Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Rifle Range Road Tract

Charleston County, South Carolina

NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES, INC.

Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Rifle Range Road Tract Charleston County, South Carolina

Report submitted to: Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission • 861 Riverland Drive • Charleston, South Carolina 29412

Report prepared by: New South Associates • 722A Blanding Street • Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Natalie Adams Pope – Principal Investigator

Natalie Adams Pope – Principal Investigator and Author

September 23, 2013 • Final Report New South Associates Technical Report 2235

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT i

ABSTRACT

A Phase I survey was conducted to identify archaeological resources in a 245-acre property that was acquired by Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission for development of a recreational park. This property is located along Rifle Range Road in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Ten sites and one isolated find were identified. Two previously identified cultural resources exist on or adjacent to the tract, although no additional work occurred there as both are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is recommended that, if possible, all potentially significant or unassessed sites be preserved in place and considered in park planning. No additional consideration is necessary for sites recommended as not significant.

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLE ...... v

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...... 3 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING, DRAINAGE, AND SOILS ...... 3 GEOLOGY ...... 4 CLIMATE ...... 5 FLORISTICS ...... 5

III. CULTURAL CONTEXT ...... 9 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCES ...... 9 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT ...... 10 HISTORIC CONTEXT ...... 15

IV. METHODS ...... 27 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...... 27 FIELD METHODS ...... 27 LABORATORY METHODS ...... 28

V. RESULTS ...... 31 NEWLY IDENTIFIED SITES ...... 32 38CH2425 ...... 32 38CH2426 ...... 34 38CH2427 ...... 39 38CH2428 ...... 41 38CH2429 ...... 41 38CH2430 ...... 45 38CH2431 ...... 47 38CH2432 ...... 47 38CH2433 ...... 48 38CH2434 ...... 49 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 51 Cook’s Old Field Cemetery ...... 51 Christ Church Line (38CH953) ...... 51

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 55 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PREHISTORIC SITES ...... 55 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITES ...... 56 INTERPRETING RESOURCES TO THE PUBLIC ...... 56 iv

REFERENCES CITED ...... 57

APPENDIX A: SPECIMEN CATALOG APPENDIX B: CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF CHARLESTON THEMATIC RESOURCES NOMINATION APPENDIX C: COOK’S OLD FIELD CEMETERY PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT v LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLE

Figure 1. Map of Project Area Showing the Locations of Cultural Resources in the Tract ...... 2 Figure 2. View of the Project Environment ...... 7 Figure 3. South Carolina Ceramic Sequence ...... 13 Figure 4. Thorton-Morden Map of 1695 Showing Project Location and Historical Marker Inset ...... 17 Figure 5. 1825 Vignoles and Ravenel Map Showing the Name Hamlin in the Project Area .... 21 Figure 6. 1840 Plat of Land Division from Sarah Hamlin to Sons Thomas and John ...... 22 Figure 7. 1863 “Map of Charleston and Its Defenses” Showing the Confederate Earthwork, Horlbeck, and Hamlin Properties ...... 24 Figure 8. 1942 Charleston County Highway Map...... 25 Figure 9. Site Map of 38CH2425 and Photograph of Exposed Shell Midden in Ditch Cut ...... 33 Figure 10. Site Map of 38CH2426 ...... 35 Figure 11. Prehistoric Artifacts from the Rifle Range Road Tract ...... 37 Figure 12. Site Map of 38CH2427 ...... 40 Figure 13. 38CH2428 Site Map ...... 42 Figure 14. 38CH2429 Site Map ...... 44 Figure 15. Site Map of 38CH2430, 38CH2431, 38CH2432, and 38CH2433 ...... 46 Figure 16. Site Map of 38CH2434 ...... 50 Figure 17. Photographs of Cook’s Old Field Cemetery and Historical Marker ...... 52 Figure 18. Photographs of the Christ Church Line Along the Property Boundary...... 54

Table 1. Identified Archaeological Sites and Significance ...... 31

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission (CCPRC) acquired the 242-acre Rifle Range Road property in order to provide a recreational park for the citizens of Charleston County and its visitors. To better understand the archaeological resources contained on the tract, CCPRC commissioned New South Associates to conduct a Phase I Archaeological Survey to identify sites on the property. The survey area is bounded to the southeast by Rifle Range Road, to the southwest by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed Christ Church Line (38CH953), and to the northeast and northwest by privately owned property. An outparcel containing the NRHP-listed Cook’s Old Field Cemetery exists in the center of the tract. Figure 1 shows the survey area, the two NRHP-listed resources, and the archaeological sites identified during our survey. The goal of the survey was to identify archaeological resources and evaluate their significance in order to provide CCPRC with information that would allow them to manage the cultural resources that exist there.

The survey was conducted between October 22 and October 31 of 2012. New South Associates staff included Natalie Adams Pope as the Principal Investigator and Field Director. She was assisted by Nicole Isenbarger, Scott Morris, Patrick Severts, and Ray Talley.

Following this introduction, Chapter II outlines the environmental context of the project vicinity, while Chapter III summarizes the cultural context and history of the vicinity. The methodology of the survey is outlined in Chapter IV, followed by results in Chapter V. The summary and recommendations are presented in Chapter VI. Appendix A contains the artifact inventory. Appendix B contains the NRHP nomination for the Civil War Defenses of Charleston Thematic Resources nomination, which includes the Christ Church Line, and Appendix C contains the NRHP nomination for Cook’s Old Field Cemetery. 2 $ 600 2,000 300 Meters 38CH2425 38CH2426 1,000 Feet Isolated Find1 38CH2428 38CH2427 Previously ArchitecturalRecorded Resource Previously ArchaeologicalRecorded Resource NewlyRecorded Archaeological Resource APE 38CH2434 0 0 38CH2431 38CH2433 38CH2430 38CH2432 38CH2429 Cook's Old FieldCemetery 38CH0953,Confederate Defensive Line Source: USGSFort Moultrie Quadrangle Map,1960, Revised2011 Figure 1. Tract Area Showing the Locations of Cultural Resources in Map of Project PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 3 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING, DRAINAGE, AND SOILS

Charleston County is located in the lower Atlantic Coastal Plain of South Carolina. The Atlantic Ocean and a series of marsh, barrier islands, and Sea Islands, border the county on the east. Elevations in the county range from sea level to about 70 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The mainland topography consists of subtle ridge and bay undulations, characteristic of beach ridge plains. The project area is characterized by elevations ranging from sea level to 15 feet amsl.

Seven major drainages are found in Charleston County. Four of these – the Wando, Ashley, Stono, and North Edisto rivers – are dominated by tidal flows and are saline. Three others have significant freshwater flow and include the Santee, the South Edisto, and Cooper rivers. The Santee River forms the northern boundary of Charleston County, while South Edisto River lies on the southern boundary, and the Cooper River bisects the county. The distinctions between these rivers were of particular significance to area planters. The freshwater rivers were used extensively for tidal rice cultivation, and although rice cultivation was attempted on the more saline rivers, they were only minimally successful.

Because of the low topography, many broad, low-gradient interior drains are present either as extensions of the tidal rivers or as flooded bays and swales. These are often seen as small creeks or even as low, poorly drained interior areas. These features were a great resource to planters because the soils were frequently fertile. However, they needed to be drained in order to be worked and required constant attention.

The survey area does not contain any named watercourses but is drained by Boone Hall Creek to the north. This creek empties into the Wando River. Historically, the plantations associated with this property abutted Copahee Sound, which is also known as Hamlin Sound. Within the survey tract is a northeast to southwest area of very poorly drained Rutledge loamy fine sands that is about 94 acres in size. Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained Chipley loamy fine sand occurs in the southeastern half of the survey area and encompasses about 107 acres. Minor other soil types include poorly drained Scranton loamy fine sand and very poorly drained Stono fine sandy loam. The Chipley soils are located on higher elevations about 15 feet amsl, while the other soils tend to occur on lower elevations. 4

GEOLOGY

Coastal Plain geological formations are unconsolidated sedimentary deposits associated with very recent age (Pleistocene and Holocene) deposits lying on ancient crystalline rocks (Cooke 1936; Miller 1971:74). The Pleistocene sediments are organized into topographically distinct, but lithologically similar, geomorphic units, or terraces, parallel to the coast.

The recent terrace ranges from about sea level to six feet amsl and occurs along the coast and for a few miles up major streams. Soils are primarily very poorly drained Capers and tidal marshlands. The Pamplico terrace ranges from 6-25 feet amsl. The terrace includes most of Charleston County. The Talbot terrace ranges from 25-42 feet and occurs southeast of Ladson, South Carolina, in parts of the western portion of the county, and along the Berkeley County line from southwest Wambaw Creek almost to the Wando River (Miller 1971:74).

The fluctuation of sea levels during the late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs has also had an impact on the landscape. Prior to 15,000 B.C., there is evidence that a warming trend resulted in the gradual increase in Pleistocene sea levels (DePratter and Howard 1980). Brooks et al. (1989) indicated that there were also a number of fluctuations during the Holocene. This data suggested that when the first Stallings phase sites along the South Carolina coast were occupied in 2100 B.C., the sea level was about 4.2 feet lower than at present. Following this period, there was a gradual fall in the sea level and by 1850 B.C., the sea level was 11.0 feet below current levels. Sea levels increased during the Thom’s Creek phase so that by 1650 B.C., the sea level was only two feet lower than current levels. Fluctuations continued as a second drop allowed the sea level to fall to 9.7 feet below present levels by about 1250 B.C., rising again to 2.8 feet lower than modern levels over the next 200 years. A final decline occurred in 350 B.C. and lowered the sea level almost five feet to 9.7 feet before gradually rising to their current levels. Quitmyer (1985) did not believe that the lower sea levels at 2100 B.C. would have greatly altered the estuarine environment, although drops of nearly 10 feet would reduce available tidal resources and would affect the overall drainage patterns and soil moisture of coastal sites.

In the coastal zone, the soils date to the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs and were formed from materials that were deposited during the various stages of coastal submergence. Within the project area, this parent material (primarily sands and clays), the temperate climate, the various soil organisms, topography, and time effected the formation of the soils. Preservation of natural soil is largely contingent on natural erosion patterns and historic land use patterns. Silviculture has had some degree of impact across the site. Timber harvesting and planting has blurred the margins between wetlands and historically drier soils in some areas and to varying extents. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 5

The mainland soils are Pleistocene in age and tend to have more distinct horizon development and diversity than the younger soils of the sea and barrier islands. Sandy to loamy soils predominates in the level to gently sloping mainland areas. The inland soils are less well developed, frequently lacking a well-defined B horizon. There is little organic matter in the soils and they are acidic. The Holocene deposits are typical of barrier islands and found as on the fringe of some sea islands. These soils consist almost entirely of quartz sand that exhibits little organic matter. Tidal marsh soils are Holocene in age and consist of fine sands, clay, and organic matter deposited over older Pleistocene sands. The soils are frequently covered by up to two feet of saltwater during high tides

CLIMATE

The major climatic controls of the area are latitude, elevation, distance from the ocean, and location with respect to the average tracks of migratory cyclones. Charleston County is located on the edge of the balmy subtropical zone. As a result of this location, there are short, mild winters and long warm, humid summers. During the summer, the maximum daily temperature is usually above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with the minimum in the 65-70°F range. In the winters, the average daily maximum temperature is 63°F with the minimum around 38°F (Stuck 1980:1–2).

The large amount of nearby warm ocean water produces a marine climate, which tends to moderate both the cold and hot weather. The Appalachian Mountains are located approximately 220 miles to the northwest and block the shallow cold air masses from the northwest, tempering them before they reach the Sea Islands (Matthews et al. 1980:1:46). Precipitation is abundant, averaging about 49 inches per year. July is the wettest month of the year, when approximately seven inches (or 14.3%) of rain falls. The annual growing season for Charleston County is 295 days, one of the longest in South Carolina. The tropical storm season is generally from July to October. The coastal area is a moderately high-risk zone for tropical storms, with 169 hurricanes being documented from 1686-1972 (on average, one every two years) (Matthews et al. 1980:1:56).

FLORISTICS

Three types of ecosystems are found in the vicinity of the project area including maritime forest communities, estuarine ecosystems, and palustrine ecosystems. The upland forest communities contain significant amounts of mockernut and pignut hickories. Other areas contain loblolly, longleaf, and shortleaf pines. 6

The maritime forest community is essentially upland forest areas. These areas usually contain oak-pine forest, mixed oak hardwood forest, palmetto forest, oak thickets, and other miscellaneous wooded areas such as salt marsh thickets and wax myrtle thickets.

The estuarine ecosystem includes deep-water tidal habits and adjacent tidal wetlands where salinity ranges from 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) at the head of an estuary to 30 ppt where it meets the ocean. These ecosystems are influenced by ocean tides, precipitation, freshwater runoff, evaporation, and wind. These areas were very important to prehistoric and historic people since they contain such high biomass (Thompson 1972:9). Major river deltas (such as the Savannah) have zonal change from purely salt marshes to freshwater marshes with an intermediate brackish zone (Stalter 1973).

Mixed pine/hardwood forest was the primary vegetation encountered within the study area. Open fields occurred in the eastern and southern portion of the tract. In addition, smaller open areas occur along the western edge of the property. Wetland areas contained cypress and palmetto. One large man-made pond exists in the central western portion of the tract. Figure 2 illustrates some environmental settings encountered. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 7 OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT

Figure 2. View of the Project Environments

A. Open Field

B. Wooded Area Along Wetland Margin

C. Pond

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 9 III. CULTURAL CONTEXT

PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCES

There are two previously recorded cultural resources in or immediately adjacent to the project area. Archaeological site 38CH953 is also known as the “Christ Church Line”. It is a 13,000- foot long Confederate defensive line that runs from Boone Hall Creek down to Hamlin Sound. It is located along the southwestern border of the property. The earthwork is listed on the NRHP as part of the “Civil War Defenses of Charleston Thematic Resources” nomination. This nomination includes a total of 18 fortifications that were part of a system of defensive perimeters around Charleston from 1861-1865. This particular line was constructed in 1863 but was never put into use. The 1863 “Map of Charleston and Its Defenses” shows the Confederate earthwork from the seashore over to Boone Hall Creek. The nomination indicates that the Christ Church line was “mostly destroyed”, while Palmetto Fort located at Hamlin Sound is “in good condition”. Although a very small, eroded remnant can be seen adjacent to the southeast side of U.S. Highway 17, it is very prominent further to the southeast, just beyond Old Georgetown Road. Its condition within the study area was not clear from the information provided on the National Register form. Northwest of U.S. Highway 17, a portion of it can be seen at the east side of the main entry drive into Boone Hall Plantation. Although the line has an archaeological site number, no archaeological investigations have occurred there. This resource was visually examined during the study. Its condition was noted, but no archaeological investigations were performed.

The second resource is Cook’s Old Field Cemetery, which is located near the center of the property in an out parcel and was nominated to the NRHP in 2003. The National Register form refers to it has the Hamlin Cemetery containing graves dating from 1805-1916, with the majority dating from the 1840s and 1850s. It is significant as an excellent example of a mid-nineteenth- century plantation cemetery associated with the Hamlin, Hibben, and Leland families, and as an excellent example of mid-nineteenth-century gravestone art as executed by several prominent Charleston stone carvers. Since it is located outside of the survey area, it was simply noted and photographed.

The only formal survey that has occurred in the project area was in 2008, when Brockington and Associates (Salo et al. 2008) conducted a cultural resources survey of the proposed Hungryneck Boulevard Phase IV area. It consisted of a narrow linear corridor that intersected the property and ran parallel to the coast. No sites or structures were discovered in the project area during that survey. The entire corridor in the project area consisted of swamp. This phase of the boulevard has not been constructed. 10

PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

PRE-PALEOINDIAN

Evidence of a pre-Clovis culture has been discovered at several sites throughout the Americas. Some of these include Monte Verde (Meltzer et al. 1997), Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Adovasio et al. 1985) and most recently at Cactus Hill in Virginia with the discovery of a prismatic blade industry dated between 15,000 and 16,500 B.P. (McAvoy et al. 1997). The most relevant pre- Clovis site to this report is a discovery made at the Topper site near Aiken, South Carolina, which is located along the middle Savannah River Valley.

Excavating under the Clovis layer and a red paleosol zone, Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina discovered a white Pleistocene alluvial sand that he believed to be the normal pre-Clovis zone for the Topper site. By excavating to the bottom of this sand layer, a lens of charcoal was uncovered. Two samples were extracted from this lens and have been dated to 50,300 B.P. and 51,700 B.P. through radiocarbon dating (Goodyear 2005). Within this layer, chert flakes were also discovered near a large boulder believed to be an anvil. Given the bend break fractures, these chert flakes are believed to be pre-Clovis chert processing piles. This possible hearth area, taken together with the chert flakes, would disprove the previously held belief that humans did not inhabit this portion of North America until 13,000 B.P. This work could have great implications for understanding the origin and migration of the human species.

PALEOINDIAN

The Paleoindian period is typically subdivided into “Early,” “Middle” and “Late” and dated to between 12,000 and 10,000 B.P. The Early Paleoindian period was indicated by the fluted Clovis Lanceolate type while the Cumberland, Simpson, Suwannee, and Quad points mark the Middle Paleoindian period. Like the Middle Paleoindian period, the Late Paleoindian period continues the trend toward an accelerated regional variation with this period being represented by the non-fluted Hardaway-Dalton and Dalton types.

While not much is known about this period, archaeologists agree on some key points. First, this period was one of nomadic, band level hunter-gatherer societies. Second, population density was initially low but increased significantly during the period (see Walthall 1990:30).

In the southeast, it is believed megafauna were the primary food source because many Paleoindian sites are found in prime megafaunal habitats such as major river systems (Gardner 1974; Goodyear et al. 1979; Michie 1977). As of the early 1990s, most of the Paleoindian points discovered in nearby Berkeley County were reportedly found along the Cooper River drainage and Lake Marion. Seven additional Paleoindian points have been reported found in Charleston County. Most of the points found in these two counties were manufactured from Coastal Plain chert (Charles and Michie 1992:33). PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 11

ARCHAIC PERIOD

Like the earlier Paleoindian period, the Archaic period is further divided into an Early Archaic period dated to between 10,000 and 8,000 B.P., a Middle Archaic period dated to between 8,000 and 5,000 B.P., and a Late Archaic period dated to between 5,000 and 3,000 B.P. Because of the Holocene warming trend and the subsequent rise in the sea level that occurred during this period, the comparatively long Archaic period is seen as one of adjustment to the changing environment.

The majority of these adjustments occurred in the Early Archaic period. According to Claggett and Cable (1982), technological evidence collected at two sites in North Carolina’s Haw River Valley reflects the environmental changes brought on by the post Pleistocene warming can be seen in the archaeological record. Some of the environmental changes included a warmer and moister climate with an increase in sea level and precipitation. Oaks were the dominant forest vegetation (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). The projectile points produced during this time include the Hardaway Side-Notched, Palmer Corner-Notched, and the Kirk Corner-Notched. Representatives of the terminal Early Archaic bifurcate tradition (Chapman 1975) are also found in some quantities.

The changes begun in the Early Archaic period continued in the Middle Archaic as these groups transitioned into a foraging lifestyle according to Sassaman (1983). Sassaman believed that the Middle Archaic people were very mobile, perhaps moving residences every few weeks, which fits Binford’s (1980) definition of a foraging society. Binford postulated that foragers moved camp frequently to take advantage of isolated areas with similar resources. He further hypothesized that climatic conditions that limited resources could produce a collector system. Cable (1982), working in the Haw River Valley in North Carolina, proposed that homogeneous vegetation resulting from postglacial warming at the end of the Pleistocene encouraged foraging. Sassaman’s (1983) “Adaptive Flexibility” model suggested that this homogeneity allowed for a high degree of social flexibility, which allowed them to pick up and move when needed. This mobility did not allow them to transport much material, which alleviated the need for elaborate or specialized tools to procure and process resources at locations distant from camp. Middle Archaic period projectile points include the Kirk Serrated, the Kirk Stemmed, Stanly Stemmed, the Morrow Mountain I and II, the Guilford lanceolate, and the Brier Creek lanceolate types.

According to Smith (1986), the Late Archaic period was a period of increased settlement permanence, population growth, subsistence intensification, and technological innovation. Projectile points indicative of this period include the Savannah River Stemmed, small Savannah River Stemmed, and Ottare projectile points. Late Archaic period site assemblages have produced the earliest pottery sherds. These pottery types include the fiber-tempered St. Simons and Stallings (Griffin 1945; Stoltman 1974) and the sand-tempered Thom’s Creek series 12

(Blanton et al. 1986). Along with the development of this fiber-tempered pottery in the Coastal Plain (about 4,500 B.P.), the first evidence of freshwater shellfish procurement has been discovered. While shellfish procurement and pottery use occurred earlier along the Coastal Plain, it did not occur above the Fall Line until after 3,700 B.P. The Savannah River Valley is only area in which fresh-water shell midden sites have been found. Soapstone cooking tools such as heating stones, and later, bowls have been discovered in the Piedmont and Fall Line areas and might have contributed to the late adoption of pottery in the region (Sassaman et al. 1990; Sassaman 1993).

WOODLAND PERIOD

While the exact dates for this period are still under discussion, some believe that the period begins with the production of the Stalling series of fiber-tempered pottery circa 5,000 B.P. (Trinkley 1990). Others (see Anderson 1996) consider Stallings to fall within the Terminal Late Archaic period. Regardless, population increase and environmental disequilibrium during the Early Woodland period is at the root of an increase in elaborate material culture indicative of this period (Hanson 1982:21; Smith 1974:306-11). This material culture includes worked bone and antler, polished stone items, net sinkers, steatite heating slabs, stone tools (projectile points, scrapers, knives, and drills), as well as the fiber-tempered pottery. Figure 3 provides an overview of the ceramic sequence in this portion of the state.

The Early Woodland period is marked by Stallings pottery, which contains large quantities of Spanish moss fibers (Simpkins and Allard 1986). The pottery during this period was commonly seen in the form of shallow bowls, large wide-mouth bowls, and jar forms. Pottery was produced using molding with some evidence of coils in the later Early Woodland period. The pottery was also not completely oxidized due to uncontrolled firing. Some of the decorations, including finger pinching, incising, and punctations produced using periwinkle shells, reeds and sticks, are considered temporally sensitive (Trinkley 1990; Trinkley et al. 1986; Sassaman 1983).

According to Trinkley (1990:7-8), occupations of the Stalling phase sites seems to be cyclical, following the seasons with exploitation of riverine and estuarine resources during the fall and winter and inland resources in the late winter and spring. For example, the Fish Haul Site (38BU805) is thought to be a possible winter-spring camp because of the diversity in animal remains (deer and fish being the most common) and an assemblage that points to the intensive collection, processing, and consumption of hickory nuts (Trinkley et al. 1986).

Another phase within the Early Woodland is the Thom’s Creek phase. This phase has a typical artifact assemblage that is almost identical to that of the Stallings phase assemblage. While the Thom’s Creek and Stallings pottery have similar decorations including punctations, finger pinching, simple stamping, incising and finger smoothing (Griffin 1945; Trinkley 1980), Thom’s Creek pottery is tempered with sand rather than Spanish moss fibers. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 13 12 OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT

Figure 3. Figure 3 Ceramic phase sequences from nearbySouth regions Carolina in North Ceramic and South Sequence Carolina

Southern North General South Lower Santee, Northern Georgia Carolina Coast Carolina Coast Period Period South Carolina Coast (Phelps 1983) (Trinkley 1989) (Anderson 1982) (DePratter 1991) BP HISTORIC/ Waccamaw Sewee Guale PROTOHISTORIC HISTORIC/ PROTOHISTORIC Ashley Altimaha

Pee Dee 500 Pee Dee LATE Irene WOODLAND

Oak Island Jeremy Jeremy Savannah III MISSISSIPPIAN Savannah I & II

St. Catherines Santee II 1000 MIDDLE WOODLAND Santee I Wilmington II LATE WOODLAND ville Hanover McClellanville McClellan-

Mt. Pleasant Wilmington I 1500 Deptford II Deptford III

Mount Pleasant MIDDLE WOODLAND

2000 Deptford II Deptford I

EARLY

Deep Creek WOODLAND

Deptford I Deep Creek III 2500 Deptford

Refuge III Deep Creek II Refuge II

Deep Creek I EARLY Refuge I WOODLAND 3000

Refuge II Thom's Creek

3500 14

The Refuge series follow the Stallings and Thom’s Creek wares and date to 3,000-2,600 B.P. This pottery type is similar to the earlier Thom’s Creek wares in decoration but is characterized by a compact, sandy or gritty paste and a sloppy simple stamped, dentate stamped, or random punctated decoration (Williams 1968).

During the later Early Woodland period, Deptford pottery (2,800-1,500 B.P.) begins to occur and is characterized by a fine to coarse sandy paste with surface treatments including Plain, Check Stamped, Simple Stamped, Cord Marked, Geometric Stamped, and Complicated Stamped (Williams 1968).

The next period, the Middle Woodland period, sees the continuation of the Deptford phase despite being part of an early carved paddle stamped tradition, which is believed to have been replaced by a northern intrusion of wrapped paddle stamping (Trinkley 1990). In South Carolina, the settlement pattern of the Middle Woodland is characterized by settlement mobility with short-term occupations. Within the Middle Woodland period, there is the Wilmington phase on the southern coast and the Hanover, McClellanville/Santee, and Mount Pleasant assemblages on the northern coast.

The McClellanville (Trinkley 1981) and Santee (Anderson 1982:302-308) wares, which are found on the northern central coast of the state (Trinkley 1990:18), have a fine to medium sandy paste. While the surface treatment primarily of V-shaped simple stamping is similar in both, the Santee series may have later features, such as excurvate rims and interior rim stamping which are absent in the McClellanville.

The Wilmington phase found on the southern coast and the Hanover phase found on the northern coast are believed to be regional varieties of the same ceramic tradition. They are both characterized by crushed sherd or grog tempering which comprises 30-40 percent of the paste and ranges from 3-10 millimeters in size. Marine shell middens that extend along the tidal marshes characterize Wilmington phase sites.

Essentially, the Late Woodland is a continuation of previous Middle Woodland assemblages. It is characterized by a continuation of the Santee pottery series. The Hanover and Mount Pleasant pottery series are also found as late as 1,000 B.P. (Trinkley 1989). Cable (2001:15) indicated that Wilmington and Cape Fear Fabric Impress dominate during this period as well. Unfortunately, this period is difficult to delineate from the preceding Middle Woodland period or subsequent Mississippian period (Coe 1964). Sites with Late Woodland or Mississippian occupations tend to contain small, triangular points such as the Caraway or Pee Dee (Coe 1964). PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 15

A local manifestation of Late Woodland pottery tempered with limestone has been defined by Adams and Trinkley (1993) and named the Wando Series. Information on this pottery was further refined by Poplin (2005) based on a larger assemblage of ceramics as well as radiocarbon dates. Although the surface treatments are similar to those found in the Middle Woodland period, four radiocarbon dates from 38CH1205 and 38CH1603 indicated a Late Woodland association. Dates ranged from A.D. 600-1200. Adams and Trinkley (1993) defined two types, Check Stamped and Cord Marked. Investigations at other sites in the region recovered brushed, fabric impressed, incised, simple stamped, and punctated sherds as well as undecorated ones. Decorations, with the exception of shell scraping occur only on the exterior of the vessels. The limestone temper fragments, when present, are sub-round and range in size from medium to granular. Sand is a secondary tempering agent in many vessels.

MISSISSIPPIAN AND PROTOHISTORIC PERIODS

Because most work that has been done on the Mississippian period (850-310 B.P.) has been completed in the middle Savannah River Valley or along the Wateree River Valley in the central part of the state, researchers do not know much about the Mississippian period in the region. However, the Mississippian period is generally characterized by a sedentary village life, agricultural food production, and regionally integrated and hierarchically organized social, political, and ceremonial systems (Anderson 1990). It is possible that Mississippian occupations are aligned with the Scott’s Lake Mound Center on the Upper Santee River, as well as the Wateree Mound Complex near Camden. Anderson (1982) has developed a ceramic sequence for the Mississippian period. He based his sequence on data supplied by local collectors, Coe’s (Coe and Burke 1995) work at Town Creek in North Carolina, and excavations conducted by South (1977) at Charlestowne Landing. His phases include Santee II, which is dominated by Santee Simple Stamped, Jeremy, and Pee Dee. Ultimately, DePratter and Judge’s (1986) sequence for the Wateree mound complex may describe the local sequence most effectively.

The Seewee, Wando, Etiwan, and Sampa resided in villages located in the Charleston Harbor area. Archaeologically, very little is known about the protohistoric occupation of the area. Pottery examined thus far appears to have been made no later than the fifteenth century. It is possible that some protohistoric potteries are similar to those associated with the Woodland period and, therefore, the sites have not been recognized.

HISTORIC CONTEXT

The European settlement of Charleston County and the subsequent history of the study area are tied to the successes and failures of Charleston and the lowcountry’s plantation economy. Settlement of the region was first advanced under the Lord Proprietors, several of whom were 16

also engaged in the Barbadian plantation system and the African slave trade (Rosen 1997). Hence, colonial South Carolina was a product of the plantation from the onset and was frequently regarded as the northernmost outpost of the Caribbean (Rosen 1997:11). The social system envisioned by the Lord Proprietors was one that meshed plantation dynamics with English nobility. While this system was never implemented as rigidly as the Proprietor’s “Grand Model” proposed, the combination of slavery and the English class system influenced and structured the social dynamics of the Carolinas in the early colonial period (Rosen 1997).

Initial European settlement of the Mount Pleasant area began in 1680 when Florentia O’Sullivan, Surveyor General for the colony, was granted 2,340 acres, which included present-day Sullivan’s Island and present-day Mount Pleasant (McIver 1970:2). Referred to as Haddrell’s Point – after a large plantation owner in the area – the neck of land was connected to Charleston by oar- powered ferries. Large plantations, such as Hobcaw Plantation, and industries soon were established in the town. These early industries included a shipyard, brick manufacturer, and a powder magazine (McIver 1970:9). Figure 4 shows settlement in the Mount Pleasant area at the end of the century.

As a major port of southern Carolina, Charleston quickly ascended to a position of political, religious, and social dominance within the region. The Indian trade drove the early export economy. At the end of the seventeenth century, approximately 64,000 deerskins were exported annually to England (Edgar 1998:136). Families who were more residents of the city rather than of the outlying plantations planted the hinterlands of early Charleston. Overseers took the place of absentee landlords in the management of many of the early plantations.

In the beginning, the labor pool was composed of both Native American and African-American slaves. As the eighteenth century progressed, Africans became the primary source of labor. The increase in their population caused a visitor in 1737 to remark, “Carolina looks more like a negro country than a country settled by white people” (Wood 1975:132-133). The slave population of Carolina continually increased from 1,500 individuals in 1670, to 4,100 in 1710, to 20,000 in 1730 (Weir 1983:145), and Carolina obtained a black majority by the early 1700s (Wood 1975:149). This exponential growth ended in 1741 when a prohibitive duty on new slave imports was levied after the Stono Rebellion (Wood 1975).

While Charleston acted as the hub of settlement within the lowcountry, settlement also spread into the surrounding hinterland as the plantation economy expanded outward and solidified. With the end of the Indian trade and the beginning of rice production, the inland waterways became the chief method of conveying rice to the market to be shipped to Europe. Rogers PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 17 OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT

Figure 4. Thorton-Morden Map of 1695 Showing Project Location and Historical Marker Inset

Approximate Project Location 18

(1989:9) noted that colonial land polices were created in the 1700s that were conducive to the formation of plantations. First, the crown decided to honor patents for landgraves and cassiques (orders of nobility) in the 1730s. This translated into large tracts called baronies being placed in the hands of single individuals. The headright system was also used to promote plantation growth. A headright of 50 acres was allotted for each slave brought into the colony (Rogers 1989). Those individuals able to purchase large numbers of slaves were thus rewarded with land acquisitions.

After ending the Yemassee (Indian) War in 1717, settlement spread out from the hub of Charleston outward to the surrounding areas. Early settlers quickly embraced their new natural resources, and inland waterways, a convenient method of transport to market, became integral to the economy as rice production replaced the Indian trade as the main export of the region. Rice cultivation and the plantation system dictated the design of the coastal and inland riverine settlement distribution. Once the crops reached Charleston, powerful merchants took command preparing their passage to the market. Rogers (1989:12) stated that the influence of Charleston’s merchant oligarchy was even felt in the outlying parishes through country stores owned by Charleston merchants in satellite communities. Andrew Hibben began the first ferry service to regularly travel between Haddrell’s Point and Charleston in 1770, opening up the area to additional settlement. The Rifle Range Road tract is located along what is now the suburbs of the town of Mount Pleasant. Historically, this property was about six miles northeast of the town, which was formally established in 1837. Andrew and his family are buried at Cook’s Old Field cemetery located in the middle of the study tract.

Jateff et al. (2008) performed data recovery on a portion of what was once part of the Hibben and Hamlin family plantations and have provided a fairly detailed history of the property. This information is summarized below although additional information was found and added for greater detail.

According to Jateff et al. (2008: 21), the Rifle Range Road property was originally part of two grants, totaling 760 acres, to John Bell between 1696 and 1706, which he later passed to John Kinnard in 1717 through a series of unrecorded conveyances. It should be noted however, that the Hamlins have owned land on Copahee Sound since before 1703 (Gregorie 1961: 14) and the historical marker for Copahee Plantation and Hamlin Beach indicate that Thomas Hamlin established the plantation here in 1696 (see Figure 4 inset). How this relates to the Bell property is unknown. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 19

Jateff et al. (2008) indicated that Kinnard sold the land to Charles Hill in April 1721, probably to satisfy a mortgage obtained from Hill that he secured with the tract. Charles Hill was a prosperous Charles Towne merchant who accumulated a sizable fortune in the Carolina Indian trade during the first decades of the eighteenth century. Although he owned several tracts, it appears that he resided in Charles Towne and was the senior partner in Charles Hill and Company. Hill passed the tract to his neighbor, Thomas Boone (of Boone Hall Plantation), in September 1726, describing it as “760 acres originally granted to John Bell butting and bounding north on John Jeffers and Jotham Gibbons, West on Gibbons and John Simms, and South on John Simms”. Thomas Boone passed 560 acres of the Bell grant land to a relative, Joseph Boone, between July 1734 and February 1735, who then passed the land to his brother Charles. Upon his death, the land passed to his two sons, Charles and Thomas Boone. The two brothers resided in Great Britain and showed little interest in their holdings in South Carolina. By the 1760s, they disposed of bulk of their property, including this property. Meanwhile, Thomas Boone kept the balance of the Bell grant, 200 acres. In his will, probated in February 1749, he ordered his executors to sell the land “purchased of Mr. Charles Hill” and to give the money from the sale to his son Capers. The record of the sale by Boone’s executors was not recorded, but by 1756, Richard Tookerman was in possession of the tract. Tookerman also acquired the 560-acre portion that Thomas sold to Joseph Boone around the same time. Tookerman did not keep the land long. On November 28, 1758, he and his wife, Elizabeth, conveyed 662 of the 760 acres to John S. Wingood. A plat of the land made in November 1758 only recorded the boundaries and does not indicate any improvements or residences. Tookerman did not convey the entire tract to Wingood. He kept about 100 acres in the southeast corner containing the small creek that entered the tract from Sewee Bay (Jateff et al. 2008: 21-24).

Wingood died prior to March 1764 and bequeathed “unto my Beloved son John Wingood all my Lands and my wife to have a living on the said Bequeathed land during her life”. This indicates that the Wingoods resided on the tract and an inventory taken on March 19, 1765, “at the house of the deceased Mr. John [S.] Wingood” included 32 slaves, 52 head of cattle, 14 head of oxen, 12 horses, five hogs, and various furnishings and tools. Wingood’s will also specified that if any of the children died before reaching age 21, their estate was to be divided between their living siblings and their mother. Evidently John Wingood died without heirs, for his sister Sarah inherited the entire plantation from her father’s estate (Jateff et al. 2008: 24).

Sarah Wingood married Thomas Hamlin, her neighbor, in 1785, and the couple resided on her land throughout their lives. From his wife, Hamlin obtained an interest in the Wingood plantation, and at his death in 1818, he bequeathed his interest “unto my beloved wife Sarah Hamlin, all that Parcell or Tract of Land which she derived from her Father Mr. Wingood, and on which I now live, together with all the Buildings thereon” (Jateff et al. 2008: 24). Shortly 20

thereafter, an 1824 tax return indicated that Sarah owned 605 acres of land and 21 slaves (SCDAH Series S126061, Item 0024). At this time, the 1825 Vignoles and Ravenel Map in Mills’ Atlas of South Carolina lists the name Hamlin in the project area (Figure 5).

Both Thomas and Sarah are buried in the Cook’s Old Field Cemetery in the center of the study area along with members of the Hibben, Leland, and other families. When Sarah died in 1840, she specified in her will that her two sons, Thomas and John, receive “my entire plantation on the Sea Shore to them and their heirs forever[.] The plantation so divided that the east side on which my son John has settled shall be his and the west side next to the Settlement of my son Thomas shall be his” (Jateff et al. 2008: 24). These settlements are shown in Figure 6 and John’s settlement corresponds with a previously recorded archaeological site 38CH948. Thomas Hamlin’s settlement, as well as his parents’ settlement, has not yet been recorded as an archaeological site. All settlements are located along Hamlin Sound to the southeast of the project area. Also of interest is the “kiln” along the creek, which is undoubtedly a lime kiln based on an examination of an adjacent plat (McCrady Plat 5549).

No settlements are shown inside the project area on the 1840 plat, although the cemetery (indicated by “graves”) is depicted in the location of the National Register-listed Cook’s Old Field cemetery. Most of the project area fell under the ownership of Thomas Hamlin V, although a small portion of the western part of the survey area fell under his brother John’s ownership. It was around this time that John purchased his neighbor, Andrew Hibben’s, Seaside Plantation. Of interest, Anne King Gregorie (1961:101) indicates that John Hamlin’s management of his slaves earned the disdain of his neighbors. She wrote that her father told this perspective to her when she was a young woman and she recorded it:

Mr. [John] Hamlin, too, was slaveholding planter whose ancestors had been among the earliest settlers of the parish, and he operated Seaside, which had formerly been owned by Andrew Hibben, near Mount Pleasant. But he had his own ideas on how to manage his Negroes, and instead of providing food and clothing for them as did his neighbor, he paid each family a weekly allowance of money with which to provide for its own needs. The result was that at best the money was spent wastefully and at worst it was used for whiskey or gambled away in crap games. His Negroes, therefore, were hungry, ragged, and unable to do good work, and when he punished them for their blunders and “laziness,” he acquired the name of being a hard master. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 21

Figure 5. 1825 Vignoles and Ravenel Map (Mills’ Atlas) Showing the Name Hamlin in the Project Area 22 Source: McCrady Plat 6142 Graveyard John Hamlin Mrs. Hamlin Thomas Hamlin Kiln Figure 6. Thomas and John 1840 Plat of Land Division from Sarah Hamlin to Sons PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 23

John Hamlin was heavily involved in the leadership of Christ Church, which is well documented in Gregorie’s 1961 history of that church. He sold his 883.8-acre seaside holding to Daniel, Edward, Henry, and John Horlbeck on February 1, 1852. The tract was described as bounding northeast on lands of the estate of Thomas Hamlin (who had died in 1849) per a division line conforming with the will of Sarah Hamlin, northwest on Horlbeck land known as Boone Hall, southeast on Copahee Sound, and southwest on the land of Moses Whitesides.

At Thomas Hamlin’s death in 1849, it is believed that his son (also Thomas) inherited the property although ownership is unclear at this time. The 1860 slave schedule indicates that Thomas Hamlin owned 12 slaves at that time in Christ Church Parish on lands near Moses Whitesides.

In 1863, as part of the Charleston defenses during the Civil War, a Confederate earthwork was built across the Horlbeck property and abuts the project area. However, the works were never used as Union forces bypassed the Wando neck area. The works run from Boone Hall Creek and culminate at the Palmetto Battery on the edge of Copahee (aka Hamlin) Sound (Figure 7). This work has been recorded as archaeological site 38CH953 and is part of the “Civil War Defenses of Charleston Thematic Resources” nomination.

After the Civil War, like other large landholdings in the area, the plantations were subdivided and sold, primarily to Freedmen and their families; often in 10-acre lots. This resulted in the African American Gullah communities currently known as Six Mile and Hamlin Beach, both located adjacent to the project area. The portion of the plantations located within the project area remained largely under the ownership of the Horlbeck and Hamlin families and was owned by Osgood D. Hamlin III until its current purchase by CCPRC. In the latter half of the twentieth century, he farmed soybeans, corn, and tomatoes, which he sold to wholesalers primarily from Philadelphia (Jateff et al. 2008:29). Examination of early twentieth-century maps indicate little in the way of occupation of the property, suggesting that it was primarily agricultural or consisted of unusable swamp. One building is shown in the project area as an open square (vacant building) on the 1942 County Highway map (Figure 8). This building is not shown on the earlier 1938 map. A prehistoric site with a historic locus (38CH2426) was found in this location and will be discussed further in the Results chapter.

Today, the property is largely undeveloped. However, along the southeast boundary are remnants of cement pads where mobile homes and other buildings once stood. There is a vacant mobile home and trailer located near the southern end of the tract. The project area is surrounded by modern residential development as well as older homes associated with the African American Gullah community still living in the area. 24

Figure 7. 1863 “Map of Charleston and Its Defenses” Showing the Confederate Earthwork, Horlbeck, and Hamlin Properties PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 25 OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT

Figure 8. 1942 Charleston County Highway Map

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 27

IV. METHODS

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Prior to fieldwork, files at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) were examined to identify previously recorded archaeological resources. In addition, survey reports from the surrounding area were consulted to aid in putting the resources into context. Historical research included a review of existing printed literature, an examination of the U.S. Census Records, as well as historic maps, plats, and other documents on file at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History and the University of South Carolina were examined. The USDA Soil Survey data was examined and used to guide the field methods.

FIELD METHODS

The soil survey was used to divide the project area into high and low site potential zones. Moderately well drained Chipley soils were classified as having a high potential for archaeological sites, whereas poorly drained to very poorly drained Rutlege, Scranton, and Stono soils were classified as having a low potential for archaeological sites.

A series of survey transects were established across the areas containing Chipley soils at a 30- meter interval. They encompassed 107 acres. Shovel test locations were investigated at a 30- meter interval. In areas identified as low probability, shovel tests were judgmentally located, particularly in areas that were not obviously poorly drained in order to verify soil conditions. Shovel tests were 30 centimeters (1 ft.) in diameter and excavated until culturally sterile subsoil was encountered. All soils were screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth to recover all artifacts present. Artifacts were collected according to natural strata or within artificial distinctions like plow zones. The presence of brick and shell were noted in each pit and generally not collected unless they held diagnostic characteristics. Soil profiles were recorded for each positive shovel test and at a representative sample of negative shovel tests. Potential subsurface features and nearby surface features was noted. When artifacts were encountered, shovel tests were excavated in a 15-meter interval in a cruciform pattern until two negative shovel tests were documented. However, one site (38CH2426) was exceedingly large. In this particular instance, while some short interval shovel tests were excavated, once the site size was better understood no additional internal shovel testing was performed since it was believed that there was sufficient internal data to characterize the site. 28

An archaeological site was defined as an area yielding three or more historic or prehistoric artifacts within a 30-meter radius, and/or an area with visible or historically recorded features (e.g. shell middens, cemeteries, rock shelters, architectural elements, earthworks, etc.).

LABORATORY METHODS

Conservation, identification, and cataloging of artifacts initially commenced in the field. All artifacts were bagged according to the appropriate provenience in polyethylene bags and stored in a safe, controlled environment that enabled safe transport. Fragile and unstable artifacts were packaged individually. All artifacts from the same provenience were assigned a unique provenience number. All artifacts from the site were then submitted to New South Associates’ archaeological laboratory in Stone Mountain, Georgia for processing. Processing included artifact check in, washing, cataloging and identification, and curation.

Once received from the field, artifact bags were crosschecked against the field bag list generated in the field to ensure correct provenience information was recorded. All submitted samples were then cleaned. Durable artifacts were washed in tap water using a soft brush. Leather, wood, and most other non-durable artifacts were dry cleaned using a soft brush. Non-durable pottery was cleaned using a combination of dry and wet methods, with special care being taken not to allow sherds to disintegrate from excessive moisture exposure. All artifacts were allowed to dry thoroughly before analysis. If necessary, specific conservation techniques were applied to stabilize unstable artifacts. Artifact refitting was applied only when it was deemed worthy of providing important additional information.

All artifacts were cataloged in a manner that provided a coherent structure to the collection and enabled cultural patterns to be recognized in the assemblage. All artifacts were sorted by provenience, material type, and when possible, by object identification. Objects were counted and individual object forms were then bagged separately. Catalog numbers were assigned to each object form based on the system followed by the final curation facility. All of this information was entered into a relational database that tied provenience, artifact, and known chronological and cultural data about given artifact forms into a common data set. Artifact data were input directly into the database at the time of analysis, thereby reducing the opportunity for clerical errors.

Artifact identifications were grounded on a wide variety of published sources, with emphasis placed on scholarly works and other well-grounded sources of information. Prehistoric artifacts were organized and identified by material resource (stone, pottery, bone, shell, etc). The basic attributes for each material resource or artifact type were then described. When possible, tool forms were identified and classified according to characteristics emphasized in standardized published typologies that were applicable to the study region. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 29

The organizing principle for the historic artifact assemblage is based on Stanley South's (1977) pattern analysis system used by many historical archaeologists in the Southeast. South based his categories on functional classes, such as kitchen or architectural artifacts. South’s classes were designed to examine and compare collections from British Colonial domestic sites in South Carolina and are consequently used by many historical archaeologists in the Southeast as an organizational framework.

Once all analysis has been completed, artifacts were placed in separate virgin polyethylene bags by artifact form. Acid-free identification tags were generated and the artifact bags were labeled with the appropriate catalog number, artifact identification, and number of artifacts present. Artifact bags were then placed in pre-labeled and tagged bags containing all other materials recovered from the same provenience. All provenience bags were then sorted by provenience number and placed in a larger container with all other materials from a given site.

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 31

V. RESULTS

Ten archaeological sites were identified as a result of the Phase I survey of the 242-acre property (see Figure 1). In addition, two previously recorded cultural resources exist on the tract. Since both are listed on the NRHP, they were not re-assessed, but they were visited and will be discussed below. One isolated artifact find was also documented. It consisted of an eroded unidentifiable prehistoric sherd recovered from Transect 18, Shovel Test 1 along Rifle Range Road. Findings for each of the sites are described below, followed by recommendations for the future treatment. Table 1 summarizes this information.

Table 1. Identified Archaeological Sites and Significance

Site Site Type Significance Planning Recommendation Number Early to Late Woodland Camp; Twentieth Preserve in place, Additional 38CH2425 Unknown Century scatter Investigation if impacted Early to Late Woodland Settlement; 19th- and Preserve in place, Additional 38CH2426 Unknown early to mid 20th-century historic occupation Investigation if impacted 38CH2427 Unknown Woodland and Unknown Historic Not Significant No Additional Investigation 38CH2428 Unknown Woodland Not Significant No Additional Investigation Preserve in place, Additional 38CH2429 Early to Middle Woodland; 18th century Unknown Investigation if impacted Late Archaic and Unknown Woodland; Isolated 38CH2430 Not Significant No Additional Investigation Historic Find 38CH2431 Unknown Woodland Not Significant No Additional Investigation 38CH2432 Early and Unknown Woodland Not Significant No Additional Investigation 38CH2433 Middle Woodland Not Significant No Additional Investigation 38CH2434 Late Archaic and Woodland Not Significant No Additional Investigation

It should be noted that there were areas along the southwestern project area where there were remnants of modern building remains. One was located at the western tip of the man made pond where cinder blocks, concrete, and bathroom tile were encountered. Another area was at the southern end along Rifle Range Road where concrete pads were found. It is assumed that a small mobile home park was once located here. A final area was farther east near the property boundary where one shovel test encountered what appeared to be Portland cement. It is thought that this may have been part of the foundation of a relatively modern agricultural building. None of these remains were considered to be archaeological resources. 32

The sites identified were evaluated for their potential to yield information important to the understanding of the history or prehistory of the area. Sites that are deemed not significant do not require further consideration. However, sites whose significance is not fully understood without further testing should either be preserved in place or further evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, particularly if they may be impacted by park development.

NEWLY IDENTIFIED SITES

38CH2425

State Site Number 38CH2425 Temporary Site Number Find 1 Site Type Woodland camp; Historic scatter Cultural Affiliation Early to Late Woodland; Twentieth Century UTM East 612635 North 3634487 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 45x150 meters Total Shovel Tests 19 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Unknown; Additional Testing Needed

Site 38CH2425 is an Early to Late Woodland camp located on a plateau area adjacent to Rifle Range Road (see Figure 1). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on the north, west, and east by negative shovel tests on the south by Rifle Range Road, which is the edge of the project area (Figure 9). More poorly drained soils are located along the site’s northern margin, and it is likely that the site extends across Rifle Range Road for another 45 or so meters, where there is another poorly drained soil interface.

Vegetation in the area consisted primarily of mixed pine/hardwood forest, although a portion of the site is located in pasture. Surface visibility was low; less than 10 percent. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-20 centimeters below surface (cmbs) over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 21-40 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow clayey sand at 41-50+ cmbs.

Twenty-eight prehistoric artifacts were recovered in shovel tests and from a ditch cut running perpendicular to Rifle Range Road that had exposed a thin shell midden. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 40 cmbs. Prehistoric ceramics included four Wando PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 33 North 500 T1ST2 T1ST1 Field T2ST9 T2ST10 500 East T3ST2 T4ST10 T4ST9 Exposed Shell & Sherds Site Boundary Rifle Range Road T5ST1 T5ST2 Ditch North Magnetic 30 Meters T6ST9 Wooded Negative Shovel Test Positive Shovel Test Shell Midden Grid North 0 Figure 9. Site Map of 38CH2425 and Photograph Exposed Shell Midden in Ditch Cut 34

Cordmarked, one Wando Plain, one Wando Eroded, five Mount Pleasant Simple Stamped, one Mount Pleasant Eroded, two Eroded/Decorated Wilmington/Hanover and 14 residual sherds. In addition, there were five pieces of brick, one piece of amber bottle glass, and one unidentifiable iron fragment. Although undiagnostic, they are probably early twentieth century in origin.

The site has moderate to good integrity. Damage includes cultivation of the open field and logging and ditching along the wooded area disturbing the soil profile to about 20 cmbs. The site probably extends across Rifle Range Road to the southeast and it is very likely that this road has destroyed a portion of this site. Despite these damages, soil profiles exhibited intact deposits beneath the disturbed level and a ditch cut exposed a shell midden feature (Figure 9 inset). Therefore, it is likely that the site contains intact features elsewhere. Due to the extent of the site in the project area, it is possible that individual Woodland households or camps with intact features could be identified and investigated. In addition, relatively little is known about the Wando ceramic type and other manifestations of the culture that produced the wares (see Adams and Trinkley 1993; Poplin 2005). As a result, we believe that additional testing is needed in order to definitively determine the NRHP eligibility of the prehistoric component of the site. However, if the site can be preserved in place, testing is not necessary. The twentieth century component is recommended as not eligible.

38CH2426

State Site Number 38CH2426 Temporary Site Number Find 2 Site Type Prehistoric settlement and Historic scatter Cultural Affiliation Early to Late Woodland; Nineteenth and Early/Mid Twentieth Century UTM East 612277 North 3634393 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 425x495 meters Total Shovel Tests 206 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Unknown; Additional Testing is Needed

Site 38CH2426 is a large Early to Late Woodland settlement located along a swamp margin (see Figure 1). In addition, nineteenth and twentieth century historic components were also found. The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on the north by the swamp, and to the west, east, and south by negative shovel tests (Figure 10). PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 35 OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT

500 North Boundary Project T1ST8 T2ST1 Site Boundary T3ST11 T4ST1 Open Field T5ST10 Swamp 30 Meters 500 East T6ST11 Negative Negative Test Shovel Test Positive Shovel Surface Collection (Historic Artifacts) BoundaryLocus 0 T79ST1 North Magnetic T8ST15 Grid North Wooded T9ST13

Two Rut Road Mobile Home Trailer T12ST14 T11ST15 T10ST14 T13ST17 T14ST16 Wooded T15ST17 T16ST16

Two Rut Road T17ST17 T18ST17 T19ST17 Cook’s Cook’s Old Field Cemetery Out Parcel Wooded T20ST8 Figure 10. Site Map of 38CH2426 36

Vegetation in the area consisted primarily of mixed pine/hardwood forest, although a portion of the site is located in pasture or open field. Surface visibility was low; typically less than 10 percent. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-20 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 21-60 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 61- 70+ cmbs.

Prehistoric ceramics that were clearly identifiable by type included one Thoms Creek Jab and Drag, one Deptford Fabric Impressed (with mend hole), one Wilmington/Hanover Plain sherd, one Mount Pleasant Fabric Impressed sherd, and one Wando Eroded sherd. Other ceramics that were large enough to examine by temper but did not contain clearly identifiable characteristics included four possible grog tempered sherds, five very coarse sand tempered sherds, 10 coarse sand tempered sherds, 13 medium sand tempered sherds, and eight fine sand tempered sherds. There were also 124 residual sherds. In addition, there was one ceramic item made from a Deptford cord marked sherd. It consisted of what appeared to be a gaming disk with a hole drilled in the center. It is possible that the item may have functioned as a spindle whorl (see Figure 11). Lithics included five pieces of chert debitage and two pieces of sandstone. A whelk that had been busted at the shoulder was recovered from the ground surface (see Figure 11). While this pattern of breakage is consistent with extracting the meat for food, it may also mean that the shell was hafted and made into a tool. However, the hole was quite large and the edge of the whelk was uneven and did not clearly exhibit use. However, the tip was abraded and may have been used in some way.

While historic artifacts were found in pockets across the site, there were essentially three concentrations. The first is modern and is associated with a mobile home and shipping trailer currently located at the site near Transect 10, Shovel Test 9. These remains are not discussed as they are not considered as part of the archaeological site and are, rather, modern debris.

There was a small historic locus located in the vicinity of Transect 17, Shovel Test 17 adjacent to the swamp. In the field, this was referred to as Historic Locus 1. A small concentration of artifacts were collected there and consisted of one piece of burnt stoneware, one piece of flat glass, a piece of olive green bottle glass, and a handmade brick fragment. These artifacts likely date to the mid nineteenth century or earlier, based on the olive green glass. Nothing clearly datable was recognized. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 37

Figure 11. Prehistoric Artifacts from the Rifle Range Road Tract A B C D A

E H F G

J I

Front Back

A. Thoms Creek Jab and Drag Punctate, Very Coarse Sand Tempered Body Sherd (Bag 16, Site 38CH2426); B. Deptford Cord Marked, Fine Sand Tempered Body and Rim Sherd (Bag 134, Site 38CH2429); C. Deptford Cord Marked, Medium Sand Tempered Body and Rim Sherd with Mend Hole (Bag 69, Site 38CH2426); D. Wando Cord Marked, Limestone Tempered Rim Sherd (Bag 1, Site 38CH2425); E. Wando Cord Marked, Limestone Tempered Rim Sherd (Bag 1, Site 38CH2425); F. Wando Cord Marked, Limestone Tempered Body Sherd (Bag 1, Site 38CH2425); G. Unidentified, Fine-Medium Sand and Grog Tempered Rim Sherd with Diagonal Notched Lip (Bag 168, Site 38CH2434); H. Shell Scraped, Medium Sand Tempered Body Sherd (Bag 82, Site 38CH2426); I. Deptford Cord Marked, Fine Sand Tempered Drilled Ceramic Disc (Bag 75, Site 38CH2426); J. Whelk, Modified for Possible Subsistence/Tool Applications (Bag 176, Site 38CH2426) 38

Historic Locus 2 is concentrated in a small field centered on Transect 17, Shovel Test 11. While some historic artifacts were collected from shovel tests in the area, the majority were surface collected from the field where surface visibility was unusually high; around 70 percent. Artifacts consisted of five brick fragments, a metal furniture caster, two pieces of unidentified porcelain, 12 pieces of plain ironstone, 12 pieces of plain whiteware, one piece of transfer printed whiteware, 33 pieces of clear container glass, four pieces of amethyst container glass, four pieces of milk glass, 10 pieces of aqua container glass, one piece of green container glass, and three pieces of olive green container glass. In addition, there were 11 pieces of corroded unidentifiable iron, a shotgun shell, a horseshoe, and an unidentified iron machine part. Within the woods line of the field were push piles of roofing tin and other structural debris that indicated that whatever building was there had been razed. It is in this location that the 1942 county highway map (see Figure 8) shows an unoccupied building. Its function is not indicated by the key and could have been domestic or agricultural. However, given the quantity of kitchen related items, it seems most likely that this was probably a domestic occupation. Most of the artifacts date to the twentieth century. However, items such as olive green bottle glass and amethyst glass, suggest that initial occupation could have begun in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

Damage to the overall site is moderate and includes cultivation of the open field and logging the wooded area. Despite these damages, soil profiles exhibited intact deposits beneath the disturbed level, which only extends to about 20 cmbs. Although the site is located along a swamp margin, it extends well back from this margin, suggesting that the area was used for more than just extraction of food resources along an ecotone interface during the prehistoric period. The prehistoric artifact assemblage exhibited a relatively high degree of artifact variability. In addition to ceramic vessel fragments, although no stone tools were identified, other artifacts such as utilized whelk and a drilled ceramic item was found in shovel testing, suggesting that the site was not just for a specialized use. As such, it may have functioned as a seasonal or even permanent settlement.

Unfortunately, the historic deposits associated with Historic Locus 2 are damaged, occurring within the logged portion of the soil profile. Historic Locus 2 is primarily located in a small open field. The periphery of the field includes push piles containing twentieth century building and other domestic debris indicating that the building had been razed and pushed into piles. Historic Locus 1 was ephemeral and appears to be relatively early. The artifacts do not clearly indicate that someone actually lived in this location. Rather, these deposits may be discarded items used in surface decoration of graves at Cook’s Old Field cemetery. Additional investigation is needed to better understand the function of this locus and its significance. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 39

Overall, we believe that additional testing is needed for the prehistoric component and Historic Locus 1 in order to definitively determine the NRHP eligibility of the site. However, if the site can be preserved in place, testing is not necessary. It is New South Associates’ opinion that the historic component associated with Locus 2 is not eligible for the NRHP.

38CH2427

State Site Number 38CH2427 Temporary Site Number Find 4 Site Type Prehistoric and Historic Scatter Cultural Affiliation Unknown Woodland and Unknown Historic UTM East 612532 North 3634498 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 30x45 meters Total Shovel Tests 15 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Not Eligible

Site 38CH2427 is a Woodland and Historic scatter located in a grassy field on a plateau area adjacent to a pocket of more poorly drained soils (see Figure 1). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on all sides by negative shovel tests (Figure 12).

Surface visibility was low and no artifacts were found during walkover of the area. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-20 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 21-60 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 61-70 cmbs.

Three prehistoric artifacts and six historic artifacts were recovered in shovel tests. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 60 cmbs. Prehistoric artifacts included two residual sherds and one piece of quartzite debitage. Historic artifacts included four pieces of brick, one plain whiteware fragment, and one unidentified stoneware.

Damage to the site is moderate and includes cultivation of the open field. Artifacts were fairly sparse and there was no evidence of subsurface features. As a result, the site is unlikely to contain significant research potential and is therefore recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 40

Figure 12. Site Map of 38CH2427

T6ST8

Grid North Open Field

Magnetic North

T5ST6

Negative Shovel Test

Positive Shovel Test T4ST7 0 30 Meters North 500 Site Boundary

Open Field

East 500 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 41

38CH2428

State Site Number 38CH2428 Temporary Site Number Find 5 Site Type Prehistoric scatter Cultural Affiliation Unknown Woodland UTM East 612557 North 3634581 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 30x30 meters Total Shovel Tests 11 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Not Eligible

Site 38CH2428 is a Woodland scatter located in a grassy field on a plateau area adjacent to a pocket of more poorly drained soils (see Figure 1). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on all sides by negative shovel tests (Figure 13).

Surface visibility was low and no artifacts were found during walkover of the area. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-20 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 21-60 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 61-70 cmbs.

A total of three prehistoric artifacts were recovered in shovel tests. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 60 cmbs. Prehistoric artifacts included two residual sherds and one unidentifiable eroded sherd.

Damage to the site is moderate and includes cultivation of the open field. Artifacts were sparse and there was no evidence of subsurface features. As a result, the site is unlikely to contain significant research potential and is therefore recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

38CH2429

State Site Number 38CH2429 Temporary Site Number Find 6-13 Site Type Woodland scatter and Historic scatter Cultural Affiliation Early to Middle Woodland; 18th century UTM East 612007 North 3634119 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 120x150 meters Total Shovel Tests 51 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Additional Testing is Needed 42

Figure 13. Site Map of 38CH2428

Open Field

Site Boundary

T2ST5 North 500

Grid North Property Boundary Magnetic North

Negative Shovel Test East 500 Positive Shovel Test

0 30 Meters PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 43

Site 38CH2429 is an Early to Middle Woodland scatter with an eighteenth-century component located in a wooded area adjacent to a swamp margin and just west of Cook’s Old Field Cemetery (see Figure 1). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on all sides by negative shovel tests. A swamp, located just grid north of the site, also aids in identifying its boundaries (Figure 14).

Surface visibility was low and no artifacts were found during walkover of the area. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-25 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 26-60 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 61-70 cmbs.

There were 47 prehistoric artifacts recovered in shovel tests. Prehistoric subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 60 cmbs. Prehistoric ceramics included five Deptford Cordmarked sherds, two coarse sand tempered sherds, nine fine sand tempered sherds, and 30 residual sherds. In addition, one piece of chert debitage was recovered.

Several historic artifacts were also recovered from the top 25 centimeters and included one square shanked nail, two pieces of brick, five pieces of olive green container glass, one Staffordshire slipware, and one kaolin clay pipe bowl fragment. These artifacts were primarily found at Transect 21, Shovel Test 12 and its vicinity. The slipware fragment is the only clearly datable artifact. However, it has a wide-ranging date of manufacture from 1670-1795 placing it in an eighteenth-century context. While this could represent an occupation, the component is ephemeral and, like at 38CH2426 Historic Locus 1, may be grave surface decoration items discarded beyond the perimeter of Cook’s Old Field cemetery.

Damage to the site is moderate and includes logging which has disturbed the top 25 cenitmeters. However, prehistoric artifacts were found as deep as 60 cmbs. The prehistoric scatter may represent an extraction site related to the use of 38CH2426 and adjacent swamp. Extraction sites typically represent short-term forays to gather food or other resources, which would then be brought back to a camp or settlement. Larger prehistoric sherds were found in the second strata of soil, suggesting that the site is fairly intact in this zone. As a result, the site may contain significant research potential, particularly as it relates to the occupation of 38CH2426. Its NRHP eligibility is not evident and additional testing is recommended to definitively determine its research potential and eligibility. Preservation in place is recommended. As for the historic component, while its NRHP eligibility is questionable due to the sparsity of remains primarily in a disturbed context, its presence in this particular area next to the cemetery is intriguing. Although it is possible that it could relate to an early ephemeral domestic occupation, it is possible that it may be related to early cemetery cleaning. Therefore, it also requires additional assessment in order to determine its NRHP eligibility. 44

Figure 14. Site Map of 38CH2429

Grid North

Magnetic North

Negative Shovel Test

Positive Shovel Test East 500 0 30 Meters

T20ST17 T25ST12

North 500

T21ST13 T25ST11 T24ST12 T26ST9 T23ST12 T22ST13

Wooded

Wooded

Borrow Pit

Cemetery Two Rut Road

Site Boundary

T24ST6 T23ST9 North 500

Two Rut Road

East 500 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 45

38CH2430

State Site Number 38CH2430 Temporary Site Number Find 7 Site Type Prehistoric Scatter; Isolated Historic Find Cultural Affiliation Late Archaic and Woodland UTM East 611645 North 3633830 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 60x60 meters Total Shovel Tests 19 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Not Eligible

Site 38CH2430 is a terminal Late Archaic and Woodland scatter situated in a wooded area about 100 meters south of a man-made pond (see Figure 8). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on all sides by negative shovel tests (Figure 15).

Surface visibility was low and no artifacts were found during walkover of the area. Shovel tests Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-30 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 31-60 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 61-70 cmbs.

There were 17 prehistoric artifacts recovered in shovel tests. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 60 cmbs. Prehistoric artifacts included one Stallings Plain sherd, one coarse sand tempered sherd, eight fine sand tempered sherds, five residual sherds, and two pieces of quartzite debitage. Historic artifacts consisted of one piece of unidentifiable metal. This probably relates to the remnants of a modern building foundation located immediately adjacent to the sites. Here, cinder block, concrete slab, and ceramic tile remnants were observed.

Damage to the site is moderate and includes logging which has disturbed the upper half of the artifact bearing zone. Artifacts were fairly sparse and there was no evidence of subsurface features. As a result, the site is unlikely to contain significant research potential and is therefore recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 46

Figure 15. Site Map of 38CH2430, 38CH2431, 38CH2432, and 38CH2433

38CH2431 Pond Site Boundary

T25ST8 T25ST6 Two Rut Road

38CH2432 Wooded Site Boundary

38CH2430 38CH2433 Site Boundary Site Boundary

T32ST4

North 500 T31ST5 T30ST5 T33ST5 T34ST5 Wooded

Grid North

Magnetic East North 500

Negative Shovel Test

Positive Shovel Test

0 30 Meters PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 47

38CH2431

State Site Number 38CH2431 Temporary Site Number Find 8 Site Type Woodland Scatter Cultural Affiliation Unknown Woodland UTM East 611597 North 3633928 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 10x20 meters Total Shovel Tests 6 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Not Eligible

Site 38CH2431 is an undiagnostic Woodland scatter reflected in artifacts found in two positive shovel tests situated along a two-rut road bed south of a man-made pond (see Figure 8). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on three sides by negative shovel tests, while the north edge was defined by the man-made pond (Figure 15).

Surface visibility was low and no artifacts were found during walkover of the area. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-25 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 26-60 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 61-70 cmbs.

Seven prehistoric artifacts were recovered from two positive tests. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 60 cmbs. Prehistoric artifacts included three fine sand tempered plain sherds and four residual sherds.

Damage to the site is moderate and includes logging, road construction, and pond construction. Artifacts were sparse and the site extent was limited. There was no evidence of subsurface features. As a result, the site is unlikely to contain significant research potential and is therefore recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

38CH2432

State Site Number 38CH2432 Temporary Site Number Find 9 Site Type Prehistoric Scatter Cultural Affiliation Early and Unknown Woodland UTM East 611715 North 3633976 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 10x60 meters Total Shovel Tests 12 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Not Eligible 48

Site 38CH2432 is an Early Woodland scatter with possible later Woodland components situated along a two-rut road just south of a man-made pond (see Figure 8). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on three sides by negative shovel tests, while the northern boundary was determined by the pond (Figure 15).

Surface visibility was moderate and a small number of sherds were seen on the ground surface by the pond. However, none were collected. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-35 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 36-65 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 66-70 cmbs.

A total of 18 prehistoric artifacts recovered in shovel tests. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 65 cmbs. Prehistoric artifacts included one Thoms Creek Jab and Drag, two Mount Pleasant Eroded sherds, four coarse sand tempered sherds, two medium sand tempered sherds, one fine sand-tempered sherd, and eight residual sherds.

Damage to the site is moderate to severe and includes logging, road grading, and pond construction. Artifacts were fairly sparse and there was no evidence of subsurface features. As a result, the site is unlikely to contain significant research potential and is therefore recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

38CH2433

State Site Number 38CH2433 Temporary Site Number Find 10 Site Type Woodland Scatter Cultural Affiliation Middle Woodland UTM East 611722 North 3633911 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 10x30 meters Total Shovel Tests 11 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Not Eligible

Site 38CH2433 is a Middle Woodland scatter located in a mixed pine/hardwood wooded area. Two large live oak trees are also featured at the site. In addition, there was a shallow ditch or firebreak running through the site (see Figure 8). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on sides by negative shovel tests (Figure 15). PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 49

There was no surface visibility at the site. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-35 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 36-60 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 61-65 cmbs.

There were eight prehistoric artifacts recovered in shovel tests. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 60 cmbs. Prehistoric artifacts included two Eroded Mount Pleasant sherds, three coarse sand-tempered sherds, and three residual sherds.

Damage to the site is moderate and includes logging and the creation of the firebreak. Artifacts were fairly sparse and there was no evidence of subsurface features. As a result, the site is unlikely to contain significant research potential and is therefore recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

38CH2434

State Site Number 38CH2434 Temporary Site Number Find 11 Site Type Ceramic Scatter Cultural Affiliation Terminal Late Archaic and Woodland UTM East 612288 North 3633802 Soil Type Chipley Sand Site Dimensions 150x15 meters Total Shovel Tests 16 Maximum Artifact Depth 60 cmbs NRHP Recommendation Not Eligible

Site 38CH2434 is a terminal Late Archaic and Woodland scatter located along Rifle Range Road. A portion of the site lies within a fallow field, whereas the remainder of the site is in mixed pine/hardwood forest. These two areas were divided by a very deep drainage ditch (see Figure 8). The closest permanent water source is Boone Hall Creek, located to the north of the project area. The site limits were defined on three sides by negative shovel tests, while Rifle Range Road borders it to the south (Figure 16). It is likely that the site extends to the other side of the road.

There was no surface visibility at the site. Shovel tests revealed a soil profile of 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown sand at 0-10 cmbs over 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow sand at 11-50 cmbs over 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow sand at 51-55 cmbs. 50 North 500 30 Meters Site BoundarySite T35ST5 Negative Negative Test Shovel Test Positive Shovel Wet and Low 0

Overgrown Field Overgrown Ditch 500 East T35ST8 Ri e Range Road Wooded North Magnetic Grid North Figure 16. Site Map of 38CH2434 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 51

There were 14 prehistoric artifacts recovered in shovel tests. Subsurface material was recovered from a maximum depth of 50 cmbs. Prehistoric artifacts included one fiber-tempered sherd that is probably Stallings, one coarse sand tempered sherd, one medium sand tempered sherd, two fine sand tempered sherds, and nine residual sherds. Surface treatments were not clearly visible.

Damage to the site is moderate and includes logging, cultivation, ditching, and road construction. Artifacts were fairly sparse and there was no evidence of subsurface features. As a result, the site is unlikely to contain significant research potential and is therefore recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES

COOK’S OLD FIELD CEMETERY

Cook’s Old Field Cemetery is a National Register-listed site located within an out parcel retained by the previous owner (Osgood Hamlin) near the center of the survey tract. Although an out parcel, the cemetery is an important aspect of the property’s history. A historical marker along Rifle Range Road provides some information about the cemetery to the public. The National Register form refers to it has the Hamlin Cemetery containing graves dating from 1805-1916, with the majority dating from the 1840s and 1850s. It is significant as an excellent example of a mid-nineteenth-century plantation cemetery associated with the Hamlin, Hibben, and Leland families, and as an excellent example of mid-nineteenth-century gravestone art as executed by several significant Charleston stone carvers.

Because the resource is already listed on the NRHP and is outside the study area, it was not reassessed. However, field crew photographed overall views of the cemetery during their work (Figure 17). The National Register form is attached as Appendix B.

CHRIST CHURCH LINE (38CH953)

The Christ Church Line is a 13,000-foot long Confederate defensive line that runs from Boone Hall Creek down to Hamlin Sound. It is located along the southwestern border of a portion of the tract. The earthwork is listed on the NRHP as part of the “Civil War Defenses of Charleston Thematic Resources” nomination. This nomination includes a total of 18 fortifications that were part of a system of defensive perimeters around Charleston from 1861-1865. This particular line was constructed in 1863. The 1863 “Map of Charleston and Its Defenses” shows the Confederate earthwork from the seashore over to Boone Hall Creek (see Figure 6). The nomination indicates that the Christ Church line is “mostly destroyed” while Palmetto Fort located at Hamlin Sound is “in good condition”. Although a very small, eroded remnant can be seen adjacent to the southeast side of U.S. Highway 17, it is very prominent further to the 52

Figure 17. Photographs of Cook’s Old Field Cemetery and Historical Marker

A. Cooks Old Field Cemetery

B. Historical Marker PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 53

southeast, just beyond Old Georgetown Road. Northwest of U.S. Highway 17, a portion of it can be seen at the east side of the main entry drive into Boone Hall Plantation. Although the line has an archaeological site number, no archaeological investigations have occurred there.

Adjacent to the project area, the line is characterized by low mounded dirt flanking a very deep ditch known as “Six Mile Canal”, which appears to be periodically cleaned out (Figure 18). The mounded dirt appears to be related to this ditch maintenance. As such, the line has been pretty much destroyed by the canal and its maintenance. Although, as it exists along the edge of the property, it has been destroyed, the ditch provides a visual reminder of the location of the defensive line. The National Register nomination is attached as Appendix C. 54

Figure 18. Photographs of the Christ Church Line Along the Property Boundary

A. View of Property Boundary Containing the Christ Church Line

B. Northwest View of Ditch at the Christ Church Line C. Southwest View of Ditch at the Christ Church Line PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 55

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The goals of the Phase I examination of the Rifle Range Road tract were to identify archaeological resources within the tract, to aid in the management of these resources within a proposed public park, and provide a starting point for interpreting cultural resources to the public. Ten archaeological sites were identified during the archaeological survey. In addition, two NRHP-listed properties occur within or adjacent to the project area. One isolated find was also identified. Of the 10 archaeological sites identified, three (38CH2425, 38CH2426, and 38CH2429) may be significant archaeological sites, but need further testing to fully understand their research potential. If possible, these sites should be preserved in place. If they will be affected by planned park improvement, additional testing will be needed in order to definitively determine their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. If they are eligible, mitigation of adverse effects will be necessary. The remaining sites are not believed to be significant and do not need further consideration.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PREHISTORIC SITES

The vast majority of artifacts recovered from the sites identified during the survey date to the terminal Late Archaic and Woodland period and all sites identified contained Woodland components. The location and configuration of largest site, 38CH2426, suggests that it was used for more than just resource extraction along the swamp to the northwest. It may have also contained a seasonally or perhaps even permanently occupied village given the location of artifact scatters well away from the wetland margins. In addition, shovel testing and surface collection recovered a used whelk, as well as a drilled ceramic disk, in addition to numerous prehistoric ceramics. As such, the artifact density and variability suggests a residential site rather than a briefly occupied special purpose camp.

The remaining sites all had prehistoric ceramic components and probably represent extraction sites that are related to the use of 38CH2426. Of these, 38CH2425 and 39CH2429 may have the potential to provide important information to the prehistoric use of the area, particularly if they are examined in relationship to 38CH2426. These two sites were possibly created during the occupation of 38CH2426 and represent areas where food and other resources were extracted and taken back to the larger residential site. Examination of these sites may determine what resources the inhabitants of 38CH2426 were focusing on; thus, providing a clearer picture of Woodland period subsistence strategies. 56

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITES

Historic occupation and use was very limited within the Rifle Range Road tract. Of particular interest were two ephemeral historic components located within 38CH2426 and 38CH2429. Historic Locus 1 at 38CH2426 was situated within 100 feet of Cook’s Old Field Cemetery, easily within view of it. The historic component at 38CH2429 is also about the same distance from the cemetery on the opposite side; also within view. Both components are small and ephemeral, and it seems odd that there would be domestic occupations so close to a cemetery. While it is not impossible that they are domestic occupations, they may be related to activities at the cemetery. Historic artifacts found near the cemetery could be related to the discard of surface decorations beyond the cemetery perimeter as they were periodically cleaned and graves were redecorated. If these artifacts are indeed related to discard, it is unlikely that further investigation would yield important information. If these scatters represent domestic occupations or some other special purpose occupation, they may contain important information that could address questions of historic land use during the colonial and antebellum periods.

INTERPRETING RESOURCES TO THE PUBLIC

Although Cook’s Old Field Cemetery is not located on land owned by the county, if the owner permits, it should be included in public interpretation due to its importance to the property’s history as well as the history of the Mount Pleasant area. As for the Christ Church line, it has been destroyed by the Six Mile Canal, which runs the exact same alignment from U.S. Highway 17 all the way to Hamlin Sound. Regardless, the Civil War earthwork was once located along the edge of the property and CCPRC may wish to note it as part of the property’s history in any interpretation to the public.

The most prominent archaeological resource is 38CH2426, the large Woodland settlement located in the northeastern portion of the project area. While little is understood about exactly what went on at the site, information about similar sites and the people that created them could be provided as part of site interpretation. The Wando series pottery found at the site, which dates to the Late Woodland period, is featured in a historical marker located nearby on Highway 41 and could be referenced as part of interpretation. The other two potentially important archaeological resources (3CH2425 and 38CH2429) should also be discussed; in particular, how they may have functioned to support those living at 38CH2426. Any signage or other interpretation should avoid giving precise site location information in order to lessen the likelihood of site looting. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 57

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Natalie and Michael Trinkley 1993 Archaeological Survey of the Seaside Farms Tract, Charleston County, South Carolina. Research Series 35, Chicora Foundation. Columbia, South Carolina.

Adovasio, James, Ronald C. Carlisle, Kathleen A. Cushman, Jesse Donahue, John E. Guilday, William C. Johnson, Kenneth Lord, Paul W. Parmalee, Robert Stuckenrath, and Paul W. Wiegman 1985 Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington County, PA. In Environmental Extinctions: Man in Late Glacial North America. Edited by Jim I. Mead and David J. Meltzer, Peopling of the Americas Edited Volume Series, pp. 73–110. Orono, Maine: Center for the Study of Early Man, Orono, Maine.

Anderson, David G. 1982 The Mattassee Lake Ceramic Assemblage. In The Mattassee Lake Sites: Archeological Investigations Along the Lower Santee River in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, edited by David G. Anderson, Charles E. Cantley, and A. Lee Novick, pp. 207-322. Commonwealth Associates Inc.: Jackson, Mississippi.

1990 Political Change in Chiefdom Societies: Cycling in the Late Prehistoric Southeastern United States. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, Michigan

1996 Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from the March 1995 Ceramic Workshop at Hobcaw Barony. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists. Funded by South Carolina Department of Archives and History.

Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.

Blanton, Denis B., Christopher T. Espenshade, and Paul E. Brockington 1986 An Archaeological Study of 38SU83: A Yadkin Phase Site in the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Garrow and Associates: Atlanta, Georgia. 58

Brooks, Mark J., David J. Stone, and Janice G. Brown 1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period Subsistence-Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91–110. University of South Carolina: Columbia, South Carolina.

Cable, John S. 1982 Organizational variability in Piedmont Hunter-Gatherer Lithic Assemblages. In The Haw River Sites: Archeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont, edited by Stephen R Claggett and John S. Cable, pp. 637-688. Commonwealth Associates.

2001 2000 Fireline Survey of Selected Compartments in the Francis Marion National Forest. Palmetto Research Institute Research Publications in Archaeology, Irmo, South Carolina.

Chapman, Jefferson 1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Tradition. Knoxville: Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee.

Charles, Tommy and James L. Michie. 1992 South Carolina Paleo Point Data. In Paleoindian and Early Archaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective, edited by David G. Anderson, Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Christopher T. Judge, pp. 242-247. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists: Columbia, South Carolina.

Claggett, Stephen R, and John S. Cable. 1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Technical Number 2386. Commonwealth Associates Inc.: Jackson Michigan.

Coe, Joffery L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 59

Coe, Joffrey L. and Thomas D Burke. 1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Cooke, C. Wythe 1936 Geology of the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Bulletin 867. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Delcourt, Paul A, and Hazel R. Delcourt. 1987 Long-Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone. New York, Springer.

DePratter, Chester B. and James D. Howard 1980 Indian Occupation and Geologic History of the Georgia Coast: A 5,000 Year Summary. In Excursions in Southeastern Geology, edited by James D. Howard, Chester B. DePratter, and Robert W. Frey, pp. 1–65. Guidebook 20. Geological Society of America: Atlanta, Georgia.

DePratter, Chester B., and Christopher T. Judge. 1986 A Provisional Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Ceramic Sequence for the Wateree River Valley, South Carolina. Ms. on File, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Edgar, Walter 1998 South Carolina: A History. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Gardner, W. H, ed. 1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-73. In The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons, Occasional Paper No. 11. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory.

Goodyear, Albert C. 2005 Summary of the Allendale Paleoindian Expedition—2003 and 2004 Field Seasons. Legacy 9:4-11.

Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neal W. Ackerly. 1979 Laurens-Anderson: an Archeological Study of the South Carolina Inter-riverine Piedmont. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina. 60

Gregorie, Anne King 1961 Christ Church, 1706-1959: A Plantation Parish of the South Carolina Establishment. Dalcho Historical Society, Charleston, South Carolina.

Griffin, James B. 1945 Ceramic Collections of Two South Carolina Sites. Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 30:465-478.

Hanson, Glen T., Jr 1982 The Analysis of Late Archaic-Early Woodland Adaptive Change Along the Middle Savannah River: A Proposed Study. Notebook 14:1-38.

Jateff, Emily, Charles Phillips, Jessica Allgood, and Eric Poplin 2008 Archaeological Data Recovery at Three Sites on the Palmetto Fort Development Tract (38CH948, 38CH949, and 38CH950) Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

Mathews, Thomas, Frank Stapor, Jr., Charles Richter, John Miglarese, Michael McKenzie, and Lee Barclay 1980 Ecological Characteristics of the Sea Island Region of South Carolina and Georgia, Volume 1. Office of Biological Services, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

McAvoy, Joseph M, Lynn D McAvoy, and Cheryl Holt 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

McIver, Petrona 1994 A History of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Reprint of 1960 edition. Town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

Meltzer, Donald, Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis Stanford 1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62:659–663.

Michie, James L. 1977 The Late Pleistocence Human Occupation of South Carolina. Masters, University of South Carolina, Department of Anthropology. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 61

Miller, E. N., Jr. 1971 Soil Survey, Charleston County, South Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.

Poplin, Eric 2005 Wando Ceramic Series: Behavioral Implications of a Local Ceramic Type. South Carolina Antiquities 37:57-75.

Quitmyer, Irvy 1985 The Environment of the Kings Bay Locality. In Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Vol 2, edited by William H. Adams, pp. 73-91. Reports of Investigations 2. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Rogers, George C., Jr 1989 Charleston in the Age of the Pinckneys. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Rosen, Robert 1997 A Short History of Charleston. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Salo, Edward, Charles F. Philips Jr., and Joshua N. Fletcher 2008 Cultural Resources Survey of the Hungryneck Boulevard Phase IV Project, Charleston County, South Carolina. Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc., and the Town of Mt. Pleasant, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson. 1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 62

Simpkins, Dan and Dorothy Allard 1986 Isolation and Identification of Spanish Moss Fiber from a Sample of Stallings and Orange Series Ceramics. American Antiquity 51:102-117.

Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: from Dalton to de Soto 10,500-500 B.P. In Advances in Word Archaeology, edited by Fred Wendrof and Angela Close, pp. 1-92. Academic Press, Orlando.

Smith, Richard L. 1974 The Archaic Period in the Central Savannah River Area: A Study of Cultural Continuity and Innovation. Ms on file, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

South, Stanley A. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press: New York, New York.

Stalter, R. 1973 Factors Influencing the Distribution of Vegetation of the Cooper River Estuary. Castanea 38(1):18-24.

Stoltman, James B. 1974 Groton Plantation: An Archaeological Study of a South Carolina Locality. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Stuck, W. M. 1980 Soil Survey of Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Trinkley, Michael B. 1980 A Typology of Thom’s Creek Pottery for the South Carolina Coast. South Carolina Antiquities 12:1-35.

1981 Archaeological Testing of the Walnut Grove Shell Midden (38CH260), Charleston County. USDA Forest Service: Columbia, South Carolina.

1989 Archaeological Investigations at Haig Point, Webb, and Oak Ridge, Daufuskie Island, South Carolina. Chicora Foundation, Columbia, South Carolina.

1990 An Archaeological Context for the South Carolina Woodland Period. Chicora Foundation, Columbia SC. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RIFLE RANGE ROAD TRACT 63

Trinkley, Michael B., Stephen R Claggett, Cheryl Claassen, Debi Hacker, David Lawrence, Andrea Lee Novick, Billy L. Oliver, Homes H. Wilson, and Jack H. Wilson Jr. 1986 Indian and Freedmen Occupation at the Fish Haul Site (38BU805), Beaufort County, South Carolina. Chicora Foundation, Columbia SC.

Walthall, John A. 1990 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South. University Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Weir, Robert M. 1983 Colonial South Carolina. KTO Press, Millwood, New York.

Williams, Stephen, ed. 1968 “The Waring Papers.” Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Wood, Peter H. 1975 Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina from 1670 through the Stono Rebellion. W.W. Norton, New York.

APPENDIX A: SPECIMEN CATALOG

Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH00-IF1 171 1 38CH00-IF1-1-1 Transect 18, STP 1 1 (7.3g) Eroded Exterior 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2425 1 1 38CH2425-1-1 1 (12.8g) Eroded Exterior 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Cord 38CH2425 1 1 38CH2425-1-2 1 (10.2g) Marked Exterior 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Limestone Temper, Plain 38CH2425 1 1 38CH2425-1-3 1 (18.1g) Exterior, Wando Plain 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Limestone Temper, Eroded 38CH2425 1 1 38CH2425-1-4 1 (8g) Decorated Exterior, Wando 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Limestone Temper, Cord 38CH2425 1 1 38CH2425-1-5 1 (18.4g) Marked Exterior, Wando 10/23/12 Rim Sherd, Limestone Temper, Cord 38CH2425 1 1 38CH2425-1-6 1 (17.7g) Marked Exterior, Wando Cord Marked 10/23/12 Rim Sherd, Limestone Temper, Cord Marked Exterior, Wando Cord Marked, 38CH2425 1 1 38CH2425-1-7 1 (56.1g) Exfoliated Interior 10/23/12 38CH2425 2 2 38CH2425-2-1 Transect 2, STP 9 1 (0.1g) Oyster-Unidentified 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Limestone Inclusions, Cord Marked 38CH2425 3 3 38CH2425-3-1 Transect 2, STP 10 1 (7.1g) Exterior 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2425 3 3 38CH2425-3-2 Transect 2, STP 10 1 (6.6g) Plain Exterior 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, Grog/Clay Inclusions, Eroded Exterior, 38CH2425 4 4 38CH2425-4-1 Transect 4, STP 10 1 (3.4g) Mount Pleasant 10/23/12 38CH2425 4 4 38CH2425-4-2 Transect 4, STP 10 1 (1g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2425 5 5 38CH2425-5-1 N485 E500 1 (40.8g) Iron/ Steel, Unidentified/ Corroded 10/23/12 38CH2425 5 5 38CH2425-5-2 N485 E500 1 (37g) Bone-Unidentified 10/23/12 38CH2425 6 6 38CH2425-6-1 N500 E425 1 (1.8g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Grog/Clay Temper, Sand- Fine-Medium Inclusions, Unidentified 38CH2425 7 7 38CH2425-7-1 N500 E440 2 (20.7g) Decorated Exterior, Wilmington/Hanover 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2425 7 7 38CH2425-7-2 N500 E440 1 (4.7g) Plain Exterior 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, Grog/Clay Inclusions, Stamped-Simple 38CH2425 8 8 38CH2425-8-1 N500 E440 1 (6.9g) Exterior, Mt Pleasant Simple Stamped 10/23/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 1 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date 38CH2425 9 9 38CH2425-9-1 Transect 3, STP 2 N500 E500 4 (19.4g) Brick, Unidentified 10/23/12 38CH2425 9 9 38CH2425-9-2 Transect 3, STP 2 N500 E500 1 (3.3g) Container Glass, Amber 10/23/12

Body Sherd, Grog/Clay Temper, Sand- Fine Inclusions, Stamped-Simple Exterior, 38CH2425 10 10 38CH2425-10-1 Transect 3, STP 2 N500 E500 4 (65.4g) Mt Pleasant Simple Stamped, 6 mend. 10/23/12 38CH2425 11 11 38CH2425-11-1 N500 E515 5 (6.4g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2425 12 12 38CH2425-12-1 N500 E530 1 (1.9g) Brick, Unidentified 10/23/12 38CH2425 12 12 38CH2425-12-2 N500 E530 2 (2.9g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Limestone Temper, Eroded 38CH2425 13 13 38CH2425-13-1 N500 E575 1 (15g) Exterior, Wando Eroded 10/23/12 38CH2425 14 14 38CH2425-14-1 N515 E500 1 (1.4g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2426 15 1 38CH2426-1-1 Transect 2, STP 2 3 (6.9g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Very Coarse Temper, Thom'S Creek Jab And Drag Punctate, 2 38CH2426 16 2 38CH2426-2-1 Transect 3, STP 8 1 (46.4g) mend 10/23/12 38CH2426 17 3 38CH2426-3-1 Transect 3, STP 8 1 (2.4g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2426 18 4 38CH2426-4-1 Transect 3, STP 9 1 (3.2g) Nail, Cut Common, Unmeasured 10/23/12 38CH2426 19 5 38CH2426-5-1 Transect 3, STP 9 2 (2.1g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2426 20 6 38CH2426-6-1 Transect 4, STP 1 1 (1.7g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2426 21 7 38CH2426-7-1 Transect 4, STP 3 1 (2.6g) Container Glass, Aqua 10/23/12 38CH2426 21 7 38CH2426-7-2 Transect 4, STP 3 1 (0.8g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2426 21 7 38CH2426-7-3 Transect 4, STP 3 2 (0.5g) Shell-Unidentified 10/23/12 38CH2426 22 8 38CH2426-8-1 Transect 5, STP 9 N500 E500 1 (1.6g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2426 23 9 38CH2426-9-1 Transect 5, STP 10 1 (0.7g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Very Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 24 10 38CH2426-10-1 Transect 6, STP 9 4 (62.6g) Fiber Inclusions, Plain Exterior, 4 mend 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Grog-Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 24 10 38CH2426-10-2 Transect 6, STP 9 1 (2.7g) Wilmington Plain, Wilmington/Hanover 10/23/12 38CH2426 25 11 38CH2426-11-1 Transect 7, STP 10 1 (3.5g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2426 26 12 38CH2426-12-1 Transect 8, STP 9 2 (2.7g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 27 13 38CH2426-13-1 Transect 8, STP 10 1 (1.2g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 28 14 38CH2426-14-1 Transect 8, STP 11 4 (6.6g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 29 15 38CH2426-15-1 Transect 8, STP 12 4 (6.7g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2426 30 16 38CH2426-16-1 Transect 8, STP 14 1 (13.5g) Plain Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 31 17 38CH2426-17-1 Transect 9, STP 8 2 (5.3g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 2 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date Body Sherd, Grog/Clay Temper, Sand- Coarse Inclusions, Stamped-Simple 38CH2426 32 18 38CH2426-18-1 Transect 9, STP 10 1 (8.1g) Exterior, Wilmington 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2426 33 19 38CH2426-19-1 Transect 9, STP 11 1 (35.1g) Exterior, all mend 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Limestone-Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 34 20 38CH2426-20-1 Transect 10, STP 11 1 (6.1g) Plain Exterior, Wando 10/24/12 38CH2426 34 20 38CH2426-20-2 Transect 10, STP 11 3 (3.9g) Oyster-Unidentified 10/24/12 38CH2426 34 20 38CH2426-20-3 Transect 10, STP 11 2 (0.4g) Periwinkle-Unidentified 10/24/12 38CH2426 35 21 38CH2426-21-1 Transect 10, STP 12 2 (3g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 35 21 38CH2426-21-2 Transect 10, STP 12 1 (3.3g) Shell-Unidentified 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2426 36 22 38CH2426-22-1 Transect 10, STP 13 1 (4.3g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 37 23 38CH2426-23-1 Transect 11, STP 3 1 (1.2g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 38 24 38CH2426-24-1 Transect 11, STP 4 1 (1g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 39 25 38CH2426-25-1 Transect 11, STP 10 1 (0.8g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 40 26 38CH2426-26-1 Transect 11, STP 10 1 (1g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 41 27 38CH2426-27-1 Transect 11, STP 11 6 (8.2g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 42 28 38CH2426-28-1 Transect 11, STP 12 2 (5.6g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 43 29 38CH2426-29-1 Transect 11, STP 13 1 (7.1g) Unidentified Decorated Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 44 30 38CH2426-30-1 Transect 11, STP 14 2 (5.2g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2426 45 31 38CH2426-31-1 Transect 11, STP 14 1 (5.2g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 45 31 38CH2426-31-2 Transect 11, STP 14 4 (3g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 46 32 38CH2426-32-1 Transect 11, STP 15 1 (2.4g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 47 33 38CH2426-33-1 Transect 12, STP 2 1 (0.9g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2426 48 34 38CH2426-34-1 Transect 12, STP 4 1 (3.1g) Exterior 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Grog-Fine/Medium Temper, 38CH2426 49 35 38CH2426-35-1 Transect 12, STP 7 1 (2.4g) Cord Marked Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 50 36 38CH2426-36-1 Transect 12, STP 9 3 (6.1g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 51 37 38CH2426-37-1 Transect 12, STP 11 2 (4.1g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Grog/Clay Temper, Sand 38CH2426 52 38 38CH2426-38-1 Transect 12, STP 12 1 (1.6g) Inclusions, Mt Pleasant Fabric Impressed 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Grog/Clay Temper, 38CH2426 53 39 38CH2426-39-1 Transect 12, STP 13 1 (2.8g) Unidentified Decorated Exterior 10/25/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 3 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2426 54 40 38CH2426-40-1 Transect 12, STP 14 1 (12.9g) Plain Exterior 10/25/12 Base Sherd, Grog-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2426 55 41 38CH2426-41-1 Transect 13, STP 5 1 (13.4g) Exterior 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2426 56 42 38CH2426-42-1 Transect 13, STP 7 2 (8.2g) Plain Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2426 56 42 38CH2426-42-2 Transect 13, STP 7 3 (4.8g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 56 42 38CH2426-42-3 Transect 13, STP 7 2 (2.5g) Oyster-Unidentified 10/25/12 38CH2426 57 43 38CH2426-43-1 Transect 13, STP 8 6 (69.4g) Clam-Unidentified 10/25/12 38CH2426 57 43 38CH2426-43-2 Transect 13, STP 8 15 (27.1g) Oyster-Unidentified 10/25/12 38CH2426 58 44 38CH2426-44-1 Transect 13, STP 14 1 (1.9g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 59 45 38CH2426-45-1 Transect 13, STP 12 1 (0.5g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 60 46 38CH2426-46-1 Transect 13, STP 15 2 (0.9g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 61 47 38CH2426-47-1 Transect 13, STP 17 4 (7.3g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 62 48 38CH2426-48-1 Transect 14, STP 5 2 (0.7g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, Stamped-Unidentified Exterior, 38CH2426 63 49 38CH2426-49-1 Transect 14, STP 10 1 (3.4g) Unidentified 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, 38CH2426 64 50 38CH2426-50-1 Transect 14, STP 15 1 (6.9g) Unidentified Decorated Exterior 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, Eroded Decorated Stamped-Check 38CH2426 65 51 38CH2426-51-1 Transect 14, STP 16 1 (4.8g) Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2426 66 52 38CH2426-52-1 Transect 15, STP 3 1 (1.1g) Flake-General 10/25/12 38CH2426 66 52 38CH2426-52-2 Transect 15, STP 3 2 (2.6g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, 38CH2426 67 53 38CH2426-53-1 Transect 15, STP 4 1 (3g) Eroded Decorated Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2426 68 54 38CH2426-54-1 Transect 15, STP 4 3 (2.3g) Angular Debris 10/25/12 Body & Rim Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, Deep Creek Fabric Impressed, with mend 38CH2426 69 55 38CH2426-55-1 Transect 15, STP 6 1 (19g) hole 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2426 70 56 38CH2426-56-1 Transect 15, STP 7 2 (34.5g) Decorated Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2426 70 56 38CH2426-56-2 Transect 15, STP 7 2 (4.2g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 71 57 38CH2426-57-1 Transect 15, STP 8 1 (1g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 72 58 38CH2426-58-1 Transect 15, STP 9 1 (1.9g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2426 73 59 38CH2426-59-1 Transect 15, STP 13 1 (3.2g) Decorated Exterior 10/25/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 4 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date 38CH2426 74 60 38CH2426-60-1 Transect 15, STP 13 1 (4.2g) Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper 10/25/12 38CH2426 74 60 38CH2426-60-2 Transect 15, STP 13 1 (2.2g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 Other , Sand-Fine Temper, Deptford Cord 38CH2426 75 61 38CH2426-61-1 Transect 15, STP 17 1 (12.6g) Marked, Pendant 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 76 62 38CH2426-62-1 Transect 16, STP 3 1 (11.8g) Eroded Decorated Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2426 77 63 38CH2426-63-1 Transect 16, STP 6 3 (4.2g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 78 64 38CH2426-64-1 Transect 16, STP 7 1 (2.1g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 79 65 38CH2426-65-1 Transect 16, STP 11 1 (2.1g) Container Glass, Clear, patinated 10/25/12 38CH2426 79 65 38CH2426-65-2 Transect 16, STP 11 3 (4.4g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 80 66 38CH2426-66-1 Transect 16, STP 15 2 (0.6g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/25/12 38CH2426 81 67 38CH2426-67-1 Transect 16, STP 16 2 (58.9g) Brick, Unidentified 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, Shell 38CH2426 82 68 38CH2426-68-1 Transect 17, STP 6 1 (27g) Scraped Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2426 83 69 38CH2426-69-1 Transect 17, STP 7 3 (5.1g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 84 70 38CH2426-70-1 Transect 17, STP 8 1 (1.8g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 85 71 38CH2426-71-1 Transect 17, STP 9 1 (7.4g) Unmodified Stone 10/25/12 38CH2426 86 72 38CH2426-72-1 Transect 17, STP 10 1 (4g) Container Glass, Clear 10/25/12 38CH2426 87 73 38CH2426-73-1 Transect 17, STP 11 2 (1.2g) Container Glass, Clear 10/25/12 38CH2426 87 73 38CH2426-73-2 Transect 17, STP 11 1 (0.2g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/25/12 Bottle Glass, Panelled, Aqua, unknown 38CH2426 87 73 38CH2426-73-3 Transect 17, STP 11 1 (6.2g) maker's mark 10/25/12 38CH2426 87 73 38CH2426-73-4 Transect 17, STP 11 1 (1.1g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 88 74 38CH2426-74-1 Transect 17, STP 12 1 (1.3g) Container Glass, Aqua 10/25/12 38CH2426 88 74 38CH2426-74-2 Transect 17, STP 12 2 (2.5g) Container Glass, Clear 10/25/12 38CH2426 88 74 38CH2426-74-3 Transect 17, STP 12 3 (4.2g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 89 75 38CH2426-75-1 Transect 17, STP 13 3 (6.9g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 90 76 38CH2426-76-1 Transect 17, STP 15 1 (1.2g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 91 77 38CH2426-77-1 Transect 17, STP 17 1 (1.1g) Glass, Unmeasured Flat 10/25/12 38CH2426 91 77 38CH2426-77-2 Transect 17, STP 17 1 (6.6g) Stoneware, Unidentified, Burned 10/25/12 38CH2426 91 77 38CH2426-77-3 Transect 17, STP 17 1 (0.5g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2426 92 78 38CH2426-78-1 Transect 18, STP 7 1 (4.6g) Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2426 92 78 38CH2426-78-2 Transect 18, STP 7 3 (3.3g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 93 79 38CH2426-79-1 Transect 18, STP 10 1 (13.6g) Iron/ Steel, Unidentified/ Corroded 10/25/12 38CH2426 93 79 38CH2426-79-2 Transect 18, STP 10 2 (5.5g) Container Glass, Clear 10/25/12 38CH2426 93 79 38CH2426-79-3 Transect 18, STP 10 1 (7.2g) Container Glass, Green 10/25/12 38CH2426 94 80 38CH2426-80-1 Transect 18, STP 11 1 (7.2g) Container Glass, Green 10/25/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 5 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date 38CH2426 94 80 38CH2426-80-2 Transect 18, STP 11 1 (14.1g) Container Glass, Amethyst Color 10/25/12 38CH2426 95 81 38CH2426-81-1 Transect 19, STP 7 1 (0.4g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 38CH2426 96 82 38CH2426-82-1 N485 E500 2 (5.7g) Iron/ Steel, Unidentified/ Corroded 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2426 97 83 38CH2426-83-1 N500 E410 1 (2.3g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 97 83 38CH2426-83-2 N500 E410 2 (3.6g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 Rim Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2426 97 83 38CH2426-83-3 N500 E410 1 (1.1g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 97 83 38CH2426-83-4 N500 E410 9 (4.9g) Shell-Unidentified 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 98 84 38CH2426-84-1 N500 E350 1 (7.1g) Eroded Exterior 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2426 99 85 38CH2426-85-1 N500 E515 1 (3.6g) Decorated Exterior 10/24/12 Rim Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2426 99 85 38CH2426-85-2 N500 E515 4 (7.2g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 100 86 38CH2426-86-1 N500 E380 1 (4.9g) Brick, Unidentified 10/24/12 38CH2426 100 86 38CH2426-86-2 N500 E380 1 (0.6g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 100 86 38CH2426-86-3 N500 E380 3 (0.8g) Shell-Unidentified 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2426 101 87 38CH2426-87-1 N500 E305 3 (31.9g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 101 87 38CH2426-87-2 N500 E305 7 (10.1g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 102 88 38CH2426-88-1 N500 E335 2 (3.2g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 103 89 38CH2426-89-1 N500 E290 1 (0.7g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 104 90 38CH2426-90-1 N500 E485 1 (2.2g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 105 91 38CH2426-91-1 N455 E500 1 (0.6g) Brick, Unidentified 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, Plain 38CH2426 105 91 38CH2426-91-2 N455 E500 1 (3g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 105 91 38CH2426-91-3 N455 E500 1 (1g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 Rim Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, Eroded 38CH2426 105 91 38CH2426-91-4 N455 E500 1 (2.8g) Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 106 92 38CH2426-92-1 N500 E560 1 (1.3g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 107 93 38CH2426-93-1 N500 E440 1 (0.5g) Flake-Fragment 10/24/12 38CH2426 107 93 38CH2426-93-2 N500 E440 1 (1.7g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 107 93 38CH2426-93-3 N500 E440 9 (13.9g) Shell-Unidentified 10/24/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 108 94 38CH2426-94-1 N500 E530 1 (10.1g) Eroded Decorated Exterior 10/24/12 38CH2426 109 95 38CH2426-95-1 N500 E515 1 (1.6g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 110 96 38CH2426-96-1 N455 E500 1 (1.4g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 6 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date 38CH2426 111 97 38CH2426-97-1 N500 E425 1 (1.1g) Unmodified Stone 10/24/12 38CH2426 111 97 38CH2426-97-2 N500 E425 2 (1.5g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 112 98 38CH2426-98-1 N500 E425 1 (1g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/24/12 38CH2426 112 98 38CH2426-98-2 N500 E425 2 (2.6g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 113 99 38CH2426-99-1 N500 E455 2 (20.5g) Brick, Unidentified 10/24/12 38CH2426 113 99 38CH2426-99-2 N500 E455 1 (1.6g) Whiteware, Plain 10/24/12 38CH2426 113 99 38CH2426-99-3 N500 E455 2 (4.5g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 38CH2426 113 99 38CH2426-99-4 N500 E455 8 (15.3g) Shell-Unidentified 10/24/12 38CH2426 114 100 38CH2426-100-1 N500 E355 2 (2g) Residual Sherd 10/24/12 Locus Historic Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2426 141 101 38CH2426-101-1 1, N500 E515 1 (5.3g) Exterior 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 141 101 38CH2426-101-2 1, N500 E515 3 (2.6g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 142 102 38CH2426-102-1 1, N500 E530 3 (4.6g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Locus Historic Body Sherd, Sand-Very Coarse Temper, 38CH2426 143 103 38CH2426-103-1 1, N515 E500 1 (10g) Eroded Exterior 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-1 2, NSurface E 9 (23.3g) Container Glass, Aqua 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-2 2, NSurface E 2 (2.9g) Container Glass, Amethyst Color 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-3 2, NSurface E 4 (3.4g) Container Glass, Milk Glass 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-4 2, NSurface E 8 (26.8g) Ironstone, Plain 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-5 2, NSurface E 10 (4.2g) Iron/ Steel, Unidentified/ Corroded 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-6 2, NSurface E 4 (52.6g) Brick, Unidentified 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-7 2, NSurface E 12 (26g) Whiteware, Plain 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-8 2, NSurface E 1 (2.1g) Whiteware, Transfer Print, Flow Blue 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-9 2, NSurface E 4 (14.4g) Ironstone, Unidentified 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-10 2, NSurface E 1 (35.5g) Container Glass, Machine Made, Amber 10/30/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 7 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-11 2, NSurface E 3 (6.2g) Container Glass, Cobalt Blue 10/30/12 Locus Historic Container Glass, Amethyst Color, Owens- 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-12 2, NSurface E 1 (13.8g) Illinois Maker's Mark 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-13 2, NSurface E 1 (85.1g) Brick, Glazed 10/30/12 Locus Historic Shotgun Shell, Rim and primer, 'REM- 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-14 2, NSurface E 1 (1.1g) USC', 'No. 12', 'New Club' 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-15 2, NSurface E 2 (17.8g) Porcelain, Unidentified 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-16 2, NSurface E 1 (155.4g) Caster, Metal, porcelain wheel 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-17 2, NSurface E 1 (311.7g) Unidentified Machine Part 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-18 2, NSurface E 22 (123.9g) Container Glass, Clear 10/30/12 Locus Historic Horseshoe, St Croix Forgery (1984- 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-19 2, NSurface E 1 (429.4g) present) 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 144 104 38CH2426-104-20 2, NSurface E 2 (4.6g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 145 105 38CH2426-105-1 1, N500 E470 1 (18.6g) Brick, Unidentified 10/30/12 Locus Historic 38CH2426 145 105 38CH2426-105-2 1, N500 E470 1 (0.5g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/30/12 38CH2426 179 106 38CH2426-106-1 Transect 14, STP 9 1 (528.4g) Whelk-Unidentified 10/25/12 38CH2427 115 1 38CH2427-1-1 Transect 5, STP 5 1 (1.3g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2427 116 2 38CH2427-2-1 N500 E485 1 (24.5g) Stoneware, Unidentified 10/24/12 38CH2427 117 3 38CH2427-3-1 N515 E500 1 (3.1g) Whiteware, Plain 10/24/12 38CH2427 117 3 38CH2427-3-2 N515 E500 4 (10.7g) Brick, Unidentified 10/24/12 38CH2427 118 4 38CH2427-4-1 Transect 6, STP 6 1 (0.7g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 38CH2427 119 5 38CH2427-5-1 Transect 6, STP 7 1 (0.2g) Angular Debris 10/23/12 38CH2428 121 1 38CH2428-1-1 Transect 2, STP 5 2 (3g) Residual Sherd 10/23/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, 38CH2428 122 2 38CH2428-2-1 N470 E500 1 (5.9g) Eroded Exterior 10/30/12 38CH2428 123 3 38CH2428-3-1 N500 E530 1 (1.1g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 38CH2429 124 1 38CH2429-1-1 N500 E515 1 (0.2g) Flake-General 10/30/12 38CH2429 125 2 38CH2429-2-1 N500 E485 1 (4.7g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/30/12 38CH2429 125 2 38CH2429-2-2 N500 E485 2 (5g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 8 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2429 126 3 38CH2429-3-1 N500 E470 1 (43.5g) Deptford Cord Marked 10/30/12 38CH2429 127 4 38CH2429-4-1 N500 E470 1 (2.1g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 38CH2429 128 5 38CH2429-5-1 N500 E455 3 (2.5g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 38CH2429 129 6 38CH2429-6-1 Transect 20, STP 16 3 (3.9g) Residual Sherd 10/25/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2429 130 7 38CH2429-7-1 Transect 20, STP 17 2 (8.7g) Exterior 10/25/12 38CH2429 131 8 38CH2429-8-1 Transect 21, STP 12 1 (1.3g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/26/12 Nail, Unidentified Cut Or Wrought, 38CH2429 131 8 38CH2429-8-2 Transect 21, STP 12 1 (9.2g) Unmeasured 10/26/12 38CH2429 131 8 38CH2429-8-3 Transect 21, STP 12 2 (1.1g) Ball Clay Pipe Bowl 10/26/12 38CH2429 131 8 38CH2429-8-4 Transect 21, STP 12 1 (4.4g) Brick, Unidentified 10/26/12 38CH2429 131 8 38CH2429-8-5 Transect 21, STP 12 7 (30.9g) Shell-Unidentified 10/26/12 38CH2429 132 9 38CH2429-9-1 Transect 21, STP 13 1 (1g) Residual Sherd 10/26/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2429 133 10 38CH2429-10-1 Transect 22, STP 13 1 (4.7g) Eroded Exterior 10/26/12 38CH2429 133 10 38CH2429-10-2 Transect 22, STP 13 2 (1.6g) Residual Sherd 10/26/12 Body & Rim Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, 38CH2429 134 11 38CH2429-11-1 Transect 23, STP 12 1 (44.2g) Deptford Cord Marked, mend 10/26/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Deptford 38CH2429 134 11 38CH2429-11-2 Transect 23, STP 12 2 (52.7g) Cord Marked 10/26/12 38CH2429 134 11 38CH2429-11-3 Transect 23, STP 12 4 (5.2g) Residual Sherd 10/26/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2429 135 12 38CH2429-12-1 Transect 24, STP 12 1 (5g) Grog/Clay Inclusions, Plain Exterior 10/29/12 38CH2429 136 13 38CH2429-13-1 Transect 24, STP 13 2 (2.6g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Rim Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Deptford 38CH2429 136 13 38CH2429-13-2 Transect 24, STP 13 1 (11.1g) Cord Marked 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2429 137 14 38CH2429-14-1 Transect 24, STP 14 1 (9.8g) Exterior, mend 10/29/12 38CH2429 138 15 38CH2429-15-1 Transect 24, STP 17 1 (2g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 38CH2429 139 16 38CH2429-16-1 Transect 25, STP 11 1 (1.8g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2429 140 17 38CH2429-17-1 Transect 25, STP 12 2 (13.1g) Eroded Exterior 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2429 170 18 38CH2429-18-1 Transect 24, STP 9 1 (7.3g) Exterior 10/29/12 38CH2429 172 19 38CH2429-19-1 Transect 24, STP 6 1 (3g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 38CH2429 173 20 38CH2429-20-1 Transect 23, STP 9 1 (5.1g) Brick, Unidentified 10/26/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 9 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2429 173 20 38CH2429-20-2 Transect 23, STP 9 1 (7.3g) Exterior 10/26/12 38CH2429 174 21 38CH2429-21-1 N530 E500 2 (1.3g) Residual Sherd 10/31/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2429 175 22 38CH2429-22-1 N560 E500 2 (9.2g) Exterior 10/31/12 38CH2429 175 22 38CH2429-22-2 N560 E500 8 (14.3g) Residual Sherd 10/31/12 38CH2429 176 23 38CH2429-23-1 N500 E500 2 (9.3g) Container Glass, Olive Green 10/31/12 38CH2429 177 24 38CH2429-24-1 N530 E470 1 (2.5g) Yellow Ware, Plain 10/31/12 38CH2430 146 1 38CH2430-1-1 N500 E530 2 (1.6g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 38CH2430 147 2 38CH2430-2-1 Transect 30, STP 4 1 (0.9g) Iron/ Steel, Unidentified/ Corroded 10/29/12 38CH2430 147 2 38CH2430-2-2 Transect 30, STP 4 2 (1.2g) Angular Debris 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2430 148 3 38CH2430-3-1 Transect 31, STP 4 1 (8.1g) Plain Exterior 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2430 148 3 38CH2430-3-2 Transect 31, STP 4 1 (4.6g) Decorated Punctated Exterior 10/29/12

Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Fiber 38CH2430 149 4 38CH2430-4-1 Transect 31, STP 5 1 (17.2g) Inclusions, Eroded Exterior, Stallings Plain 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2430 150 5 38CH2430-5-1 Transect 31, STP 6 4 (40.1g) Exterior 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2430 151 6 38CH2430-6-1 Transect 31, STP 6 1 (20.1g) Exterior 10/29/12 38CH2430 153 7 38CH2430-7-1 Transect 29, STP 4 3 (3.6g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 38CH2431 152 1 38CH2431-1-1 N500 E515 1 (2.2g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2431 154 2 38CH2431-2-1 Transect 28, STP 8 3 (18.3g) Exterior 10/29/12 38CH2431 154 2 38CH2431-2-2 Transect 28, STP 8 3 (3.5g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, 38CH2432 155 1 38CH2432-1-1 Transect 28, STP 3 1 (3.7g) Eroded Exterior 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, Thom'S Creek Jab And Drag Punctate, jab 38CH2432 156 2 38CH2432-2-1 Transect 28, STP 5 1 (10.2g) and drag or possibly reed 10/29/12 38CH2432 156 2 38CH2432-2-2 Transect 28, STP 5 3 (5.3g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, 38CH2432 157 3 38CH2432-3-1 N500 E515 1 (3.4g) Eroded Exterior 10/30/12 38CH2432 157 3 38CH2432-3-2 N500 E515 2 (2.3g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 Rim Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, 38CH2432 157 3 38CH2432-3-3 N500 E515 1 (4.5g) Eroded Exterior 10/30/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 10 of 11 Specimen Catalog County: Charleston County State: South Carolina Project: Rifle Range Road Survey (2012)

Field Prov Horizontal Count/ State Site # Bag # Bag # Catalog # Excavation Unit Location Weight Artifact Description Field Date Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2432 158 4 38CH2432-4-1 N500 E545 4 (17g) Eroded Exterior 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Very Coarse Temper, 38CH2432 158 4 38CH2432-4-2 N500 E545 1 (7g) Eroded Exterior, Mount Pleasant 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Very Coarse Temper, Eroded Decorated Exterior, Mount 38CH2432 158 4 38CH2432-4-3 N500 E545 1 (22.1g) Pleasant 10/29/12 38CH2432 158 4 38CH2432-4-4 N500 E545 3 (3.5g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2433 159 1 38CH2433-1-1 Transect 34, STP 5 1 (4.8g) Eroded Exterior 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Very Coarse Temper, 38CH2433 159 1 38CH2433-1-2 Transect 34, STP 5 2 (30g) Eroded Exterior, Mount Pleasant 10/29/12 38CH2433 159 1 38CH2433-1-3 Transect 34, STP 5 1 (2.6g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 38CH2433 160 2 38CH2433-2-1 Transect 34, STP 6 1 (1.4g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, 38CH2433 161 3 38CH2433-3-1 N485 E500 2 (11g) Eroded Decorated Exterior 10/30/12 38CH2433 161 3 38CH2433-3-2 N485 E500 1 (3.3g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 38CH2434 162 1 38CH2434-1-1 Transect 35, STP 6 1 (1.5g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Eroded 38CH2434 163 3 38CH2434-3-1 Transect 35, STP 8 1 (5.6g) Decorated Incised Exterior 10/28/12 Rim Sherd, Sand-Fine Temper, Plain 38CH2434 163 3 38CH2434-3-2 Transect 35, STP 8 1 (7.1g) Exterior, thickened rim 10/28/12 38CH2434 164 4 38CH2434-4-1 Transect 35, STP 10 1 (1.3g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Coarse Temper, Plain 38CH2434 165 5 38CH2434-5-1 N500 E425 1 (4.2g) Exterior 10/20/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, Fiber 38CH2434 166 6 38CH2434-6-1 N500 E455 1 (5.5g) Inclusions, Plain Exterior 10/30/12 Body Sherd, Sand-Medium Temper, Plain 38CH2434 167 7 38CH2434-7-1 N500 E485 1 (7.8g) Exterior 10/30/12 38CH2434 167 7 38CH2434-7-2 N500 E485 1 (3g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 38CH2434 168 8 38CH2434-8-1 N500 E575 4 (2.3g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 Rim Sherd, Sand-Fine-Medium Temper, Grog/Clay Inclusions, Unidentified, mend, 38CH2434 168 8 38CH2434-8-2 N500 E575 2 (16.3g) diagonal notched lip 10/30/12 38CH2434 169 9 38CH2434-9-1 N515 E500 1 (2.2g) Residual Sherd 10/30/12 38CH2434 178 2 38CH2434-2-1 Transect 35, STP 7 1 (1.4g) Residual Sherd 10/29/12

New South Associates, Inc. 6150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, GA 30083 Page 11 of 11

APPENDIX B: CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF CHARLESTON THEMATIC RESOURCES NOMINATION

APPENDIX C: COOK’S OLD FIELD CEMETERY

NPS Form 10-900 OMS NO.1 024-0018 (Rev. 10-90)

United States Department of the Interior RECEIVED 2280 National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form L.,•• \ ~oo MAT. REGISTER OF H\:)T~r PL,CES This form is for use in nominating or requesting determin ions forNAIUQitJOhlF ' .. Eirtl ~la...eQ..distr.idts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Regis er u etin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items.

1. Name of Property historic name C.:.=.oo:::.:k:.:..':.s...:O:..:.;ld=--=-F..:.:ie~ld=--=C:.::e~m.:.=:e~te:::.:ry..J-- _ other names/site number H::....:.=a.:.:.m.:.:.;li:.:..:n~C:.e::.:m:.:..:.=:e~te::.:.ry.L- _

2. Location street & number ~ mi. north of Rifle Range Road not for publication _ city or town Mount Pleasant vicinity --=..x.:....-__ state South Carolina code county ....C.....h..;.;;;,a;.;..;rl__es"'-'t--.oo..;.n _ code 019 zip code 29466

3. State/Federal Agency Certification

Signature Q)fCertifying official Dat~ f

Mary W. Edmonds, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, S.C. Dept. of Archives and History, Columbia, S.C. State or Federal agency and bureau

In my opinion, the property _ meets _does not meet the National Register criteria. (_See continuation sheet for additional comments.)

Signature of commenting or other official Date

State or Federal agency and bureau

4. National Park Service Certification

Signature of the Keeper Date of Action f.;t. certify that this property is: _ entered in the National Register ----,.~~~.=.;;----H-_H_-+--~::;...... w~.;;;...;;.."-I--"""'-~---~_,'__I_~__I___I_~-~----­ _See continuation sheet. _determined eligible for the National Register _See continuation sheet. _ determined not eligible for the National Register _ removed from the National Register _ _ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Page 2

Cook's Old Field Cemetery Charleston County, South Carolina Name of Property County and State

5. Classification

Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many boxes as apply) (Check only one box) (Do not include previously listed resources)

..L private _ building(s) Contributing Noncontributing _ public-local district buildings _ public-State ..L site 1 sites _ public-Federal structure structures _ object objects 1 Total

Name of related multiple property listing Number of contributing resources previously listed (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) in the National Register N/A o

6. Function or Use

Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions)

Category: Funerary Subcategory: _C...... em~e..;;.;;te;,,;,.ry _

Current Functions (Enter caregories from instructions)

Category: Funerary Subcategory: --=.C.;:;.em~e.;;.;:te:;.;..ry.l-- _

7. Description

Architectural Classification Materials (Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions) foundation walls

roof other Marble Granite Sandstone Narrative Description See attached continuation sheets (Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Page 3

Cook's Old Field Cemetery Charleston County, South Carolina Name of Property County and State

8. Statement of Significance

Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing) .x. A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. _B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. .x. C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. _D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria Considerations (Mark "X" in all the boxes that apply.) a owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. b removed from its original location. c a birthplace or a grave. .x. d a cemetery. e a reconstructed building, object, or structure. f a commemorative property. _ g less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the past 50 years.

Areas of Significance Period of Significance (Enter categories from instructions) 1805-1916 Art Social History Significant Dates

Significant Person Cultural Affiliation (Complete if Criterion B is marked above)

Architect/Builder Walker, Thomas White. John White. William T. Walker. D,A. Narrative Statement of Significance See attached continuation sheets (Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)

9. Major Bibliographical References

(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.)

Previous documentation on file (NPS) : Primary location of additional data: _ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been 2LState Historic Preservation Office requested. _Other State agency _ previously listed in the National Register _ Federal agency _ previously determined eligible by the National Register _ Local government _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ University _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # __ Other _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __ Name of repository: SC Dept. of Archives & Historv USDIINPS NRHP Registration Form Page 4

Cook's Old Field Cemetery Charleston County, South Carolina Name of Property County and State

10. Geographical Data

Acreage of Property Approximately 1 acre

UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet)

Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 1 17 611919 3634167 3 17 612160 3634276 2 17 612044 3634282 4 17 612010 3634073

_See continuation sheet.

Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.)

11. Form Prepared By

name/title Linda Dayhoff Smith. with assistance from SHPO staff o~an~ation~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~date18 March 2003 street & number 1000 Cold Branch Drive telephone (803) 736-2533 city or town Columbia state SC zip code -=2~9=22=.;3~ _

Additional Documentation

Submit the following items with the completed form:

Continuation Sheets Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. A sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Photographs Representative black and white photographs of the property. Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)

Property Owner

(Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.)

name Osgood D. Hamlin street & number 2525 Hwv.17 North telephone (843) 884-7614 city or town Mount Pleasant state SC zip code =-29~4.;..;;6;;..;;;6,----__

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018(8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number 7 Page ----.;:5~_ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

Cook's Old Field Cemetery is located one-half-mile north of Rifle Range Road, six miles from Mount Pleasant, in Charleston County, South Carolina, on the high ground of Copahee Sound. It is extremely secluded and surrounded by forest and unimproved farmland known as Cook's Old Field. Within this burial ground are the graves of members of the Hamlin, Hibben and Leland families, all notable and prominent families of the South Carolina lowcountry. On 16 July 1863 Mary Moore Hamlin set aside one acre for the cemetery, thus keeping the Hamlin family burial ground intact.

The cemetery consists of thirty-eight marked graves, including headstones, box tombs and one obelisk, dating from 1805 to 1916 with the majority dating from the 1840s and 1850s. Two stone markers remembering the descendants who began the reunion committee in 1949 are just inside the entrance gate. The stones, arranged by family units within the cemetery boundaries, show some evidence of wear from the elements and from occasional vandalism but retain their integrity.

Two brick columns which once held an iron gate mark the entrance. The old metal fence erected in the 1940s to replace the remnants of the original has been removed. The burial ground measures 55' x 75' x 90' x 40'. Professionals, hired by the family, have begun restoration of the grounds and markers. Large decayed oak trees destroyed by Hurricane Hugo in 1989 were removed, leaving the stumps intact. Vines of ivy and smilax, azaleas and other wild underbrush are consistent with local vegetation. Just outside the immediate burial plots are crepe myrtles, small-to-medium trees, and a well-kept firebreak.

For the purpose of this inventory the cemetery has been divided into four areas, shown on the accompanying area views and cemetery overview. Area 1 is located front to back and to the right of the gated entrance. Area 2 is in the back middle of the cemetery. Area 3 stones are laid out directly to the left of the gate. Stone markers in Area 4 are all front to back on the far-left side of the plot.

Area 1

There are fourteen marked graves in this area. To the right are two flat markers on brick bases recognizing family attempts to maintain and restore the cemetery; the first was erected in 1949 by descendants of those buried here and the second lists deceased "Charter Members" who worked to restore the cemetery between that date and 1969.

Directly in front of the gate is a row of nine small markers with footstones. Five of these, identical in shape and style, are the young children of John Adams Leland and his wife, Ann Allston Dupre. These stones are simply styled with arched tops. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018(8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number 7 Page ----::6~_ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

In the back of Area 1 facing the back are five box tombs with slab or table tops. Mold and fungus from the large trees that once shaded these markers make it difficult to see the beautifully carved inscriptions. Although the bricking and marble supports of the sides are crumbling, the table tops remain intact. Sarah Hibben's table top tomb was carved and signed by stonecarver T. Walker.

Area 2

Area 2 contains five brick box tombs located to the right of what was once a very old and large oak. The decaying tree has been cut and removed leaving the stump in place. Nearest the tree stump to the right is the tomb of Sarah Wingood Hamlin (d. 1840). This table top tomb is weathered and its inscription is difficult to read. Nearby is the grave of her husband, Thomas Hamlin (d.1818). Although his tabletop has few words they are inscribed with a flourish and in keeping with the time period. This stone is in excellent condition. Another table top near that of Sarah Hamlin lists the children of John and Ann Hamlin. This stone was probably erected when the last child died. The stone is inscribed and signed by stonecarver W.T. White.

Area 3

Area 3 is located just left of the entrance posts. There are four box tombs. The tomb of Mrs. Margaret Gordon and Mrs. Sarah Margaret Bennett are very close together by a matter of inches. Margaret Gordon's table top is smooth and simple and was inscribed by T. Walker & Son with their signatures at the bottom right. The tablet on the wall of Margaret Gordon's tomb reads: "ANDREW HIBBEN OF KENT COUNTY ENGLAND DIED SEASIDE PLANTATION March 10,1784, BURIED NEAR THIS SPOT."

The oldest marker in the cemetery is the box tomb of Arnold Wells (d. 1805). Its table top is inscribed in a very flamboyant style. Of his five children, only his daughter, Martha, is buried in Cook's Old Field Cemetery. Her stone is also a box tomb with an inscription carved by master stonecarver John White.

The marker of Mary Harriet Pepper (d. 1861) is only upright marker in this area. The elaborately carved stone is signed by D.A. Walker.

Area 4

Area 4 is the entire left side of the cemetery. A stump is the only evidence of a large stately oak. One box tomb, turned to face the rising sun, is that of Thomas Hamlin (d. 1849) His wife, Mary Moore Hamlin, has a small upright stone with delicately carved wreath of flowers. The marker for Sarah Ann Hamlin (d. 1859) is broken in two and next to her is the small marker of child Frank Hamlin. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018(8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number 7 Page ----.;7__ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

The only obelisk in the cemetery is located next to the row of tombs in Area 3. The base is intact however the top is sitting off to the back.

The gravestone of "Mike, a Faithful servant" (d. 1857) is simple in design but large in comparison to other stones in the cemetery.

INSCRIPTIONS

AREAl

1. ERECTED \ BY\ DESCENDANTS \ 1949

2. In \ Memory ofCharter Members \ Who helped Restore this cemetery \ Isobel Kennedy 1956 Richard Leland Morrison 1956 Horace Wells Leland 1963 Dennis Auld 1967 George Dupre Sanders 1969

3. JERE \ WILLIAMS LELAND, \ DIED NOV. 3, 1891 \ Aged 9 months \ and 23 days \ Our bright and \ beautiful boy, \ Beloved 'til Life \ Could charm no more. \

4. ANOTHER \ LITTLE \ JOHNNY \ Son of\ J.A. & A.A. LELAND \ Born April 16, 1856 \ Died \ August 19, 1857 \ He was a pleasant Child. \ footstone J.L. 1857

5. LITTLE LIZZIE \ Daughter of \ J.A. & A.A. LELAND \ Born Jan. 9, 1852 \ Died Oct. 6, 1854 \ "It is well!" \ footstone L.L.

6. OUR SISTER \ Hannah's \ Little Daughter \ HANNAH, \ Born in Alabama \ April 19, 1845, \ Died in Columbia S.C. \ Feb. 17, 1847 \ footstone H.N.P.

7. LITTLE SALLIE \ Daughter of \ J.A. & A.A. LELAND \ Born Feb. 16, 1849. \ Died June 25,1849. \" It is well with the Parents" \ footstone S.L.

8. LITTLE JOHNNY \ Son of \ J.A. & A.A. LELAND \ Born June 6,1847 \ Died July 26,1848 \ "It is well with the child" \ footstone J.L.

9. IN \ MEMORY \ OF \ JOHN \ Son of\ REV. A.W. & MRS. ELIZA \ LELAND \ Born 3rd Nov. 1813 \ Died 9th Feby. 1814 \ Sleep on sweet Babe \ We hope to meet again. \ footstone J.L. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number .L Page --L Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State

INSCRIPTIONS, Continued

AREA 2

10. ANN ALLSTON \ WIFE OF \ J.A. LELAND \ Born June 5, 1824 \ Died July 8, 1903 \ THE LAW OF KINDNESS \ GOVERNED HER LIFE \ footstone A.A.L.

11. JOHN ADAMS \ LELAND \ Born Aug. 22, 1817. \ Died March 19, 1892. \ "THE VERY GENTLEST OF \ ALL HUMAN NATURES, \ HE JOINED TO COURAGE \ STRONG." \

12. HERE \ Repose in hope \ ofthe Resurrection unto Life \ the precious mortal remains Of\ MRS. ELIZA LELAND, \ Daughter of\ HON. JAMES & SARAH HIBBEN, and the consort of\ REVd. A.W. LELAND, D.D. \ PROFr. Ofthe Theoy. In the Semy. In Cola., SC \ Who calmly fell asleep in Jesus Dec. 29, 1856 \ Aged 64 Yrs. 2 mos. & 12 days. \ For nearly 48 years, she was the light ofher Husband's home \ and had become the untiring prop ofhis age. \ She did ALL that a Mother COULD do, and \ lived to see all her children the professed followers \ ofher "Blessed Savior." \ Her youngest Son a few weeks before her death. \ When with a full heart she exclaimed \ "my work on Earth is Done." \ Every department and duty ofher active life, \ She nobly filled, exalted and adorned \ "For her to live was Christ For her to die was a gain." \ Her memory is in the Fondest recollection ofall. \ Her Consistent life, & important prayers are a priceless legacy. \ To her children and to the church \ In view ofher whole character, influence and labors, \ We seem to hear a voice form the Throne ofGod, Saying, \ Well done, good and Faithful Servant \ enter thou into the joy ofthe Lord." \ Noble wife and Matchless mother \ Death thou hast slain another \ Holy, wise, and good as she, \ Time shall hurl his dart at thee. \ Life's duty done as sinks the day \ Light from its load the Spirit flies, \ While Heaven and Earth combine to say, \ How blest the righteous when she died." \ The Lord is my Shepherd." \

13. Here \ sleep in Jesus the mortal remains of\ MRS. SARAH HIBBEN, \ the beloved wife ofJAMES HIBBEN, \ who finished a course ofdistinguished \ PIETY and USEFULNESS, \ and entered into the joy ofher Lord, \ on the 26th day ofJuly Anno Domini 1827, \ in the Fifty Sixth year ofher age. \ Eminently devoted to God from Early youth. \ She lived a Life ofFAITH & PRAYER, \ and abounded in the fruits ofHOLINESS. \ in works ofduty, charity and mercy. \A most affectionate wife, a most Tender, faithful mother, \ She filled those endearing relations oflife \ with kindness, dignity, and fidelity; \ Prayerful training up her children \ for HEAVEN \ In the midst ofdomestic harmony \ and affection, honoured and loved by all. \ She filled up the brief measure \ ofher allotted days on earth. \ With uncomplaining patience, she endured \ the severe and long protracted sufferings \ ofher last illness, \ and thus though much tribulation \ entered into immortal glory. \ Let her descendants \ from generation to generation, cherish \ with grateful veneration the memory \ oftheir excellent ANCESTRESS, \ to whom they will be indebted for \ INESTIMABLE BLESSINGS. T. Walker NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number L Page -.JL Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

INSCRIPTIONS, Continued

14. This TABLET' is inscribed' By a bereaved and morning family' As a memorial of Their affection and grief'to the memory oftheir most beloved' and excellent father, 'JAMES HmBEN. Who having served God & his generation' Faithfully' By a life ofactive usefulness and enlarged benevolence' Finished his course with joy/' January 4th 1835; 'Aged 68 years. 'Let the remembrance ofthe virtues, 'that adorned his character' And honored his name. 'As the Friend ofthe poor. , the patron ofthe deserving' As the Benefactor ofthe community' And the devoted Servant ofChrist' Assuage the sorrows ofhis' Afflicted Children. 'And excite them to give all diligence' to follow his example partake ofhis Faith. 'And thus obey his dying injuction , Prepare to meet me in Heaven. , Being dead he yet speaketh. ,

15. JESUS WEPT' BENEATH THIS TABLET , SWEETLY REPOSES' THE LOVELY AND MUCH LOVED FORM OF' MRS. ELIZA HIBBEN BARDWELL' CONSORT OF' REV. JOSEPH BARDWELL, , DAUGHTER OF' REV. DR. A.W. AND MRS. ELIZA LELAND' WHO DEPARTED THIS LIFE' IN THE FAITH OF CHRIST, 'AUGUST 13TH 1857. , AGED 27 YEARS AND 3 DAYS. '''PRECIOUS IN TH SIGHT OF THE LORD; 'IS THE DEATH OF HIS SAINTS.'" TO ALL THE VIRTUES OF A NOBLE HEART' WERE ADDED THE GRACES OF SPIRIT. 'CONSTITUTING HER' AN AFFECTIONATE AND DUTIFUL DAUGHTER, 'A FOND AND TENDER SISTER, 'A LOVING AND FAITHFUL WIFE, 'AND A DEVOTED AND SELF-SACRIFICING MOTHER, 'HER WORK ON EARTH, THOUGH SHORT, WAS DONE, 'AND "WELL DONE." , FOR MANY YEARS CONSISTENT MEMBER OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 'AND ADORING EVERY RELATION OF LIFE' BY HER EXAMPLE AND MANY VIRTUES, , SHE SEEMED TO HAVE DEVOTED' THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF HER LIFE' TO SPECIAL PREPARATION FOR HER INHERITANCE' AMONG THE SAINTS IN GLORY. 'HER LAST END WAS PEACE. 'SHE RESTS AT THE FEET OF THAT "BLESSED MOTHER'" SHE LOVED WITH UNCOMMON DEVOTION, , "LOVELY AND PLEASANT IN THEIR LIVES' AND IN THEIR DEATH THEY ARE NOT DIVIDED." ,

16. IN MEMORY' MRS. SARAH MARGARET CATER' Consort ofREVD. EDWIN CATER' PASTOR OF WAPPETAW CHURCH 'And Daughter ofREV. DR. A.W. AND MRS. ELIZA LELAND. 'ofColumbia, S.C. , Who calmly Fell asleep in Jesus' At Mt. Pleasant the place ofher Nativity' October 8th 1857' Aged 46 years and 4 months. 'She was a most Affectionate Daughter, 'a loving wife, a tender Mother' a fond sister, a kind Relative \ Constant in her Friendships, hospitable to all, 'For many years she was a meek and humble follower' ofthe Lord Jesus Christ. 'Adorning her profession by a Godly Walk. 'And Heavenly conversation. , There remaineth therefore a rest for the people ofGod. ,

17. Departed this life' on the 11 th January 1840 , MRS SARAH HAMLIN' ofChrist Church Parish' Aged 76 years' and 8 months' this tribute ofesteem and affection' for departed worth is erected, \ by her children \ Her spirits Fled; and reigns above, , In realms ofjoy, ofpeace, ofLove. , And death has done his part. , Why rear a Tomb, a splendid tomb, , to give her name to years to come. , When reared it's in the heart. , NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number L Page -.-:!JL Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

INSCRIPTIONS, Continued

h 18. Sacred to the Memory \ of\ THOMAS HAMLIN \ who departed this life on the i \ OfJanuary 1818 \ In the 63 rd year ofhis Age \ By long experience have I known \ Thy sovereign power to save \ At thy command I venture down \ Securely to the grave. \ When I lie buried deep in dust, \ My flesh shall be thy care. \ These withering limbs with thee I trust \ To raise them strong and fair. \

19. THOMS HAMLIN \ 1728 -1767 \ married FRANCES LELAND \ Lived at Copahee \ Christ Church Parish

20. RESTS In Affectionate Remembrance \ MRS. SARAH WHITE \ Consort of \ JOHN WHITE \ Who departed this Life \ On the 25th day ofMay 1842 \ Aged Fifty Four years, \ And Five Months. \ Departed Soul, whose poor remains, \ This hallowed lonely grave Contains, \ Whose passing storm oflife is over, \ Whose pains and sorrows are no more \ Blessed be thou with the blessed above. \ Where all is joy, and purity and love. \

21. HERE RESPOSE THE REMAINS \ of\ JOHN, JANE DEWEES, ELIZABETH ANA, THOMAS, AND WILLIAM, \ who died in infancy. \ AND OF THEODORA EMILY, Daughter ofJohn, and Ann Hamlin; \ Who departed this Life on the 5th April \ A.D. 1847. \ AGED SEVENTEEN YEARS AND 10 MONTHS. \ After a short and severe illness. \ She was not however taken by surprise, \ Or found unprepared for the sudden summons. \ Though young, she had thoughtfully \ considered the present as alone secure, \ And used its fleeting Moments with an Eye \ Steadfastly fixed upon Eternity. \ Having embraced the deepest \ Spirit ofhumility, \ The faith ofa Crucified Savoir, \ As the only ground ofpardon and Salvation. \ Beautifully were its holy principles illustrated in her disposition \ and conduct. \ We may truly say that every Christian \ Grace adorned her Character, \ And that she was dutiful, \ And Affectionate. \ In every social relation \ Which she sustained, \ The only consolation remaining \ To the bereaved, \ Is the Christian persuasion \ That their loss has been \ To her whom they mourn. \ An infinite gain. \ W.T. White

AREA 3

(on the side ofbox tomb) 22. ANDREW HIBBEN \ OF KENT COUNTY ENGLAND \ DIED SEASIDE PLANTATION \ MARCH 10, 1784 \ BURIED NEAR THIS SPOT \

23. UNDERNEATH \ This monument offilial affection \ Are the remains ofMRS. MARTHA GORDON. \ Who departed this life \ On the 1st day ofMarch 1833 \ Aged 62 years. \ Severely tried by many afflictions \ And long continued infirmities \ She remained steadfast in her trust. \ In the Divine REDEEMER \ Her last days were those ofResignation \ And Peace. \ T. Walker & Son NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number L Page n Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State

INSCRIPTIONS, Continued

24. THIS TABLE \ is inscribed by grateful affection \ to the memory of\ MRS. SARAH MARGARET BENNETT \ Who having finished a course of\ active usefulness \ Died in the Faith and Hope ofthe Gospel \ On the 8th day ofDecember 1827 \ Aged LXXIV years \ Fifteen ofher grandchildren \ And forty ofher great­ grandchildren \ survive to venerate her memory. \

25. IN MEMORY OF \ ARNOLD WELLS ESQr. \ Who departed this life on the 11 th day ofJuly A.D. 1805. \ Aged 26 years and 6 months. \ Thus early summoned to depart, \ From all he Valued dear below, \ His friends, and partner ofhis Heart \ Meekly resigned therefore to go! \ For all his dying breath was Prayer \ To his, who could his fond Releafe \ From guilt and fin and dark difpare \ His prayer was heard- He died in \ peace. \

26. DEAR TO THE MEMORY \ OF \ MISS MARTHA WELSS \ Who departed this Life \ the 21 8t Feby. 1830 \ AE 28 years 11 months and 17 days. \ a most dutiful Daughter, \ An affectionate Relative, \ Kind and sympathetic to \ the Poor, \ And a zealous friend of\ Religion. \ In life she was beloved, \ And in death Lamented. \ "We sorrow not as Others who have no Hope."\ J. White

27. IN MEMORY \ OF \ MARY HARRIET PEPPER \ Youngest Daughter of\ A.M. & P.A. Pepper, \ Who died Feb. 13 th 1861, \ Aged 15 years, 4 mos., And 27 days \ She was offew days, \ and come forth like a flower. \ This fair lily bloomed \ beauteously, but death cut it \ down, at a blow, and alas, it now \ lies withering here. \ "As a flower ofthe field, \ so we flourish; \ for the wind passeth over it, \ and it is gone." \ "The common fate of all things rare \ We read in thee \ How small a part oftime they share, \ that are wondrous sweet and rare." \ D.A.Walker

AREA 4

28. IN MEMORY \ of\ THOMAS HAMLIN \ Who died 25th Feburary 1849 \ Aged Fifty Five years, 1 month, and 8 days \ His character was gemmed with many \ Noble virtues, the memory ofwhich is embalmed \ In the hearts ofhis surviving \ Relatives and friends. \ The sterner qualities ofstrict integrity \ And inviolable honesty. \ Were invested with the sweet mantle \ oftenderness ofheart and courtesy \ ofmanner, \A friend ofthe Friendless, his heart \ And home were alike open to them all. \ Beloved in life, he fell asleep \ In the arms of death, \ Surrounded by his weeping family, \ Whose griefis assauaged by his dying \ Expression ofa sense of forgiveness. \ Through the blood ofJesus. \ REQUIESCAT IN SINU \ CHRISTI \

29. OUR MOTHER \ IN MEMORY \ of\ MARY HAMLIN \ Daughter ofPHILIP MOORE, \ And Relict of\ THOMAS HAMLIN \ who died January 25th 1868 \ Aged 68 years, 11 months, \ And 19 days. \" I know that my Redeemer liveth \ and that He shall stand at the \ latter day upon the earth; \ and though after my skin worms \ destroy this body, \ yet in my flesh shall I see God." footstone M.H. / 1868

30. (cremation-small metal marker, McAlister Funeral Home) JOHN A LITTLE \ 1916 - 1985 \ NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number.L Page --1£ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State

INSCRIPTIONS, Continued

31. (broken stone- top halflying on the ground) IN MEMORY \ of\ SARAH ANN HAMLIN \ Wife ofN. CORBIA HAMLIN, \ An affectionate wife, a mother \ bereaved ofher only child, \ a sufferer from \ protracted illness, \ sinner trusting in the blood \ ofJesus \ she fell asleep in the \ communion ofthe \ Christian Church \ on the i h ofMarch 1859 \ aged 27 years and 2 months. \ "How calm her rest! \ Night-dews fall not so gently on the ground, \ Nor weary, worn-out winds expire so soft." \ D.A. Walker\ footstone S.A.H. \ 1859

32. OUR LITTLE SON \ FRANK CARLILE \ Only child of\ N.C. and S.H. Hamlin. \ Born Novr. 23 rd 1856. \ Died Octr. 15th 1858. \ Our onlyjewel, 0 Savoir. \ we give back to Thee. \ to glitter in Thy diadem. \ W.T. White\ footstone F.C.H. \ 1859

33. (base ofstone intact-top ofobelisk has been knocked off) (side 1) IN MEMORY \ of\ EMILY G. HAMLIN, \ Wife of\ Thomas Hamlin \ Who died \ July 10th 1859, \ Aged 28 years. \

(side 2) By common consent \ one ofthe loveliest and \ most devout Christians \ who have ever adorned \ this community; one whose (damaged)-oly life was \ an unan-(damaged)-able proof\ ofthe religion ofJesus \ Weep, afflicted Paris (damaged) \ ofanother praying so \ has been taken from (damaged)- \ Affectionate sister, dutiful daughter, \ tender wife, faithful (damaged) \ Christ like saint \ FARWELL! \

(side 3) \ Precious in the sight of\ the Lord, is the death \ ofhis saints." \

34. GIRARDEAU \ Infant Son of\ THOMAS & EMILY G. HAMLIN, \ who died \ July 16th 1858 \ footstone G.H. \ 1858

35. JAMES \ INFANT Son of\ THOMAS 7 EMLIY G. HAMLIN, \ who died \ July 14th 1859 \ footstone J.H. \ 1859

36.2 LT. \ THOMAS HAMLIN \ CO. B. \ 23 S.C. INF. \ C.S.A.\

37. SGT. \ PHILIP M. HAMLIN \ CO. B. \ 23 S.C. INF. \ C.S.A. \

38. JOHN HAMLIN \ CO. E. \ 2 FLA. INF. \ C.S.A. \

39. JAMES HIBBEN HAMLIN \ CO. B. 23 S.C. INF. \ C.S.A \

40. MIKE \ a Faithful servant of\ Thomas Hamlin ESQ. \ Died Sept. 1857 \ He was an honest, intelligent, \ Christian man. \ NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number ~ Page ~ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

Cook's Old Field Cemetery, also known as the Hamlin Cemetery, contains graves dating from 1805 to 1916, with the majority of them dating from the 1840s and 1850s. It is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A, for its significance in Social History as an excellent example of a mid-nineteenth century plantation cemetery associated with the Hamlin, Hibben, and Leland families, and under Criterion C, for its significance in Art as an excellent example of mid-nineteenth gravestone art as executed by several significant Charleston stonecarvers. It is eligible, furthermore, under Criteria Consideration D as a cemetery deriving its significance from graves of persons of transcendant local importance and from distinctive design features. It is also the last extant historic resource associated with the Hamlin, Hibben, and Leland families, as none of their plantation houses survive in the Mount Pleasant vicinity. The cemetery retains a high degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and evokes a sense of time and place as a rural plantation cemetery in the South Carolina lowcountry.

Additional Information

Social History

Plantation and other family cemeteries dating from the colonial (or, more often, antebellum) period into the first years of the twentieth century often share a commonality of size, design, spatial arrangement, and physical placement.

There are many plantation cemeteries scattered throughout the forests of Christ Church Parish. Many are yet waiting to' be discovered. Several of significance are the Lucas Family Cemetery, now surrounded by development but maintained by descendants and listed in the National Register in 1998; and those at Hobcaw and Oakland plantations; the LegarelWagner family cemetery at Dunes West Subdivision; and many others. The distance from plantation to church was most often long and connected only by poorly-maintained dirt trails and roads. Planters often found it necessary to construct a family burial ground near the main house.

Rural family cemeteries were usually small in comparison to cemeteries in churchyards and may include the graves of family and friends from elsewhere who happened to die while visiting. Cook's Old Field Cemetery is no different. The Hamlins and their neighbors, the Hibbens, shared not only land boundaries but also a common burial ground. The names on the markers show numerous intermarriages between the two families, which kept the land in the family. This cemetery, as with many other rural plantation cemeteries, provides a valuable glimpse into the lives of antebellum planters and the interrelationship of their families. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number ..§.... Page -.H.- Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

Area 1

Directly in front of the gate is a row of nine small markers with footstones. Five of these, identical in shape and style, are the young children of John Adams Leland (d. 1892) and his wife, Ann Allston Dupre (d. 1903). Leland married Ann Dupre on 23 May 1845.1 Born in Mount Pleasant on 22 Aug.1817 to Rev. Aaron Whitney Leland and Eliza Hibben, John Adams Leland began his education in local schools and continued Williams College in Massachusetts and engineering at Kentucky. He received his degree in Master of the Arts at South Carolina College in 1837. Upon returning from Kentucky Leland &Leslie McCandless revived the Camden Academy. Later he studied law in Spartanburg and was admitted to the bar in 1840. From 1845-1852 Leland was professor of Mathematics at the Citadel. With the outbreak of the Civil War Leland organized and commanded the "Trenholm Rifles," serving in Major Edward Manigault's Battalion.2 After the Civil War he was elected President of Laurens Female College. He resigned his position upon his arrest in connection with the riots there in October 1870.3 John Leland served in various teaching positions throughout South Carolina until 1875 when Williams College honored him with an honorary degree as Doctor of Philosophy.4 John Leland and Ann Dupre Leland have markers at the end of this row.

In the back of Area 1 is the box tomb of James Hibben (d. 1835). Hibben, the founder of the village 5 of Mount Pleasant, was the son of immigrant Andrew Hibben and his wife Elizabeth Barksdale . James Hibben was an active political leader beginning his service in 1795 in the South Carolina House of Representatives. He served on many committees and was a state senator from 1800-1815. From 1809-1817 he served as a trustee of South Carolina College.6 In 1803 James Hibben bought Mount Pleasant Plantation from the estate of Jacob Motte. He had thirty-five lots drawn up, giving many to his children. In 1837 Hibben's Mount Pleasant Village merged with Greenwich Village to create what is now known as the "Old Village" of Mount Pleasant. This was and still is considered to be the center of town. 7 James Hibben's main residence, however, was in the country.

Hibben owned considerable land near Thomas Hamlin. One of his plantations, called Seaside Plantation and located near Copahee, was an inheritance from his father. James Hibben married Sarah Wells (d.1827). She is buried beside her husband. Together they had at least nine children but

1 Charleston Observer (Charleston, S.C.), 3 May 1845. 2 Emilie Leland, "Biography of John Adams Leland," n.p., n.p., 1949. 3 John Adams Leland, "A Voice From South Carolina," n.p., n.p., n.d. th 4 Emilie Leland, unpublished paper from 5 Hamlin Family Reunion, n.p., n.p., 16 January 1949. 5 Petrona Royall Mciver, History ofMount Pleasant, South Carolina (Charleston: Ashley Printing and Publishing Company, 1960), pp. 26-28. 6 N. Louise Bailey, ed., Biographical Directory ofthe South Carolina House ofRepresentatives, Volume IV: 1791-1815 ~Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 279-80. Mciver, p. 28. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number ~ Page ~ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State only one is buried in Cook's Field. Their daughter, Eliza (d. 1856) wife of Reverend Aaron W. Leland, is buried beside them.

The two last box tombs are granddaughters of James Hibben by his daughter Eliza Hibben Leland (d. 1856) and her husband, Rev. A. W. Leland. Eliza Hibben Leland (d. 1857) married Reverend Joseph Bardwell and died at the very early age of 27 years. Her sister, Sarah Margaret Leland, married Reverend Edwin Cater, pastor of the Wappetaw Church of Sewee Bay at the time of his wife's death.8

Area 2

Area 2 contains the tomb of Sarah Wingood Hamlin (d. 1840), daughter of John Wingood and Sarah 9 Barksdale and wife of Thomas Hamlin (d. 1818). Nearby is the grave of her husband, Thomas Hamlin (d.1818).10 Little is known about Thomas Hamlin. He was the son of Thomas Hamlin (d. 1767) and his wife, Francis Leland. When Thomas Hamlin died of cancer on 7th Jan. 1818 his will left all property to be divided "between my wife, Sarah, and my sons &daughters". To Sarah he left "all that tract of land she derived from her father, Mr. Wingood and which I now live. ,,11 After their mother's death on 5 Jan. 1840 their sons Thomas and John recorded the division of the land 12 according to their mother's instructions. John received the west side (361.8 acres) and Thomas the east side (363.2 acres), which included the family cemetery.13 Another box tomb near that of Sarah Hamlin lists the children of John and Ann Hamlin. This stone was probably erected when the last child died. The stone is inscribed and signed by master stonecarver William T. White.

Area 3

Perhaps the oldest grave in the cemetery is the box tomb of Arnold Wells (d. 1805). Arnold Wells was born the son of Samuel Wells and Sarah Margaret Singletary of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish. He owned a plantation on the Wando River as well as acreage in the Cainhoy area. By 1799 14 he was a wealthy landowner with 1,891 acres. He was elected to the Sixteenth General Assembly

8 Charleston Observer (Charleston, S.C.), 7 April 1838; George Howe, History ofthe Presbyterian Church in South Carolina, Volume /I (Columbia: Duffie and Chapman, 1883), p. 587. 9 A.S. Salley, Jr., ed., Marriage Notices in the South Carolina Gazette and its Successors (1732-1801) (Albany, N.Y.: J. Munsell's Sons, 1902), p. 78. . 10 Ibid. 11 Brent Holcomb, Marriage and Death Notices from the Charleston Observer 1827-1845 (Columbia: Heritage Books, 1980), p. 34; Charleston County Wills, Volume 33, Page 1382, South Carolina Department of Archives and History ~SCDAH), Columbia, S.C. 2 Will of Sarah W. Hamlin, Charleston County Wills, Volume 42, Page 73, SCDAH. 13 McCrady Plats # 6186 & #6142, SCDAH, showing division of property and the cemetery. 14 Salley, p. 95. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number JL Page ~ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State from 1804 until his death.15 He was only twenty-six years old. Of his five children, only his daughter Martha is buried in Cook's Old Field Cemetery. Martha's stone is also a box tomb with an inscription carved by master stonecarver John White.

Area 4

This area includes the grave of Thomas Hamlin (1794-1849). He was the son of Thomas and Sarah Wingood Hamlin. Thomas married Mary Moore (d. 1868), daughter of Philip and Beersheba Hamlin Moore and great granddaughter of Chief Justice John Marshall. On 6 June 1863 Mary Moore Hamlin, sold 361 acres to her sons Thomas and James but set aside one acre to reserve the family burial ground. Mary Moore Hamlin died 25 Jan. 1868 and is buried near her husband.

Significant is the stone erected to honor a Hamlin slave, "Mike, a Faithful servant" (d. 1857). Mike was loyal to Thomas Hamlin (d. 1849) and is quite a legend among the descendants of both slave and master. Copahee produced large amounts of salt, extracted from vats close to the sound. Slaves carried buckets of sea water and poured them into round wooden pens. As the water evaporated the raw salt was left behind. This was grueling work and many slave deaths were attributed to the heat and heavy labor. Some of Hamlin's slaves planned revenge on their master and decided to poison his breakfast. One morning as breakfast was being served Mike rushed to stop Hamlin from eating it. Hamlin, startled, threw the food to the floor where his dog gobbled it down, fell into convulsions, and died. For his loyalty Mike became a trusted servant and head driver on the Hamlin plantation. 16

There are many more tales of Mike's faithfulness handed down generation to generation. Mike was "rewarded" for his faithful servitude by a burial inside the family plot.

Although there is no marker on her grave, Hamlin family papers record that Amanda Switzer, a family slave and postwar servant, is also buried at Cook's Old Field Cemetery. "Manda", as she was known to the Hamlin family, was the house maid to two Hamlin spinster sisters. After the war Manda continued to work for the sisters and became a noted midwife in the community.17 Unlike Mike, Amanda was buried just outside the fence. Her grave has not been located.

15 Bailey, p. 593 16 John Leland, ''Tombstone Testifies to Slave's Special Status," Charleston News and Courier (Charleston, S.C.), 11 February 1995. 17 Mciver, p. 151. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number ~ Page --1L Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

Art

Cook's Old Field Cemetery also reflects gravestone art and other burial traditions typical of the period in general and of the South Carolina lowcountry in particular. The symbolic and decorative details and inscriptions reflect and illustrate the religious, cultural, and ethnic beliefs, values, and traditions of the persons buried here and of their families and of the community in which they lived.

This cemetery boasts a significant number of beautifully crafted headstones by master craftsmen, including some of the most prolific and prominent stonecutters of nineteenth-century Charleston. Stonecarvers of the period occasionally inscribed their names at the base or on the reverse of headstones as a means of advertising their work. Stones by Michael Gannon, Thomas Walker, D.A. Walker, John White, William T. White, Robert D. White, and Edwin R. White-all carvers active in Charleston, the South Carolina lowcountry, and even as far afield as the midlands, piedmont, and upcountry regions of the state from the late eighteenth through the late nineteenth century-are commonly found in historic cemeteries in the area. Their work is often set apart from others of the period by the quality of the stones used, especially in the case of marble often imported from Italy, which has stood up to the weather better over time than inferior marble or granite; in the intricate details of decorative and symbolic elements such as crosses or open bibles, animals, flowers or trees, or in the styles of different fonts used in inscriptions.

Cook's Old Field Cemetery contains six markers dating between 1827 and 1861 inscribed by Charleston carvers Thomas Walker, D.A. Walker; John White, and William T. White. Their work is also present in three cemeteries in the town of Mount Pleasant: the Lutheran Cemetery, the adjacent town cemetery, and Christ Church at Six Mile, as well as Old Wappetaw Church. It is also common in many cemeteries in and around Charleston.

Thomas Walker, whose signature is on the stone of Sarah Hamlin (d 1827), emigrated to Charleston from Edinburgh, Scotland and established a successful business there. 18 Walker had at least one son who apprenticed in his father's trade. The box tomb of Martha Gordon (d. 1833) signed by T. Walker & Son confirms this fact. Walker's son-in-law John White carved the tomb of Martha Wells (d. 1830), while John White's son William T. White carved the stones of Frank Carlile Hamlin (d. 1858) and of John, Jane Dewees, Elizabeth Ana, Thomas, and William Hamlin (who died in infancy), and their sister Emily Hamlin (d. 1847), all children of John and Ann Hamlin.

The stone of Mary Harriet Pepper (d. 1861), signed by D.A. Walker, is probably the most intricately carved marker in Cook's Old Field Cemetery. On the top is carved a recessed round arched panel on which a weeping willow grows behind a memorial with an anchor resting on top. The weeping willow,

18 Diana Williams Combs, Early Gravestone Art in Georgia and South Carolina (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986), pp. 71-72. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number JL Page ....1.!L Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State

symbolizing sorrow, became an important cemetery motif in the first half of the nineteenth century.19 The memorial symbolizes mortality, while the anchor is the anchor of hope. In the recess is an exquisitely carved angel looking down at the deceased; her arm raised pointing to heaven. The use of angels were used to guide the spirit of the lately departed to its reward in glory. Wreaths of flowers were also used on several markers and were quite popular during the Victorian era.

Period of Significance

The period of significance (1805-1916) corresponds to the date range of the marked graves in the cemetery.

Criteria Consideration D

Cook's Old Field Cemetery derives its significance both from the graves of persons of transcendant local importance and from distinctive design features. It is the last extant historic resource associated with the Hamlin, Hibben, and Leland families of mid-nineteenth-century Christ Church Parish and also contains several excellent examples of the highest quality gravestone art of the period as reflected in the work of the most prominent stonecutters then active in South Carolina.

19 Combs, pp. 200-01. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number JL Page ~ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Berkeley County Courthouse, Moncks Corner, S.C. Berkeley County Deeds

South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, S.C. Charleston County Records Charleston County Wills McCrady Plat Books

Hamlin Family Papers in the possession of Osgood D. Hamlin, Mount Pleasant, S.C.

PUBLISHED MATERIALS

Bailey, N. Louise, ed. Biographical Directory ofthe South Carolina House ofRepresentatives. Volume IV: 1791-1815. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984.

Blackburn, John C. "Family Religion," The Blue Banner [newsletter of the Second Presbyterian Church, Columbia, S.C.], 2 August 1953.

Bridges, Anne Baker Leland, &Roy Williams III. St. James Santee, Plantation Parish: History and Records 1685-1925. Spartanburg: The Reprint Company, 1997.

Combs, Diana Williams. Early Gravestone Art in Georgia and South Carolina. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986.

Duval, Francis Y., and Ivan B. Rigby. Early American Gravestone Art in Photographs. New York: Dover Publications, 1978.

Gregorie, Anne King. "Cemetery Inscriptions from Christ Church Parish, Part 4: Cook's Old Field (Part of the Hamlin Plantation)." South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine XII (July 1920), 132-35.

______. Christ Church 1706-1959: A Plantation Parish ofthe South Carolina Establishment. Charleston, The Dalcho Historical Society, 1961. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number JL Page ~ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State

Holcomb, Brent. Marriage and Death Notices from the Charleston Observer 1827-1845. Columbia: Heritage Books, 1980.

Howe, George. History ofthe Presbyterian Church in South Carolina. Volume II. Columbia: Duffie and Chapman, 1883.

Leland, Emilie, "Biography of John Adams Leland," n.p., n.p., 1949.

Leland, John Adams. "A Voice From South Carolina," n.p., n.p., n.d.

Leland, John. "Tombstone Testifies to Slave's Special Status." Charleston News and Courier (Charleston, S.C.), 11 February 1995.

Mciver, Petrona Royall. History ofMount Pleasant, South Carolina. Charleston: Ashley Printing and Publishing Company, 1960.

Salley, A.S., Jr., ed. Marriage Notices in the South-Carolina Gazette and its Successors (1732-1801). Albany, N.Y.: J. Munsell's Sons, 1902. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section number..llL. Page -lL Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

Verbal Boundary Description

The boundary of the nominated property is shown on the accompanying Charleston County Plat titled "Plat of 'Cooks Old Field Cemetery' Located on a Portion of Copahee Plantation," dated 20 April 2001 and drawn at a scale of 1" =200'.

Boundary Justification

The nominated property is restricted to the historic cemetery. NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section PHOTOGRAPHS Page ~ Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County. South Carolina County and State

The following information is the same for each of the photographs:

Name of Property: Cook's Old Field Cemetery Location of Property: Mount Pleasant vicinity, Charleston County, SC Name of Photographer: Linda D. Smith Date of Photographs: 3 December 2000 Location of Original Negatives: S.C. Department of Archives & History, Columbia

1. Overview of cemetery 2. Overview of cemetery 3. Area 1 Detail 4. Area 1 Detail 5. Area 1 Detail 6. Area 2 Detail 7. Area 2 Detail 8. Area 2 Detail 9. Area 3 Detail 10.Area 3 Detail 11 .Area 4 Detail 12.Area 4 Detail 13.Area 4 Detail 14.Area 1, Stone 3: Grave of Jere Williams Leland, d. 1891 15. Area 1, Stone 4: Grave of Johnny Leland ["Another Little Johnny"], d. 1857 16.Area 1, Stone 5: Grave of Lizzie Leland, d. 1854 17.Area 1, Stone 6: Grave of "Our Sister Hannah's Little Daughter Hannah," d. 1847 18.Area 1, Stone 7: Grave of Sallie Leland, d. 1849 19.Area 1, Stone 8: Grave of Johnny Leland ["Little Johnny"], d. 1848 20.Area 1, Stone 9: Grave of John Leland, d. 1814 21.Area 1, Stone 10: Grave of Ann Allston Leland, d. 1903 22.Area 1, Stone 11: Grave of John Adams Leland, d. 1892 23. Area 1, Stone 13: Grave of Sarah Hibben, d. 1827 24.Area 1, Stone 15: Grave of Eliza Hibben Bardwell, d. 1857 25.Area 1, Stone 16: Grave of Sarah Margaret Cater, d. 1857 26. Area 1, Stone 17: Grave of Sarah Hamlin, d. 1840 27.Area 1, Stone 18: Grave of Thomas Hamlin, d. 1818 28.Area 3, Stone 27: Grave of Mary Harriet Pepper, d. 1861 29. Area 4, Stone 28: Grave of Thomas Hamlin, d. 1849 30.Area 4, Stone 29: Grave of Mary Hamlin, d. 1868 31.Area 4, Stone 31: Grave of Sarah Ann Hamlin, d. 1859 [Broken base] 32. Area 4, Stone 31: Grave of Sarah Ann Hamlin, d. 1859 [Footstone] NPS Form 10-900-a OMS No. 1024-0018 (8-86)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

Section PHOTOGRAPHS Page 23 Cook's Old Field Cemetery Name of Property Charleston County, South Carolina County and State

33.Area 4, Stone 32: Grave of Frank Carlile Hamlin, d. 1858 34. Area 4, Stone 32: Grave of Frank Carlile Hamlin, d. 1858 [Detail] 35. Area 4, Stone 33: Grave of Emily G. Hamlin, d. 1859 36. Area 4, Stone 34: Grave of Girardeau Hamlin, d. 1858 37. Area 4, Stone 35: Grave of James Hamlin, d. 1859 38. Area 4, Stone 40: Grave of Mike, "a Faithful servant" of Thomas Hamlin, d. 1857