"'.1 .... "

1..,hllnw•••)(:;;-fhAa... Figure 22 Boutelle's 1865 "Defences of Charleston Harbor - Fortifications on James Island" Vl Vl fortifications, the earthworks and various batteries Lebby's brother, Brewerton Monroe Lebby, may are clearly shown. Curiously, both of these plans have served as a quarantine officer at Fort Johnson fail to reveal any evidence of the planters' village prior to Robert's service. He indicates that Robert which existed as late as February 1861, suggesting Lebby did not assume duties at Fort Johnson until that the Confederate forces had razed all of these either 1876 or 1878 and continued to serve until buildings in the intervening years. 1906 when the U.S. Public Health Service took over control of the facility (Waring 1967:256, 258). There are also a series of photographs Regardless, Lebby was clearly at Fort Johnson by taken by Union photographers which show the 1880 when he wrote his father in Charleston about condition of the works and the associated visiting since there were no infected ships at Fort encampments shortly after the Confederate Johnson which required his attention (Lebby evacuation. Many of these have been published by Family Papers, South Caroliniana Library, August Keith (1975a) and one is shown here as Figure 23. 11, 1880). It is also clear that Robert Lebby was at Fort Johnson during its most active period at the The 1866 "Charleston Harbor and Its close of the nineteenth century. Approaches" (Figure 24) shows the extensive planters' settlement at Fort Johnson, but none of The exact nature of the transfer of the the Civil War defenses, suggesting that the Coast property from the federal government to South Survey Office simply used earlier surveys without Carolina is not clear, although documents at the modification orcorrection, Consequently, this map National Archives reveal that reservation was probably shows the area as it appeared in the late "originally ceded to the U. States by the State of 1840s or 1850s. South Carolina, 17th Dec. 1805 and subsequently resurveyed and regranted to the U. States by Act Postbellum Use of Fort Johnson as a of Legislature of South Carolina dated December Quarantine Station 18, 1846" (National Archives, RG 77, Drawer 189­ SC 5-2). By February 7, 1880 the S.C. Board of On March 4, 1872 an Act was passed by Health had applied to the United States the South Carolina legislature to establish government for use of Fort Johnson (Nationa] quarantine stations at Georgetown, Charleston, Archives, RG 77, Drawer 67, Sheet 43; reproduce, and Hilton Head. After only six months 366 vessels here as Figure 25). This application reveals th( has passed through the Charleston station, while location of three structures, an old buoy shed, th( only 44 were reported in Beaufort and 122 were existing ''health officer's house" likely occupied b~ inspected at the Georgetown harbor. Dr. Robert Dr. Lebby, and a "negro dwelling." The Lebby, who had previously been stationed as a accompanying map, however, incorporates only, Confederate soldier at Fort Johnson, was little over 31 acres. Presumably the remainder 0 appointed the Quarantine Officer and reported the Fort Johnson tract was continued to bl that the quarantine crews and health officers had maintained as federal property. not yet been paid (Lebby 1872:727, 734). In spite of what appear to be continuing problems, Lebby Even while the quarantine station wa wrote to Dr. Harvey E. Brown, the U.S. Inspector operating at Fort Johnson, the site's militar of Quarantine, that: importance was still being considered. Wright note that in 1881 the Board of Engineers "reported th< quarantine laws are municipal ifFort Johnson was armed with large barbette gur acts, to be regulated by the it would add to the protection of Charleston l several states ....I am of that it should therefore be preserved" (Horat: opinion that it is not advisable for Gouverneur Wright, South Caroliniana Librar the General Government to May 8, 1883). assume the charge of the quarantine (Lebby 1872:737), About the same time a more detail( inventory of the site was conducted: a view which recalls states' rights debate of only a few years earlier. Waring suggests that Robert This old earthwork,

56

of Health. These buildings are Drawer 67, Sheet A). one frame house 70x25', three rooms; in good condition and Perhaps the best synthesis of quarantine used for storage purposes. Two activities in the late nineteenth century comes from small one-story frame buildings, a series of papers published by Dr. H.B. Horlbeck, each containing one room 12' x City of Charleston Health Officer (see Horlbeck 12'; in fair order and used as 1890, 1891 for examples). In these articles offices. There are besides some Horlbeck explains the operation of the quarantine rough cabins on the reservation, laws in Charleston, noting that their recently occupied by colored people under adopted approach was the "Holt System," named whose authority is not known, but for the health official (Dr. Joseph Holt) who there seems to be no occasion for devised the method in New Orleans several years disturbing them. earlier. In fact Charleston's health officials visited New Orleans with a draftsman in 1889 in order to The fresh water supply of develop the plans "out from which the present the Fort Johnson reservation is plant [at Fort Johnson] was constructed" (Horlbeck represented by two tanks, holding 1890:151). Horlbeck offers one of the few about 6,000 gallons each. descriptions of the facility:

February 24, 1874 Gen. two wharves have been built, with Gilmore submitted a project for a convenient pier heads affording battery for four 13-inch mortars, 22 feet of water at low tide. to be placed south of Fort Disinfection and fumigation are Johnson, gun battery as originally practices from one, and ballast­ constructed, and facing the listing at the other. On the ballast channelbetween forts Sumter and wharf, to the west, there is a Moultrie; thus reserving the old steam winch, capacity twenty tons position of Fort Johnson for its per hour, railroad track and cars eventual restoration as a gun for carrying ballast. It is furnished battery. with a naphtha launch for boarding, and also for ready and February 27, 1874 this convenient communication with project was referred to the Board the city. This form of launch has of Engineers and returned by it given the fullest satisfaction -- 25 March 24, 1874 recommending feet in length. On the wharf to the plan for approval, with the the east are facilities for fastening exception of the height of vessels at anchor, and affording parapet, which should be them sulphur fumes from a 12­ increased two feet. The plan as inch galvanized tube; also changed by the Board was affording thembichloride mercury approved by the Chief Engineer solution from iron tubes. The March 28, 1874 and its station is provided, further, with a construction authorized "from any large and commodious dwelling­ funds which may now be, or may house for the quarantine officer, hereafter be available for that convenient office for business, purpose." dwelling-house for engineer, and one for the captain of the The platforms for this naphtha launch; also barracks for battery were on hand (creosoted) officers, female passengers, and and paid for, but its construction crew of vessels undergoing has not been commenced fumigation, fever hospital and (National Archives, RG 77, pest-house, and large storage

58 ·;.

. .6f> "::q,,~

7. OZd-;.:Br.:e-oySh.ed- (ho't: ~ u-s-ej 2... Kea«-h-_ O~<:-e.'r~ JZo~e... J. ..tJrcP;9'7"C> .:D>re~~ •

Cop--y"J#"a- dra.«J~ a.c.o~~Y~:J' ;.... ~'..; , 7"<:'r7"b -o .' 'Qn,.- ·a;rj!... ~.·cC''('.·'''7V' ?T .s~Y;;l3o~cf.ZL~.... '/"0-'- ~e- '.. "'.-;a .zGrC.70kn-s'o~. 6~~--:7 ~.s,,",,"e- Z .,-p. (:07-.r-/cYh>~

Figure 25. 1880 plat of the quarantine station (National Archives, RG 77, Drawer 67, Sheet 43).

59

building, boarding skiff for boarding, when Figure 27 provides a view of the cylinder used for required; naphtha launch for boarding and disinfecting bedding and clothing in the process of communication with the city, and boat-house for being loaded. Figure 28 shows this tank, boiler, same (Horlbeck 1890:149-150). and sulfur furnace within the work building. Figure 29 (which should be compared to Figure 56) is an The first operation was apparently to illustration of the quarantine officer's dwelling to remove the ballast, thought to be a source of the south of the work buildings. considerable possible contagion. Horlbeck notes that some vessels used very soft stones which By 1906 the decision to transfer operation "cannot be regarded as a healthy ballast, and ofthe quarantine station to the federal government doubtless may become a vehicle for infecting a had been made and a July 1906 The Charleston ship" (Horlbeck 1890:148). Others used mud, earth, Evening Post article reported that a T.J. Raymond, or even refuse "scraped up directly from the of the U.S. Marine Hospital Service, was at Fort shores." Regardless, these materials would be Johnson inspecting and inventorying the facilities. removed from the holds of the ships originating at The article reveals that this inspection was suspected or infected ports, placed in the railroad exacting, "not only are the lines of the property cars on the wharf, and transported to elsewhere on measured, but the government official has taken the shore (perhaps only a short distancd to the the dimensions of the various houses and east), and dumped. Horlbeck noted that this had structures of the station, even to the sizes of the been dqne for the past 10 years (since at least respective rooms, with a full description of the 1880). machinery and everything about the plant" ("Close Look at OUf Quarantine," The Charleston Evening Clothing and bedding from these vessels Post, July 24, 1906). would be removed and placed in a 30 foot long cylinder 8 feet in diameter for heat sterilization at Although this study did not explore the dry temperatures of about 2400 F which federal .operation of the quarantine station in "thoroughly destroys all bacteria inimical to human detail, an oral history by Mr. Marion L. Bum, Jr. life" (Horlbeck 1890:150). The vessel was of its operation is in the files of Mr. Willis J. Keith meanwhile washed down on the inside with the and was consulted. Mr. Bum's familiarity with the mercuric chloride solution which was presumably station is primarily during the late 1930s through then dumped in the harbor. The source of this early 1940s. He reports that throughout his "corrosive sublimate solution" was a 35 foot high memory there were about four families on the tank near the wharf. After "the entire cleaning of property and the operation included not only the the vessel, the hatches are covered over, and fumes Medical Officer in Charge, but also boat pilots, containing 18% sulphur dioxide gas are forced in boatmen,maintenancecrew,carpenters,inspectors, and the foul air driven out, one hatch temporarily and others. He reports that each vessel was left open, until the vessel is thoroughly filled up inspected by a medical doctor (for contagious with disinfecting medium" (Horlbeck 1890:150). diseases) and a sanitarian (for rodent infestations). The sulfur dioxide was obtained from a "sulphur The fumigation was conducted using Zyklon (a furnace," which was designed to bum large proprietary name for hydrocyanic acid). quantities of sulfur (anywhere from 200 to 300 pounds). The vessel was closed for upwards of 24 One of Mr. Bum's the most interesting hours and then vented. The ships company might remembrances concerns at least one of the be held in quarantine for an additional five days. cemeteries on Fort Johnson:

A series of illustrations prepared by as an 11 year old, one of my first Horlbeck of the· Fort Johnson facility are acquaintances was Mr. Ellis reproduced here as Figures 26-29. Figure 26 Pinckney (whose family still lives illustrate the eastern wharf, looking back toward just outside the entrance of the the quarantine station with its work building and S.C. Marine Resources Center). tank for "corrosive sublimate." To the right (or He told me of early sailors from a west) were the quarters for the ship's company.

62 foreign ship [that] had died and 1947.

were II ••• shot in the ground." After much discussion, in Gullah, The earliest identified map' of Fort I realized that these persons had Johnson during this period is the 1919 War been afforded a military funeral Department topographic surveys (Charleston and and that these sailors (7 of them) Jameslsland quadrangles) shown in Figure 30. The had had the traditional volley eastern wharf for vessels and the western wharf for fired over their graves. ballast removal are clearly visible, as are a series of three structures just south and a forth somewhat The graves are located further to the southeast. By this time thequarantine just inside th'e entrance to the activities had been taken over by the U;$. Public Marine Center on the right about Health Service. In the late 1930s the quarantine 500 yards from the gate. This station was descnbed by a WPA writer: must have been common practice on quarantine Stations because I branching off the Folly Beach know of others buried on [the] Highway at a signed marked Brunswick, Georgia Quarantine "Light House Point", and traveling Station (Bum 1987a:1.2). due east over a hardsurfaced road cut between blending shades of It seems likely that this cemetery was the. one green shrubbery, tall pines, and destroyed by the construction of the Southeast wide spreading oaks, one passes Utilization Research Center, although it is not large farms where Negroes are known if additional graves might still exist. busily loading trucks, hoeing cabbages or gathering vegetables Bum reports that during the early years of in season. Black children in multi­ the Second World War the quarantine station was colored garments are standing by used by a U.S. Coast Guard detachment with the the side of the road offering troops billeted in the hospital. The post also bunches of wild flowers for sale . trained military guard dogs, with the animals ... This is the Quarantine with 'housed "closed to the present pump house near the its patches of bright green grass entrance to the Marine Center on the left" (Bum and neatly kept government 1987a:2).1t was during this period that the powder houses. The place commands a magazine was refitted as a jailand that anti-aircraft fine view of Charleston' harbor batteries came to the station to practice. Bum also with its surrounding islands, forts mentions that the present slip, or basin, at the and bridges. Water splashes softly Marine Resource Center was originally built in against the sea wall and from the ocean comes the smell of oysters and salt marshes. As the name

~.' Quarantine implies, all ships from ". _: a .- .• : •••• foreign lands must stop here for --- examination before proceeding to .·~·:~~~~~F~IJf;?::

A large boat house projects over the water. Offices as ~~~~\~~-~:~;-~~~fi~~1 well as quarters for government officials are scattered about the grounds. At the southeastern side of Quarantine, surrounded by a Figure 30.1919 Charleston topographic map showing bed of clover, stands an old fort Fort Johnson. of Revolutionary fame (Cohen n.d.:1).

63 While the observation concerning the fort Education, and Welfare, offered the 90 acre tract is likely inaccurate and the comments about the to the State of South Carolina. For five years the station itself rather ambiguous, it seems that the property set vacant with local and state groups facility changed little between 1890 and 1930. unwilling, or unable, to reach a consensus on the Perhaps the most notable change during these 40 use of the property. Finally, HEW reclaimed the years was that the wharfs had been replaced by a tract. slip, the land being created by the dumped ballast extending dry land further outward into Charleston In 1954 Dr. George D. Grice, president of Harbor. This is best shown by the 1943 Charleston the College of Charleston, developed a plan to topographic sheet (Figure 31). The I-shaped tum the facility into a marine biological research building to the southeast of the slip was the center. With the Medical College of South hospital, while the other buildings are locations of Carolina cooperating, HEW granted quitclaim the various offices, warehouses, quarters, and deeds on Fort Johnson to both institutions in June houses on the property. 1954. This gave about 50 acres to both the College of Charleston and the Medical University. The The Modem Period latter used the facility to carry on animal research and small colonies of sheep, dogs, primates, and As early as 1935 local officials hogs were maintained at Fort Johnson for the recommended that the fed~ralgovernmentdevelop study of disease. ,The College of Charleston Fort Johnson as a historical park, favoring this concentrated on marine biological research and in location over either Fort Moultrie or even Fort August 1955 named Dr. Joseph Merkel director of Sumter ("Site Chosen for Historical Restoration, the laboratories. He converted the hospital First Fort in Carolina, Overlooks 2 Other Famed building into the first labs ("Former Fort is Military Posts," Charleston News and Courier, July Transformed Into Scientific Work Center,' 1, 1935).Regrettably,somehow this recommendation Charleston News and Courier, March 18, 1957). In was ignored and while both Sumter and Moultrie 1961 the Marshlands antebellum plantation house became federal parks, in 1948 the quarantine was donated to the City of Charleston by the station, with its 14 buildings including a 40-bed Charleston Naval Base. Funds were raised by the hospital,was abandonedby the federalgovemment College ofCharleston to move the structure and it and its custodian, the Department of Health, was transferred to their Fort Johnson facility for use as a faculty residence (Keith 1975b:2). I I­ At least by 1967 plans were again being investigated to convert Fort I \ Johnson into a historic park. The \ College of Charleston, anxious to I proceed with expansion plans in ) Charleston was interested in selling 40 I / of its 50 acres, maintaining only 10 I acres on the point where the early I laboratory building was located. Local JOHNSON groups, including Mayor J. Palmer Gaillard of Charleston, urged the S.C. Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism to purchase the site, but this ---- was never realized (Proposal Made to Use Fort Johnson as Park," Charleston News and Courier, November 9, 1967). Figure 31. 1943 topographic map showing Fort Johnson. Instead, around 1970 the bulk of the property was transferred from the

64 College of Charleston and the Medical University City and State facility. While there seem to be no to the S.C. Department of Wildlife and Marine remnant City records (based on a review of the Resources for use as a research facility, ending Charleston City Archives), some information may efforts to utilize the unique history and heritage of be present in the State Board of Health files and the area as a park. especially those relating to the City of Charleston (1883-1887, 1892-1894, 1896-1897, 1899-1900). The Need for Further Research There is also, under the State Board, records from the Committee on Quarantine. Of particular It will be obvious that this brief synopsis interest, however, are the State records from the has only touched on the most obvious primary and Port of Charleston Health Officer (dating from secondary sources available for Fort Johnson -­ 1869/70 - 1881182). Willis Keith also notes that a many others remain either unidentified or descendant of one of the last quarantine boat unexplored. The goal here is to only briefly captains, Mr. Marion Bum, Jr., is still alive. This mention some of the sources which other individual should be interviewed since his memory researchers may wish to examine. of the station is likely to be of exceptional use.

No real effort has been made to explore This study has not attempted anything the agency records of the S.c. Department of resembling a definitive examination of Civil War Wildlife and Marine Resources,. the College of documents relevant to our understanding of the Charleston, or the Medical University for Fort Johnson defenses. There eXist, for example, information on how the fort was used, what not only the Offidal Records, but also the War activities may have taken place on the property, or Department Collection of Confederate Records how these activities may have changed the face of (National Archives, Record Group 109) which the tract. Clearly a tremendous amount ofground information on fortifications, military commands, disturbing activities have taken place and at least and related items. As anyone who has researched some of these may be documented by facilities the Civil War records of the National Archives reports, engineering records, or physical plant realizes, pertinent information may be found in a inventories. Other information may be available in wide range of Record Groups, including the correspondence files. Unfortunately, most state Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers agencies - have relatively short institutional (Record Group 77). Regimental histories, memories and searching for this information is especially for Confederate troops which may have likely to be tedious and the- files voluminous. been stationed at Fort Johnson, have not been examined. There .are likely files concerning Fort Johnson in the records of the Public Health For all the periods there are likely to be Service (National Archives Records Group 90), records surviving at the local level. The collections especially the Records ofthe Quarantine Divisions of the College of.Charleston, the Charleston which date from 1878 to 1936 (with the period Library Society, and the South Carolina Historical from 1906 to 1936 being appropriate for this Society have either not been examined, or have stUdy). There is in addition a category of records been explored only superficially. In addition, no known simply as the General Records of the Public effort has been made to examine the various early Health Service. which may contain further Charleston newspapers. information. The Records of the Hospital Division may contain information on the operation of the Implications Fort Johnson hospital. Since this Division maintained records on the patients, these records This research has multiple implications. may shed additional light on the recurring rumor First, and certainly most fundamental, is that the that the quarantine station operated a cemetery on Fort Johnson facility is a unique historical resource Fort Johnson. which has much to offer the citizens of South Carolina. Its nearly 160 years of continuous Prior to the federal government assuming military use traces the historical development ofthe control of Fort Johnson, it was operated as a joint Carolina colony, its struggle for survival, and

65 Figure 32. Caption for Eighteenth Century Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

Site Number Description Date 1 "Commandant's House," 3 bldg., 1 circular ruin 1787. 2 "Gunner's House," 2 bldg. 1787 3 elevation, with earthwork 1775 "Bunker Hill," 1 bldg. 1787 4 2 bldg. 1787 5 "Encampment of the Army" [British] 1780 1 bldg. 1787 6 "Barraks," [sic] 1 bldg. 1787 7 1 bldg. 1787 8 "New Wharf' 1787 9 interior of battery, with barracks 1787 10 walls of battery 1787 11 bldg., in ruins 1787 12 Fortifications (including "Captain's House," "Old Barracks," "Powder Magazine" 1737 "Fort Johnson" 1780 "Fort Johnson, destroyed' 1780 "Old Fort," in ruins 1787 13 "Strong redout, erected near Ft. Johnson" 1780 earthwork 1780 14 earthworks 1780

66

Figure 33. Caption for Antebellum Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

S~ Nurubl=r Dooip<"'" 0." Si~ Numbu DclCripcion 0.", "'Gcnk Quo"",,- I bI4 11m 35 wl\orf 1833 ""-her kaoIl. Oft whdo. •• houae that wl\orf IIl3li was IOftIC lirK pI.$1. OlXUpled ..narf lIlA • br Cd. Scnl. II'< EA,....r c( wharf 18-C~ rhcSa~· 11m I bidS- 1833 .....rf '1lA3 ..rf 11m 36 a..,~rb 01'.,.11 IIl33 .....rf 183J 37 , bld&. 1103 "Hoopilal: I bI4 1800 'C'by: J bid,. \833 2b1d&. 11133 1 bidS- 1838 I bidS- IlIOO 2 bid,. '1lA2 Ibid,. 1800 "Robe. Lcl>by: 2 bld,_ f I bid,. 1_ -West &ttct)". c:nx:lcd it. tt.r RC'OIUltOn. 4() 'OlUo: 1 bld,_ 18-t2 10 ctnhwotb ICttJIS pethiKuIa .,iI:b CI """1"'" Ko.ac: I bld._ 11133 a_ op:nilta II "'P\IbIic: R.oItf" lID> 1 bidS- 11l3li II 1600 1 bid,. '841 12 -rl4' I bids- lei 'tAboroun:n' Ouo""n: j.CI 2 ~ 1842 "Old t-upu.e. ~Jt>r-Ciucm" IIl33 "'bou~n' qtancn: 1 bidS- 1843 "Mapu.e:lbIdJ- 1842 <2 -c'pC Ri\c apcm< of th< <) rL Pemnnc.au.- ~n.ecr 1C\d 8c:a~ US. ., 119l5" lllOO [or MldA I f'..4~

68

Figure 34. CaptIon for Civil War Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

Site Number DescnptIon Date 1 "Battery Hallsted" 1865 2 "Wharf' 1865 3 1 bldg. 1865 4 battery or fortificatIon 1863 battery or fortificatIon, 3 bldg. 1865 5 "cIStern" 1865 6 earthwork, possibly old 1865 7 powder magazme and earthwork 1865 1 bldg. 1866 8 Earthworks of Fort Johnson 1863 Fort Johnson walls 1865 9 seawall 1865 10 "Remams of Old Fort" 1865 11 "ClStem" 1865 12 earthworks 1865 3 bldg. 1866 13 3 bldg. 1865 14 1 bldg. 1865 2 bldg. 1866 15 "Bty Wampler" 1863 battery 1865 16 wharf 1860 wharf 1866 17 wharf 1866 18 3 bldg. 1866 19 3 bldg. 1866 20 "work shop," 1 bldg. 1860 1 bldg. 1866 21 "Jettee" 1860 22 "quarters," 1 bldg. 1860 23 "overseer's quarters," 2 bldg. 1860 2 bldg. 1866 24 1 bldg. 1860 25 "officers' quarters," 1 bldg. 1860 1 bldg. 1866 26 1 bldg. 1860 27 1 bldg. 1860 28 1 bldg. 1860 2 bldg. 1866 29 1 bldg. 1860 30 earthwork 1865 31 "hospital/office," 1 bldg. 1860 1 bldg. 1866 32 1 bldg. 1866 33 1 bldg. 1866 34 3 bldg. 1866

70

Figure 35. Caption for Postbellum Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

Site Number Description Date 1 "Mound Covering Old Magazine" ca. 1880 earthwork 1880 1 bldg. 1943 2 "Old Barrack," 1 bldg. ca. 1880 3 "Store House/Light House Depart't," 1 bldg. 1874 "Store House," 1 bldg. ca. 1880 "Old Buoy Shed (not in use)" 1880 "Quarantine Bldg.," 1 bldg. 1892 . 4 "Wharf' ca. 1880 5 "Sea Wall" 1874 "Old Wharf' ca. 1880 6 "Stone Work" ca. 1880 "Breakwater" 1880 "Old Breakwater" 1892 7 1 bldg. ca. 1880 "Dr. Lebby's Outbuilding," 2 bldg. 1892 8 "Old Stone Jetty" 1880 wharf 1919 9 "Health Officer's House," 1 bldg. 1880 10 "Negro Dwelling," 1 bldg. 1880 11 wharf 1919 "Quarantine Wharves" 1892 12 1 row of 3 bldg. 1919 13 1 bldg. 1919 1 bldg. 1943 14 1 bldg. 1892 1 bldg. 1943 15 1 bldg. 1943 16 1 bldg. 1943 17 2 bldg. 1943 18 1 bldg. 1943 19 1 bldg. 1943 20 1 bldg. 1943 . 21 1 bldg. 1943 22 "Negro Cabins," row of 4 bldg. 1892 23 "Cabin," 1 bldg. 1892 24 wharf 1874 25 "Sea Wall" 1874 26 battery 1874 27 battery 1874 28 "N egro Cabins," row of 3 bldg. 1892 29 "Old Wharf' 1892 30 "Ballast" 1892 31 "Quarantine Bldgs.," 1 bldg. 1892 32 "Quarantine Bldgs.," 1 bldg. 1892 33 "Negro Cabins," 1 bldg. shown 1892

72 the obstacles faced dunng the process. Such nmeteenth century SItes, mcluding a large resources are rare and are of partIcular concentratIon covermg the pomt or extremIty of lll1portance. ThIS sIgnificance, of course, has been the tract. While thIS was clearly the area most documented by placmg the entIre 90 acre sIte on often used, eIther for fortificatIons or for the the NatIOnal RegISter for Histone Places. planters' village, there are also a number of ISolated structures, earthworks, and features on the ThIS reVIew also reveals the need not only remamder ofthe modern-day Fort Johnson facility for an mtenslve archaeologIcal survey ofthe entlIe property, but also for a clear understanding of the Figure 34 shows documented Civil War site's Importance, th~ potentIal Impact of earthworks and assocIated features. These nearly development actIVitIes, and the need for a carefully 20 different sIte areas mclude battenes, developed preservatIon plan. Some of Fort earthworks, wharfs, structures, CISterns, and Johnson's Irreplaceable resources have been buildings spread throughout the tract, but damaged or even destroyed by development. It IS concentrated on the northeastern half. clear that many others will likely be threatened m the future. A preservatIon plan for the facility Figure 35 illustrates the locatIon of the would Identify those resources WhICh, under no structures thought to be aSSOCiated WIth the CIrcumstances, should be lffipacted, those resources Quarantme StatIon dunng the late nmeteenth and WhICh mIght be suitable for data recovery early twentIeth centunes. Twenty-three different excavatIons if the need anses, and those resources features, structures, or wharfs were Identified from whIch may perhaps be redundant or already thIS general penod. suffiCIently lffiparred that no further archaeologIcal or hIStoncal research IS necessary pnor to These maps offer a graphIC representation development. In additIon, a preservatIon plan of how the hIStonc use of the facility has changed would establish clear procedures for compliance through tme. They also reveal the complexity of with state and federal law and would also establish Fort Johnson's cultural resources, offenng yet written procedures for recovery ofoperatIons after another resource, m COnjUnctIOn WIth the natural disasters (such as humcanes) WhICh will not archaeologIcal and archItectural studies, to help adversely affect the resources. While the preserve and protect thIS unIque heritage. conclUSIOns of thIS study offer some general recommendatIons m each of these areas, the development of a detailed preservatIon plan IS beyond the scope of the current proJect. Its development, however, should not be Ignored or postponed.

The hlStoncal research has also served to supplement the archaeological mvestIgatIons, offenng an exceptional opportunity to better understand the resources on Fort Johnson. Figure 32 shows the eIghteenth century hIStonc SItes overlaId on a modern map otthe facility At least fifteen specific areas of concern were Identified, although SIX of these have clearly been destroyed by erOSIOn. The remammg, however, represent a WIde range of potentIal cultural resources, mcluding the locatIon ofthe "Commander's House" from 1787, a structure on what was known throughout the perIod as "Bunker Hill," two structures assocIated WIth the "Gunner's House."

Figure 33 illustrates 76 different

74 RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODS

Introduction context for the evaluatIon of Identified sites. It also offers a SIgnificant base for future work m the M was preVIously mdicated, the pnmary project area. ThIS hIStoncal and archIVal research goals of the Fort Johnson survey were to Identify, was pnmarily conducted by Dr. Michael Trmkley, record, and assess the sIgnificance of with aSSIStance from Ms. Debl Hacker. archaeologtcal sItes withm the approXImately 90 acre tract at the end of Fort Johnson Road on Field Survey Methodology James Island. Secondary goals mc1uded an exammatIon ofseveral major known hIStOrical sites The typIcal methodology for a compliance datmg from the Amencan Revolution through survey of a tract such as Fort Johnson IS to Civil War, the exammation of settlement and establish a systematic mtensIVe survey methodology subsIStence patterns for prehIStonc sites, the WhICh exammes the entIre acreage for exammatlOn ofsoils and dramage as they affect the archaeological and hlStoncal resources. Such an locatIon of prehlStonc sites, and an effort to approach, although extremely labor mtensIVe, was Identify late seventeenth and early eIghteenth used on Fort Johnson smce the tract IS very domestIc sites thought to eXISt on the facility. As complex and exhibits a WIde range of cultural the hIStonc research was conducted, it also became resources. obVIOUS that another goal should be the IdentificatiOn of the antebellum. summer village of The mitIally proposed field techmques planters known to have eXISted on the Fort were based on the Scope ofWork which stIpulated Johnson tract. NomaJoranalytlcalhypotheseswere that "the survey shall mclude subsurface sampling created pnor to the field work and data analyslS, technIque based upon random placement of test although certam expectatIons regarding the cores throughout the site as descnbed m Research secondary goals will be outlined m these Manuscnpt Senes No. 93 of the Institute of discussions. The research deSIgn proposed for thIS Archeology and Anthropology" (Statement of study IS, as discussed by Goodyear et al. (1979:2), Work to Identify Specific ReqUIrements and fundamentally exploratIVe and explicatIVe. Develop DeSIgn Critena and SchematIc Plans for Proposed Marme and EnVIronmental Health Archival Research Laboratory at Charleston, SC, dated February 5, 1994 and reVISed February 23, 1994). The study of Fort Johnson mcorporated a reVIew of the site files at the South Carolina Such an approach does not prevent the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology and research from evaluatmg the archaeologIcal coordinatIon with the S.C. Department ofArchIVes potentIal of the tract and desIgnmg different levels and History for mformatIon on preVIOUS or mtensitIes of InVestIgation. Often areas of architectural surveys and NatIOnal RegISter sites. In posited high potential are mvestIgated usmg additIOn, archIVal and hlStoncal research was transects spaced 100 feet apart with tests every 100 conducted at the Thomas Cooper Library Map feet, while areas of reduced potentIal are explored Repository, the City of Charleston ArchIves, the usmg transects spaced 200 feet apart with tests NatIOnal ArchIves CartographiC and Architectural every 200 feet. In the case of Fort Johnson, Branch, the South Carolina Department of however, preVIOUS mveStIgations combmed WIth Archives and History, and the South Caroliniana even the prelimmary hIStoncal research, suggested Library. While the hlStoncal research IS not that no portIons of the property could legItlffiately exhaustive, It does prOVIde a clear background and be classified as haVIng a "low potentIal" for

75 archaeologIcal resources. In fact, qUIte the contrary a low density of remams no additional close was likely -- Fort Johnson exhibited a near uniform mterval testmg was conducted. In the other two hIgh to very hIgh archaeologIcal potentIal. In areas shovel testmg was conducted at 50 foot additIon, almost all of the tract was known to be mtervals to prOVIde more accurate mdicators of wooded with many areas exhibItmg very dense occupatIOnal mtenslty and actMty areas. An area understory vegetatIon resultmg from the loss of measurmg 600 feet north-south by 400 feet east­ overstory dunng Hurncane Hugo In 1989 west (about 5.5 acres) ill the Vlcmity of the radio Consequently, shovel testmg was proposed on tower was mtensively exammed, while an area transect lines m order to prOVIde a systematIc measurmg 300 feet north-south by 600 east-west exammatIon of the vegetated areas. Shovel tests, (about 4.1 acres) In the VICInIty of the marsh edge approXllllately 1.0 foot square, would be excavated was also explored at 50 foot mtervals. at 100 mtervals along transects also placed at 100 foot mtervals. Transects were typIcally staggered, In additIon, ChIcora relocated and producmg offset shovel tests. A total of 496 shovel assessed all preViously Identified sites recorded ill tests were placed on 80 transects (Figure 36). All the S.C. InstItute of Archaeology and soil was screened through %-mch mesh and all Anthropology SIte files. ArchItectural survey data recovered cultural matenals was retamed, except was collected for standing structures not preVIously for shell, bnck, and mortar whIch would be recorded. It was ongmally antICIpated that the qualitatIvely assessed and discarded m the field. preVIously recorded archaeologtcal SItes would be IndiVIdual shovel tests whIch produced cultural re-evaluated with the mformatlon compiled for matenals were flagged so that lOCI could be eaSIer use. relocated should additional mvestlgattons be necessary. As discussed earlier, for both lOgIStIcal and philosophIcal reasons we deClded to mcorporate all Normally, if archaeologIcal remams are of the Identified archaeologIcal matenals mto discovered dunng testmg operations, the spacmg of 38CH69 as preVIOUS defmed. ThIS approach was the tests IS decreased to no greater than 50 feet lOgIStIcally the sIDlplest course. Boundary (both parallel and perpendicular to the ongmal distmctlons were' difficult at best and a number of test) m order to better Identify the limits of the different lOCi will eventually overlap. For example, site. These shovel tests are mtended to aSSISt not Johnsonville, the antebellum planters' village only m determmmg site boundanes, but also m overlaps the Civil War military earthworks and determmmg site mtegrity, artifact density, and encampments, parts of which also overlap temporal penods of occupatIon. At Fort Johnson prehIStonc sites. Under such CIrcumstances a lOCI the density of remams and the overlappmg of approach seems more reasonable and IS eaSIer for vanous components made such an approach future researchers to adapt to therr specific needs. difficult. There were few areas where boundanes PhilosophIcally, it avOIds the problem of Site could be identified on the basIS of an absence of mflatlon, or attemptmg to Identifywhat amounts to cultural matenals. More often boundanes had to specific actIVity areas withm a broader context. be determmed either topographically or because ThIS approach IS sunilar to that adopted by the assemblage changed. researchers workIng m the urban settmg where slffiilar complexity reveals that the whole area IS a There were, however, three areas pomted "site," with specific areas defined on the basIS of out durmg the field mvestlgatIOn as bemg the most nnmediate needs. It 15 also Important to pomt out likely locatIons for development actIvities. These that our approach 15 the most conservative and mc1uded an area m the northwest comer of the allows future researchers to take a different path property Just north of Fort Johnson Road, an area without bemg burdened by vast numbers of m the south central portIon of the tract m the preVIously aSSIgned site numbers (thIS approach has VICmIty of an eXlStmgradio tower, and a ndge m also been reVlewed and approved by the SCIAA the extreme southwestern corner of the tract InformatIon Management DIVISIon). adjacent to the marsh. In the northwestern corner of the tract the 100 foot shovel tests revealed such ThIS survey methodology 15 conSIStent WIth the South Carolina State Histone PreservatlOn Office

76 yJ-~O~ X?'\o~ dJ"~

BEACH EXPOSED AT LOW TIDE

~

.=J£

I ~ ~I ~i ~ o 200 400 ~. ~==----- @! SCALE IN FEET I t I I ~ N • HISTORIC SrRUCTURE !~~ SSl MODERJ"I snWC'TlJRF. ~ [] DIRT ROAD

Figure 36 Location of the various major 100 and 50 foot survey transects on Fort Johnson -....J -....J GuuJelines and Standards for Archaeologzcal study offer only a gross level for a site of the Investzgatwns and was provIded for reVIew by the complexity found at Fort Johnson. The failure to S.C. Department of ArchIves and History and the Identify archaeologIcal remams ill shovel tests at S.C. InstItute of Archaeology and Anthropology 100 foot mtervals cannot be taken to mean that no remams eXlSt. In fact, companson ofall the available The only maps available for the survey data sources (archaeologu;al testing, surface scatters, area were a 1973 boundary plat wIth no architectural remazns, and poszted hzsUJnc sztes) IS topographIc features and only limIted cultural likely UJ offer the best possible predictions for the features (such as buildings and roads), a 1980 map presence of cultural remauzs at a particular area showmg suspected hIStonc sItes but no topographIc wit/un Fort Johnson. Failure to take advantage of features, and an undated map whIch provIded all of the sources of mformatIon will result III generalized topographIc data and very dated spunous reconstructions which Ignore potentIally cultural mformation. Durmg the field mvestlgatlons SIgnificant archaeologIcal and/or hIStoncal we did not have access to mappmg whIch provIded resources. detailed topographIc data and cultural features. Because these maps are dated and offer few With these cautions, Figures 37 through 42 topographIc features the vanous lOCI or area help to prOVIde a general understanding of locatIons Identified must be consIdered archaeologIcal denSIty at Fort Johnson, clearly approXllllate, WIth an average accuracy of ± 50 revealing different areas, or concentrations or sub­ feet. surface remams.

Limitations of the Sunrey Methodology Figure 37 illustrates the density of all artifacts, revealing espeCIally dense remaillS m the One pnmary goal of thIS study was to VICInity of the powder magazme and around the determme the nature and extent of cultural support buildings m the VIcmlty of the radio tower. remams on the property. In order to accomplish When hIStone artifacts (Figure 38) are conSIdered thIS goal a testmg program usmg shovel tests at 100 the distributIon IS essentIally IdentIcal, largely foot mtervals on transects spaced every 100 feet because of the ovexwhelmmg contnbutIon of was lffiplemented. It IS tmportant that the hIStone matenals when compared to prehIStonc linlltatlons of the adopted survey methodology be artifacts. When the hIStonc artifacts are diVIded fully understood. between architectural items (pnmarily nails) and kitchen artifacts (prtmarily ceramICS and glass) the The use of 100 foot mterval testmg IS resultmg maps (Figures 39 and 40) are SImilar, but traditIonal m archaeologIcal research, representmg not IdentIcal. The architectural remams perhaps a comproffilSe between acceptable levels of SIte more clearly reveal the locations or general areas discovery and acceptable levels of cost. ObVIously, of structural remams, while the kitchen artifact the closer the mterval the more field tIme mvolved distnbutIon IS mtluenced by Civil War and the hIgher cost of the survey. Years of encampmentsWhICh contnbuted stonewares,bottle archaeologIcal research has demonstrated that glass, and ceramICS to the archaeologIcal record. testmg every 100 feet allows many, although not all, SItes to be found. There IS, however, mountmg Figure 41 illustrates the denSIty of eVIdence that thIS approach not only fails to prehIStOrIC remams (pnmarily pottery), illustratmg Identify some SItes, but also fails to provIde that these tend to be sparsely distributed across partIcularly accurate boundanes for otherSItes (see Fort Johnson. Two general contributIons are noted, Tnnkley et al. 1993:58-69). As a result, there has one north of the powder magazme, on the pomt, been expenmentatton usmg testmg at mtervals as and the other ill the vlcmlty of the pump house close as every 10 feet, although 50 or 25 foot road. Other small areas of pottery distributIOn are mtervals are likely to produce more acceptable shown along the edge of the marsh. ThIS cost-benefit ratIos. distributIon IS remforced by the locatIon of dense shell mIdden, illustrated on Figure 42. Only one of Regardless, It IS lffiportant to understand the prehIStOrIC occupatlOn areas IS along the that the 100 foot transects mcorporated mto thIS

78 BEACH ~PO$ED AT LOW nDE

// 1/

11" " "" 1/" 1/ /I """"

L ~_=___ o 200 400

SCAI F. IN FEET

TOTAL SUBSURFACE ARTIFAClS • InSTOR" STllllCrtJRI: C3 10\\ DliNSln (I 2 ARTIFACTS) IlllI MODERN STlWCTURF. ~ MODER,\TE DENSIn (120ARTIFA<..JS) D Oliff ROAD a HIGH DENsrn (21 4OARTIFACfS)

Figure 37 Artifact density at Fort Johnson o00

B!'ACH EXrOSED loT tOW nDE

II II /I Cl \\ II 1/ /I II

/I" 1''''"'''' II II II o 200 400 c-==----=-__=_ SCAl E IN rEIT

TOTAL SUBSURFACE HJSTORIC ARTIFACTS

• K1STOlUC ST1lUCTl!RF. t'9 LOW DENSITY (I 2 ARTIFACrS) Ill§ MODERN S~ucnJRF. ~ MODERATE DENSITY (320ARiIFACT"S) IJ DIRT ROAr> E HIGH DENSITY (2140ARTIFACT"S)

Figure 38 Distribution of historic artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract pownF.R M;\OAZINE

BEACH EXPOSED AT LOW TIDE

dSl ~~ / • MARSHLANDS HOUSE // ~ 1/ ~~~ N II" 1/" /I /I ~ 1/ j 1/ ----... QuARANTINE OFACER S HOliSE

o 200 400 L-=-::"~==- SCALE IN FEET

fO rAL SUBSURFACE ARCHlTErfURAL ARTIFACTS ~ • HISTORIC SllWClURE LOW DENSln (I ARTIFACT) Blll MODERN STRUCTURE G1 MODERATE DENSln (2 HRTIFACTS) HIGH DENS In (6 16 ARTIFACTS) ILJ DIRT ROAD Ell

Figure 39 Distribution of historic architectural artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract 00 N

BtACH EXPOSED ItT LOW TtDE

1/ II" II \\

II" II" II" II"" It II II

SCAI E IN FEI-;I

TOTAl. SUBSURFACE KITCHEN ARiIF,\CfS

• KlSTORIC SffiUC'TURE C3 LOW DENSITY (I 2ARTIFACTS) ~ IlllI MODERN SffiUC'TURE MODERATE DENSm (19ARTIFACTS) ~ DIRT ROAD a HIGH DENSITY (1(}.24ARTIFACTS)

Figure 40 Distribution of historic kitchen artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract POWDER MAGAZINE "~ " 'X. ", ~ BEACH EXPOSED AT WW TIDE ".0 .\~ \~ \'b

cllll • \S; \~

MARSHLANDS HOUSE " \ II" 11 \\

1/" 1/ 1/ II ..... QUARANTINE 1/ OFFICER SHOUSE //

200 - 400 SCALE IN FEET

TOTAL SUBSURFACE PREHlSTORlC ARTIFACfS

• HISTORJ( STIlliCTURE l'3 LOW DENS!n (l ARTIFACT) ~ Ill!I MODERN STRUCTURE MODERATE DENSm (23 ARTIFACTS) ~ DIRT ROAD a HIGH DENSITY (4-6 ARTIFACTS)

Figure 41 Distribution of prehistoric artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract BEACH E'(f'OSED AT LOW TIDE

elm • / / MARSHl.ANDS HOUSE

II" 1/ t II II" " j 11" II 1/

o 200 400 I =--- SCALE IN FEIOT

SHELL DENSIn

&1 LOW DENSITY • I"STORle sTRUC'11JRE [od MODERATE DENSITY IlllI MOOERN SlllUcruRE a HIGH DEl'lSIT\ ~ DIRr ROAD

Figure 42 Distribution and density of shell on the Fort Johnson tract harbor; most are clustered along the marsh edge or appropnate, and discarded. are sItuated further mland m a non-shell mIdden area. As preVIously discussed, the matenals have been accepted for curatIon by the South Carolina When these maps are compared to those Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. The created by South and Widmer (1976:Figures 3-6) matenals have been cataloged usmg thIS strong sImilaritIes can be observed, although clearly mstitutlOn's accessIonmg practIces. SpecImens theIr research offers a more refined VIew of a were packed m plastIc bags and boxed. Field notes smaller sampling unIverse. In additIon, the work by were prepared on pH neutral, alkaline buffered South and Widmer fails to proVIde mformation on paper and photographIC matenalwere processed to density of remams, mstead notmg only presence archIval standards. All ongmal field notes are also and absence. curated with thIS facility. CopIes of the field notes have also been prOVIded to Calcara Duffendack Laboratory and AnalYSIS Methods Foss Manlove Inc. as stipulated by the scope of work. The cleanmg of artifacts was begun m Charleston durmg the field work and completed m AnalysIS of the collectIons followed Columbia. Catalogmg of the speCImens was profeSSIonally accepted standards with a level of conducted at the ChIcora laboratones ill Columbia mtenslty suitable to the quantity and quality ofthe llllD1ediately after the fieldwork, from May 3 remams. PrehIStonc pottery was classified usmg through May 5, 1994. All artifacts except brass and common coastal Georgia and South Carolina lead speCImens were wet cleaned. Brass and lead typologIes (DePratter 1979; Tnnkley 1983). The items were dry brushed. All of the artifacts were temporal, cultural, and typologIcal classificatIons of evaluated for theIr conservatIon needs and most the hIStonc remams follow Noel Hume (1970), were determmed to be stable. Those WhICh were Miller (1980, 1991), Pnce (1970), and South not stable were pnmarily mIScellaneous Iron (1977). objects WhICh were Identified, drawn when

85 IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

AB preVIOusly discussed, after the • was present dunng the penod conclUSlOn of the field research it was deCIded that of SIgnificance, relates to the all of the remams found at Fort Johnson would be documented SIgnificance of the recorded as 38CH69, with the different property, and possesses hIStonc concentrations Identified as Iocr or areas. ThIS llltegnty, or IS capable of yielding allows more convement research m the future lffiportant mformatIon about the without the problems assocIated with overlappmg penod, or or poorly defined site boundanes. It serves to SImPlify management deCISIons and optIons. And it • it mdependently meets the allows greater fleXlbility m future research proJeets~ NatlOnal ReglSter critena. Consequently, thIS portion of the report will outline the Identified archaeolOgIcal areas and the Non-contnbutmg resources do not add to th aSSOCIated surface scatters of archaeologtcal hlStonc qualitIes or assoaatlOns, or archaeologIC< remams (see Figure 43). The different areas are values for which a property 1 SIgnificant. An area may b conSidered a non-contnbutm Table 2. resource because: Areas of Sub-Surface Cultural Matenal at Fort Johnson

Area. PreY10US Site # Funet10n Size (in feet) • it was not 1 380I275 Prdnstonc (Deptford phase); 19th century 300 (N-S):t 200 (E-W) present dunng the 2 38CH274 18th/19th century military and domestlc 700 (N-S):t 1(0) (E-W) period of 3 20th century With standing structure 100 (N-S) x 150 (E-W) 4 38aI274 18th/19th century domestic 100 (N-S) x 150 (E-W) signIficance or 5 380U6 PrehLstonc (Deptford/Cape Fear phase) does not relate to 19th century military (1) 350 (NoS) x 700 (E-W) the penod of 6 18th1l9 century pbnters' summer wage 19th12Oth quarantine officer's house 600 (N-S) x 650 (EoW) documented 7 PrehLstonc (Deptford/Cape Fear phase) Significance, 19th century military 50 (N-S) x 100 (E-W) 8 19th century 200 (N-S) x 350 (E-W) 9 380169 18th/19th century fortifications 450 (N-S) x 850 (E-W) • it has been so 10 380U6 PreJnstonc shell DUdden 150 (N-S) x 150 (EoW) altered, disturbed, or otherWIse sIgnifIcantly reVIewed ill Table 2. changed that it no longer possesses In an effort to help those makmg hIStonc mtegrity or 15 no longer management deCISIons better understand the capable of yIelding lffiportant different site areas, each one IS assessed as either mformatlOn about the penod, or contributzng or non-contributing. Followmg the recommendations of National RegISter Bulletm • it does not mdependently meet 16a, How to Complete the Natwnal Regzster the NatlOnal RegISter critena. Regzstratwn Fonn, contributmg resources are those WhICh add to the hIStone aSSOCIatIon or ThIS approach recognIZes that while all 90 archaeologIcal values for whIch the property 15 acres of Fort Johnson are listed on the NatIOnal SIgnificant. The area may be contributmg because It eIther:

86 POWDER \MAOAZINE

" ~ ... ~

BeltCII f)i.'N)SfD 111 1.01\ rlDF. ..."~. ..;f; \~ \\ ': :i \~

1/ II II

I~A" REA J /~" II ,I II

ARFAC>

o 200 i - - SCALE IN FEET

• IDSTORIC SlllUCfURE lllll MODERN S.11lumlRF.

lJll2I DIRT ROAI> . JDSURfACE RE~ IAINS• I'- CONCENTRAnONS 01· Sl ~ ~U DENSE SURFA CE RE"IAINS Areas 0 f sub-surface remat'ns identified on the Fort J0 hnson tract RegISter, not all of the archaeologIcal and Table 3. hIStoncaI resources on the property have equal Artifacts Recovered from Area 1 mportance. It IS also necessary to recognIZe that while all 90 acres are on the NatIonal RegISter, ST4 Sf7 ST 9 Surface that does not mean that all 90 acres contam Cut nail fragments 2 sIgnificant archaeologIcal resources. ExammatIon UIn nail fragments of Figure 43 reveals many areas WhICh are not "Black" bottle glass 2 Identified as "areas" of archaeologIcal remams. ught blue bottle glass 1 Whlteware, blue tp 1 CautIon, however, IS agam recommended. It IS essentIal that sub~surfacearchaeologIcal remams, Deptford pottery above ground archaeologIcal and architectural UID small sherds 3 remams, and potentIal hIStoncal remams all be taken mto account pnor to determmmg that an Calcmed anunal bone 1 specific tract contams no cultural or hIStoncal resources. When all three resource or data sets are overlaId on the Fort Johnson facility, it from the Middle Woodland (ca. 500 B.C.) and the becomes ObVIOUS that there are few areas whIch IDid-Dlneteenth century (ca. A.D 1850). The can be evaluated as contammg no SIgnificant central UTM coordinates for thIS area are cultural remams (thIS concept IS discussed at N3623700 E602580 and the soils are Wando senes greater length m the concluding sectIon of thIS sands. The shovel tests revealed about 0.8 foot of study). brown loamy sand over the subsoil.

Too few materIals have been collected from thIS area to offer an assessment regarding ThIS area IS situated Just mSIde and south the area's mdependent eligIbility for mcluslon on of the Fort Johnson entrance gate. It conSISts of a the National RegISter or its contnbutIon to the surface scatter of hIStonc matenals datmg to the documented hIStOry ofthe property. Consequently, nmeteenth century (no hlStonc matenals were thIS area IS recommended as a potentIally Identified ill the shovel tests), as well as four contnbutmg resource. Further evaluation and prehlStonc sherds recovered only from sub-surface documentatIon IS necessary to evaluate the area's contexts. SIgnificance.

Shell m front of the security office (the first structure withm the gate), Just south of Fort Johnson Road, appears to be a shell dnve based ThIS area was defined on the basIS of 99 on its surface dispersion, absence of aSSOCIated shovel tests, 33 of whIch were positIVe. The area artifacts, and shallow depth. No clear hIStonc or represents the martello tower, preVIously recorded prehlStonc connection or antecedent could be as 38CH274. Matenals recovered from thIS surve~ documented. There IS, however, a small scatter of date from the eIghteenth and nmeteenth centunes. bnck Just north of the road, although even here yielding a mean ceraIDlc date of 1803.3 (Tables 4 shovel testmg failed to Identify artifacts. The size and 5). of thIS area IS estImated to be about 300 feet north-south by 200 feet east-west, based on both The martello tower Itself conSISts of 2 the dispersIon of surface matenals and the low large rubble pile, heavily overgrown at the tIme oj mCldence of sub-surface remams. ThIS area was the suzvey (Figure 44 shows the area afteJ Identified by South dunng the survey ofthe nearby cleanng). However, the area IS conSIderably largeJ NOAA facility, although no assessment was made than the tower Itself, perhaps representmg earlieJ and no mdependent site form was completed. plantatIOn penod remams, as well as aSSOCIate, military encampments and barracks. At least thre( A total of 26 shovel tests were excavated possible sub-areas can be discerned, although the~ m thIS area, although only three contamed materIal are poorly defined. Boundanes, based on botl (Table 3). The Identified matenals tend to date surface scatters and shovel tests at 100,50, and ~

88 quarter of the nmeteenth Table 4. century, pnor to the Civil War. Artifacts Recovered from Area 2 As one of only a very few Close Martello martello towers built on the east Shore General Metal General Interval Tower coast of the United States, the Surface Surface Detectmg Transects Transects Area Fort Johnson SIte assumes Westerwald exceptIonal Importance for our White SG SW understandIng of military Stoneware, brown SG Stoneware, gray SG strategy and policy. The early Stoneware, alkaline glazed date associated with thIS area Redware, clear glaze also suggests that plantatIon Delft remams, or possibly earlier Creamware, undecorated 2 2 military actIVItIes, may be Pearlware, undecorated 1 Pearlware, blue tp 1 mcorporated. Included are Civil . Whlteware, undecorated 2 1 War barracks, barracks Whlteware, blue tp 1 aSSOCIated with the early Bumt/UID earthenware nmeteenth century use of the Chmese porcelam tower, and at least five White porcelam 1 "Black" bottle glass 8 9 8 4 2 eIghteenth and nmeteenth Cobalt bottle glass 1 1 century domesticSItes. Given the Lt. green bottle glass 3 mtensIve use of thIS area and the Amethyst bottle glass 5 1 survey mtervals, the discrete Clear bottle glass 5 1 locations of these structures Amber bottle glass 1 Milk glass fragments 1 could not be identified. Since the Stemmed glassware archaeologIcal remams from Stove fragment 1 these locations smear mto one Hinge fragment 1 another, only very close mteIVal Cut nail fragments 5 2 25 Wire nail fragments 1 testmg (every feet for DID nail fragments 1 example) will prOVide any Brass clothIng decoration resolution. Machme gun bullet casmg DID metal fragments 2 3 All use of the eXlStmg Sheet metal fragments 6 Ballast stone 2 borrow pIt should cease Anunal bone 8 tmmediately (we understand the pit IS no longer used) and steps should be taken to restore the foot mtervals, are 700 feet north-south by 1000 feet pit to ffilDImlZe future erOSion and loss of cultural east-west. The western edge of the site IS located remams. ThIS IS an Important area of the Fort about 50 feet east of the property boundary, with Johnson site WhICh bears very close additiOnal the eastern boundary bemg located approXImately exammatIon. 200 feet west of the Marshlands plantation house. The southern boundary IS rrregular. However, thIS locus IS confined to the area north of Fort Johnson Road. The southwest quadrant ofthIS site has been ThIS area was recorded m the Immediate destroyed by the recent operatIOn of a borrow PIt. VICInity of the pump house, north of Fort Johnson Remams can be found m the walls of the borrow Road. A total of seven shovel tests were excavated pit, as well as m the associated spoil piles. The m the VICIDIty of the structure, although only one central UTM coordinates are N3624000 E602700. yIelded archaeological remams (a smgle fragment of modem brown glass). Soils m thIS area conSISt ThIS site IS clearly a contnbutmg resource, of about 0.8 foot of brown sand overlymg a yellow offenng the opportunity to explore military life and sand subsoil. Surface materIals mcluded one actIvitIes on Fort Johnson durmg the second fragment of clear wmdow glass and one fragment

89 of course was transported to Fort Johnson and IS Table 5. therefore not assocIated with any archaeologIcal Mean CeramIc Date for Area 2 deposits). The central UTM coordinates are Mean Date N3623840 E602720 Ceramic (xi) (ft) XI X XI Underglazed blue porcelam 1730 2 3460 A total ofnmeteen tests were excavated at White porcelam 1881 1 1881 25 foot mtervals, WIth 11 producmg artifacts (Table White SG stoneware 1758 1 1758 6). Based on these remams the area IS estllIlated to PlaID Delft 1720 1 1720 Creamware, undecorated 1791 4 7164 measure about 150 feet north-south by 100 feet Pearlware, undecorated 1805 1 1805 east-west. The Wando soils at the SIte mclude an Pearlware, blue tp 1818 2 3636 A or Ap horIZon of about 0.8 foot overlymg Whiteware, undecorated 1860 3 5580 subsoil. Whlteware, blue tp 1848 1 1848 Total 16 28852 Matenals recovered from the shovel tests Mean Ceramic Date = 28852 - 16 = 180325 mdude one creamware ceramIC, one pearlware ceramIC, one fragment of hand pamted milk glass, three clear glass fragments, seven ''black'' bottle of clear modem glass. The combmatIon of surface glass fragments, one fragment ofwmdow glass, two matenals, smgle positIVe shovel test, and structure cut nail fragments, and two UID metal fragments. location prOVIde boundanesof100 feet north-south The two recovered ceranucs produce a mean by 150 feet east-west. The central UTM ceramIC date of 1798) although the cut nail coordinates are N3624000 E602700. fragments suggest a nmeteenth century date. ThIS assemblage suggests that the area may be the Although these archaeologIcal remams do locatIon ofa domestIcstructure, perhaps related to not, at first glance, appear to represent contnbutmg resources, Table 6. the oral hIStOry obtamed Artifacts Recovered from Area 4 dunng the .background research mdicates that 25E 25W SOW 75W 25N 75N lOON 50S 75S looS Center guard dogs were tramed Clear glass 2 1 and housed m thIS area "Black" glass 3 dunng World War II. Milk glass Without addItIonal Creamware Pearlware research to document Window glass this training (for Nail fragments 2 example: Was thIS the UID Iron 2 only trammg site m South Carolina? What role did the dogs tramed here play m the different either plantatIOn developments m the area or, theaters of operatIon?) and to better understand alternatIVely, the military occupatIon at Fort the facilitis use durmg the 19405, it IS not possible Johnson after the Amencan RevolutIOn. to fully evaluate these remams. Consequently, thIS specific area IS recommended as a potentIally The density and nature of these remams contributmg resource WhICh requITes additIonal suggests that thlS area IS a contnbutmg resource, research. capable of supplymg mformatlon concemmg the late eIghteenth and early nmeteenth century actIvitIes at the site. Although no above or below ground features were Identified durmg thIS study, Area 4 IS a small scatter of late eIghteenth the area has the potentIal to contam mtact features and early nmeteenth century remams found east of smce no heavy disturbance appears to have taken Area 3 and south of the Marshlands house (WhICh

90 place m the general VIcmity. ThIS site, because of bottle glass, and a kaoline pipe stem. These its small sIZe and proxIDllty to currently developed matenals are conSIStent WIth a Civil War penod tracts, could be easily damaged. Steps should be occupation, although the presence of the white taken to ensure that it IS protected. porcelam also suggests a postbellum occupatIon. The types, denSItleS, and disperslOn of artifacts are remarkably SImilar to those Identified by South and Widmer (1976).

ThIS area represents what IS left of several The remams Identified ill thIS study large prehlStonc shell mIddens wlthm the measure about 350 feet north-south by 700 feet boundanes of Fort Johnson. The central UTM east-west. The site, topographIcally, IS found on the coordinates are N3623500 E602700. Situated m senes of ndges and troughs m the southwestern the southwestern comerofthe tract, these remams comer of the tract. South and \Vidmer have have been preVIously defined as 38CH16, 38CH34, preVIously observed that both ndge top and trough and 38CH275. In additIOn, thIS area also reveals bottom deposits are present, although the close the presence of a light mneteenth century lllterval distnbutIon studies they undertook were component. Whether these remams represent Hunted to a rather small portIon of the overall site, freedmen settlers, penpheral grave depOSIts, or much of WhICh was destroyed by subsequent possibly Civil War encampments cannot be readily development. determmed from the available mformatlOn -- all three remam distmct possibilitIes. Although the site was covered by very dense understory vegetation at the tIme of thIS Of the 89 shovel tests excavated at or m survey, only two out of the dozen or more of the the Vlcmity of thIS area (pnmarily at a 50 foot Civil War encampments noted by South could be found. One ofhIS three Itcraters" was relocated, while the other two were destroyed by the constructIon of Table 7 NOAA building. Although not Artifacts Recovered from Area 5 mvestlgated by thIS study, the N-S 100' inteIVal E-W SO' intetval N-S SO' Ultetval remammg feature appears to be a Surface 112 113 3/1 3/2 1/1 113 '111 '1J3 3/1 4!2 4,1j 4/4 5/1 5/2 5,1j 14rl 1&4 1&5 1&6 well, slll1ilar to others Identified at Alb1ine glazed SW 1 1 AlbanyslipSW 1 Civil War encampments on nearby Rockingham "Black" boule glass Folly Island. Wbiteware. undec. WhIte portlelam Kaoline pipestem ThIS site IS recommended as a contnbutmg resource on the basIS Deptford Cord DeptiOll'd Fabne Imp. of its "stand-alone" eligibility for Deptford Check mclUSlOn on the NatIOnal RegISter Deptford P1aln Deptford UID as a prehIStonc site capable of Wtlmmgton Plam addressmg a broad spectrum of Small sherds 1 1 1 1 1 1 research m the areas of settlement and subSIStence. PreVIOUS research by South and Widmer (1976) found mterval), 31 yielded moderate to dense shell or that distmet structures and actMty areas would be artifact remams (Table 7). The prehlStonc artifacts Identified through SImple density studies. They also consISted entrrely of pottery from the Deptford Identified features suitable for prOVIding and/or Cape Fear phases or were too small to carbOnIzed matenals for both floral studies and analyze. The associated shell middens ranged from also radiometnc datmg. A WIde range of tool types thm sheet deposits to dense mIddens up to 1.5 feet were Identified, mcluding the possibility of worked m depth. Histonc artifacts consISted for alkaline clam shells. South and Widmer also observed a glazed stonewares, Rockmgham ceramICS, settlement pattern whIch aVOIded the fore dune undecorated whItewares, white porcelam, ''black'' area m favor of dune trough and second dune

92 ndge locatIOns. InvestIgatIon of the total SIte could found throughout the area where ever there was refine thIS prelimmary study, expanding our open ground. A possible dump area eXISts on the knowledge of Middle Woodland lifeways. southern edge of the area, where nmeteenth century artifacts were found ill the marsh grass. ThIS area has also produced small Structural remams mclude a small tabby building. quantitIes of hIStone materIals. Coupled with the AdditIonal matenals are almost certamly aSSOCIated hIStone research there 'IS a strong reason to believe with the postbellum quarantme officer's structure that the area contamed IDlportant hIStonc on the eastern edge ofthe area. Histoncal research resources durmg the penod of documented also reveals that a large planter's village, known as sIgnificance at the site. There IS a very strong Johnsonville, eXISted m thIS area pnor to the Civil possibility that llltaet Confederate encampments War. and features such as barrel wells may be found. These remams would be of partIcular Importance The smgle above ground feature, a tabby for companson to sImilar encampments by UnIon structure, measures about 7 by 9 feet and IS forces. Theywould help us better understand camp onented N400W (Figures 46 and 47). Further life among Confederate troops dunng the Civil testmg IS needed to determme the date and War. OfpartIcular mterestwould be comparmg the probable functIon of the structure. Somewhat availability of resources between Confederate and sImilar tabby buildings, however, have been UnIon camps. Identified on Callawassle Island, where they were found to be slave houses (Brooker 1991:145-152). ThIS area may also proVIde mformatIon on the presence of black "squatters" who likely took Based on shovel testmg and pedestnan up resIdence when the fortificatIOns were occupIed sUlVey of the surrounding land and marsh edge, by UnIOn troops. Little IS known about thIS class of the site measures approXImately 600 feet north­ freedmen and research companngthese mdivIduaIs south by 650 feet east-west. The bulk of the site to those livmg at Mitchelville, a documented was surveyed at 50 foot mtervals. Ofthe 129 shovel freedman's village could expand ourunderstanding tests excavated, 62 (or 48.1%) produced artifacts of Afncan Amencan adaptatIons to freedom and/or bnck, shell, or tabby. Table 8 prOVIdes a list dunng the early postbellum. of the artifacts collected. The ceramICS yIeld a mean ceramIC date of 1821.4 (Table 9) and the Finally, it IS possible that additIonal bunals artifact pattern mdicates that approXlDlately 74% may be present m the VIcmity of the NOAA of the artifacts are kitchen related, while 18% are building. Not only are any sUlVlVIDg human architectural (Table 10). While thIS most closely remams protectedby state law (S.C. Code, § 16-17­ resembles the pattern yIelded by many eIghteenth 590 et seq. and 27-43-10 et seq.), but they also century slave sites (Wheaton et a1. 1983), a more offer unparalleled opportunities for forenSIC reasonable conclUSIOn IS that the summer research, exploring issues of health, disease, diet, reSIdences were architecturally spartan. Such and mortuary pattemmg. The destructIon or SImply reSIdences mIght have resulted m a damage ofthe cemetery dunng constructIon ofthe kitchen:architecture ratio seen at thIS area of Fort NOAA building was a senous loss to our Johnson. It must also be recogmzed that thIS understanding of Afncan Amencan phySIcal pattern may be the result of either the sampling anthropology. strategy or too small a sample. Since no comparative research IS available, many of these questions must awalt further study at Johnsonville.

ThIS IS a partIcularly complex site area, Several of the shovel tests (Transect 28, situated m the south central portIon of the tract m Shovel Tests 2,3, and 5) contamed dense depOSIts the VIcmity ofthe mamtenance building. It conSISts to an average depth of two feet suggestmg the of small quantitIes of prehIStOrIC remaInS and presence of Intact features. The average soil profile abundant hIStone artifacts. The central UTM conSISted of 1.1 feet of brown sand overlymg the coordinatesare N3623800 E603120. Matenalswere subsoil.

93 Table 8. LISt of Artifacts Recovered from Area 6

Center of tabby stnJetUTC: 3 kettle !rags, 1 plas.ter £rag. 2 WU1dow glass, 1 UlD =. 6 anunal bone North Wall: 1 It. green glass, 1 lamp glass ~ 2 WUJdow glass ~: lit. green glass ~2 clear bonle glass, 2 cut nails. 1 "black" glass, 1 blue tp wl11teWare ~ge Surface: 3 SGSW, 10 undec wluteware, 1 blue tp wl11teware, 2 aqua glass, 3 "black" glass, 1 It. green glass, 3 amber glass General Surface: 1 NottlDgham SW, 1 blue delft. 2 yellow combed slipwar-e, 1 undec creamw~,2 blue tp pearlware, 4 undocorated wl11teware, 3 amethyst glass, 9 "black" glass, 1 hand wrought nail. 10 wmdow glass, 1 pencil lead, 1 UID brass item, 1 Deptford Plam sherd T26STI: 2 "black" glass TI6STI: 1 undec wl11teWare, 1 clear glass, 1 Thom's Creek Finger Pinched TI7STi": 1 "black" glass T27STI: 1 undec creamware, 2 WIndow glass T27ST4: 1 small prel11stonc shem T25STI.: 2 undec~, 1 blue delft, 1 plam delft, 1 lead g1aud redware, 1 ~ tp whiteware, 4 WIndow glass, 7 "black" bottle glass, 1 clear glass, 1 lead crystal dnnkmg vessel -- fngment, S ammal bones l28ST.3: 1 Nottingham SW, 1 undecorated creamware, 3 blue tp wl11teware, 4 'black" bottle glass, 1 clear gl=, 2 UID nail fraBments, 1 flattened lead, 1 WlDdow glass, 1 ammal -- bone, 1 Wili:mngron Cord Marked T25ST5: S "black" bonle glass, 2 aqua glass. 3 amber glass, 1 WU1dow glass, 1 cut nail fragment, 1 keyhole escutcheon, 8 UID lIOn, 1 anunal bone nBSTh 1 small prehistonc sherd T29STI: 1 green glazed creamware, I ammal bone T29S13: 1 dalX oliYe green bottle glass, 1 wmdow glass nosn 1 lamp glass 1ii5TI: 1 cut spike 1iiIT4: 2 'black" bonle glass ~TS: 1 clear modern glass T30ST6: 2 undcc:xnted creamware :nirn: 1 aqua glass, 1 It. green glass T.iiS'T4: 1 burnt earthenware, 1 milk glm. 1 clear glass niSTI: 1 ballast stone fngment, 1 piece ofslate :msn: 1 blue tp peartware 132ST4: 1 Deptford Chec:k Stamped nSTI: 1 banded yellow ware, S WIndow glass TiST4: 1 UID nail fragment Ti:STI: 1 modem W1Ddow glass ~ 1 Dept!ordfCape Fear Cord Marked. 5 small sherds 12ST4: 1 dear glass 1251'S: 1 clear modem glass nsn: 1 milk glass frasment, 1 small ~ sherd ~ 1 lead glazed slipware, 1 coIonoware. 2 flint fragments, 3 ammal bones T3STh 1 "black" glass, 12 modem dear glass, 1 small prehJstonc sherd ~ 1 underglazed porcelain. 1 SGSW, 4 "black" bottle glass, 1 clear glass, 1 wr..ndow glass, 1 US generallS$Ue eagle bunan T3S'IS: 1 undee aumwue, 2 blue tp pearlware. 1 blue hp pearlwaze, 1 cut spike fragment, 1 UID lIOn, 2 ammaJ bones T4Sn: 1 undec whiteWBre . T4ST4: 2 undoc: creamware, 1 UDdcc whiteware, 1 SGSW ~: 1 bumt eartbe1nnre, 1 blue edged pearlware, 1 blue tp ~. 1 aqua green glass T4ST6: 1 molded creamware. 2 aqua glass. 1 'black" bo~ glass nsn: 1 UDdccora1ed aeamware. 1 cut nail TSST3: 1 blue edged pearlware, 1 mmIa1 bone ~: 1 black bottle gI.as:s. 1 fishing weJght ~: 1 undec ~1 blue tp pearlware. 1 lead g1aud redware. 1 ~lack" bonle glass, 1 cut nail, 1 brm tailor's tlumble, 1 anunal bone, 1 Thom's Creek Shell Punctate nsT6: 1 '1:I1ack" bonle glass UST8: 1 UID nail frapnt ~ 2 wmdow glass ~ 3 undec ~, 1 gnle11 edged peartware, 1 undec pearlware. 1 undergWed poo::elam, 1 wlDdow glass, 2 cut nail fragments ~: 2 UID aaiJ frapnts, 2 UID UOD ~ 1 "black" bottle glass, 2 cut nail fragments, 1 UID 1I"OIJ nsTI: 1 cut nail fragment, I un> nail fngment 17STI: 1 cut nail fngment ~: 1 undec aeamw~, 1 "black" bottle glass, I lIOn buckle T7S1'S: 1 UID nail fragment 17S'I7: 1 blue hp pearlware, 111'011 button ~nt ~: 1 burnt earthenware, 2 "black" bottle glass, 2 clear glass, 1 cut nail fragment. 1 WIre nail. 1 roofing tack, 4 W1Ddow glass. 2 anunal bones mE 6 modem clear glass, 1 UID nail fragment ~: 1 wmdow glass TIlST4: 1 blue tp whiteware m.n: 1 colonoware, I cut nail fr1Igment, 1 spike

Given that no archaeologIcal research has IS partIcularly Important and IS recommended as a ever been performed at a planters' village, thIS area contributmg resource WhICh IS also mdependently

94 addition to the remams assOCIated with the Table 9 planters' village, a standing domestic structure IS Mean Ceramk Date for A:-ea 6 located on the eastern edge of the site. ThIS Mean Dale structure, built m 1887 and more fully discussed m CeramIc (xi) fi fi X Xl the followmg sectIon, served as the quarantme Underglazed porcelam 1730 2 3460 statIon officer's house. Nottingham stoneware 1755 2 3510 Lead glazed slipware 1733 3 5199 Green glazed cream body 1767 1 1767 Decoraled delft 1750 2 3500 Plam delft 1720 1 1720 ThIS portIon of the Fort Johnson site IS Crearnware, undec 1791 15 26865 located at the base of the north SIde of the three Pearlware, blue hp 1800 2 3600 gun battery hill and conSISts of a light prehIStonc Pearlware, blue tp 1818 7 12726 and nmeteenth century scatter of artifacts. Pearlware, edged 1805 3 5415 Pearlware, undec 1805 2 3610 Fourteen shovel tests were excavated at 25 and 100 WhIteware, blue tp 1848 6 11088 foot mtervals m cardinal directions. Of those 14 Whlteware, non-blue tp 1851 1 1851 shovel tests, five (or 35.7%) were pOSItIVe. The Whiteware, undec 1860 6 11160 artifacts are summanzed m Table 11. Whlteware, "v1treousft 1895 13 24635 Whiteware, ~illetsft 1894 1 1894 Yellow ware 1853 1 1853 The central UTM coordinates are Total 69 123853 N3623720 E602920 and the soils, like elsewhere on Fort Johnson, are classified as Wando sandy loarns. Mean CeramIc Date = 123853 - 69 = 1821,4 Soil profiles at the site consISted of 0.9 feet of brown sand A honzon overlymg subsoil. No mtaet features were located dunng shovel testmg. eligIble for mc1uslon on the Natlonal RegISter. It contams a number of data sets (architectural While the archaeological remams do not remams, kitchen related artifacts, anIDlal bone, and seem particularly dense or SIgnificant, thIS possible features) which could be used to address appearance IS likely deceIVing. Situated m the a number of research questIons such as: shadow of the Confederate battery, these remams are probably assoCIated with small encampments made here by the troops. Such remams are • how do these sites compare notonously difficult to identify through traditIonal with rural plantation sites and shovel testing. Several transects were made east­ urban resIdences m terms of west through thIS area usmg a metal detector. architecture, diet, andotherstatus While the readings were not ground trothed, the mdicators? number and dispersIOn of remams supports a more mtensIVe military occupatIon than unplied by the • what types ofdomestIcactIVities meager collection. Consequently, at least the took place at the site? hIStonc remains in thIS area are recommended as potentIally contrwutmg resources WhICh should be protected from any future disturbance or damage. • did these villages mc1ude stores or other convenIences WhIch can be archaeoiogically Identified? ThIS locus IS situated between Areas 2 and ThIS locus has been disturbed by the 6, havmg central UTM coordinates of N3623900 E constructIon of the mamtenance building, support 603200. The bulk of the area IS south of Fort structures, roads, as well as Civil War earthworks. Johnson Road, although a small portIon extends In additIon, a small portIon of the site IS located north of the road. Above ground remams conSISt on a grassless knoll WhICh IS eroding. However, of a bnck rubble pile found north of Fort Johnson many other areas of the site appear to be mtact. In Road Just mSlde of the woods line. Surface artifacts were recovered from both SIdes of the

95 rubble pile IS SImilar to those found by South at Table 10. Area 5 and may be related to the Civil War era Artifact Pattern for Area 6 use of the property, the assemblage more strongly suggests postbellum freedman settlement. Like Kitchen Group Ceramics 78 other military posts, as soon as the property was Colonoware 2 held by the Umon army Afncan Amencans likely Glass 96 began to seek refuge on the tract. ProXImity to Kitchenware 3 Umon encampments meant not only wage labor, Subtotal 180 74.1% Architecture Group but also afforded some degree of protectIon. The Window glass 15 open lands of Fort Johnson likely also permitted Door lock parts 1 eaSIer than normal cultivatIon m areas which were Construction hdw 1 not contested by the preVIous white land owners. Nails 23 Spikes 3 Subtotal 43 17.7% Shovel testmg mdicated that the soil Furniture Group profile, SImilar to other Wando soils on the tract, Hardware 2 consISts of 0.7 feet of brown sand overlymg a tan Subtotal 2 0.8% subsoil. Much of the site has been extensIvely ClothlOg Group damaged by Fort Johnson Road, lanclscapmg, and Buttons 2 Other clothmg 2 the digging of utility lines. In spite of thIS there Subtotal 4 1.6% may eXISt areas of mtact remams and the area IS Personal Group recommended as a potentIally contributory Miscellaneous 1 resource. Fort Johnson's hIStOry did not stop at the Subtotal 1 0.4% Civil War and additIOnal research concemmg the Activities Group FlShmg gear 1 AfrIcan Amencan use of the tract IS mportant to Other 12 fully understanding the hIStoncal diversity of the Subtotal 13 53% tract. Consequently, thIS area IS recommended as a potentially contnbutmg resource. AdditIonal close mterval testmg IS necessary to determme if road. Based on shovel testmg and surface artifacts, either mtaet surface remams or mtaet mtra-site pattemmg can be discerned. the locus measures 200 feet north-south by 350 feet east-west. Six shovel tests were excavated at 50 foot mtervals paralleling Table II. the south SIde of the road. Of those seven Artifacts Recovered from Area 7 tests, only one (or 14.3%) Yielded artifacts. ThIS test yielded one pIece of calcmed 1'21 1"22 bone and one pIece of aqua bottle glass. ST6 ST5 25$ 25E 50W Surface collected were one pIece ofamber "Black" glass 1 bottle glass, 12 pIeces of amethyst glass UID iron 1 Deptford UID sherds (three monogram S.C. DISpensary bottle Cape Fear Cord Marked fragments), 11 pIeces of clear glass, one Small premstonc sherds pIece of aqua bottle glass, one piece of light green bottle glass, one piece of light olive green bottle glass, one piece of light blue bottle glass, one pIece of blue bottle glass, two BrIStol slip stoneware bottle fragments, one pIece ThIS portIon of Fort Johnson was of white porcelam, one 5/64 mch bore kaolin ongmally recorded as 38CH69/71 and m 1972 the pIpestem, and one cut nail fragment. site was placed on the NatIOnal ReglSter of Histone Places, with the nommahon focusmg on The temporally sensitIve artifacts, such as the standing magazme (Figure 48). Although no cut nails and amethyst glass, suggest a mId to late mtenslVe survey was performed on the tract, the nmeteenth century use ofthIS area. While the bnck entIre 90 acres was mcluded m the National

96 dense m the eastern edge of the site) and Table 12. remams here were found to a depth of 2.5 Artifacts from Area 9 feet m some areas although artifacts and -lli..- 135 --EQ..... T41 bnck at the base of these tests were clearly Artifacts sn S13 sn 512 SD sn S12 S13 sn 25S sas waterworn. The artifacts are summanzed m Pearlware, undec 1 blue tp 1 Table 12. WhiteWare, undec 2 annular 2 blue ttans pnnted 1 The mean ceramic date IS 1845.8 Yellow ware 1 and the artifact pattern closely resembles an BrownSGSW 1 GraySGSW eighteenth century planter's context. White porcelain 1 "Black' Glass 13 Clear Glass However, thIS pattern IS probably due to the Cutnai1s 12 2 .sampling strategy, combmed wIth the umque UID nails 4 Wmdow glass nature... of the remams and vanous site UID flat metal transformatIons. 5/64 plpestem Prehistonc Ammal OOne 2 The central UTM coordinates are N3624050 E603200 and the soils are classified as Wando senes sands. Shovel RegISter nommatlon. Stanley South excavated testmg at the site yIelded a typical soil profile of portions of the site and exposed the remams of 0.9 feet of brown to dark brown sand overlymg several eIghteenth and nmeteenthcenturyfeatures, subsoil. In some areas (partIcularly south of the mcluding barracks for the fort and constructIon boat shed) the topsoil was found to a depth of 1.2 details around the magazme converted mto a bombproofdunng the Civil War. He also explored one of the two tabby CISterns (Figure 49). He also Table 13. noted the locatIon and conditIon of several tabby Mean CeramIc Date for Area 9 sea walls assoCIated with some of Fort Johnson)s Ceramic (xi) fi fi X Xl earliest fortificatIOns (Figures 50 and 51). Underglazed porcelain 1730 1 1730 White porcelain 1881 4 7524 Since South's mittal study little efforts has Pearlware, blue tp 1818 4 7272 been devoted toward stabilizmg the vanous undec 1805 1 1805 components ofthIS locus. While the magazme IS m Wluteware, blue tp 1848 1 1848 annular 1866 3 5598 relatIVely sound conditlon, vegetatIon WhIch South undec 1860 4 7440 noted was actIVely causmg detenoration of the Yellow ware 1853 I 1853 bnck work IS once agam present. The tabby sea Total 19 35070 walls contmue to be exposed to tidal erOSIOn. The cISterns have not been stabilized and the tabby IS Mean Ceramic Date. = 35070 - 19 = 1845.8 eVldencmg senous detenoratlOn. Inspite ofSouth's strong wammgs, a water treatment plant was built m the mlCist of one senes of very tmportant Civil feet and appeared to be disturbed. Profiles by the War fortificatlons (Figure 52) and other water were much deeper, exhibitmg complex earthworks are bemg gradually destroyed by stratification. The average profile here conSISted of encroachmg construction (Figure 53). 0.4 feet of dark brown soil, over 0.8 feet of medium brown soil with bnck and shell, overlymg Dunng thIS mvestIgatlon Area 9 was 1.0 feet of light brown soil with bnck and shell, surveyed either at 100 foot or 25 foot mtervals. As 0.4 feet of medium brown soil WIth light bnck and a result, a total of 26 shovel tests were excavated shell, all on top of a tan subsoil. with 11 (or 42.3%) yielding subsurface artifacts and/or bnck. These tests mdicated that the locus A large portIon of the site has been measures about 450 feet north-south by 900 feet destroyed by the constructIon of the College of east-west. Artifactual remams were particularly Charleston bIOlogical laboratory and the Marme

97

Resources Research Institul .~ building, m addition coordinates of N3623460 E602760. While to the constructIon of parkmg lots, a boat shed, additIonal testmg may reveal that it IS assocIated and a HVAC plant. In add! f.on, there were some with other nearby concentratIons such as Area 5, at ground disturbmg actIV1tIe~)etween the Marme the present tIme no clear aSSOCiatIon can be Resources Research Instltut~ building and the Civil demonstrated. The SIte measures about 150 feet War earthworks to the so 'rh durmg hurncane north-south by 150 feet east-west. Hugo cleanup (Mr. Foster Folsom, personal commumcation 1994). A senes of SIX shovel tests were excavated m a cruciform pattern across the SIte at 25 foot Nonetheless, shoveJ :estmg the area near mteIVals. Only one of these tests produced a smgle the College of CharlestoDJIOloglcal laboratory small prehIStonc sherd. While the tests revealed a mdicated that there are del .. ;e and deep deposits profile of about 0.4 foot of oyster shell mIdden assocIated with the sIte v. nch are still mtaet. overlymg a tan sand subsoil close to the Shore, thIS Combmed with South's excf,JtIOnal excavations, it mIdden thms out rapIdly toward the north (inland), IS clear that there are very fi;~ificant remams still becommg little more than a sheet mIdden about 50 preserved m thIS area, eveD imderlymg roads and feet from the marsh edge. other shallowly placed modcn features. ThIS area IS recommended as clearly contnbutory to the The data sets present at the site do not NatIonal RegISter Dommai ·on and no ground appear suitable to address a broad range of the disturbmg actIVitIes shouk take place m thIS research questIons appropnate to Middle portIon of the facilit' without detailed Woodland shell mIddens. Although care must be archaeologIcal mvestigatIon: exercISed m definmg the boundanes ofArea 5, and Area 10 may be found to represent an assoCIated Area 10 midden, at present ifit IS conSIdered a stand-alone locI, it IS recommended as not bemg a contnbutory Area 10 represents :1 small eroding shell resource nor IS it recommended as mdependently mIdden situated east of38Cl 16with central UTM eligible for mc1uslOn on the NatIOnal RegISter.

102 IDENTIFIED ARCHITECTURAL SITES AND FEATURES

In additIon to the below ground to supplement its more formal archaeologIcal sites and therr assocIated remams Adam ennchments may have (such as the tabby walls at Area 6 or the bnck been forced on its builder by the piles at Areas 5 and 8), thIS study also Identified embargoes and other and assessed a range of standing architectural mterruptIons to trade with structures and above ground features. It IS thIS England, whence the Adam totality WhICh makes our past so nch and vaned. ornaments came. Later, Amencan Explormg, or preservmg, only one aspect of our puttyworkers substItutedpatnotIc heritage yIelds a monotonous, unl-dimenslonal eagles for the lost nymphs, and understanding. In addition, both the federal and stars for the claSSIC rosettes, but state hlStonc preservation laws offer protectIon to gouge work, partIcularly among both archaeolOgIcal and architectural sites. these plantatIons, had by then pretty well taken the place of the The only structures WhICh, m the past, older style. have been recorded at Fort Johnson are the Marshlands House (SCDAR Survey Site ThIS work at Marshlands was #0890096) and the powder magazme (SCDAH SImilar to that m the town house Survey Site #0890112). While thIS coverage IS of John Ball's father and was likely the result ofthe nature ofthe survey process, probably by the same hand. The some may have assumed that it meant that none of mteriors ofthe older Ball's house the otherstructures on Fort Johnson are sIgIlificant are now m the home of Ellery or warrant protectIon. ThIS clearly IS not the case. SedgwIck, m Massachusetts, and Consequently, an mportant portIon of these are m part illustrated m the disCUSSIons will concentrate on the standing "GeorgIan PerIod" (Stoney architecture at Fort Johnson. In additIon, some 1977:77). bnef disCUSSIOn will be offered concemmg the architectural features, such as the vanous Stoney illustrates both the south and north facades earthworks present on Fort Johnson. These of the house m its ongmal settmg on the Cooper earthen fortifications are part of the landscape at RIVer, as well as prOVIding excellent photographs of Fort Johnson and represent conSIderable the gouge work on the cornIce, lintels, and Jambs engmeenng skill. Both, taken together, represent ofthe drawmg room doors; the brackets applied to an exceptIOnal resource. the stnng of the starr treads; and the mantle and fireplace surrounds (or chmmey pIece) with Standing Architectural Sites guilloche, dentil, and bellflower decoratIVe elements m several rooms. Marshlands In 1961 the house was moved from its Samuel Gaillard Stoney (1977) prOVIdes a ongmallocatIon to the Fort Johnson tract by the bnefaccount ofthe Marshlands House, notmg that College of Charleston. Stoney reported that the it was built m 1810 by John Ball on hIS Cooper house was to be restored by the Charleston RIVer nce plantatIon. He notes that: architects, Simons & Lapham. In 1972 Marshlands was nommated to the NatIonal RegISter, m spite of the laVISh and excellently executed its move, based on its umque and very well gouge work used at Marshlands preserved architectural detailing. The Natlonal

103

RegISter form provIdes additIOnal details regarding [preVIously the south elevatIon the structure: which overlooked the mamland] has a central ten foot square open Extenor: ThIS two-and-one-half portiCO on hIgh bnck foundatIons. story clapboard house restmg on On each SIde of the portICO at high bnck foundations has basement level are two wmdows. remamedbasIcallyunalteredsmce A steep eIghteen nser staIrWay on it was built m 1810. Bnck arcaded foundatIons leads to the foundatIons and chImneys, square portICO. Both staIrWay and however, were taken apart and portICO are surrounded by an rron reconstructed (with the exceptIon railing (formerly a wooded of one chmmey) followmg a 1961 balustrade.) PortiCO IS protected move of approXImately seven by a curved hood roof and miles. supportedby four slenderwooded Basement level of mam columns, two of WhICh are facade features an arcade ofeIght engaged. high bnck arches. (Two comer As m the mam facade, arches were formerly enclosed.) the back door IS flanked by two Also restmg on arched parrs of nme-over-nme-light, foundatIOns IS a steep, straight double-hung sash wmdows. bnck staIrway. Topped by a five-paned transom, First floor piazza extends the doorway IS framed by the Width of the house. Presently rectangular tracery Sidelights. The screened and enclosed by a back entrance opens mto the one balustrade, the piazza has the story clapboard extenSIon. ongmal hIpped roof With dentils Second level follows the on the soffit of the eaves. house's five wmdow pattern. Supportmg the WIde porch are Rear slope of the roof eIght slender freestanding served as the location for the two columns and two Identical ongmal mtenor chImneys, one of engaged columns. whIch was damaged and has not Behmd the piazza the been replaced smce the 1961 facade proper has a central move. A dormer m the palladian doorway flanked on each Side by style with mtersectmg tracery IS a parr of evenly spaced wmdows. centrally placed m roof line. On the second level there IdentIcal Side facades are five Identical wmdows. A parr conSISt of four evenly spaced of nme-over-nme-light, double wmdows on the basement level, hung sash wmdows are located on three wmdows on the first level, each site of a central WIndow. and two wmdows on second level. Louvered shutters have not been There IS a hIpped gabled dormer replaced followmg the 1961 move. set m roof on each Side. On the hipped front roof ofthe house IS a centrally located, Intenor: Entrance opens mto a gable wmdow which IS decorated spaCIOUS hall whIch IS flanked on with dentils and contams a seml­ either SIde by two rooms. Front elliptical, radiatmg fanlight. ThIS hall IS ornamented by an gable IS flanked on either Side by elaborate acanthus leaf cornIce two hIpped roof dormers and a plaster ceiling medallion. contammg slip-sill wmdows. ThIS hall contams an open-stnng Varymg from the mam staIrway with mahogany charr rail facade, the rear of the house and paneled wamscotmg. A

105 mahogany bannIster and gouge carvmg, contrastmg with ornamental brackets under the the more formal Adam treads also decorate the stalIWay. ennchments ill lower level rooms. The hand-carved Gouge work, deeply nIched woodwork m the east front room symmetncal deSIgns, IS recogmzed IS a valuable example of Adam as a more mdigenous Amencan ornamentatIOn. East room style than the Adam decoratIOn. fireplaee,rectangular wIth a In 1810 the maccessibility of marble surround IS framed by Adam mantels due to embargoes pilasters decorated m a wheat and other obstacles to trade WIth ear-drop pattern. Above the Britam mIght have mfluenced the pilasters IS an ornate three panel builder's selectIon of the sImpler fneze. A goddess beanng sheaves gouge carvmg. of nee, surrounded by a foliated Drrectly above second scroll pattern, forms the central floor rooms are two rooms on the tablet. On each SIde IS a panel thrrd level whIch have no mtenor with floral and swag deSIgn. All carvmg (S.C. Department of three tablets are framed by end ArchIVes and History, Marshlands blocks decorated WIth NatIOnal RegISter form on file). mytholOgIcal figures holding agncultural mstruments. Above While transported from its ongmal, and the fneze IS a dentate cornIce and more meanmgful phySIcal context, the house mantel shelf. remams an excellent architectural example of the IdentIcal sIX-panel doors penod. In the last quarter of the eIghteenth on each SIde of the fireplace are century vast fortunes were made from nee framed by fluted pilasters. Above cultIVatIOn, with planters seemg returns of over the door and pilasters IS a dentate 26% on therr mvestment -- all of course created cornIce and a three-panel gouge through the labor of Afncan Amencan slaves. By work entablature. Central raISed the 1820s, only a few years after the constructIon panel IS a fan deSIgn and IS of Marshlands, the rate of return on nce flanked by two panels m a wave cultIVatiOn had plummeted to a -6% and molding pattern. These fneze throughout the nmeteenth century profits were panels are framed by end blocks never greater than about 1 to 2%. By the eve of with a vertIcal sunburst destgD. the Civil War nce cultIvatIon saw a rate of return Wall decoratIon mcludes of -28% (Coclams 1989:141). Marshlands was built an elaborate cornIce, paneled at the crest of the nce planter wealth. Afterwards wamscotmg, and a chaff-rail, the few such grand houses built would be carved m altematmg rectangular constructed on borrowed money. blocks of a sunburst ellipse followed by a garland deSIgn on Normally moved propertIes are not fluted background. conSIdered eligible for mcluslon on the NatIOnal In the west room central RegISter, smee SIgnificance "embodied m locations panel of the fireplace fneze bears and settmgs as well as ill the properties themselves" a carvmg of a Roman tomb. (How to Apply the Naoonal Regzster Cntena for COrolceS are of a scroll deSIgn Evaluaoon, NatIOnal RegISter Bulletill 15, page 29). alternatmg every three or four However, propertIes such as Marshlands can be mches with a square metope nommated under Critena C (desIgn/constructIon) WhICh formerly contamed a small when they retam enough hIStone features to rosette, although most have now convey its architectural values and retam mtegnty disappeared. of deSIgn, matenals, workmanshIp, feeling, and The two second story aSSOCIation. Clearly thIS IS the case WIth rooms are noted for theIr fine

106 There IS eVIdence that the building was at one tIDle Marshlands. whitewashed. The front and rear gables, as noted by the National RegISter nommatlOn, are high: It IS mportant to note that the exceptional sIgnificance of thIS property, restmg as it does on with one-dimenSional linear desIgn and constructIon mtegrity, can be easily extensions at therr bases on the damaged through neglect, deferred mamtenance, roof line; the roof IS covered with and mproper adaptwe reuse. The custodians of a cement-like coatmg to prevent thIS sIte should be partIcularly careful to ensure it from talong fire. There are but that they have m place written plans for penodic two openmgs m the front of the mamtenance -- the first line of defence agamst a building: a semI-elliptIcal door wIde range of structural and cosmetic problems. and a small square wmdow set Deferred mamtenance should have no place m the .t.mIIlediately above the door for care of hIStone structures and where present are ventilation. The Side walls are little more than demolitIon through neglect. In pIeced m the center with slot additIon, the custodians should have written wmdows measurmgapproXlDlately disaster recovery plans for the structure. seven by fourteen mches. While Marshlands, gwen its age and settmg on the the extenor IS ongmal, the Charleston Harbor, IS partIcularly vulnerable to a mtenor IS barrel vaulted, probably range of disasters rangmg from plumbmg leaks to by the Confederate forces dunng humcanes. The fabnc of the building must be the early 1860s, to enable the roof protected from these disasters and thIS can only be to withstand the pressure of the accomplished through a detailed disaster earth when the building was preparedness and recovery plan. buned. The mtenor was further fortified with additIOnal Powder Magazme bnckwork m common bond (S.C. Department of ArchIVes and Stanley South prOVIded one of the first History, Fort Johnson NatIOnal profeSSIonal accounts of the powder magazme In RegISter form on file). 1973, notmg that it: As South clearly revealed durmg thIS IS of bnck, rectangular m shape, research at Fort Johnson, the structure was most with three buttresses on the north likely built as part of the forts modificatIons m and south SIdes. The roof IS of antIClpatIon of hostilitIes durmg the War of 1812. bnck that has been cemented Some reparr work appears to have been attempted over, but thIS has cracked and in the 1970s, although the repointmg and slDlilar allowed water and soil to enter, reparrs are rather crudely attempted. The mtenor and grass IS now growmg there. of the building IS used as locked storage and was Large cracks are to be seen m not accessible durmg thIS study. several places, where the pressure of the roof IS forCIng the waIls Of conSIderable concern IS the vegetatIon outward, and thIS IS soon to result once agam growmg from cracks m the building, m portIons of the wall falling suggestmg a deferred mamtenance program which outward (S.C. Institute of IS certam to cause rrreparable harm to the Archaeology and Anthropology, structure. In additIon, the use of the building for 38CH69 site file). storage IS mappropnate to its hIStone nature and may .cause damage to the building through The 1972 NatIonal Regtster nommatIon for Fort carelessness or fire. As will be discussed m the Johnson prOVIdes relatIvely little additIOnal detail, concluding section of thIS study, thIS building offers while repeatmg a number of hIStoncal errors. The anexceptIonalopportunity for publicmterpretatIon building measures 27.5 by 19.5 feet and IS and it should be mamtamed for that purpose. constructed of bnck laId up m FlemISh bond.

107 Quarantine Officers House It appears that there has been no clear recognition of thIS structure's hlstoncal ThIS structure (survey number U/19/0678/ SIgnificance, gIven the haphazard modificatlons, 249-2045) had not been preViously surveyed, reparrs, and "renovations." Even durmg thIS study although it IS ofconsIderable hIStoncallIDportance, contractors were engaged m modificatIons which representmg one of a senes of buildings failed to meet even the most baSIC levels of constructedby the City ofCharleston and the State preservatlon quality. Like the other architecturally of South Carolina about 1887 for the use of the SIgnificant sites on Fort Johnson, thIS complex quarantme officer stattoned at Fort Johnson. ThIS should have a program of proactIve mamtenance, survey was very bnef and mcorporated only as well as clearly established disaster preventIon extenor details. No mtenor survey was conducted, and recovery plans. All future modificatIOns should although a bnef walk-through was conducted. be as carefully assessed as those undertaken on Marshlands smce thIS complex IS no less SIgnificant The two story clapboard building IS m its own context. constructed on a "L" plan and set on bnck pIers WIth later bnck mfill. On the south elevatIon, Also worthy of note are the landscape WhICh eVIdently served as the formal entrance, are features, espeCIally the plants, aSSOCIated with thIS two full story porches filling the "L." The upper reSIdence. Although no detailed study was porch has a shed roof. ComparISon to ca. 1890 conducted, even a bnef tour of the Immediate photographs reveal that the upper screened porch surroundings revealed lantana (apparently has been recently added,while the lower porch has naturalized as a perennial), oak, spider wort, been recently screened. The smgle door on the camellia, trumpet vme, English IVY, wax myrtle (in front or south elevation has rectangular SIde and a formal settmg), azalea, amaryllis, sptrea, first overhead fan lights. The lateral gable roof IS breath of sprmg or forsythIa, and umbrella tree. covered m a standing seam tm roof WhICh These represent a WIde diversity ofplant matenals, eVIdences wear. There are two central chmmeys some natIVe to the area (such as oak and umbrella and one extenor chmmey (possibly a recent tree) and others clearly mtroduced plant matenal additIon). The bulk of the wmdows are SlX-over-slX­ (such as the lantana and amaryllis). These light, double hung sash wmdows. vegetatIVe landscape features are an lD1portant dimenSIOn of the settlement and should not be AsSOCIated IS a kitchen building, connected disturbed. to the mam house by a covered walkway. The kitchen 15 a smgle story, wood frame, clapboard Other Quarantine Station Structures structure with a lateral gable roof and standing seam metal roofing. Attached IS a screened m full­ There are remnants of other quarantme facade porch with a shed roof. The kitchen, like station structures on Fort Johnson, although most the mam house, IS lald on bnck piers. Also are heavily modified. Examples mcIude two associated with the house IS a small shed, possibly warehouses, the remammg portIon ofthe hospItal, post-datmg the mitlal construction of the house and a small office building. Because of the and kItchen. extenSIve alteratIOn of the hospItal, leavmg only portions of its west-facmg "H" shaped facade mtact, Themam house and connected kItchen are it was not evaluated m thIS study. It seems likely evaluated as contnbutmg resources to the NatIOnal that the building has been so modified that It IS no RegISter nommatlon. In additIon, they appear to longer a contributmg resource. The two be mdependently eligible for mcluslon on the warehouses, sItuated Just north of the hospital, NatIonal RegISter under Critenon A (aSSOCIatIOn have not been slgnificantly altered. Consequently, with events Important m the defined hIStone they are recommended as potentIally contributmg context) Cntenon B (assocIatIon WIth Dr. Robert resources and additional architectural evaluation IS Lebby, a noted South Carolina phySICIan who recommended. Like the hospItal, thIS study did not served m the Civil War and later helped organIZe conclUSIvely determme therr dates of constructIOn, the quarantme system), and Cntenon C although it IS Likely that they post-date the 1906 (desIgn/constructIon typIcal for the penod). control of the facility by the U.S. Public Health

108 109

SeIVlce. Safeguarding Histone Sites

A small, one-story wood frame office, Histone sites such as those on the Fort apparently datmg from the late nmeteenth century, Johnson tract are faced WIth both natural disasters preVIously eXISted m good condition on the edge of (such as humcanes) and man-made disasters (such a Civil War earthwork, set between the quarantme as plumbmg, roof leaks, and even mappropnate wharf and the station officer's house. Durmg thIS mallltenance and use). Consldenngthe exceptIonal survey the structure was m the process of bemg resources present on Fort Johnson, both "rehabilitated," with the associated loss of all mallltenance and disaster plans are strongly hIStone fabne, settmg, and context. Not only was recommended. the entrre structure gutted and stnpped, but it was so thoroughly enlarged and modified that they only Mamtenance remammg hIStonc fabnc were a few of ItS frammg members. Thestructurewas essentially demolished, Mallltenance IS a relatively sIDlple -~ even With a modem structure rebuilt on an enlarged absolute ~- ISsue: no mamtenance, no building. site. ThIS destruction, WIthout measured drawmgs, Stewart Brand observes that: photographs, or recordation, represents a senous loss to the architectural resources of Fort Johnson PreservatIonISts are so adamant while also endangenng the below ground on the subject [of mamtenance] archaeological resources. that the motto of then department at the US NatIOnal Post Quarantine Structures Park SerVIce declares "PreservatIon IS mamtenance." Most notable of the post-quarantllle (i.e., John Ruskm hlIDSelf, the founder ca. 1940, World War II VlDtage) structures on the of antI-scrape preservatIOn, Fort Johnson tract IS a pump house (survey mtoned, 'Take proper care of numberU/19/0678/249-2045) sItuated north ofFort your monuments and you will not Johnson Road at the entrance to the tract. It IS a need to restore them. A few rectangular, one-story wood frame and clapboard sheers of lead put m tIme upon building of slab constructIon. It has a hlp roof with the roof, a few dead leaves and very limited over hang covered m asphalt shmgles. stlcks swept out ofa water course, Windows are present, but have been boarded up will save both roof and walls from and were not available for mspeetlOn. A smgle rum. Watch an old building WIth paneled door IS situated on the east facade. The anxIOUS care; guard It as best you structure was presumably built to prOVide water for can, and at any cost, from every the facility as it was lIDproved m the mId-twentieth mfluence of dilapIdatIOn" (Brand century. Since the mtenor of the building was not 1994:111). exammed, we do not know whether the ongmal pump eqUIpment IS still m place and operable. Deferred or Improper mamtenance of hIStone structures IS the cause of many senous ThIS structure, alone, does not appear to problems rangmg from disfigurement or loss of the be a contnbutmg resource. Even ill COnjUnctIon hIStone fabnc through Irreparable damage. WIth additIOnal hIStoncal research or the collection Deferred mamtenance, begun m the 1970s as a of oral hIStones It IS unlikely that thIS structure can mechanIsm for reducmg mamtenance costs, seeks either contnbute to the hIStone context of Fort to prolong the use of baSIC building components Johnson or be conSIdered mdependently eligible. such as roofs, mcrease the penod between normal ThIS survey bnefly recorded the extenor of the mallltenance actIVitIes such as pamtmg, and reduce structure. Some additIonal recordatIon should be the overall level of custodial attentIon. Deferred undertaken on the mtenor pnor to either its mamtenance IS a certam recipe for problems wlth abandonment or eventual demolitIon. long-tenn consequences. Nommal mal1ltenance IS hzghly reactive andfails w meet either the needs ofthe

112 bUilding or its users. Unfocused mamtenance IS still Mamtenance on hIStonc structures should reactive, correcting perceIVed problems WIthOUt recognlZe that the most common problem mvolve consIderation ofcause oreffect. Frequent repamtmg, building dynamICS, mOISture, adverse approaches to for example, without attentIon to why the pamt 15 preVIOUS mamtenance, chemIcal actIons, and failing, may lead to much worse conditIons. msects/rodentslbrrds. By understanding the pathology of a building it IS eaSIer to ensure that An adequate mamtenance program correction actions are appropnate and treat the mcludes a listmg of actIVItIes and controls how root cause, not merely symptoms. often the cycle repeats. It defines, pnontlZes, and schedules all mamtenance actIVItIes. Mamtenance Preservation-mmded mamtenance 15 must be understood as a contmuous ongomg difficult for any bureaucracy to understand, much process -- It should be proactIve and preventatIve. less unplement. OrganIZed on outdated and Effectlve maIntenance programs mtegrate probably unworkable prmclples, those made assessment, plannmg, mamtammg, and evaluatmg. responsible for mamtenance of hIStonc structures The building's needs are penodically typIcally have no understanding of baSIC assessed through detailed mspectlons. The preservatIon philosophy and SImple architectural assessment must avoId the temptatIon to conservatIon procedures, much less a clear recommendtreatmentswithout fully understanding understanding of facilihes management the cause of the problem. For example, while It 18 responsibilitIes as mandated by the International temptmg to replace a cornIce damaged by Facilities Management AsSOClatIon. carpenter ants, It IS more lll1portant to find the source of water whIch lead to the mfestatIon and Requued reading, at a very general level, treat the problem wholistically. mIght mcIude Stewart Brand's How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. Brand After the assessment, WhICh should be goes beyond the traditIonal preservatIon text by wntten usmg detailed project evaluatIon sheets, a explonng how some buildings last, while other plannmg phase should determme what needs to be detenorate, notmg that much ofthe difference can done, how It should be done, who should do It, be found both m building care and also In how and how much It will cost. The plannmg stage well the building can adapt to change. should pnontlZe the needs of the building -­ treatmg all of the needs, but concentratmg on Movmg on to more technIcal ISsues, one cntlcal needs first. excellent source of mformatlon IS J. Henry Chamber's Cyclical Mamtenance for Histone The thIrd phase, that of mamtammg, Buildings which emphases daily (such as, checkmg emphaSIZes the need for regular attentIon. A smgle fire detectIon/suppressIon systems), weekly person should be held responsible, and (checkmg HVAC controls), monthly (lubncatmg accountable, for buildingmamtenance. ThIS person and adjustmg mechanIcal dnves), quarterly should also have the authority to halt work if It (cleanmg light fixtures), semiannually (sounding appears that It IS not gomg as planned or 15 fire alarms and conductmg drills), annual damagmg the hIStone fabnc of the structure. An (inspectmg boilers and controls), and qumquenntal equally 1lllportant aspect of thIS phase IS (inspectmg and testmg eleetncal msulatlon and documentation. It 1$ essential to document what IS mstallatlon) actIVitIes. done through photographs, drawmg, and even samples. Twenty or fifty years from now It IS Naturally, all work on the hIStonc essentIal that those undertakmg work know what buildings at Fort Johnson should ngorously adhere was done and how It was done. to The Secretary of the Intenors Standards and Rlustrated Guzdelines for Rehabilitatton, available Finally, the last stage IS evaluatmg the from the Supenntendent of Documents (stock work -- consldermg the quality, value, and success number 0240-005-01091-2). In addition, Building of the work. ThIS process helps mIStakes from ConservatIon International offers excellent bemg repeated and prOVIdes the next cycle of preservatIon adVIce, mcluding: mamtenance solid mformatlon on WhICh to build.

113 • There are few panaceas m It IS essentIal that Fort Johnson mstItute a bUilding. Nothmg lasts forever, program of rISk evaluatIOn, hazard mitlgatlon, and espeCIally if laced with cement. emergency preparedness whICh m.corporates the properties unU/ue, and Irreplaceable, hlStonc and • The easy answer IS often neither arcltaeologwal resources. ThIS covers a WIde range of the nght one nor the cheapest actIOns, mcluding Identifymg past emergencIes, one. determmmg the types of natural events which pose a threat to the hIStone structures, determmmg the •A quality Job will be economIcal types of damage whIch mIght be expected, and and save time and hassle ill the most Importantly, Identifymg the hazard and long run. emergency preparedness measures WhICh are needed to safeguard agamst the most probable • There are no hard-and-fast damage. Hazard mItigatiOn will mclude developmg rules. A situatIon must be Judged a work plan for carrymg out the structural and on Its merits. hazard proofing measures Identified, developmg a schedule for thIS work, and identifymg and An exceptIonal survey of preseIVatlon quality work securmg the necessary resources to ensure the IS 15 proVIded by Gersil Newmark Kay (1991) IS work correctly performed. It IS possible, through Mechanzcal and Electncal Systems for Histone appropnate plannmg, to balance hIStone Buildings. preservatIon mterests with disaster protectIon. Emergency preparedness mcludes the mventorymg Disaster PlannlDg and Recovery and photographmg of the Site pnor to any emergency, developmg appropnate protectIVe The first step m disaster plannmg and measures, developmg a resource list of profeSSIOnals to aSSISt m evaluations and recovery, recovery IS, ObvIOusly, recognIZe those threats whIch are preventable and work to prevent them. developmg a emergency response network, developmg a cham of command to ensure the The second step IS to recognIZe those threats WhICh are not preventable and work to reduce therr preservatIon of the structures, developmg a potentIal unpact. In the first category are fires -­ checklist of emergency response tasks, assembling the leading threat to hIStonc propertIes. Fires are supplies and eqUipment for recovery efforts, and preventable through the use of safe electncal prepanng a plan for how best to recover after a systems, occupant awareness, adequate fire disaster strikes. detectIon systems, andappropnate fire suppression systems. In the second category are humcanes. Staff must be tram.ed to know the actions to While not preventable, the unpaet of hurncanes to take dunng disasters and emergenczes not only w hIStonc structures can be reduced through protect theIr own lives, but also W protect the cultural approprIate plannmg. Even after the disaster, resources ofFort Johnson. Both can be done, but only whether preventable or not, the damage can be ifthere IS clear direction and trammg. linuted by undertakmg the correct actIons and After the disaster, the staff should have a steps ill a tllllely manner. clear understanding of how to stabilize the hIStone propertIes, mmimIZmg additIOnal damage. While While It IS almost certam that the facility has some form of disaster plannmg as a research personal safety comes first, the disaster plan must have proVlSlons for checkmg the buildings for facility, It IS likely that these plans proVIde little, if any, protectIon to the hIStone resources of the structural damage, stabilizIng saggmg plaster, tract. TypIcally mstltutlonal disaster plans are establishmg aIr ClfculatIon, and restormg safe geared, understandably, for busmess contmUlty, not electncal seTVlce. The plan should mcorporate a for the preservatIon of hIStone buildings, earthen clear understanding of msurance. The plan should fortificatlons, and underground archaeologIcal contam a detailed salvage plan for the structure, sItes. mcluding measures to make the building weathertIght and stable. All staff members should

114 understand that federal and state laws may apply, before the disaster After the disaster has occurred even m disaster situatIons and that work mvolvmg It will likely not be the tIme to seek and gather rehabilitatIon, reparr, restoratIon, or demolitIon mformatIon. will likely requrre the reVIew and approval of the State Histone Preservation Office. DemolitIon IS Landscape Features an acceptable alternatIVe only when all other alternatIVes have been exhausted. Often there are The Earthworks hlSloncally appropnate methods WhICh can be taken to stabilize and ultImately reparr damaged The prImarily landscape features at Fort buildings. Johnson are the earthworks assocIated with the vanous forts, prImarily from the Civil War. A One very good emergency salvage number of the hlStonc maps clearly show the procedure checklist has been developed by extend, and often the constructIon details, of these CarolIne Alderson, General SerVIce later earthworks. It IS regrettable that at the tIme AdmmlStratlon, NatIOnal Capital RegIOn, Histonc of thIS study no detailed topographIC map was Preservatlon. For noncombustible, waterproof available to aSSISt m delimItmg the extent of the Items the recommended approach IS to salvage as sUIVIVmg features. Regardless, companson of the much as possible and, if possible, to leave the hlStonc maps to on-the-ground features reveals matenals m place. Nothmg should be thrown away four major sUIVlVlDg earthwork systems. until its possible use IS fully known. For example, even completely shattered stone may be ground for Begmnmg south of the Gnce Manne use m composite patch reparr of other cracked or Biologtcal Laboratory are the remams of the chipped stone panels. Ornamental metal should be earthworkswhich ongmally formed the eastern and salvaged, either for reuse or for castmg southern penmeter around Fort Johnson. Today replacements. Woodwork and ornamental plaster remnants are found along the edge of the marsh IS often heavily damaged by either water or fire. north of the waste treatment plant and along the All mtact woodwork should be retamed and m edge of the marsh. In most areas the features are cases of extensIVe damage samples of every type rounded, eVldencmg a topography of 4 to 5 feet. should be retamed for replicatIon. Whole pieces Theseearthworks are assoClated With thefirst shots are best, but even broken plaster castmgs can be fired on Fort Sumter and on two abortIve Umon glued together to make a whole. Floonng should attempts to capture Fort Johnson. As Stanley be left m place for evaluatIon by an architectural South has preVIously noted, the locatIon of the conservator. The mtent should be to leave the wastewater treatment plant IS the area where the floonng necessary to show floor patterns, color, heaVIest fightmg took place dunng the mitIaI layout, and aSSOCIated borders. The wall-floor edge Union attempt to overpower the small guard left at IS very Important smce it often prOVIdes a the fort on July 3, 1864. A bombproof ongmally "footpnnt" for reproducmg features such as aSSOCIated with the southern end of the system IS wamscottmg and built-m furnlShmgs. still mtaet, while a second bombproof sItuated more centrally has been largely destroyed by Clean-up should conSISt only of non­ encroachmg development. The northern portion of chemical, non-abrasive methods. No detergents or thIS earthwork, mcluding a battery on the pomt has propnetary cleanmg products should be used on been destroyed through a combmatlon of erOSIon, unpamted wood, plaster, or metal. But most constructIon of modem facilities, and use as fill. lIDportantly, mvolve an architectural conservator AdditIonal damage has been caused by the lIDIDediately after a disaster to ensure that placement a bum area m the Vlcmlty of the lIDportant architectural details are not lost m the earthworks after HurrIcane Hugo (clearly recovery. demonstratmg the need for a well organIZed, appropnate disaster recovery plan). A disaster plan for Fort Johnson should mcorporate mformation on these, and additIonal, A battery situated southeast ofthe NOAA steps. The mformatlon must be on-hand, building apparently took advantage of a sand ndge understood, and capable of bemg Implemented to further enhance Its elevation. ThIS earthwork IS

115 ill generally good conditIOn, and the locatIon of the under National RegISter Critenon A (they have three gun emplacements IS still famtly VISible. made a SIgnificant contnbution to the broad Penpheral to thIS site are a senes of encampments, patterns of OUf hIStory) and Critenon D (they are which have been heavily lffipaeted by the NOAA likely to yield mformatlon lffiportant m our building. hIStory). Although madequate researched, it IS possible that the remnants of the northern The earthworks and Battery Harleston on fortificatIons assocIated WIth Battery Harleston the northern property boundary, faCIng the may represent umque constructIon technIques Charleston Harbor, have suffered extenSiVe found only m the Charleston area. If so, thIS erOSIon. Although portIons still most, without swift portIon of the SIte may also be conSIdered and definitive action these features will be clalffied mdependently eligible for mcluslOn on the Natlonal by the sea withm the next decade. RegISter under Critenon C (they contam SIgnificant works of engIneenng). Runnmg about north-northeast by south­ southwest and crossmg the Fort Johnson Road are Mamtenance and Disaster the remnants oftrench and earthworkfortificatlons Recovery ConSiderations WhICh may date from the Amencan Revolution. While the features cannot be exactly matched to Just as the standing structures requrre any exammed maps, most of the resources from clear mamtenance and disaster recovery plans, so thIS tlIDe penod fail to prOVIde the detail necessary too do these earthworks. In the past they have for convmcmg compansons. Regardless, these been needlessly damaged by actIVities rangmg from remams are likely the oldest on the property. constructIon to humcane recovery. Now that their locatIon, and SIgnificance, IS more fully understood These remams are recommended as several areas of concern should be qUIckly contnbutmg resources to the National ReglSter addressed. The first IS the need to develop specific nommatlOn of Fort Johnson. In additIon, there IS erOSIon control strategIes. Along the Charleston good eVIdence that they are mdependently eligible Harbor it seems likely that erosion IS caused, or for mcluslOn on the NatIonal RegJSter (for a bnef encouraged, by the contmued dredgmg performed reVIew of Civil War site preservation efforts m the by the U.S. Army Corps of Engmeers. If so, they Charleston area see Stine 1993). The early may be responsible for developing and earthworks represent some of the few remammg lDlplementmg an erOSIon control program to defense lines mtended to protect the City of protect these sites, or alternatIVely, of undertakmg Charleston. AdditIonal hlStoncal research may data recovery excavations. If additIonal research more clearly define therr constructIon date, but determmes that the Corps' actIVitIes are not even absent thIS mformation they represent unIque responsible for the loss of thIS site, then the landscape features assoCIated with the very earliest SCDWMR mustunderlake an lndependentprogram to hIStOry ofFort Johnson. The Civil War earthworks protect these sues. Continued loss to eroswn IS the represent IIDportant histoncal features aSSOCIated equJValent to the de11UJlition ofa standing stnlcture by with the Confederate efforts to create a defenSIVe neglect. ErOSIOn control optIons mclude the nng proteetmg Charleston. They are further constructIOn of a sea wall or the mstallatlon of np­ stgIlificant gwen therr functIon m the first few rap. Along the marsh frontage erOSIon IS likely hours of the Civil War. In additIOn, portIons ofthe natural and the SCDWMR 15 alone responsible for property are best understand ill terms of hollowed mamtammg and protectmg these features. While ground, where Umon and Confederate forces careful selectIon and encourage of vegetatIOn may actually met ill battle. be adequate for seasonally high tide erOSIon, it IS likely that additIOnal steps will be necessary to ConstructIon details of bombproofs and protect the landscape features from hurncane earthworks, coupled with the ability to reconstruct damage. camp lifeways usmg aSSOCIated archaeologIcal It 15 also essential that controued remams, add yet another dimenSIon to the operatIOns and actiVIties undertaken at Fort SIgnificance of these landscape features. These Johnson be deSIgned and lffiplemented not to features are recommended mdependently eligible

116 adversely affect the Identified cultural resources. essential that the soils be dry before downed Virtually all actMtles, rangmg from parkIng vegetation IS mechalllcally removed. Even on dry vehIcles to excavatmg utility lines will damage soils only rubber tracked vehicles should be used. archaeological and hIStorical resources. The care If skId trails are necessary they should not be and mamtenance of these resources IS a public allowed to cross earthworks. All clearmg should be trust which demands considerable care and done usmg the least mtruslve methods possible. attention. There should also be a recogmtlon that as the vegetation pattern of the sites change so too may DISaster plannmg and recovery should therr preservation problems. Bum areas should be recognIZe thatoften conventional "recovery" efforts phySically removed from sensitive hlStonc or cause as much or more damage than the disaster. archaeological sites. In VIrtually every disaster case It IS essentIal that a clear plan be developed which there are experts available WhICh have confronted guards agamst further damage durmg clean-up the Identical or slIDilar situation -- thIS expertISe efforts (for a bnef reVIew of these ISsues see should be consulted to ensure that the hlStonc Morgan 1993). resources are not further damaged.

For example, after a humcane it IS

117 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Histoncal Findings map.

The research for Fort Johnson, even at the At the begmnmg of the Amencan necessarily superficIal level of thIS survey, reveals RevolutIon Fort Johnson was seIZed by the Council an exceptIOnal complex and nch hIStOry. While of Safety and held until 1780 when the BritISh often overshadowed by Forts Sumterand Moultne, General, Henry Clinton, laId SIege to the city. The Fort Johnson has played a part m the defence of fort was blown up by the ColonISts before the fort Charleston durmg the French and Indian War, the was abandoned. Itwas dunng thIS penod, however, Amencan RevolutIon, the War of 1812, and the that some ofthe first earthworks were established. Civil War. An effort was made after the Amencan The first fort was built ill 1708 as a RevolutIon to once agam upgrade the defenSIVe response to the vulnerability of the colony durmg works and a new fort was built Just west of the old Queen Anne's War. While no good records of thIS ones. Efforts were made to mamtam thIS fort, but first fort could be found, some hIStonans believe when the threat posed by the War of 1812 was that it was tnangular m form with bastIons at each realized Fort Johnson was once agam little more comer and a moat on the land SIde. Before thIS than a pile of rubble. The new battenes the .property, known as Windmill Pomt, was the constructed m 1812 to protect the harbor entrance plantatiOn of William Russell and later John King. were almost munediately destroyed by the August Dunng thIS early penod the lands were bemg 1813 humcane. It was probably dunng thIS phase cultIVated, possibly for mdigo or subSIStence crops ofconstructIon that the bnck powder magazme still like com. present on the site was built. Accounts from 1827 mdicate that almost nothmg remamed of the fort. By 1724 the fort was already showmg SIgnS ofsenous detenoratlon and the process ofneglect, Rather than once agam rebuild the fort, a madequate repaIr, and dismterest was already martello tower was constructed southwest of the established. The next major renovatIon was the old forts, along with barracks for the men and 1759 tabby fort built m antIcIpatIon of French or officers. These towers, with maSSIVe bnckwalls and SpanISh attack dunng the French and Indian War. haVIng a platform on top for one or two guns, were Tabby IS a mIXture of burned shells (WhICh forms thought at the tIme to be great defenSIVe value. lime, servmg as the bmder), whole oyster shells The James Island martello tower, one of only a (servmg as the aggregate), mIXed with water to few constructed on the East Coast, stood until Just form a slurry. Poured m forms and allowed to before the Civil War when it burned. harden it lS a good building matenal, but does not faIT well when exposed to eIther cannon fire or the Durmg thIS penod of peace local planters undermmmg effects of the tIdes. began a summer village at Fort Johnson, known as Johnsonville, to take advantage of the "healthful As the threat subSIded so too did the climate." They built a small city, laymg out roads enthusIasm of the Assembly to pay for the work and establishmg an almost urban enVlfonment and constructIon was apparently never completed. south of the fort. Although no copy of the ongmal plan can today be Identified, a contemporary map shows an eccentnc Although there were occaSIonal proposals plan WhICh suggests that he may have had access to to reactIvate Fort Johnson's more maSSIve defenses the plans and SImply mcorporated them IDtO the little was actually done until the post was seIZed by

118 the Confederate forces for the constructIon of a the federal government and offered to the state. mortar battery. On 4:00 on the mommg of April When, after five years of contentious wrangling no 12, 1861, a shell from thIS battery exploded over proposal for use ofthe property was advanced, the Fort Sumter, sIgnalling the bombardment of the land returned to federal ownershIp. In 1954 a UnIon fort and the begmnmg of the Civil War. consortIUm of the College of Charleston and the Medical Umversity of South Carolina proposed to Over the next several years Fort Johnson develop Fort Johnson mto a manne bIOlogIcal was consIderably strengthened. Outposts were research center and m June 1954 a quitclalID deed established, mcluding Battery Simkms on the was ISsued by the U.S. Department of Health, southeast, Battery Glover about two miles to the Educatlon, and Welfare. While efforts to create a west, Battery Wampler m the present-day hlStonc park, complete with tour boats leavmg Fort CleafYlew SubdivIsIon, and Battery Harleston, near Johnson for Forts Sumter and Moultne,were agam the old martello tower. In all there were at least 26 raISed m the late 1960s, the bulk of the land was guns and mortars at the vanous battenes. In eventually deeded to the South Carolina Wildlife additIon, an extenSIVe entrenched camp was and Marme Resources Department m 1970. A constructed at Fort Johnson mcluding bombproofs, small portIon of the property was retamed by the officers and enlisted quarters, and magazmes. The College of Charleston for its Gnce Marme only real actIon Fort Johnson saw durmg the Civil Laboratory. The South Carolina Medical War was on July 3,1864 when Umon forces landed UnIVersity kept title to a dwelling on the between Battery Simkms and Fort Johnson. northeastern pomt WhICh IS today used for office Although the Dmon forces fought therr way mto space. parts of the defenSIVe system they were forced to surrender when no remforcements were ExammatIon ofhIStoncal maps reveals that forthcommg. On the nIght of February 17, 1865 a number ofstructures, features (such as wells and Fort Johnson and the assocIated battenes were CISterns), and earthworks were constructed on the evacuated as part of the general Confederate property. While some of these, partIcularly the withdrawal from Charleston Harbor. fortificatIons built on the Charleston Harbor, have been destroyed by erOSiOn, many others have likely By the early 1880s Fort Johnson was SUrvIVed. converted mto a quarantme statIon under the JOIDt JunsdictIon ofthe City ofCharleston and the State. ArchaeologIcal Findings Vessels from ports with suspected contagtons or with SIckness on board were requITed to stop. The archaeologIcal research at Fort Ballast would be unloaded and discarded on site, Johnson conSISted of a relatIvely traditlonal while the ShIpS were washed with merCUrIC mtensIVe surveywIth subsurface excavatIons (shovel bichlonde, a powerful (and pOIsonous) dismfectant tests) placed every 100 feet along transects also and then fumIgated with sulfur diOXIde fumes. spaced every 100 feet. Some areas of the property Bedding and clothmg from the ShIpS would be receIVed even more mtensIVe survey, with tests placed m a huge contamer and heated to a placed at 25 or SO foot mtervals or a metal temperature of 2400 F for 15 to 20 mmutes. detector used to Identify military and architectural remams. It 15 no exaggeratlon that there are few The old military buildings were replaced areas on the 90 acre survey tract WhICh do not by a dwelling houses for the quarantme officer, contam some eVIdence of cultural actIVIty -- eIther engmeer, and captam of the launch. Also built pottery, glass, bnck fragments, shell, or even above were barracks for officers, female passengers, and ground remams. the crews of vessels bemg detamed. A "fever hospital" and "pest.house" were built for the ill, as An unusual range of cultural resources, well as storage buildings and warehouses. some of whIch are umque, are present at Fort Johnson. The site's military hIStory and aSSOCiated In 1906, the U.S. Public Health ServIce military remams prOVIdes the opportumty to study took over these quarantme dutIes from the State the lives of soldiers dunng the range of late and City. In 1948 the property was abandoned by eIghteenth century and early nmeteenth century

119 conflicts. The ability to explore camp life at all still central ISsues ill Middle Woodland research Confederate mstallatlOns offers partIcularly today For all of these research opportunIties -- all Iffiportant data forcompanson with the recent of these resources -- to be found on one tract IS research by Legg and Smith (1989) at UnIon uncommon to say the least. camps on Folly Island and Legg et aL (1991) at a Umon camp on Hilton Head Island. Not only are A senes of 10 "areas" were defined on the there possibly cultural differences, but the blockade basIS of sub-surface remams, surface collectIons, of Charleston may have reduced the supply ofboth and assOCIated above ground features. These areas essentIal and luxury Items to Confederate troops, are bnefly recounted m Table 2 and most are further reducmg the comfort of camp life. DIetary assocIated WIth the property's eIghteenth or studies may be able to proVIde additIonal nmeteenth century hIStonc occupation, although mformation on the supply of troops and therr several date from the prehIStOrIC perIod. A ability to forage. Even Fort Johnson's earthworks, management deCISIon, m consultatIon WIth the S.C. such as the sunken gun emplacement on the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, was Charleston Harbor and at "Bunker HilI,tI may offer made to classify all of these SItes under the mitial unIque engmeenng data not available from other SIte form, 38CH69, for Fort Johnson. ThIS sources. The rums of the martello tower, for WhICh prevented the further proliferation ofSIte numbers there are sUIVlVlllg plans at NatIOnal ArchIVes, on the tract, the concurrent problems assOCIated represents one oftwo or three such structures built with SIte boundanes and espeCially multIple on the East Coast of the United States. While components WIth different boundanes. there were a number of summer villages for the planters, some of WhICh were abandoned, none At some levels thIS approach may also help have been archaeologIcal illvestlgated. ThIS slffiplify assessment for the purposes ofcompliance assemblage offers the opportunity to explore a WIth eIther federal or state cultural facet of plantatIon life WhICh IS neither truly urban resources/hIStonc preservatIon acts. Since all 90 nor rural, but WhICh lies halfway between the two acres of the Fort Johnson facility were placed on extremes. Seekmg shelter ill these villages from the the NatIOnal Regtster m 1972, the ISsue becomes hotweather illness whIch mvaded therr plantations, not whether a site IS eligible for mcluslon on the little IS known about the architecture or the NatIonal RegISter, but rather whether a partIcular lifestyle. The use of the facility as a quarantme area or feature IS a contnbutmg resource. It also statIOn offers yet another umque opportumty to encourages a more wholistIC approach to cultural explore the lifestyle of government workers who resource management, emphaslZlDg that the entIre were m one sense ISolated from Charleston SOCiety, facility IS listed on the NatIonal RegISter. but m another way were mtImately exposed to the goods and Ideas of a WIde range of cultures. Only In spite of the survey mtensIty, It qUIckly two mdiVIduals (both brothers) held the positIon of became obVIOUS that the complexity of Fort quarantme officer pnor to 1906. Even between Johnson's resourceswould preclude slffiple answers 1906 and 1948 the post had only a handful of to some management questIons. For example, health officers, allowmg better control of research while the survey ISolated areas of speCIal concern questIons. While not umque, Fort Johnson also or whIch eVIdenced concentrations of cultural offers the opportunity to study the use of the "freetl remams, it could not consIStently Identify if a government land by Afncan Amencan freedmen. relatIVely small area was "free" of cultural The lifeways of these squatters, who likely matenals. What thIS means IS that while thIS study represent a large segment of the black populatIon offers exceptIOnal potential for managmg cultural ill the postbellum penod, have not been studied resources, Identifymg areas where constructIon and would offer essential comparative data to both actIvitIes will almost certamly cause damage to the the freedmen of Mitchelville and more rural blacks cultural resources, It IS potentIally less useful ill engaged III tenancy. Even the prehIStonc SItes at certifymg that small constructIon projects will have Fort Johnson offer exceptIOnal Opportulllties for no IDlpact m areas where the density of remams research. South's work at one shell mIdden seems lower. In other words, the study clearly revealed the potentIal for recovery of structural reveals where remams are, although It IS less data, subSIStence remams, and radiocarbon data --

120 accurate m forecastmg where·they aren't. aSSOCIated Civil War earthworks). The quarantme officer's house IS bemg modified or "rehabilitated" Architectural Findings usmg non-preservatIon methods WhICh may result ill devalumg its architectural Significance. The "above ground" sites on Fort Johnson consISt of both traditIOnal standing archItecture The earthworks have fared little better. and also the vanous earthworks and remnant Some have been extenSively damaged by erOSIon, fortificatIOns, perhaps best classified as engmeermg others have been leveled for fill dirt, and still features. Both, however, contribute to the rIchness others have been damaged by constructIon of the of Fort Johnson, prOViding ulllque preservatIOn wastewater treatment facility and the opportullltIes. "rehabilitatIon" of an late nmeteenth century structure. Those WhICh remam, formmg four The Marshlands House, while not ongmal concentratIons or clusters, are ImpreSSIVe and of to Fort Johnson IS certamly an archItectural Jewel clear unportance. They mclude the Civil War shore representmg what Stoney has described as '1avISh battery, largely destroyed by erOSIOn; the eastern and excellently executed" gouge work, as well as and southern battery, largely mtact and also datmg excellent examples of more formal Adam from the Civil War; the Civil War battery south of ennchments. Although preservatIon at Its ongmal the NOAA building; and portIons ofan eIghteenth locatlon, complete wIth a hIStonc context and century earthwork crossmg Fort Johnson Road. archaeological remams, would have been decidedly more appropnate, Its relocatIon IS nevertheless a Identification of Significant Areas success story. LikeWISe the powder magazme IS a very early structure, likely datmg to constructlon All three sources of data -- the hIStoncal around 1812 and offers an equally Important research, the archaeologIcal survey, and the standing feature for mterpretatlOn of the SIte and architectural features -- must be conSidered m Its hIStory. The quarantme officer's house, while evaluatmg Significance. Figure 62 prOVIdes a only recognIZed dunng thIS study as an graphIC representatIon ofthose areas on the facility architectural resource, IS certamly as Important as WhICh eVIdence Significant cultural remams. the other structures m its own nght. Representmg low country vernacular constructIon, the house was apparently constructed by the City of Charleston Insofarassuchgeneralizedrepresentations and the State of South Carolina sometIme m the are useful for management deCISIons, those areas 1880s. It represents, as far as can be determmed, shown as havmg a high level of cultural the only SUrvIvmg example of thIS type of facility m SIgnificance should be protected from any future South Carolina. There are also examples of development activities. In these areas the cultural standing archItecture on Fort Johnson whIch remams are so dense, or complex, that requITe further evaluation, such as the warehouses archaeological recovery would not only be expense Just north of the ongmal quarantme hospital. and tIme consummg, but the excavatIon ofthe sites would perhaps not best serve the public. Instead, Unfortunately, not all of the ongmal these areas offer an exceptional opportunity for archItecture at Fort Johnson has been preserved, hIStonc site mterpretauon and public mvolvement or has been preserved senSItIvely. For example, the m the hIStOry and heritage of Fort Johnson. "HI! shaped hospItal has been so extenSIvely modified with laboratory additlons that It no longer Those areas shown as haVIng a moderate represents an archItecturally Significant resource. level of cultural SIgnificance should not be Even at the tIme of thIS study, a small office developedwithout additlonalarchaeological survey building, likely assOCIated with the pre-1906 and, most likely, data recovery. In some areas the quarantme statIon, was bemg dismantled, data recovery may be costly and/or tIll1e refabncated, enlarged, and reconstructed, totally consummg. However, the resources mvolved are destroymg Its architectural mtegrity and prImarily 1lllportant for the mformation they SIgnificance (as well as damagIng below ground contam and can be satISfactorily recovered, gIVen archaeologIcal remams and threatenmg the adequate funding and tIme. Even here, however,

121 every possible effort should be made to avoid use as both an Engmeer's Office and later as a of these areas, allowmg the sites mstead to be quarantme station. There IS little hlStoncal or "banked" or preserved for future research. archaeological documentatIon for either type of facility, further supportmg careful preservatIon and Those areas shown as havmg a low level of management of Fort Johnson. Identification of cultural SIgnificance can likely be developed with early eIghteenth century sites was less successful. In little or no additional archaeological mvestlgatlon. fact, while a few ISolated early eighteenth century The current survey level suggests that cultural artifacts were recovered, there are no assemblages remams are either very sparse m these areas or which suggest the plantatIon development of that they have been so thoroughly disturbed as to William Russell or John King. There are several no longer retam the level of mtegrity necessary to equally likely explanations for thIS mlSsmg address SIgnificant research questIons. assemblage. Settlements m thIS area, Judgmg from mld- to late-eIghteenth century maps, tended to Some areas are also shown on the map as occur relatIvely close to the harbor shore. The havmg been developed, such as building sites, Windmill Pomt settlement may therefore have roads, and otherheavily lffipacted areas. Contmued been lost to erosIon. It IS also possible that the use or mamtenance of these areas will not likely relatively bnef settlement, at most only extant for affect any cultural resources, however, expansIOn of 14 years, may have been "swamped" by the later eXlStmg facilities, even by seemmgly small "developments," losmg clear recognItiOn. It IS also proportIons, may result m the additIonal loss of likely that any structures present would have been cultural resources. at least temporarily adopted by the military, perhaps for officer's quarters. While Re-evaluation of Goals unrecognIzable at the survey level, it IS possible that detailed excavationswill eventually Identify the The goals preVIously established for thIS early settlements on Windmill Pomt. project largely have been achIeved. The pnmary goals of site IdentificatIOn and evaluation, coupled NatIVe Amencan settlement on the pomt with an evaluatIon of site loss, have been met. seems limited. ThIS, coupled with the presence of Although thIS management document focuses on only one soil senes, served to limit our research m "areas" of actIVity, as opposed to the more thIS area. However, it became qUickly eVIdent that conventIOnal concept of "site," concentratIOns of NatIVe Amencan settlements aVOIded the harbor actIVitIes and cultural remams were clearly SIde m favor of the more protected marsh Identified and assessed as either contnbutmg or frontage. South and Widmer preVIously observed non-contnbutmg resources withm the context of that prehlStonc settlements mcorporated both the the eXlStmgNatlonal ReglSternommatIOn. Further, sand ndges and the mtervenmg troughs, so SImilar thIS study has bnefly illustrated areas of cultural findings by thIS study are by no mean "new" data resource loss, not m an effort to assess blame, but (although mdependent confrrmatlon at slightly to pomt out the extraordinary Importance of thIS different locations more strongly supports the site and the need for responsible resource assertIon that thIS IS not a umque situatIon). management. Losses to South Carolina's heritage are not recoverable. ThIS IS a unIque site WhICh Essential Management Actions requITes speCIal attention and conSideration. FortJohnson represents a umque resource The secondary goals mcluded exammahon to the State of South Carolina. Its custodians bear of the military sItes at Fort Johnson, IdentificatIon a smgular responsibility, holding thIS SIte m public of early eIghteenth century settlements on the trust. In the past the cultural resources have not tract, and explore NatIveAmencansettlement. The always receIVed appropnate care or conSIderatIOn. archIval research clearly documents, even at thIS The wastewater treatment facility was constructed prelimmary stage, the mportance of Fort Johnson m the mIdst of the Civil War fortifications at the as a military post. A summary of these findings very site of the July 1864 battle. The constructIon have been preVIously discussed. In addition, thIS ofthe NOAAbuilding destroyed a number of Civil study also reveals that the tract has a nch hIStOry War encampments, despite assurances that the

123 sItes would be avoIded. The NOAA building even the SIgnificance, and fragility, ofarchaeologIcal and damaged or destroyed an Afncan Amencan hlStoncal resources. The D1VlSion of Contmumg

cemetery, with no effort to locate or remove the EducatIon at the Umversity of Nevada t Renot for graves made dunng the construction. An office example, offers courses such as "Archaeology for building assocIated with the quarantme statIon has Managers," "Cultural Resource ProtectIon and the been so totally altered that it no longer possesses Law/' and "Public PresentatIons About the Past/' any mtegrity or sIgnificance. while the NatIonal Park ServIce offers courses such as "Introduction to Federal Projects and Histonc One of the first essentIal steps for the PreservatIon Law." All of these may be helpful to management of hlStonc resources anywhere, those with the responsibility to manage the mcluding those at Fort Johnson, IS for the archaeologIcal and hIStoncal resources present at managers to better understand the nature, and Fort Johnson. Implications, of preservatIon. Amenca's foremost architectural hIStonan, Vincent Scully, described ThIS study has Identified a range of the preservatIon movement as "the only mass additIonal steps whIch should be taken to ensure popular movement to affect critIcally the course of thelong.term preservatIon ofthese resources. Each architecture (and hIStOry m general] ill our ISsue IS bnefly presented below m bold type, century." Commg from seemmgly out of nowhere followed by the recommended actIon or actIons m dunng the 1970s and 1980s, it was a qUIet, populist italics. Since the goal of thIS survey was not the revolutIOn. As Brand observes, one central element creatIon of a detailed preservatIon plan, these was that, "people liked old buildings, and essentIalmanagement actIons are presented m only profeSSionals who couldn't get along With that a generalized format. could find another line of work" (Brand 1994:88). 1. It IS essential that all management level But the mportance of the movement was staff at Fort Johnson recogniZe the Significance of greater than slDlply that people liked old buildings the site and the legal obligation to protect these and It covered much more temtory than SImply resources. PreservatIon, to be taken senous by architectural sites. Preservation mcorporated a support staff, must be seen as havmg the support philosophy oftme and responsibility for resources ofthe very hIghest levels of admmlStratlon. ActIons -- such as those at Fort Johnson -- and It to ensure that the Importance of Fort Johnson IS recognIZed that these resources embody our recognIZed may mclude clrculatwn of thIS study, hIStory. As the cultural hlStonan Ivan Illich has mcorporatwn of cultural resource ISSUeS m staff remarked, "History gIVes us distance from the meetings, and a memorandum to all staff. A staff present, as if It were the future of the past. In the meeting wh~h mvolves the S.c. State Histone sprrit of contemplatIon It releases us from the Preservatlon Office should be conducted on s1Je to pnson of the present to examme the axIoms of our acquamt upper level management WIth thezr legal bme." obligatwns to protect and preserve Fort Johnson's cultural resources. Through tIme It has become mcreasmgly apparent that archaeological, hIStoncal, and 2. It IS equally essential that all staff architectural Sites all offer exceptIonal economIc recognIZe their part In helpIng to preserve and potentIal --. they have the ability to promote protect Fort Johnson. Many tImes the actIons of hentage based tourISm. They prOVIde an additIOnal bulldozer operatIOns or JamtorIaI staff can help or dimenSion -- Fort Johnson IS not only fishenes hmder preservatlon efforts and they must be research, It IS also hIStory. Under pressure from mcorporated m the preservatIon loop. The small preservatIOnIsts, economISts have begun to Fort Johnson brochure preVIOusly prepared by understand that hIStone SItes, like forests, are best Ch~ora Foundatzon should be distributed to all appraISed as possessmg mtergeneratwnal equity. current and new staff of the facility. As additIonal preservatlon steps are Implemented they should be There are a number of courses WhICh are explamed to the staff, not Simply mandated. deSIgned to help site managers better understand

124 3. Steps should be taken to ensure that the help protect cultural resources from man-made cultural resources at Fort Johnson are not and natural disasters and to ensure that recovery damaged by routine maintenance or research efforts are appropnate and do not cause activities. Many seemmgly normal aetMtIes, such additional damage. The plannmg should as parkmg, use of hIStOrIC buildings, or laymg of mcorporate archaeological SItes, standing new utility lines, can cause Irreparable damage to structures, and landscape features. It should the cultural resources. Immediate actrons should receIVe admmlStratlVe support, mcluding adequate znclude limztzng parlang to wzthzn 50 feet ofhIStone staff tIDle and finanCIal resources to ensure Its resources such as earthworks and buildings, removal success. An zmmediate step should znclude formzng of all stored matenals from wzthm the powder a disaster preparedness commzttee WIth the authonty magazzne, and establishzng a cleannghouse for an to proceed zn the planmng. A workable plan should ground disturbzng actzvztles, no matter how small or requzre no more than 3 months to prepare, revIeW, znszgnificant they may seem to be. Another zmmediate and Implement. Part ofthzs commzttee's responsibility actzon should be an evaluatwn ofall rehabilitatzon should be an evaluatzon ofsecunty needs, especUllly actzons currently underway at Fort Johnson. In fire detectzon systems. for the standing hIStone partzeular, zt zs zmportant that electncal contractzng at structures. the quarantzne officer's house zntegrate more sensztzve preservatzon approaches. Moderate-term actrons (i.e., 6. Fort Johnson is a unique historical actzons to be undertaken wzthzn the next three to SIX property and steps should be taken to mterpret months) should znclude the development of a that history for both staff and visitors. While Fort proactzve mazntenance plan for the hzstone structures Johnson IS not a hlStoncal park, and likely will on Fort Johnson and an evaluatron ofmazntenance never become one, the umqueness and SIgnificance and preservatzon needs by an archztectural of its hIStoncal resources cannot be Ignored. conservator such as George Fore and Assoczates. InterpretatIon of these resources for the staff, the occaSional VISitor, and those specifically mterested 4. Steps should be taken to ensure that the m its hIStOry (for example, the Civil War battle site resources at Fort Johnson are protected from tourISt) will ensure that the public has access to looters, metal detector enthusiasts, and other that hIStOry and will also promote a greater collectors. The cultural resources at Fort Johnson awareness of its SIgnificance to South Carolina. A belong to all members of the public, but are held mmzmal level of mterpretatzon mvolves three steps. m trust by the SCDWMR. As custodians of thIS The first zs to ensure that hIStone Sl1es, structures, resource it IS essentIal that steps be taken to and features are well cared for and offer an ensure that these resources are not lost to looters appropruzte Image to the public. Thzs mcludes, for and those usmg metal detectors. The example, ensunng that the standing structures have admmIStratIon must realize that Civil War "relics" preventatwe (not deferred) mazntenance and that all are valuable commodities. Some buttons, for work zs done according to stnct preservatzon example, will easily bnng $200 on the open market. standards. It zncludes keepzng landscape features The lootmg of Fort Johnson's cultural resources accessible and open for public vlSltatzon. The powder mvolves not only trespass, but also destructIon of magazzne should no longer be used for storage, but state property. An zmmediate actzon IS to advzse all should be openedfor the public. The secondstep zs to staff members, by memo, that anyone observed ensure that the public has some bnef hzstoncal diggzng or uszng a metal detector on the grounds account of Fort Johnson, the buildings, and the should be zmmediately reported to secunty. archaeolOgICal sztes. Somethmg szmilar to Chu:ora's SCDWMR Law Enforcement Officers should be brochure would be appropnate. Thzs should be acquaznted wzth the zmportance ofFort Johnson and available at different offices and from a protected enlisted to assISt m Slte protectJOn. Through tune znterpretatlve display at the front gate. The thIrd step szgnage may be an appropnate actron, but thzs should IS to create znterpretatzve Slgnage at major features, be further evaluated In light of other zncluding the NOAA building to commemorate the recommendatzons below. Afncan Amenean cemetery, the martello tower, the Civil War earthworks, and the powder magazzne. s. Fort Johnson should develop plans to

125 7. Portions ofFort Johnson continue to be eroded and protective steps must be taken. Of partIcular concern IS the erosIon to the Charleston Harbor sIde of the facility and the loss of the Civil War earthworks. Fort Johnson should znvestzgate the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engmeers to protect the facility's cultural resources from eroswn created by mazntenance and use of the harbor. Regardless ofresponsibility, steps should be taken to develop and lmplement an erOSLOn control program to protect the threatened cultural resources.

126 SOURCES

Allston, R.F W Groups Commonwealth 1854 Essay on Sea Coast Crops. A.E. ASSOCiates, Inc., Jackson, Miller, Charleston. Michigan. Submitted to NatIonal Park ServIce, ArchaeolOgical Anderson, DaVId G. SerVIces Branch, Atlanta. 1975 Inferences from DlStnbutlOnal Studies of PrehIStOrIC Artifacts m Andrus, Patnck W the Coastal Plam of South 1992 Guzdelmes for Identifymg, Carolina Southeastern Evaluatzng, and Regzstermg ArchaeolOgICal Conference Bulletm Amenea ~ Histone Battlefields. 18:180-194. NatIonal RegISter BulletID 40. NatIonal Park SerVice, 1979 Excavatwns at Four Fall Lme Interagency Resources DIVISIon, Sites: The Southeastern Beltway Washmgton, D.C. Project Commonwealth AsSOCIates, Inc., Jacksonville, Anonymous MichIgan. Submitted to the South n.d. Proposal for Archaeologzcal and Carolina DepartmentofHighways Histone Research at the Site of and Public TransportatIon, Fon Johnson, Charleston County, ColumbIa. South Carolina Presented to the South Carolina Wildlife Resources 1985 Middle Woodland SocietIes on Department and the College of the Lower South AtlantiC Slope: Charleston. S.C. Institute of A View from GeorgIa and South Archaeology and Anthropology, Carolina. Early Georguz 13:29-66. Umversity of South Carolina, ColumbIa. Anderson, DaVId G., Charles E. Cantley, and A. Lee NOVICk Barlow, A.R. 1982 The Mattassee Lake Sites: 1899 Company G. A Record ofServzces ArchaeologICalInvestrgatwnsAlong ofOne Company ofthe 157th N.Y the Lower Santee River In the Volunteers In the War of the Coastal Plazn of South Carolina. Rebellion. AW Hall, Syracuse. Commonwealth Assoaates, Inc., Jackson, MichIgan. Submitted to Bense, Judith A., Hester A. DaVIS, Lorrame NatIonal Park SerVIce, Heartfield, and Kathleen Deagan Archaeological ServIces Branch, 1986 Standards and GUIdelines for Atlanta. Quality Control m Archaeological Resource Management m the Anderson, DaVId G. and Joseph Schuldenrem Southeastern Umted States. (editors) Southeastern Archaeology 5:52-62. 1985 Prehzstone Human Ecology Along the Upper Savannah Rzver: Blanton, DennIS B., ChflStopher T Espenshade, ExcavatuJns at the Rucker's and Paul E. Brockmgton, Jr. Bottom, Abbeville and Bullard Site 1986 An Archaeologzcal Study of

127 38SU83: A Yadlan Phase Site m Brooks, Mark, Larry LeplOnka, Ted A. Rathbun, the Upper Coastal Plam of South and John Goldsborough, Jr. Carolina. Garrow and AssocIates, 198 Prelzmznary ArchaeologIcal Atlanta. SubmItted to South Investzgatzons at the Callawassze Carolina Department Highways Island Bunal Mound (38BU19), and Public Transportatlon, Beaufort County, South Carolina. ColumbIa. Research ManuscrIpt Senes 185. South Carolina Institute of Brand, Stewart Archaeology and Anthropology, 1994 How Buildings Learn: What UnIVerSIty of South Carolina, Happens After They're Built. ColumbIa. Vikmg, New York. Burton, E. Milby Brooker, Colin 1970 The Siege of Charleston, 1861- 1991 Callawassle Island Sugar Works: 1865 Umversity of South A Tabby Building Complex. In Carolina Press, ColumbIa. Further Investigations ofPrehlStonc and Histonc Lifeways on Bum, Manon L., Jr. CallawasSle and Spnng Islands, 1987a The U.S. Quarantme StatIon, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Fort Johnson, James Island, S.C. Edited by Michael Trmkley, pp. 1937-1948. Ms. on file, S.C. 110-154. Research Senes 23. Department of Wildlife and ChIcora FoundatIOn, Inc., Marme Resources, Charleston. ColumbIa. 1987b The U.S. Quarantme StatIon, Brooks, Mark and Glen Hanson Fort Johnson, James Island, S.C. 1987 Late ArchaIc-late Woodland 1939-1955. Ms. on file, S.C. AdaptIVe Stability and Change m Department of Wildlife and the Steel CreekWatershed, South Manne Resources, Charleston, Carolina, draft. Ms. on file, South Carolina. Savannah RIVer Archaeologtcal Research ProJect, South Carolina Butler, William B. Institute of Archaeology and 1987 SIgnificance and Other Anthropology, Umversity of Frustrations m the CRM Process. South Carolina, ColumbIa. Amencan Annqulty 52:820-829.

Brooks, Mark, D.J. Colquhoun, J.G. Brown, and Caldwell, Joseph R. PA Stone 1943 Cultural Relatzons of Four Indian 1989 Sea Level Change, Estuanne Sites of the Georgza Coast. Development and Temporal Unpublished Master's thesIS, VarIability m Woodland Penod Department of Anthropology, SubslStence-SettlementPatternmg Umversity of ChIcagO, ChIcagO. on the Lower Coastal Plam of South Carolina. In Studies In 1958 Trend and Traditzon zn the South Carolina Archaeology, Prehzstory of the Eastern Umted edited by Albert C. Goodyear and States. Memolfs of the Amencan Glen T Hanson, pp. 91-100. AnthropologIcal AssociatlOn 88. Anthropological Studies 9 South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology 1971 Chronology ofthe GeorgIa Coast. and Anthropology, Umversity of Southeastern ArchaeologIcal South Carolina, ColumbIa. Conference Bulletzn 13:88-92.

128 Caldwell, Joseph R. and Cathenne McCann Copp, Eldndge J. 1940 SemI-Annual Report on the 1911 Remznzscences of the War of the ExcavatIons ill Chatham County. Rebellion 1861-1865. Telegraph Ms. on file, ChIcora FoundatIon, PublIshIng, Nashua, New Inc., Columbia. HampshIre.

Calhoun, Jeanne A. Courtenay, W.A. 1983 The Scounng Wrath ofGod: Early 1883 The CentennIal of the Humcanes m Charleston, 1700­ IncorporatIon of Charleston. 1804 Leaflet 29 The Charleston Charleston Year Book, 1883. Museum, Charleston, South Charleston, South Carolina. Carolina. Dawson, William Forrest, editor Cantu, Mona and Jo Ann Allen 1957 A Civil War Artlst at the Front, 1981 38CH71. A Forensu Case Study. Edwm Forbes' Life Studies of the Ms. on file, ChIcora FoundatIon, Great Army. Oxford Umversity Inc., ColumbIa. Press, New York.

Coclams, Peter A. DePratter, Chester 1989 The Shadow of a Dream: 1979 CeramIcs. In The Anthropology EconomIC Life and Death In the of St. Cathennes Island 2. The South Carolina Low Country 1670­ Refuge-Deptford Mortuary 1920 Oxford Umversity Press, Complex, edited by DaVId H. New York. Thomas and Clark S. Larsen, pp. 109-132.Anthropologzca/Papers of Coe, Joffre L. the Amencan Museum ofNatural 1964 The Fonnatl,ve Cultures of the History 56(1). Carolina Piedmont. TransactIons of the Amencan PhilosophIcal 1985 The Dunlap Site: A Woodland SOCiety 54(5). Occupation on the Pee Dee RIVer. Paper presented at the Cohen, Ethel M. Eleventh Annual Conference on n.d. Quarantlne. Ms. on file, WPA South Carolina Archaeology, files, South Carolimana Library, ColumbIa. C-3-16. DePratter, Chester and J.D. Howard Cooke, C. Wythe 1980 IndianOccupatIonandGeolOgIcal 1936 Geology of the Coastal Plam of History of the GeorgIa Coast: A South Carolina. Bulletrn 867 U.S. 5,000 Year Summary In GeolOgIcal Survey, Washmgton, Excurszons In Southeastern D.C. Geology, edited by James D. Howard, Chester B. DePratter, Cooper, Thomas and Robdrt W Frey, pp. 1-65. 1837 South Carolina Statutes, vol. 2. A. GUIdebook 20. GeolOgIcal SOCiety S. Johnson, Charleston, South of Amenca, Atlanta. Carolina. DeVorsey, LoUIS, Jr., editor 1838 South Carolina Statutes, vols. 3 1971 DeBrahm's Report of the General and 4. A.S. Johnson, Charleston, Survey zn the Southern Dzstnct of South Carolina. North Amenca. UnIVersity of South Carolina Press, ColumbIa.

129 Drucker, Lesley and Ronald W Anthony March 28, 1749-March 19, 1750. 1978 AnArchaeologzcal Reconnazssance S.C. Department of ArchIves and of the Lake City Wastewater History, ColumbIa. Treatment Improvements ProJect. Carolina ArchaeologIcal Semces, Edgar, Walter B. (editor) ColumbIa. 1972 The Letterbook ofRobert Pnngle. 2 vols. UnIVersity ofSouth Carolina Drucker, Lesley and Susan H. Jackson Press, ColumbIa. 1984 Shell m Motzon: AnArchaeologzcal Study ofthe Mimm Island Natronal Espenshade, ChrIStopher T and Paul E. Regzster Site, Georgetown County, Brockmgton South Carolzna CarolIna 1989 An Archaeologzcal Study of the Archaeological SerVIces, Mimm Island Site: Early Woodland ColumbIa. SubmItted to DynamICs m Coastal South Charleston DIStnct, U.S. Army Carolina. Brockmgton and Corps of Engmeers, Charleston, AsSOCIates, Atlanta. Submitted to South Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engmeers, Charleston DIStnct, Charleston. Easterby, J.H. 1951 Journal ofthe Commons House of Espenshade, Chnstopher T., Lmda Kennedy, and Assembly of South Carolina, Bobby G. Southerlin November 10, 1736-June 7, 1739 1993 What Is A Shell Midden? Data Histoncal CommISSIon of South Recovery Excavatzons of Thom's Carolina, ColumbIa. Creek and Deptford Shell Middens, 38BU2, Spnng Island, South 1952 Journal ofthe Commons House of Carolina. Brockmgton and Assembly of South Carolina, AsSOCIates, Inc., Atlanta. September 12, 1739-March 26, 1741 Histoncal CommISSIon of Ferguson, Leland G. South Carolina, Columbia. 1971 South Appalachzan MisszsSlppzan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertatIon, 1954 Journal ofthe Commons House of UnIVersity of North Carolina. Assembly of South Carolina, UnIversity Microfilms, Ann September 14, 1742-January 27, Arbor. 1744 S.C. Department of ArchIVes and History, Columbia. 1976 AnArchaeologzcal Survey ofa Fall Lme Creek: Cane Creek ProJect, 1955 Journal ofthe Commons House of Rzehland County, South Carolina. Assembly of South Carolina, Research Manuscnpt Senes 94. February 20, 1744-May 25, 1745. South Carolina Institute of S.C. Department of ArchIves and Archaeology and Anthropology, History, Columbia. UnIVersIty of South Carolina, Columbia. 1956 Journal ofthe Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina, Garrow, Patnck H. September 10, 1745-June 17, 1746. 1975 The Woodland Penod North of S.C. Department of Archives and the Fall Lme. Early Georgza History, ColumbIa. 3(1):17-26.

1962 Journal ofthe Commons House of Glassow, Michael A. Assembly of South Carolina, 1977 Issues m Evaluatmg the

130 Significance of ArchaeologIcal 1984 Atlas of Antebellum Southern Resources. Amencan Antzqulty AgrICulture. LOUISIana State 42:413-420. UnIVersity, Baton Rouge.

Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neal W Horlbeck, H.B. Ackerly 1890 MaritIme SanitatIon at Ports of 1979 L a u r ens - Ande r son A n Amval. In City ofCharleston Year Archaeologzeal Study of the Inter­ - 1890, pp. 135-158. Walker, RIverIne PIedmont Evans & Cogswell, Charleston, AnthropologIcal Studies 4. South South Carolina. Carolina Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology, University of 1891 Mantzme Samtatwn at Ports of South Carolina, Columbia. Arnval. Republican Press, Concord, New Hampshrre. Hacker-Norton, Debi and Michael Trmkley 1984 Remember Man Thou Art Huneycutt, DwIght J. Dust:Coffin Hardware ofthe Early 1949 The Econom~s of the Indigo Twentzeth Century. Research Industry m South Carolina. Senes 2. ChIcora FoundatIon, Unpublished M.A. TheSIS, Inc., ColumbIa. Department of EconomICS. UnIVersity of South Carolina, Hammond, Henry ColumbIa. 1884 Report on Cotton ProductIon of the State of South Carolina. In Ivers, Larry E. Report on the Cotton Productwn m 1970 Colomal Forts of South Carolina, the Umted States, edited by 1670-1775. UnIVersity of South Eugene W Hilgard, pp. 451-526. Carolina Press, Columbia. Census Office, Department ofthe Intenor, Washmgton, D.C. Johnson, A Sidney, H.G. Hillstad, S.F Shanholtzer, and G.F Shanholtzer Hanson, Glen T., Jr. 1974 An Ecologzcal Survey of the 1982 The AnalysIS of Late Archalc­ Coastal Regwn of Georgza. EarlyWoodlandAdaptIVeChange NatIOnal Park Servtce SCIentific Along the Middle Savannah Monograph SerIes 3 RIver: A Proposed Study. South Washmgton, D.C. Carolina Instztute of Archaeology and Anthropology Notebook 14:1­ Johnson, Joseph 38. 1851 Traditwns and Remmzscences Chiefly ofthe Amencan Revolutwn Hemphill, William E. m the South. Walker and James, 1960 Extracts from the Journals of the Charleston, South Carolina. Provmclal Congresses of South Carolma: 1775-1776 S.C. Kay) Gersil Newmark Department of ArchIves and 1991 MechanICal and Electncal Systems History, Columbia. for Histone Buildings. McGraw­ Hill, New York. Hilliard, Sam B. 1972 Hog Meat and Hoecake: Food Keith, Willis J. Supply m the Old South, 1840­ 1975a Fort Johnson. Civil War Times 1860. Southern IllinOIS UnIVersity Rlustrated 14:32-39 Press, Carbondale.

131 1975b The Marshlands House. Ms. on Legg, James B. and Steven D Smith file, S.C. Department of Wildlife 1989 "The Best Every Occupzed..." and Manne Resources, Archaeologzcal Invesngatzons of a Charleston, South Carolina. Civil War Encampment on Folly Island, South Carolina. Research 1984 Martello Tower Rums. Ms. on Manuscnpt Senes 209 S.C. file, S.C. Department of Wildlife Insitute of Archaeology and and Manne Resources, Anthropology, UmversIty of Charleston, South Carolina. South Carolina, ColumbIa.

Kjerfve, Bjorn Legg, James B., Chnstopher T Espenshade, and 1975 Climatology of Kiawah Island. In Lynn M. Snyder Envzronmental Inventory ofKiilwah 1991 Camp Bazrd: Archaeologz,cal and Island, edited by William M. Histoncal Investzgatwns of the Campbell and John Mark Dean, Autumn 1864 Camp of the 32nd pp. C-l - C-34. Envuonmental us Colored Infantry, Hilton Head Research Center, Inc., ColumbIa. Island, South Carolzna Brockmgton and AssocIates, Inc., Kutz, Herman and Kenneth Wagner Atlanta. 1957 Tidal Marshes of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts ofNorthern Flonda LeplOnka, Larry, Donald Colquhoun, Rochelle and Charleston, South Caro/ina. Mamnan, DaVId McCollum, Mark Brooks, John Studies 24. Flonda State Foss, William Abbott, and Ramona Grunden Umverslty, Tallahassee. 1983 The Second Refuge Site, Locatwn 22 (38JA61), Savannah National Larsen, Clark Spencer and DaVId Hurst Thomas Wildlife Refuge, Jasper County, 1982 The Anthropology ofSt. Cathennes South Carolina. UnIversIty of Island 4. The St. Cathennes Phase South Carolina, Beaufort. Mortuary Complex Submitted to NatIonal Park AnthropologIcal Papers 57(4). SerVice, Inter-agency The Amencan Museum of ArchaeologIcal Servtces, Atlanta. Natural History, New York. LIpscomb, Terry W Lebby, Robert 1991 The Carolina Lowcountry, April 1872 Annual Report of Quarantzne 1775~June 1776. S.C. Department Operatzons on the Coast of South of ArchIves and History, Carolina for the Year Ending ColumbIa. October 31st, 1872. Ms. on file, South CarolinIana Library, 1993 South Carolina m 1791. George ColumbIa. Washmgton's Southern Tour S.C. Department of ArchIves and 1911 The First Shot on Fort Sumter. History, ColumbIa. South Carolina Histoncal and Ludlum, D.M. Genealogzea/ Magazme 12:141­ 1963 Early Amencan Humcanes, 1492­ 145. 1870 Amencan MeteorologIcal SOCIety, Boston. Lefler, Hugh T (editor) 1967 Lawson s A New Voyage to Lynch, P.N., J.F.M. Geddings, and C.U Shepard Carolina. UniVersity of North 1882 ArteSIan Wells - 1823-1879 Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Yearbook - City of Charleston. Charleston, South Carolina.

132 Mathew, William M. ClassificatIOn and EconomIC 1992 Agnculture, Geology, and Socrety Scaling of English Ceramics from zn Antebellum South Carolina: The 1787 to 1880. Histoneal Pnvate Dzary of Edmund Ruffin, Archaeology 25:1-25. 1843. UnIVersity ofGeorgta Press, Athens. Mills, Robert 1972 Statisttcs of South Carolina. Mathews, Thomas D., Frank W Stapor, Jr., Repnnted. The Repnnt Press, Charles R. RIchter, John V Miglarese, Michael D. Spartanburg, South Carolina. McKenZIe, and Lee R. Barclay Ongmally published 1826, 1980 Ecolo~al Charaetenzatzoiz of the Hurlbut and Lloyd, Charleston, Sea Island Coastal Regwn ofSouth South Carolina. Carolina and Georgza, vol. 1. Office of BiolOgIcal ServIces, Fish Morgan, Robert T and Wildlife ServIce, Washmgton, 1993 The Effects of Humcane Hugo D.C. on the Cultural Resources m the FrancIS Manon National Forest. MichIe, James L. In Site Destructzon m Georgza and 1980 An Intensrve Shoreline Survey of the Carolinas, edited by DaVId G. Archaeologz.cal Sites m Port Royal Anderson and VirgmIa Horak, Sound and the Broad Rwer pp 32-38 Interagency Estuary, Beaufort County ArchaeolOgIcal SeIVIces DIVISion, Research Manuscnpt Senes 167 NatiOnal Park Service, Atlanta. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Mustard, Harry S. UnIVersity of South Carolina, 1963 On the Building of Fort Johnson. ColumbIa. South Caroilna Histoncal MagaZlne 64:129-135. Milamch, Jerald T 1971 The Deptford Phase: An Noel Hume, Ivor ArchaeologlCal ReconstructIOn. 1970 A Guu1e to Artifacts of ColomaI Ph.D. dissertatIon, UnIVersity of Amenca. Alfred A Knopf, New Honda. UnIVersity Microfilms, York. Ann Arbor. Peterson, Drexel Milamch, Jerald T and Charles H. Farrbanks 1971 Time and Settlement In the 1980 Flonda Archaeology. AcademIC Archaeology ofGroton Plantation, Press, New York. South Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertatIOn, Departmentof Miller, E.N., Jr. Anthropology, Harvard 1971 Soil Survey of Charleston County, UnIVersity, Cambndge. South Carolina. U.S.D.A., Soil ConservatIon SerVIce, Phelps, DaVid S. Washmgton, D.C. 1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plam: Miller, George L. Problems and Hypotheses. In The 1980 ClassificatIon and EconomIC Prehzstory of North Carolina: An Scaling of19th Century CeramICS. Archaeologzcal SympoSlum, edited Historu.:al Archaeology 14:1-40. by Mark A. MathIS and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1-51. North Carolina 1991 A ReVISed Set of CC Values for DIVISIon of ArchIves and History,

133 RaleIgh. Prmtmg, Columbia.

PreservatIon Consultants Sandifer, Paul A., John V Miglarese, Dale R. 1989 James Island ana Johns Island Calder, John J. ManZI, and Lee A. Barclay Historlcal and Archltectural 1980 Ecologzcal Charactenzatzon of the Inventory PreservatIon Sea Island Coastal Regwn ofSouth Consultants, Charleston, South Carolina and Georgztl, vol. 3. Carolina. Office of BiologIcal ServIces, Fish and Wildlife ServIce, Washmgton, Pnce, CynthIa D.C. 1979 19th Century Ceramzcs m the Eastern Ozark Boarder Regzon. Sassaman, Kenneth E., Jr. Monograph Senes 1. Center of 1993 Early Pottery m the Southeast: ArchaeologIcal Research, Trend and Innovatzon m Coolang Southwest Missoun Umverslty, Technology UnIverSIty of Spnngfield. Alabama Press, UnIVersIty, Alabama. Roberts, Wayne D and Olga M. Caballero 1988 Archaeologzcal Test ExcavatlOns at Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T Site 38BK984, Berkeley County, Hanson, and DaVId G. Anderson South Carolina. South Carolina 1990 Natlve Amencan PrehlSwry of the Department of Highways and Middle Savannah Rlver Valley: A Public TransportatIOn, '::;-.)lumbla. Synthesls of Archaeologlcal InvestzgatlOns on the Savannah Rosen, Robert N. Rrver Site, Aiken and Barnwell 1982 A Short History of Charleston. Countzes, South Carolzna. Lexikos, San FrancJSco. Savannah RIVer ArchaeologIcal Research Papers 1. South Salley, AS. Carolina Institute ofArchaeology 1915 Warrants for Land m South and Anthropology, Umversity of Carolina, 1692-1711 S.C. South Carolina, ColumbIa. Department of Archives and History, ColumbIa. Scurry, James and Mark Brooks 1980 An Intenszve Archaeologlcal Survey Salley, A.S. editor of the South Carolina State Ports 1944 Journal ofthe Commons House of Authonty's Bellvlew Plantatwn, Assembly of South Carolina, June Charleston County, South 2, 1724-June 16, 1724 General Carolina. Research ManUSCrIpt Assembly of South Carolina, Senes 157 South Carolina ColumbIa. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, UnIversity of 1945 Journal o/the Commons House of South Carolina, ColumbIa. Assembly of South Carolina, November 1, 1725-April 30, 1726. Seabrook, WhItemarsh B. General Assembly of South 1848 An Essay on the Agncultural Carolina, ColumbIa. Capabilines of South Carolina. John G. Bowman, Columbia. 1946 Journal ofthe Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina, Sherfy, Marcella and W Ray Luce November 15, 1726-March 11, n.d. Guidelines for Evaluatmg and 1726/7 State CommerCIal Nomlnatmg Propertzes That Have

134 Achzeved Significance Withzn the South Carolina, Columbia. Last Fifty Year.s. NatIonal RegISter Bulletm 22. NatIonal Park 1977 Method and Theory In Histoncal SeMce, Interagency Resources Archaeology. AcademiC Press, D1VlSlOn, Washmgton, D.C. New York.

South Carolina Water Resources Comnusslon South, Stanley and Randolph Widmer 1973 Wando RIver EnvIronmental 1976 Archaeologzcal Sampling at Fort Quality Studies, An Intenm Report. Johnson, South Carollna ColumbIa. (38CH275 and 38CH16) Research Manuscnpt Senes 93. South, Stanley S.C. Institute of Archaeology and 1960 An ArchaeologIcal SUlVey of Anthropology, UnIversity of Southeastern North Carolina. Ms. South Carolina, ColumbIa. on file, Research Laboratones of Anthropology, Umversity of Stme, Lmda France North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1993 Site DestructIOn or Park ConstructIon: Charleston County's 1974 An Archaeologzcal Survey of An Civil War Sites. In Site Destructwn Area of Fort Johnson. Research zn Georgza and the Carolinas, Manuscnpt Senes 62. S.C. edited by DaVId G. Anderson and Institute of Archaeology and VirgInIa Horak, pp. 49-58. Anthropology, Umverslty of Interagency ArchaeologIcal South Carolina, ColumbIa. Semccs DlVlSlOD, NatIonal Park Semcc, Atlanta. 1975a A Research DesIgn for Prelimmary ArchaeolOgIcal Field Stoltman, James B. Study at the Site of the 1974 Groton PIa ntalIon An SoutheastemUtilizattonResearch Archaeologzcal Study of a South Center (38CH275) at Fort Carolina Locality. Monographs of Johnson, South Carolina. Ms. on the Peabody Museum 1, Harvard file, S.C. Institute ofArchaeology Umversity, Cambndge. and Anthropology, UnIVersity of South Carolina, ColumbIa. Stoney, Samuel Gaillard 1977 Plantatlons of the Carolina Low 1975b Fickle Forts on Windmill Pomt: Country Caroltna Art Exploratory Archaeology at Fort AsSOCIatIon, Charleston. Johnson, South Carolina. Research Manuscnpt Senes 81. S.C. Stuart, George E. Institute of Archaeology and 1975 The Post-ArchaIC Occupatwn of Anthropology, UnIversity of Central South Carolina. Ph.D. South Carolina, ColumbIa. dissertatIon, UnIversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1975c Prelimmary Assessment of the Site UnIversity Microfilms, Ann of the Southeastern Utilizatlon Arbor. Research Center and the Waste Treatment Plant at Fort Johnson, Sutcliffe, Shelia South Carolina. Research 1972 Martello Tower.s. DaVId and Manuscnpt Senes 79. S.C. Charles, Devon, England. InstItute of Archaeology and Anthropology, UmversIty of

135 Thomas, DaVId Hurst and Clark Spencer Larsen Department of Highways and 1979 The Anthropology ofSt. Cathennes Public TransportatIon, Columbia. Island 2. The Refuge-Deptford Mortuary Complex 1982 A Summary Report of the AnthropologIcal Papers 56(1). Excavatlons at Alligator Creek, The Amencan Museum of Charleston County, South Natural History, New York. Carolina. V.S.D.A., Forest Se!Vlce, Columbia. Thompson, Morrow B. 1972 What IS an Estuary? In Port Royal 1983 CeramIcs of the Central South Sound Envzronmental Study, Carolina Coast. South Carolina edited by the S.C. Water Antzquztzes 15 :43-53. Resources ComnussIOn, pp. 7-15. State Pnntmg, ColumbIa. 1990 An Archaeologzcal Context for the South Carolina Woodland Penod. Townsend, Jan, John H. Spnnkle, Jr., and John Research Senes 22. ChIcora Knoerl Foundation, Inc., Columbia. 1993 Guulelines for Evaluatmg and Regzstenng Hzstoncal 1993 Is There A Future for Shell Midden Archaeologzcal Sites and Dzstncts. Research. Research Contnbution Bulletm 36. NatIonal Park 118. Chicora Foundation, Inc., SerVIce, NatIOnal RegISter of ColumbIa. Histonc Places, Washmgton, D.C. Tnnkley, Michael (editor) Trott, Nicholas 1991 Further Investlgatzons ofPrehzstonc 1736 The Laws ofthe Provmce ofSouth and Histone Llfeways on Carolina. Charles Town, South Callawassre and Spnng Islands, Carolina. Beaufort County, South Carolina. Research Senes 23. Chicora Tnnkley, Michael FoundatIon, Inc., Columbia. 1980a Investzgatzon of the Woodland Penod Along the South Carolina 1993 The History and Archaeology of Coast. Ph.D Dissertation, Kiawah Island, Charleston County, UniVersity of North Carolina at South Carolina. Research Senes Chapel Hill. University 30. Chicora FoundatIOn, Inc., Microfilms, Ann Arbor. ColumbIa.

1980b Additzonal Investzgatums at Site Tnnkley, Michael and Natalie Adams 38LX5 South CarolIna 1993 ArchaeolDglCal Testzngat38BU861, Department of Highways and A Middle Woodland Shell Midden Public Transportation, Columbia. on Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Research 1981a Archaeologzcal Testlng of the ContributIOn 120. ChIcora Walnut Grove Shell Midden Foundation, Inc., Columbia. (38CH260), Charleston County. U.S.D.A., Forest SerVIce, Tuomey, M. Columbia. 1848 Report on the Geology of South Carolina. A.S. Johnson, ColumbIa. 1981b Studies ofThree Woodland Penod Sites m Beaufort County, South Wallace, DaVid Duncan Carolzna. South CarolIna 1951 South Carolina: A Short History,

136 1520-1948. Umversity of South Carolina Press, ColumbIa.

Ward, H. TrawIck 1978 The Archaeology of WhItes Creek, Marlboro County, South Carolina. Research LaboratorIes of Anthropology, Umversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Warmg, Joseph 1. 1967 A History of Mediczne m South Carolina, 1825-1900 S.C. Medical AssoCIatIon, ColumbIa.

Williams, Stephen B. (editor) 1968 The Wanng Papers: The Collected Works of Antomo J. Wanng, Jr. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology 58.

Wilson, Homes Hogue 1982 An Analyszs of Skeletal Matenal from Bwo67, BrunswICk County, North Carolina. Unpublished Master's thesIS, Department of Anthropology, Umversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Zierden, Martha A., Lesley M. Drucker, and Jeanne Calhoun, editors 1986 Home Upnver: Rural Life on Damels Island, Berkeley County, South Carolma CarolIna Archaeological ServIces, COlumbia and The Charleston Museum, Charleston. Submitted to the South CarolIna Department of Highways and Public TransportatIon, Columbia.

137 Archaeological Investigations

Historical Research

Preservation

Education

Interpretation

Heritage Marketing

Museum Support Programs

Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 ▪ 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, SC 29202-8664 Tel: 803-787-6910 Fax: 803-787-6910

www.chicora.org