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.