DOCSLIB.ORG

Provisional Locations of Cemeteries, Graves, and Burials Grounds In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Provisional Locations of Cemeteries, Graves, and Burials Grounds In PROVISIONAL LOCATION OF CEMETERIES, GRAVES, AND BURIAL GROUNDS IN RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Chicora Research Contribution 550 PROVISIONAL LOCATIONS OF CEMETERIES, GRAVES, AND BURIAL GROUNDS IN RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared By: Michael Trinkley, Ph.D. and Debi Hacker This project is funded by the Richland County Conservation Commission CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 550 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 Columbia, SC 29202 803-787-6910 www.chicora.org March 1, 2013 This report is printed on permanent paper ∞ ©2013 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the author and publisher. DISCLAIMER None of the cemeteries, graves, or burial grounds included in this study has been field checked by Chicora Foundation. The information provided represents the best available to us. While great care has been taken in the preparation of this work, neither the publisher nor the authors shall be held responsible or liable for any damages resulting in connection with or arising from the use of any of the information in this publication. NOTICE The activity that is the subject of this publication has been financed, in part, with funds from Richland County, South Carolina, administered by the Richland County Conservation Commission. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Richland County or the Richland County Conservation Commission. Cover Photograph The cover photograph is courtesy of Lt. Col. E.G. "Buck" Shuler III, and shows the granite stone wall around Hopkins Family Cemetery #2 (Cemetery Number CG-32). The neglected cemeteries . insult life itself, for death is an inevitable consequence of birth. By treating the disposal of the dead as though the problem were one of refuse collection, society devalues life. -- James Stevens Curl Mors etium saxis nominbusque venit (Death comes even to the monumental stones and the names inscribed thereon). -- Ausonius MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Cemeteries are unique cultural resources. We added the various publications by the They are sacred sites, collections or artistic Columbia Chapter of the South Carolina objects similar to an outdoor museum, archival Genealogical Society, David Rakes’ research on collections essential for historical and cemeteries in northern Richland County, and genealogical research, and many are also scenic Emily Vaughn’s work looking at African American landscapes. cemeteries. This project, funded by the Richland We examined Richland County plats County Conservation Commission, began in July through 1959 looking for any plat noting a 2012 and was successfully completed by March cemetery. We also incorporated SCIAA 2013. The county provided about $39,000 and this archaeological sites and SCDAH architectural sites. was matched by Chicora Foundation in the amount of over $10,000. We used topographic maps produced by the War Department, USGS, and the Soil The project goal was to identify Conservation Service. We did incorporate a few cemeteries and associate them with tax parcels in historic sources, such as Green’s The History of order to help descendants and other researchers Richland County, the WPA Church records, and the locate cemeteries. Prior to this work there was no SCDAH Combined Alphabetic Index. We examined comprehensive listing of burial grounds in aerial photographs going back to 1939. And of Richland County and the various unofficial lists course we made appeals to a broad range of were incomplete and contained numerous errors. individuals, through emails, letters, and the media. The project was also intended to help We defined the project to search for not developers avoid finding cemeteries during the only extant cemeteries, but also those moved or course of their projects, causing delays and destroyed. Unfortunately, the SC Department of additional financial burdens. We sought to provide Health and Environmental Control does not track a means of providing proactive, rather than moved or removed cemeteries, so once graves are reactive, preservation of cemetery resources. moved, they become lost. We also defined cemeteries to include scattering gardens and The project was not designed to allow columbariums since both contain human remains. cemeteries to be visited, photographed, allow transcriptions to be updated, or to provide other Since this phase of the project did not detailed assessments. The goal of this phase was fund visiting cemeteries, the identified locations solely to identify. are based on directions, maps, Google Street View, Google Earth, and the county’s aerials. The work began by collecting on-line cemetery lists such as SCGenWeb, SCGS SC Our first task was to eliminate duplicates Cemetery GPS Project, FamilySearch, Find A and even triplicates of cemeteries. Often a Grave, Genealogy Trails, USGW Tombstone cemetery was listed under two, three, or Transcriptions, the AHGP SC Cemetery occasionally as many as four different names. For Transcription and Photography Project, and each cemetery we added to the county list, we others. We added various unpublished sources, established a very high degree of accuracy – if we such as the list compiled by Vernon Kirkpatrick couldn’t establish good coordinates, then the while he worked with the Richland County cemetery remained unlocated. Coroner’s Office and a list compiled by Richland County. i As a result of the work, we have identified We suggest that the creation of new locations for 463 cemeteries in Richland County – family cemeteries be curtailed by County Council or approximately 1 cemetery every 1.6 square and recommend requirements where new miles. Of these 400 (86%) are well located. An cemeteries are allowed. additional 63 have approximate locations. While not under the direct control of This work has also produced a list of 92 Richland County, we also make recommendations unidentified cemeteries. We believe these to exist, for transmission to the Richland County but have been unable in this current phase of Legislative Delegation. Specifically, we work to provide even approximate locations. If recommend that the Legislature require DHEC to these are added to the total, then the study begin tracking cemetery locations and provide documents 555 cemeteries in Richland County, or public access to this information. We also 1 cemetery every 1.4 square miles. recommend modifications in South Carolina’s law concerning disinterments to incorporate a This report provides information on the requirement for archaeological oversight of methodology and findings. It includes an Excel removals at least 50 years old and not placed in an database of cemeteries, their coordinates, and tax intact vault. map information. Also included are a series of reduced USGS topographic maps that provide the locations of the identified cemeteries. A primary recommendation flowing from this study includes the need to conduct additional study in order that all 555 cemeteries be identified, visited, and locations verified. A proposal has been submitted to fund this final phase. It is critical for users of the current report to understand that the information provided has not been field verified. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate, users should anticipate errors until such time that the information has been checked by field visits. Additional recommendations include the need for Richland County to assume (or in some cases continue to assume) care for cemeteries with no legal owner. We caution, however, that an effort should be made to locate owners to shift the burden of care to the appropriate party. In addition, we recommend that no additional burials be allowed in cemeteries lacking minimal care. We recommend that the Richland County Planning and Development Department enact requirements that all proposed developments or building activities first be compared to these findings to ensure that no cemetery is damaged. We recommend additional actions to ensure the long-term preservation of cemeteries. And we propose enacting additional legal protection for cemeteries by the Richland County Council. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iii List of Tables iv Introduction 1 Richland County 1 Brief History 2 Why Preserve 8 The Project 11 Previous Cemetery Surveys 11 The Project Goals 12 Methodology 13 Problems Identified 20 Exploration of a Few Cemeteries 25 The DYS Cemetery (CN-18) 25 Cemeteries on Fort Jackson 33 Medlin Cemetery (FN-09) 36 Howell Graveyard (CG-23) 36 Barhamville Cemetery (CN-57) 38 Columbia’s Public Burying Grounds (CS-02) 40 Findings 43 Loss, and Recovery, of Richland County Cemeteries 43 Removed Cemeteries 44 Removed Markers 44 The Absence of Markers and Determining Cemetery Size 45 Destroyed Cemeteries 46 Identified Cemeteries 46 Recommendations 47 Additional Study 47 Cemetery Care 47 Planning Issues 47 Legal Protection 48 Creation of New Cemeteries 48 Recommendations at the State Level 49 The Future 51 Sources Cited 53 Appendix 1. Identified Disinterments 57 Appendix 2. Unidentified Cemeteries 63 Appendix 3. Identified Cemeteries 69 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Richland County in the Midlands of South Carolina 1 2. Map showing areas of farmland loss to repaid development in Richland County 2 3. Portion of the 1773 James Cook A Map of the Province of South Carolina 3 4. Mills’ Atlas showing Richland County in 1825 4 5. Stroeber’s 1873 Geological and Agricultural Map of Richland County 6 6. Topographic maps and their abbreviations covering Richland County 13 7. Obsolete topographic maps and their abbreviations and dates 14 8. Differences between using NAD27 and NAD83/WGS84 coordinates 16 9. Tentative Cemetery Survey Form developed for testing 19 10. Plat of the lands along the Broad River comprising prison and DYS property 27 11. Portion of a 1996 aerial showing the location of graves on the DYS property 28 12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Irmo Comprehensive Plan
    Town of Irmo Comprehensive Plan Adopted: April 18, 2017 Town of Irmo Comprehensive Plan 2016 Town Council Hardy King, Mayor Julius Waites, Mayor Pro‐Tem Kathy Condom Barry A. Walker, Sr. Mark Pouliot Planning Commission Ryan Cole, Chair Brooks Galloway, Vice Chair David Logsdon Don Looney Michael Lizewski Ted Hewitt Walter Lindler Staff Bob Brown, Town Administrator Vi Racine, Zoning Clerk Content 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Purpose and Organization of the Plan ................................................................................. 5 1.2. Vision and Guiding Principles ............................................................................................... 7 2. Population ................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Inventory .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.3. Population Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................ 17 3. Economic Development ............................................................................................................ 25 3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Architectural Inventory
    Upper Richland County South Carolina Historical and Architectural Inventory Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. June 2002 Upper Richland County, South Carolina Historical and Architectural Inventory Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. Jennifer F. Martin Nicholas G. Theos Sarah A. Woodard Funded by The Richland County Conservation Commission and The South Carolina Department of Archives and History June 2002 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 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. Acknowledgements Several individuals provided assistance without which we would not have been able to carry out this survey. Daniel J. Vivian, who served as the Survey Coordinator for the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office during the majority of the project, offered excellent advice and technical assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Elements for the Lexington County Land Use Plan
    SUPPORTING ELEMENTS for the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN tBQ~~7m co, Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................6 Planning Process ..............................................................................................................6 NATURALRESOURCE ELEMENT ................................................. 7 Overview ...........................................................................................................................7 Slope Characteristics .......................................................................................................7 Prime Agricultural and Forest Land .............................................................................7 PiedmontPlateau Province ...................................................................................................................... 8 Plant and Anniial Habitats ..........................................................................................10 Water Resources and Wetlands ...................................................................................11 Overview .............................................................................................................................................11 SaludaRiver Basin................................................................................................................................ 11 Broad River Basin ................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Irmo / Dutch Fork Sub-Area Plan
    Irmo/Dutch Fork Sub-Area Transportation Study June 2010 IRMO/DUTCH FORK SUB-AREA PLAN FINAL REPORT April 2010 Prepared for: Central Midlands Council of Governments Columbia Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared by: Wilbur Smith Associates In association with: Kublins Transportation Group, Inc. And Maxim Communications Group "The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Table of Contents 1. Project Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Study Area Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Population Growth .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]