DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fig Island Ring Complex (38CH42): Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the Late Archaic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Fig Island Ring Complex (38CH42): Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the Late Archaic edited by Rebecca Saunders with contributions by William Green, Gregory Heide, David S. Leigh, Michael Russo, Rebecca Saunders, and William Stanyard Principal Investigators: Dr. Rebecca Saunders Dr. Michael Russo Museum of Natural Science AND NPS, SEAC 119 Foster Hall 2035 E Paul Dirac Dr., Box 7 Louisiana State University Johnson Bldg, Suite 120 Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Tallahassee, FL 32310 Report prepared for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History under grant #45-01-16441 August 5, 2002 ABSTRACT This report describes fieldwork and laboratory analysis undertaken at the Late Archaic Fig Island site (38CH42), located on a marsh island associated with Edisto Island, off the South Carolina coast. The fieldwork and subsequent analysis were undertaken to address, in part, simple descriptive cultural historical concerns, such as what the site looked like, when the site was occupied, how the site was formed, what the artifact assemblage was like, and when the site was abandoned. A rigorous mapping program that included subsurface probing at 5 m intervals was undertaken to describe the topography and possible disturbances at the site; probing included determining shell depth within the rings in order to define the original topography and determine total volume of shell throughout the site. Soils analysis was included as part of this descriptive history, as the authors wished to learn more about the paleoenvironment when the site was occupied and to identify both anthropogenic and natural disturbances to the site. Fine screened invertebrate and vertebrate faunal samples were studied to learn more about the diet of the inhabitants of the site and to use seasonal information derived from these fauna to identify season(s) of site occupation. Data on site stratigraphy and material culture, along with radiocarbon dates— all information gleaned from the limited subsurface testing undertaken—were gathered to address site chronology and the lifeways of the inhabitants. Finally, the authors hoped to marshal these data to address site function—egalitarian village or village/ceremonial center—and to theorize over issues of cultural complexity that the site function might indicate. The overwhelming amount of data derived from the fieldwork and the analysis will take years to digest. However, preliminary data indicate that the site was occupied between about 4240-3680 B.P. (the one sigma, calibrated radiocarbon date range). Mapping disclosed three rings. Radiocarbon dating indicates that two of these, Fig Island 2 and Fig Island 3, may have been occupied in the earlier part of this range, and may be contemporaneous. In addition, probing revealed a shell “walkway” now submerged beneath the marsh surface, between the two structures. Fig Island 1, which had never been mapped, proved to be one of the largest rings on record. It is associated with a number of smaller ring enclosures on the northern and western sides and a distinct mound may be present on the south side. The radiocarbon date from the top of Fig Island 1 is slightly younger than those from Fig Island 2, but the two dates from a unit in one of the small enclosures is significantly younger, and may indicate a different site function late in the occupation. Stratigraphy in excavation units in many places tested in the site conformed with the stratigraphy observed at other shell ring sites, though the authors’ interpretation of that stratigraphy differs from that of some other researchers. However, the aforementioned unit at the base of Fig Island 1 stood out also in terms of both stratigraphy and artifact content; these data indicate a wider range and more spatial segregation of activities at ring sites with small enclosures than has been appreciated in the past. Fine screened subsistence remains indicated—no surprise—that small estuarine fish and shellfish, principally oyster, were the main components of the diet. Seasonal indicators, i unfortunately, were few. However, length of Boonea impressa from four discrete areas of the site indicated that those deposits accrued in the late fall and winter. Soils analysis raised a number of questions. The site may have been located on slight rises in an environment already in marsh (Leigh, Appendix 1), or, more like the conventional wisdom, the site was established when sea level was lower and a peninsula of land was exposed (Russo, Chapter 7). The importance of the Fig Island site as research laboratory into coastal adaptations of the past cannot be overstated. The site has been acquired by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and is now protected. A public interpretation program is encouraged, though access to the site should probably be limited. As this report demonstrates, additional research by archaeologists, geologists, botanists, and others will no doubt ensue and should be encouraged. Much more research is necessary to understand these important monuments of the past. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors (Saunders, Russo, and Heide) would like to thank Bill Green and Chris Judge for involving us in the study of South Carolina shell rings. Both further contributed, and are continuing to contribute, to these studies. We are grateful to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for allowing us access to the property. Chris Judge, Archaeologist for the SCDNR Heritage Trust Program, our liason with the SCDNR, saw to it that we had that access, and provided fundamental logistical support (housing and boats). Chris also lent us the talents of Sean Taylor, Genevieve Brown, and Chris Compton for three days, and Jon Rood for four, and worked several days at the site himself. Brad Sauls was patient throughout the protracted contract negotiations between the South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH) and LSU. We were out of the field by the time we actually had a signed contract between these two august institutions. Brad also helped with a number of technical aspects of the report production and kept us (mostly) on time. Many thanks to SCDAH for making this project possible. We received help from many other South Carolina organizations and individuals. Martha Zierden suggested and then implemented the involvement of the archaeological field school at the College of Charleston, and oversaw that program as well as the field lab. Her sons were great screeners and her husband, who realized that on the highest tides one could boat pretty close to Fig Island 3, is no doubt responsible for the ridiculous amounts of column and other special samples ultimately transferred to LSU. Thanks to the field school students for their hard work and good attitudes—they signed up to work on a nice, safe, terrestrial historic site (Charles Town Landing) and found themselves consigned for one week to…well, it rhymes with 'shell.' The Archaeological Society of South Carolina also provided dependable, professional labor. Special thanks to Richie Lahan for his loyalty to the project. Sharon Pekrul, Curator of Collections for the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, did a tremendous job of getting the previously- excavated Fig Island materials at the Institute organized for the background research portion of this project. Chris Amer, Deputy State Underwater Archaeologist, lent us a boat to haul equipment out to the islands. Chris Clements contributed a GPS survey and saved a boat. Rick Bordelon, of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, provided boat, sadly just before Tropical Storm Allison flooded his own house and he needed a boat for the first time in four years. Rick and his wife Vicky also labored at the site. iii Our two fellow "ringers" (paid staff), Vicki Rolland and Norm Davis, were essential to the completion of this project. Vicki has a phenomenal capacity for hard work in the worst of conditions, but knows when it's time to retire to the porch for a brewski. Norman Davis braved the boats and the marsh (again) to do terrestrial archaeology by day and celestial archaeology by night. He kept us wondering (guessing and in awe) at astronomical alignments at Fig Island (not to mention Marksville, Poverty Point, and sites in between and on to Mexico). Thanks to the folks in the Archaeology Lab of the Museum of Natural Science at LSU for their fine work on sample processing and artifact analysis. Bryan Tucker and Steve Fullen deserve special recognition. Greg Heide produced all the Fig Island site maps. Clifford Duplechin drafted Figure 1 and Mary Lee Eggart drew the incised bone pins (Figure 34). Both Dup and Mary Lee work for the Cartographic Information Center at LSU. Finally, we thank the Southeastern Archaeological Center (SEAC) of the National Park Service for allowing Greg and Mike to take time off for fieldwork and for the time spent on some of the analysis at the Center. SEAC also lent a total station to the project, as did Rochelle Marrinan at Florida State University. The activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and administered by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or the policies of the Department of the Interior. This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U. S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington DC 20240.
Recommended publications
  • Cherokee Ethnogenesis in Southwestern North Carolina

    Cherokee Ethnogenesis in Southwestern North Carolina

    The following chapter is from: The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia Charles R. Ewen – Co-Editor Thomas R. Whyte – Co-Editor R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. – Co-Editor North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 30 2011 Available online at: http://www.rla.unc.edu/NCAC/Publications/NCAC30/index.html CHEROKEE ETHNOGENESIS IN SOUTHWESTERN NORTH CAROLINA Christopher B. Rodning Dozens of Cherokee towns dotted the river valleys of the Appalachian Summit province in southwestern North Carolina during the eighteenth century (Figure 16-1; Dickens 1967, 1978, 1979; Perdue 1998; Persico 1979; Shumate et al. 2005; Smith 1979). What developments led to the formation of these Cherokee towns? Of course, native people had been living in the Appalachian Summit for thousands of years, through the Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippi periods (Dickens 1976; Keel 1976; Purrington 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). What are the archaeological correlates of Cherokee culture, when are they visible archaeologically, and what can archaeology contribute to knowledge of the origins and development of Cherokee culture in southwestern North Carolina? Archaeologists, myself included, have often focused on the characteristics of pottery and other artifacts as clues about the development of Cherokee culture, which is a valid approach, but not the only approach (Dickens 1978, 1979, 1986; Hally 1986; Riggs and Rodning 2002; Rodning 2008; Schroedl 1986a; Wilson and Rodning 2002). In this paper (see also Rodning 2009a, 2010a, 2011b), I focus on the development of Cherokee towns and townhouses. Given the significance of towns and town affiliations to Cherokee identity and landscape during the 1700s (Boulware 2011; Chambers 2010; Smith 1979), I suggest that tracing the development of towns and townhouses helps us understand Cherokee ethnogenesis, more generally.
  • 'They Made Gullah': Modernist Primitivists and The

    'They Made Gullah': Modernist Primitivists and The

    “ ‘They Made Gullah’: Modernist Primitivists and the Discovery and Creation of Sapelo Island, Georgia’s Gullah Community, 1915-1991” By Melissa L. Cooper A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in History written under the direction of Dr. Mia Bay and approved by New Brunswick, New Jersey January 2012 2012 Melissa L. Cooper ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION “ ‘They Made Gullah’: Modernist Primitivists and the Discovery and Creation of Sapelo Island, Georgia’s Gullah Community, 1915-1991” by Melissa L. Cooper Dissertation Director: Dr. Mia Bay ABSTRACT: The history of Sapelo Islanders in published works reveals a complex cast of characters, each one working through ideas about racial distinction and inheritance; African culture and spirituality; and the legacy of slavery during the most turbulent years in America’s race-making history. Feuding social scientists, adventure seeking journalists, amateur folklorists, and other writers, initiated and shaped the perception of Sapelo Islanders’ distinct connection to Africa during the 1920s and 1930s, and labeled them “Gullah.” These researchers characterized the “Gullah,” as being uniquely connected to their African past, and as a population among whom African “survivals” were readily observable. This dissertation argues that the popular view of Sapelo Islanders’ “uniqueness” was the product of changing formulations about race and racial distinction in America. Consequently, the “discovery” of Sapelo Island’s Gullah folk was more a sign of times than an anthropological discovery. This dissertation interrogates the intellectual motives of the researchers and writers who have explored Sapelo Islanders in their works, and argues that the advent of American Modernism, the development of new social scientific theories and popular cultural works during the 1920s and 1930s, and other trends shaped their depictions.
  • Rice Fields for Wildlife History, Management Recommendations and Regulatory Guidelines for South Carolina’S Coastal Impoundments

    Rice Fields for Wildlife History, Management Recommendations and Regulatory Guidelines for South Carolina’S Coastal Impoundments

    Rice Fields for Wildlife History, Management Recommendations and Regulatory Guidelines for South Carolina’s Coastal Impoundments Editors Travis Folk • Ernie Wiggers • Dean Harrigal • Mark Purcell Funding for this publication provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Coastal Program, Ducks Unlimited, ACE Basin Task Force, NOAA’s ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve, Nemours Wildlife Foundation. The Atlantic Join Venture provided valuable funding for this publication. Citation: Folk , T. H., E.P. Wiggers, D.Harrigal, and M. Purcell (Editors). 2016. Rice fields for wildlife: history, management recom- mendations and regulatory guidelines for South Carolina’s managed tidal impoundments. Nemours Wildlife Founda- tion, Yemassee, South Carolina. Rice Fields for Wildlife History, Management Recommendations and Regulatory Guidelines for South Carolina’s Coastal Impoundments Table of Contents Chapter 1 South Carolina’s Rice Fields: how an agricultural empire created 1 a conservation legacy. Travis Hayes Folk, Ph.D. (Folk Land Management) Chapter 2 Understanding and Using the US Army Corps of Engineers 7 Managed Tidal Impoundment General Permit (MTI GP) (SAC 2017-00835) Travis Hayes Folk, Ph.D. Chapter 3 Management of South Atlantic Coastal Wetlands for Waterfowl 23 and Other Wildlife. R. K. “Kenny” Williams (Williams Land Management Company), Robert D. Perry (Palustrine Group), Michael B. Prevost (White Oak Forestry) Chapter 4 Managing Coastal Impoundments for Multiple Species of Water 39 Birds. Ernie P. Wiggers, Ph.D. (Nemours Wildlife Foundation), Christine Hand (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources), Felicia Sanders (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources) Appendices The ACE Basin Project Travis Hayes Folk, Ph.D. 47 Glossary of Rice Field Terminology 49 References of Supporting Literature 54 Sources for Technical Assistance and Cost Share Opportunities 57 Savannah River Rice Fields, 1936.
  • History of Virginia

    History of Virginia

    14 Facts & Photos Profiles of Virginia History of Virginia For thousands of years before the arrival of the English, vari- other native peoples to form the powerful confederacy that con- ous societies of indigenous peoples inhabited the portion of the trolled the area that is now West Virginia until the Shawnee New World later designated by the English as “Virginia.” Ar- Wars (1811-1813). By only 1646, very few Powhatans re- chaeological and historical research by anthropologist Helen C. mained and were policed harshly by the English, no longer Rountree and others has established 3,000 years of settlement even allowed to choose their own leaders. They were organized in much of the Tidewater. Even so, a historical marker dedi- into the Pamunkey and Mattaponi tribes. They eventually cated in 2015 states that recent archaeological work at dissolved altogether and merged into Colonial society. Pocahontas Island has revealed prehistoric habitation dating to about 6500 BCE. The Piscataway were pushed north on the Potomac River early in their history, coming to be cut off from the rest of their peo- Native Americans ple. While some stayed, others chose to migrate west. Their movements are generally unrecorded in the historical record, As of the 16th Century, what is now the state of Virginia was but they reappear at Fort Detroit in modern-day Michigan by occupied by three main culture groups: the Iroquoian, the East- the end of the 18th century. These Piscataways are said to have ern Siouan and the Algonquian. The tip of the Delmarva Penin- moved to Canada and probably merged with the Mississaugas, sula south of the Indian River was controlled by the who had broken away from the Anishinaabeg and migrated Algonquian Nanticoke.
  • The Yamasee War: 1715 - 1717

    The Yamasee War: 1715 - 1717

    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Archaeology Month Posters Institute of 10-2015 The aY masee War: 1715 - 1717 South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archmonth_poster Part of the Anthropology Commons Publication Info Published in 2015. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina. Archaeology Month Poster - The aY masee War: 1715 - 1717, 2015. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2015. http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/sciaa/ © 2015 by University of South Carolina, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology This Poster is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Archaeology Month Posters by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE YAMASEE WAR: 1715 - 1717 Thomas Nairne, “A map of South Carolina shewing the settlements of the English, French, & Indian nations from Charles Town to the River Missisipi [sic].” 1711. From Edward Crisp, “A compleat description of the province of Carolina in 3 parts.” Photo courtesy of Library of Congress 24th Annual South Carolina Archaeology Month October 2015 USC • South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology • 1321 Pendleton Street • Columbia S
  • AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORIC PLACES in SOUTH CAROLINA ////////////////////////////// September 2015

    AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORIC PLACES in SOUTH CAROLINA ////////////////////////////// September 2015

    AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORIC PLACES IN SOUTH CAROLINA ////////////////////////////// September 2015 State Historic Preservation Office South Carolina Department of Archives and History should be encouraged. The National Register program his publication provides information on properties in South Carolina is administered by the State Historic in South Carolina that are listed in the National Preservation Office at the South Carolina Department of Register of Historic Places or have been Archives and History. recognized with South Carolina Historical Markers This publication includes summary information about T as of May 2015 and have important associations National Register properties in South Carolina that are with African American history. More information on these significantly associated with African American history. More and other properties is available at the South Carolina extensive information about many of these properties is Archives and History Center. Many other places in South available in the National Register files at the South Carolina Carolina are important to our African American history and Archives and History Center. Many of the National Register heritage and are eligible for listing in the National Register nominations are also available online, accessible through or recognition with the South Carolina Historical Marker the agency’s website. program. The State Historic Preservation Office at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History welcomes South Carolina Historical Marker Program (HM) questions regarding the listing or marking of other eligible South Carolina Historical Markers recognize and interpret sites. places important to an understanding of South Carolina’s past. The cast-aluminum markers can tell the stories of African Americans have made a vast contribution to buildings and structures that are still standing, or they can the history of South Carolina throughout its over-300-year- commemorate the sites of important historic events or history.
  • Appendix F Biological Assessment of Threatened and Endangered Species

    Appendix F Biological Assessment of Threatened and Endangered Species

    EDISTO BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION GENERAL INVESTIGATION STUDY APPENDIX F BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION GENERAL INVESTIGATION STUDY EDISTO BEACH, COLLETON COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA January 2014 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Edisto Beach is a barrier island located at the mouth of the Edisto River in Colleton and Charleston Counties, South Carolina, approximately 45 miles southwest of Charleston, South Carolina and approximately 20 miles east-northeast of Beaufort, South Carolina (see Figure 1). The incorporated Town of Edisto Beach is located on the island, as is Edisto Beach State Park. The specific study area (See Figure 2) includes Edisto Beach, two Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) zones (the Edisto Complex (Unit M09) to the northeast and Otter Island (Unit M10) to the southwest), and the coastal Atlantic Ocean waters where offshore borrow investigations will be conducted and potential borrow areas will be identified and located. The Town of Edisto Beach and Edisto Beach State Park are part of Edisto Island. They are separated from the main body of Edisto Island by Big Bay Creek, Scott Creek, and the associated salt marsh to the northwest and Jeremy Inlet to the northeast. The Town of Edisto Beach and Edisto Beach State Park are also bounded by the South Edisto River and St. Helena Sound to the southwest and the Atlantic Ocean to the southeast. The maximum width at the southern end of this portion of Edisto Island is approximately 1.5 miles, while the northern end is much narrower. The Town of Edisto Beach occupies the central and southern portions of the island and is generally separated from Edisto Beach State Park by State Highway 174, which provides the only access to the island.
  • Some Current Activities of Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Fy 2020

    Some Current Activities of Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Fy 2020

    SOME CURRENT ACTIVITIES OF GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR FY 2020 Documentation, Interpretation and Preservation 1. South Carolina: We are partnered with Charles Pinckney National Historic Site to develop new exhibits for Charles Pinckney National Historic Site’s historic Snee Farmhouse and museum. This project will replace the current 900 square feet of exhibits with approximately 1,750 square feet of exhibits designed to engage and appeal to younger and more diverse audiences through inclusive content with immersive and interactive components, including a space where changing exhibits, demonstrations, and audience centered experiences can be presented. The exhibits will incorporate universal design principles to create barrier free access. More than 35,000 visitors per year will benefit from this project. 2. South Carolina: We are serving as consultants on a project initiated by Edisto Island Historic Preservation Society to create new exhibits for the Edisto Island Museum focused on the Gullah culture of the Sea Island. Project planning is being funded by the SC Humanities Council and Mary Elliott, Curator, Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, is the lead humanities scholar on the grant. 3. Georgia: We are partnered with Cumberland Island National Seashore Park and primary investigators from the University of South Carolina on the project titled, “Researching Black History of Cumberland Island, GA.” The purpose of this project is to help the interpretive team at Cumberland Island National Seashore to generate rigorously researched and documented answers to the many questions surrounding the history and culture of the Gullah Geechee people who once lived on the island.
  • BORDERS and RUMORS: the GEORGIA FRONTIER in the ATLANTIC WORLD by SHANE ALAN RUNYON a DISSERTATION PRESENTED to the GRADUATE

    BORDERS and RUMORS: the GEORGIA FRONTIER in the ATLANTIC WORLD by SHANE ALAN RUNYON a DISSERTATION PRESENTED to the GRADUATE

    BORDERS AND RUMORS: THE GEORGIA FRONTIER IN THE ATLANTIC WORLD By SHANE ALAN RUNYON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005 Copyright 2005 by Shane Alan Runyon This dissertation is dedicated to Stacy and the gatitos. Thanks for the patience. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS When I began working on this project I knew the endeavor would take time, but I never imagined how much time it would take. Despite the additional hours, weeks, and months this project would not have been completed without the assistance of my committee and colleagues. First, I would like to thank Dr. Jon Sensbach (my supervisory committee chair) for the hours he spent on this dissertation. His support and calming reassurance made this process much easier than I ever imagined. I would also like to thank committee members Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Kathleen Deagan, Murdo Macleod, and Juliana Barr. Although Dr. Deagan is probably unaware of this, the inspiration for this dissertation began when I was 18 and took a part- time job as a site interpreter on one of her many archaeological excavations in St. Augustine, Florida. The pleasure I experienced in working on the Cubo Line excavation sparked my interest in Spanish Florida. For this, I will be forever grateful. Dr. Macleod offered extremely useful advice throughout my graduate career. I am honored to have been his student and I am truly impressed with his ability to spot the misplaced comma or missing accent mark; and his ability to point out the latest research on a particular topic.
  • River Highway for Trade, the Savannah : Canoes, Indian Tradeboats

    River Highway for Trade, the Savannah : Canoes, Indian Tradeboats

    RIVER HIGHWAY FOR TRADE THE SAVANNAH BY RUBY A. RAHN CANOES. INDIAN TRADEBOATS, FLATBOATS, STEAMERS, PACKETS. AND BARGES UG 23 S29 PUBLISHED BY 1968 U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAVANNAH, GEORGIA JUNE 1968 FOREWORD River Highway for Trade by Ruby A. Rahn is the result of nearly a quarter of a century of research into contemporary newspaper files, old letters, and documents as well as personal memories. Miss Rahn, a long-time school teacher in the school sys­ tem of Savannah, was born in Effingham County in 1883. She grew up close to the River, during those years when the life and excitement of the River was still a part of local living. Miss Rahn was assisted in the compilation of the monograph by her niece, Naomi Gnann LeBey. The information of the mono­ graph offers a vivid and valuable record of river activities from the time of Indian habitation through the 19th century. Sometimes supplementary items of the period are included which seem proper in this miscellany of interesting infor­ mation. M. L. Granger Editor I NTRODUCTI ON I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the help and en­ couragement received from Mrs. Lilla Hawes, Miss Bessie Lewis, and Mr. Edward Mueller. They were, indeed, friends in my need. The information on the poleboats was all taken from the Marine News reports of the daily newspapers of the time. The totals of cotton bales for these boats can only be ap­ proximate, as the poleboats were hauling cotton for a few years before the papers started to publish the Marine News.
  • A Brief History of Beach Nourishment in South Carolina

    A Brief History of Beach Nourishment in South Carolina

    A brief history of beach nourishment in South Carolina By Timothy W. Kana Coastal Science & Engineering Inc. P.O. Box 8056, Columbia, SC 29202 [email protected] ABSTRACT ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: There were ~59 discrete beach-nourishment events along the South Carolina coast Beach nourishment, South Caro- between 1954 and 2010. These projects encompassed 17 localities ― 62.6 miles lina, fill density, unit volumes, unit ― which is ~65 percent of the developed or accessible-park oceanfront in the state costs. (~33.5% of the ocean coast). The total volume of nourishment through 2010 was Manuscript submitted 4 September ~44.1 million cubic yards (mcy) for an average fill density of 133.3 cubic yards per 2012, revised and accepted 21 Sep- foot (cy/ft) of shoreline. The adjusted cost of all projects in 2010 constant dollars tember 2012. (2010$$) was (~)$351 million for an average unit-volume cost of $7.96/cy (2010$$). Nourishment volumes by decade peaked in the 1990s at 20.7 mcy ― 47 percent of the total. Between 2000 and 2010, nourishment volumes declined to ~12.7 mcy About 53% (~98 miles) of the ocean partly due to reduced need following initial restoration efforts at some sites. Six coast is developed (or accessible park) project areas (North Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach, Garden City-Surfside Beach, land. The remainder (~89 miles) is largely Folly Beach, Hunting Island, and Hilton Head Island), comprising 42.6 miles of inaccessible and undeveloped wilderness coast, have received about 70% of the nourishment volume. Most of these sites beaches. Of the developed beaches, fully have measurably wider beachfront area compared with pre-nourishment conditions.
  • Murray, Chalmers S. Papers, 1178.00

    Murray, Chalmers S. Papers, 1178.00

    Chalmers S. Murray papers, 1905-1970 SCHS# 1178.00 Creator: Murray, Chalmers S. Description: 3 linear ft. Biographical/Historical Note: Edisto Island, S.C. author, journalist, and attorney. Scope and Content: Papers consist of writings, correspondence, and other items. Manuscripts of non-fiction writings include a manuscript of an unpublished history of South Carolina sea island cotton entitled "Black Seed from Bahama" (1951), with related correspondence and research and bibliographic notes; articles (ca. 1950-1970) on Edisto Island (S.C.), cassina (a beverage), Guatemalan Indians, plantation boats, and other subjects including "Beating the Depression on Edisto" (1932-1933). Manuscripts of fiction writings include the manuscript (322 p.) of a novel about African- Americans (Gullahs) on the South Carolina Sea Islands entitled "Here Come Joe Mungin," with related correspondence, photographs of the paperback version's cover, reviews, and other material; additional novels (1944-1965) about sea island life, the Gullah people, and other subjects, including "Give My Love to Cora Caroline" (1964), a romance set in Charleston (S.C.), and "The Other Country"; short stories (1940-1970) including "God Use Both Hand," "Under the Graveyard Oak," and other stories including Edisto Island (S.C.) Gullah folklore recorded for a W.P.A. project; and poetry. Also included are drafts (ca. 1950-1967) of "Memories of an Island" about the history and culture of Edisto Island, with Murray's personal recollections of life there. Personal and professional corrrespondence (1905-1970, bulk 1940-1970) with family members, friends, literary agents, readers, publishers, political figures, and others concerns personal and family matters, Murray's writings and their publication, national and local politics, the environment, Scientology, and other matters.