July 8, 2019

Alan Shirey USACE, Charleston District 69A Hagood Avenue Charleston SC 29403

Re: Archaeological Testing at the Charleston Harbor South Jetty on Morris Island, Charleston County, South Carolina.

Dear Mr. Shirey:

Enclosed is a digital copy of the revised draft report of Archaeological Testing at the Charleston Harbor South Jetty on Morris Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. Please review the report; we will be happy to address any comments you may have. If you need additional hard copies, please do not hesitate to call.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Gwendolyn (Inna) Moore Senior Archaeologist Archaeological Testing at the Charleston Harbor South Jetty on Morris Island

Charleston County, South Carolina

July 2019 Archaeological Testing at the Charleston Harbor South Jetty on Morris Island Charleston County, South Carolina

Revised Draft Report

July 2019

Prepared for: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-Charleston District Charleston, South Carolina

Prepared by: David Baluha, RPA Archaeologist/Historian

and

Inna Moore, GISP, RPA Senior Archaeologist, GIS Specialist

Atlanta • Charleston • Fort Collins • Jackson • Nashville • Savannah 1.0 INTRODUCTION The US Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District (USACE), is evaluating possible repairs to the existing south jetty of Charleston Harbor which is located on Morris Island. The terminus of the south jetty is eroding and requires stabilizing. Morris Island is a dynamic barrier island located between Folly Island, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. Due to its location at the mouth of the Charleston Harbor, Morris Island played a key role in the Civil War providing Confederate troops with unique vantage points from which to defend Charleston. Confederate armies constructed small batteries and rifle pits along the entire shoreline, with Batteries Wagner and Gregg being the two largest fortifications. Both batteries were located near the northern tip of the island and were involved in many skirmishes throughout the war. Due to concerns that the south jetty may be located near Battery Wagner, the USACE requested archaeological testing in the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the stabilizing activities. The APE is a 90 x 22-meter rectangle around the jetty terminus on Morris Island. In addition to the APE, the USACE requested archaeological testing of an anomaly, possibly a portion of Battery Wagner identified by the USACE on LiDAR imagery. This area of investigation (study area) covers a 45 x 50-meter rectangular directly south of the APE. Figure 1 shows the location of the APE and study area on a 2018 aerial photograph. In April 2019, Brockington and Associates, Inc. (Brockington) conducted archaeological testing of the APE and study area. The testing attempted to:

1. Assess how far the current south jetty extends onto the island; 2. Assess the nature of the soils and the potential for deeply buried archaeological deposits within the proposed south jetty footprint; and 3. Assess the potential for intact, buried archaeological deposits associated with Battery Wagner.

All phases of the study were conducted in accordance with the South Carolina Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations (Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists [COSCAPA], the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO], and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology [SCIAA] 2013), the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and local ordinances and guidelines. A summary of each task follows.

2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION The investigations include limited background research, shoreline analysis, and archaeological field investigations in the APE and the study area. Methods of investigation are summarized below.

2.1 Background Research The Principal Investigator utilized primary and secondary manuscripts and online resources to conduct background research for this project. On April 24, 2019, the Geographic Information System (GIS) specialist consulted the ArchSite program (http://www.scarchsite.org/) to determine if previously identified archaeological sites, previously identified historic architectural resources, and

P - 4 historic properties lie in or near the APE and study area Figure 2 shows the locations of the project APE and nearby cultural resources on the United States Geological Survey ([USGS] 1983 Charleston, 1979 Fort Moultrie and James Island, SC quadrangle. The Principal Investigator searched primary materials at three repositories: the Charleston County Register of Mesne Conveyance Office (RMC) in Charleston; the Charleston County Probate Office in Charleston; and the South Carolina Room (SCR) at the Charleston County Public Library in Charleston. Online research was conducted at Accessible-Archives.com (http://www.accessible- archives.com/), Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com/), Fold3.com (https://www.fold3.com/), and Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com/) as needed. Brockington personnel also consulted secondary resources such as cultural resource management reports and dissertations and theses at Brockington’s office in Mt. Pleasant and at the SCR. Important secondary resources include Nichols’ (2000) examination of the shoreline and cultural resources on Morris Island, Wise’s (1994) discussion of the Civil War military actions around the Charleston Harbor, and cultural resource management reports by Bailey (2003), Poplin et al. (2000), Butler (1992), and TRC (2006).

2.2 Shoreline Analysis The senior GIS specialist at Brockington conducted a simple shoreline analysis of the northern portion of the Morris Island to determine the potential for any portion of Battery Wagner to be in the APE/study area or on any part of present-day Morris Island. GIS data, including historic shorelines (1854 – 2017), was provided by the USACE’s GIS specialist Mikala Randich. These data along with historic maps and nautical charts, previous research, and geological surveys were used in the shoreline analysis.

2.3 Field Investigations On April 30, 2019, Brockington conducted the archaeological testing of the APE and study area. Three tasks were performed during these investigations: archaeological testing (shovel tests and hand auger), metal detection, and GPR survey. Ms. Gwendolyn (Inna) Moore directed all phases of the GPR investigations and David Baluha directed all phases of the archaeological investigations. Field Technicians James Lefebre and Scott Kitchens conducted the metal detector survey, while Chevis Clark conducted the magnetic locator survey. Transportation to and from Morris Island was provided by a licensed captain from Adventure Harbor Tours. Figure 3 shows the locations of the field investigations inside the APE and study area on a current aerial photograph.

2.3.1 Archaeological Testing Prior to the field investigations, a 10-meter interval grid aligned parallel to the south jetty was projected using Geographic Information System (GIS) software across the APE and portions of the study area. The data was uploaded to a sub-meter-accurate, Global Positioning System (GPS), Trimble Pathfinder Pro receiver. In the field, we used the sub-meter accurate GPS to locate the grid. Shovel test locations were marked using pin flags. We excavated the shovel tests with a gas-powered auger or by hand. A total of eight shovel test locations were excavated with the auger. The auger was equipped with a 6-inch bit and an extension capable of reaching 120 centimeters (cm) below surface (bs). All auger tests were

P - 5 excavated to 120 cm bs. A total of 27 shovel tests were hand-excavated (see Figure 3). These shovel tests measured approximately 30 cm diameter and extended to an average depth of 80 cm bs. All fill removed from each auger- or hand-excavated shovel test was screened through ¼-inch mesh hardware cloth. No cultural materials were recovered from any of the shovel tests. Information relating to each shovel test also was recorded in field notebooks. This information included the soil color, texture, and stratification of each test.

2.3.2 Metal Detection Brockington conducted a metal detection survey across all accessible areas of the APE and study area. It was not possible to examine areas under rocks or covered in dense vegetation (see Figure 3). Archaeologists used a Minelab CTX 3030 metal detector and Schonstedt Magnetic Locator. All finds were marked and individually numbered using plastic pin flags. Artifacts were identified and photographed in the field and returned to their original location. No artifacts suspected of being unexploded ordnance were investigated. The locations of the metal detector finds were mapped in field books and recorded using a sub-meter-accurate, Global Positioning System (GPS), Trimble Pathfinder Pro receiver.

2.3.3 Geophysical Survey The objective of the geophysical survey was to determine the extent of the existing south jetty and to identify any remnants of Battery Wagner. Tasks performed to accomplish this objective included a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey and GPR analysis. The GPR study covered approximately 3,000 square meters and was limited to all accessible portions of the APE and study area. Methods and results employed for each of these tasks are described below (see Figure 3).

GPR Overview GPR is a non-invasive method of exploring the subsurface for archaeological features such as graves (both in prehistoric and in historic cemeteries); privies; and house, palisade, fort, factory, and mill walls, floors, and foundations. GPR survey employs the transmission of electromagnetic pulses which travel as waves into the ground. The elapsed time between the transmission of the waves, the reflection off buried anomalies, and the reception back to the surface radar antenna is measured. Buried anomalies create changes in the electrical or magnetic properties of the rock, sediment, soil, or variations in their water content that reflect the waves (Conyers 2004). In other words, any previous disturbance in the subsurface is recorded by the GPR antenna. These changes are measured in two ways: travel time and velocity. Thus, the approximate depth at which these anomalies lie can be determined. Generally, soil types need to be determined before conducting the survey to obtain velocity and maximum penetration depth estimates. Bentonitic clays are resistant to GPR electromagnetic pulses. Even though a GPR can be used in moist to wet soils, if the water table or an artificially perched water table is near the surface, shallower than presumed targets, the use of GPR is not advisable since water attenuates the GPR electromagnetic pulse. The GPR cannot operate through saltwater or saltwater intrusion into fresh ground water. Heavy ground cover and topography can limit the effectiveness of GPR.

P - 6 GPR creates images showing changes in soil chemistry, texture, hydrology, or other materials underground. It records the length of time necessary for the radar signal to bounce back from soil layers or objects. The recorded length of time is then used to determine the depth of an object through a series of calculations computed by the machine. To acquire a clear image of the subsurface strata, we transmit the radar signal at set intervals over the examined space. The GPR produces the best results when the antenna remains relatively at the same distance above the ground surface during survey. Thus, in areas where there are many irregularities on the ground surface, small trees, or dense undergrowth/ground cover, the results may be less definitive.

GPR Field Methods On April 30, 2019, archaeologists conducted a GPR survey on select areas around the south jetty on Morris Island. The GPR survey area, approximately 3,000 square meters inside the APE and study area, included portions of the lower beach, upper beach, fore-dune system, and open areas adjacent to the jetty (see Figure 3). We were not able to conduct the survey on the back-dune system due to dense vegetation. Data were collected using a MALA Geosciences RAMAC X3M cart system with a 250- megahertz antenna. To establish survey grids, investigators pulled fiberglass measuring tapes between the southwest/southeast and the northwest/northeast corners of the study. A 50 cm grid was established across the study area, with transects running roughly north south, or perpendicular to the jetty. Investigators used two nylon ropes stretched every 50 cm between each measuring tape to guide the traverse of the GPR unit. Archaeologists pushed the MALA cart system along each transect. Information specific to each transect, such as the direction, start and end points, anomalies, and disturbances, was recorded in a notebook. We observed the signal on each traverse or transect in the examined space. Observed anomalies unexplained by surface features, roots, or other irregularities were noted. This allowed the investigator to map anomalies as they occurred and to relocate an anomaly for more thorough investigation. If an anomaly was noted in the field, additional radar images could be collected by passing over the anomaly in a different direction.

GPR Analysis The data were analyzed using GPR-Slice™ Version 7.0. This program allows investigators to look at individual data profiles, sets of data profiles, and a plan of the data at specified depths. Linear features show up well in plan views. Anomalies show up in profile as an upside down “U” with the top representing the general depth of the object. Iron objects create a spike of intensity that travels down the entire depth of the profile. These profiles and plans were examined using various filters to draw out features. A great deal of interpretation goes into defining features based on anomalies in profile. The locations are based on relative depth, length, and orientation. Feature locations are not exact and are interpretations of the collected data.

P - 7 3.0 Historical Overview 3.1 Introduction Morris Island is a barrier island located on the Atlantic Ocean southeast of the Charleston Peninsula at the mouth of the Charleston Harbor. Today’s Morris Island represents remnants of three earlier islands that have joined and separated multiple times. The three islands are Pelican Bank (Republic Island/ Cummings Point), Morris Island (Cummings Point/Friends Retreat/Morrison’s Island) and Middle Bay Island (Lighthouse Island). A very brief overview of the historical development of Morris Island follows. More detailed descriptions can be found in Bailey (2003), Nichols (2000), TRC (2006), and Wise (1994),

3.2 Native American Occupation The earliest inhabitants of Morris Island and the surrounding sea islands were Native American hunter-gatherers. From at least 13,000 years ago until the coming of the English colonists in the late 17th century, Native Americans lived in the surrounding area. The most common Native American artifacts found are pieces of pottery, made from local clay and sand. The most frequently occupied spaces were locales adjacent to waterways and marshes. From these locations, Native Americans could easily travel over water or land to acquire plants and animals necessary to feed themselves and to make tools and shelter. The earliest occupations (from roughly 13,000 years ago until roughly 5,000 years ago) left only a few fragments of stone tools in this area. Throughout much of that time, sea level was substantially lower, with Charleston 60-100 miles west of the shoreline. We believe that most of the early hunter-gatherers lived closer to the coast. Their sites likely lie beneath the sea today. Underwater sites in Florida support this interpretation, although no specific sites have been found off the coast of South Carolina to date. By about 5,000 years ago, sea level rose to within 10-20 feet of its present stand. The estuaries and barrier islands present on the coast today were present by this time. Also, climatic conditions were approaching modern norms. Thus, the Charleston Harbor area looked very similar to what we see today, albeit without the urban and suburban development. Maritime forests of oak and pine likely covered the peninsula, with marshes along the edges. Native Americans would come to the sea islands to gather oysters and other shellfish as well as fish and other marine and riparian resources. Middens (refuse piles) of mollusk shells are the most common markers of their camps that we see today.

3.3 European Arrival and Settlement By the 16th century, European explorers and settlers began to take a strong interest in the Southeast and what would become South Carolina. Several Spanish exploratory expeditions landed on or traversed the South Carolina coast or traveled through the interior during the 1520s-1540s. Port Royal was the principal area of interest due to its large natural harbor and its relationship to the favored route for ships returning to Spain from the New World. In 1553, French Huguenots under Jean Ribault established a military outpost on Parris Island called Charlesfort. In 1565, the Spanish expedition to La Florida established themselves atop Charlesfort after destroying the French settlement there and at Fort Caroline near Jacksonville, Florida, naming their settlement Santa Elena.

P - 8 The Spanish remained on Parris Island until 1587 when they withdrew to St. Augustine. A series of Franciscan missions remained in coastal Georgia until the mid- to late 17th century, with friars periodically visiting Santa Elena. Despite a large Spanish presence in the Port Royal area for nearly 20 years, Native Americans near Charleston Harbor apparently were influenced only in small ways by their European neighbors. Likely, diseases diminished some of their numbers. Also, the local natives began to include decorative elements of the pottery made by the Indians of the Georgia and Florida coasts who lived among the Spanish missions and acquired some of the introduced foodstuffs (peaches and cow-peas) left by the Spanish at Santa Elena (Lansdell et al. 2012). Eighty years later, English explorers took serious interest in South Carolina, particularly Port Royal. However, when a colonizing effort arrived in 1670, they chose Charleston Harbor to provide additional space between themselves and the Spanish to the south. The first settlement, called Charles Towne, was established on the Ashley River at Albemarle Point (today’s Charles Towne Landing State Historic Site). In 1680, Charles Towne moved to Oyster Point on the peninsula where the core of the modern City of Charleston rests today.

3.4 Morris Island This summary of the history of Morris Island shows the general development of the island touching on key events and people. It is not intended as a definitive history of the island. Except as otherwise noted, the narrative is based on the history of Morris Island by The Jager Company (2008).

3.4.1 Pre-Civil War On April 14, 1710, the Lord Proprietors made a joint land grant to Jonathan Drake and John Herne for 420 acres including Cummins and Middle Bay Islands. After the death of Drake and Herne in the 1730s, the land passed to John Hearne, Jr. In 1750, the General Assembly took interest in the island for the location of a harbor beacon and pest house, but they never acquired any land. In 1756 the Island was sold to Thomas Croskey, who in turn sold the land to James Rogers in 1766. Rogers sold a piece of the land to the Commissioners for Regulating Pilotage and in 1768, they authorized the building of the lighthouse. Rogers built a small farm on the remaining land and sold it to John Morris in 1767. Morris received a Royal grant for 300 acres of adjoining marsh land in 1768 and created Friends Retreat. Upon his death in 1776, the land transferred through multiple people, ending up in the hands of the State. In 1794, John Clement obtained a grant for the land located at the tip of Morris Island called Pelican Bank. He renamed his new acquisition Republic Island but did little to improve upon it. The island was later named Cummings Point. In 1820, Clement’s widow conveyed the land to Henry Stocker and after his death, the Master in Equity sold Republic Island to Ziba B. Oakes. By this time, Republic Island was no longer an island, but an extension of Morris Island. After Oakes death, the State ended up with ownership of the land. In 1818, John M. Maillard received a grant for 338 acres on Lighthouse island. Maillard intended to subdivide his island and began conveying tracts to other Charlestonians in 1819. He continued in this fashion until the Sheriff seized his remaining lots and sold them to Arthur G. Rose and Benjamin F. Pepoon. In 1812, they continued to subdivide the land and sell off lots. Existing

P - 9 owners began to erect houses and were regularly living at the beach especially during the summer months. In 1827 the City of Charleston, purchased property to create a Lazaretto. Despite the addition of the Lazaretto, the growing community continued to expand well into 1860. At this time, there were no residences maintained on the northern end of the island and the southern end was still called Lighthouse Island.

3.4.2 Civil War Era Morris Island played a key role in the start of the Civil War when Confederate troops fired on the “Star of the West” from Fort Morris as the ship attempted to resupply the federal forces at Fort Sumter in January 1861. They further muddied the waters by constructing ten additional batteries on the island after the initial bombardment. In addition, the first contact between the U.S. Navy’s relief expedition and Confederate forces took place on Morris Island on April 13, 1861. In the early 1862, Confederate authorities placed Morris Island under martial law, resulting in the evacuation of local planters, along with their families and slaves. Fortifications were begun in earnest in April 1862 with Battery Wagner constructed on the narrowest portion in the middle of the island and Battery Gregg constructed on the island’s northern tip. Throughout the next few years, multiple attempts were made by Federal forces to overtake Morris Island. These attempts were launched by both land and sea. On July 10, 1863, Federal forces were able to take the southern portion of Morris Island but not Battery Wagner. On July 18, 1863, the U.S. Army attacked Battery Wagner again led by the African American 54th Massachusetts Regiment, who were decimated by the defending Confederate troops. The Federals regrouped and began a slow encroachment towards Battery Wagner using trench warfare and continuous bombardment to provide cover. Finally, on September 4-9, 1863, the Federalists reached the unoccupied fort and took possession. The Island remained under Federal control for the remainder of the war.

3.4.3 Post Civil War Era In 1873, Congress ordered the rebuilding of the Morris Island lighthouse that was destroyed during the Civil War. Work on the lighthouse was completed on October 1, 1876. The post-war quarantine station was moved in 1874 to Fort Johnson on James Island. In 1885, a hurricane destroyed the remaining buildings on the island except for those related to the lighthouse keeper’s house. After the hurricane, a few people moved back to the island and the “Sheltering Arms” school was opened. The Charleston County School Board maintained a one-teacher school on Morris Island for the children of the lighthouse keepers. The Charleston Harbor jetties were completed in 1896. The creation of the jetties moved the main shipping channel to the north away from Morris Island. This movement of ships away from Morris Island meant that the Morris Island lighthouse was not as important. In 1938, the lighthouse keeper was ordered to leave the island due to the encroaching waves beneath his house. The island remained relatively unaltered until 1962, when dredge spoils were placed on the middle part of the island. Over the next 40 years there were many proposals for the development of Morris Island, but none came to fruition and the island remains uninhabited and undeveloped. Today, Morris Island is owned by the South Carolina Ports Authority, the City of Charleston, and the Charleston County Parks.

P - 10 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Previous Investigations On April 24, 2019, the project GIS Specialist consulted the ArchSite online database to determine if any previously identified archaeological sites lie near the APE. Two archaeological sites (38CH272 and 38CH2104) are located within the 0.5-mile (see Figure 2 and Table 1 [below]). Site 38CH272 is the estimated location of the Civil War ironclad ship Weehowken. In 1975, Ralph Wilbanks recorded the site basing the location on nautical charts and reports of shrimper net tangling. Site 38CH2104 is a man-made earthwork, most likely a World War II emplacement that was recorded in 2006 by Ramona Grunden of TRC. Jim Legg of SCIAA conducted limited metal detection at the location and identified ammunition consistent with the twentieth century. Neither site has been thoroughly investigated or mapped nor have they been assessed for NRHP eligibility. The South Carolina Battleground Preservation Trust ([SCBPT} 1995) recorded two Confederate earthworks during a GPS survey of Charleston Harbor (see Figure 2 and Table 1 [below]) within the 0.5-mile of the APE. These earthworks are listed on the NRHP as part of the outer defenses of Charleston. Both locations are recorded as 53 and refer to several Confederate and Federal fortifications on Morris Island (Cummings Point). None of these resources lie within or adjacent to the APE.

Table 1. Previously identified cultural resources within 0.5 mile of the APE. SITE SOURCE POST-CONTACT TIME PERIOD ELIGIBILITY

38CH272 SCIAA Site Form (1975) Weehawken shipwreck Nineteenth century Unassessed

38CH2104 SCIAA Site Form (2006) WW II gun emplacement Twentieth century Unassessed

53 SCBPT (1995) Confederate earthwork Nineteenth century Listed

53 SCBPT (1995) Confederate earthwork Nineteenth century Listed

Also, on June 7, 2019, the NRHP files of the SCDAH were searched for previous investigations and previously identified resources using the ArchSite program. There are no historic resources recorded within 0.5-miles of the APE. While there have been no comprehensive cultural resource surveys of the island, there have been multiple assessments, historic overviews, and shoreline studies, including Bailey’s (2003) cultural resources reconnaissance of Cummings Point; Nichols (2000) examination of changes of the shoreline, barrier ridge area, and cultural features on Morris island; and TRC’s (2006) historic overview of Cummings Point.

4.2 Shoreline Analysis The GIS analysis of digital shoreline data and historic maps shows that the shoreline of Morris Island has been in constant flux throughout its recorded history. The shoreline cycles between episodes of erosion and accretion and are influenced by both natural and man-made events. Some events such as longshore drift and sea level rise occur over long periods of time making it difficult to observe the changes. Other events such as hurricanes, dredging, and the creation of the jetties are more visible. Two such events, the 1900 hurricane and the creation of the Charleston Harbor jetties, drastically

P - 11 altered the shorelines of Morris Island (Nichols 2000). It is reported that the hurricane washed over the northern portion of Morris Island eroding the tip. The jetties altered the island in a much more subtle way, by moving the shipping channel north away from Morris Island. This change shifted the sediment supply away from the island (Nichols 2000). During the analysis, we identified three major episodes of erosion/accretion on the northern end of the island: 1849-1900, 1900-2012, and 2012-2017. Figure 4 shows these shoreline changes on the northern portion of Morris Island. During the first episode (1849-1900), the island eroded 930 meters to the south and 270 meters to the west. The second episode (1900-2012) expanded the island 1,100 meters to the north and 116 meters to the east. The third episode (2012-2017) eroded the shoreline 445 meters to the south. The 1900 and 2017 shorelines best illustrate the extensive erosional episodes suffered by Morris Island in the recent past. In order to determine if any cultural features are located on the northern portion of Morris Island, we overlaid the 1900 and 2017 shoreline on various historic maps. Figure 5 shows the shoreline on the historic maps. This study focused on maps dating from the middle to late nineteenth century. The comparison shows that almost the entire northern portion of Morris Island has eroded into the ocean. The overlays show that the APE lies on the mid-19th century marsh side of the island, or possibly in Vincent’s Creek, and that Battery Wagner stood southeast of the APE in the Atlantic Ocean today. Based upon the shoreline analysis, there is very low to no potential for current day Morris Island to contain any remnants of Battery Wagner or earlier settlements.

4.3 Archaeological Testing Across the APE, a 10-meter grid was laid out oriented parallel to the south jetty or approximately 270º (magnetic north [MN]); all auger- and hand-excavated shovel tests were excavated with respect to this grid. We hand-excavated 27 (30-centimeter [cm]-diameter) shovel tests and used a mechanical auger to excavate an additional eight shovel tests. All hand-excavated shovel tests were excavated to at least 80 cm below surface (bs). The auger we used was equipped with a 6-inch bit and an extension capable of reaching 120 cm bs. Ten of the hand-excavated shovel tests and three of the auger tests were excavated on the beach or in the active dune. The remainder were excavated in the back-dunes in densely wooded, subclimax, maritime forest. The fill from all the auger- and hand-excavated shovel tests was screened through ¼-inch mesh hardware cloth. None of these shovel tests produced cultural materials. These investigations exposed three distinct soil types. Auger- and hand-excavated shovel tests excavated on the beach exposed inundated soils with white (10YR 2/1) sand 0-60 cm bs underlain by a dense layer of shell extending 60-120+ cm bs. Due to the high-water table, we did not excavate any shovel test on the beach outside of the APE. Auger- and hand-excavated shovel tests excavated on the active dune and other ridges to the west exposed a dark gray (10YR 4/1) sand O/A horizon 0-10 cm bs and white (10YR 2/1) sand 10-120+ cm bs. Auger- and hand-excavated shovel tests excavated in a low area or trough between the two sand ridges exposed a dark gray (10YR 4/1) sand O/A horizon 0-10 cm bs, a dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand A horizon 10-30 cm bs, a strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sand C1 horizon 30-45 cm bs, and a gray (10YR 2/2) fine sand C2 horizon 45-80 cm bs. No artifacts or cultural material was recovered from any of the shovel test or auger locations.

P - 12 We observed a continuous jetty of rocks, near the present ground surface partially covered in overburden and vegetation, extending approximately 100 meters west of the active dune (30 meters west of the APE). At this point, rocks were no longer visible at or near the surface. While it is possible that the south jetty extends farther west, we were not able to locate any other rocks. We mapped the rocks using a sub-meter accurate GPS. Figure 6 shows the location of all features identified during the investigations.

4.4 Metal Detection Concurrent with the GPR survey and shovel testing, investigators conducted a thorough metal detector and magnetic locator survey across all accessible portions of the APE and study area (see Figure 3). Field Technicians James Lefebre and Scott Kitchens conducted the metal detector survey, while Chevis Clark conducted the magnetic locator survey. Metal detecting identified only modern debris such as aluminum cans. The magnetic locator identified two large metal objects just to the south of the APE and east of the study area (see Figure 6). Since the signature of these two objects resembled unexploded ordnance, archaeologists did not investigate these discoveries; however, we estimate their depth to be greater than 1-meter bs. These anomalies were mapped with a sub-meter accurate GPS. No other cultural materials were identified.

4.5 GPR Survey The GPR field investigations and analysis showed moderate disturbance near the jetty and little to no disturbance across the rest of the study area. The GPR signal was attenuated on the lower beach due to the high-water table (at approximately 30 cm below surface) resulting in limited subsurface data. The high-water table made it impossible to obtain an accurate reading or depth for the two large metal objects identified with the magnetic locator. The upper beach and dune system showed a buried surface/geologic change beginning around 60 cm below surface extending to a depth of 1.5 meters. This horizon was consistent across the study area. Since shovel tests did not show any unusual stratigraphy or buried organic materials and the metal detection did not produce any artifacts, the buried surface is most likely related to natural depositional and/or erosional events. While we cannot be completely sure that the anomaly identified in LiDAR imagery is not related to Battery Wagner, there is little to no subsurface evidence to support such an association. No cultural features were identified in the shovel test or metal detection survey and no definitive features were identified during the GPR survey. The shoreline analysis revealed that the majority of Morris Island has eroded into the ocean leaving little of the original island. Based upon these results, the anomaly identified in the LiDAR imagery is most likely a result of longshore drift altered by the jetty and subsequent storm events. The disruption of the natural flow causes sand accretion on the up-drift side of the jetty and erosion on the down-drift side creating a hollowed out bowl-shaped area.

P - 13 5.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The USACE contracted Brockington to conduct archaeological testing of the south jetty APE and Battery Wagner study area on Morris Island. These investigations included limited background research, shoreline analysis, and archaeological field investigations. The goals of the project were to assess how far the current jetty extends onto the island; determine the nature of the soils and the potential for deeply buried archaeological deposits within the proposed jetty footprint; and to assess the potential for intact, buried archaeological deposits associated with Battery Wagner. Prior to the field investigations, the Principal Investigator reviewed primary and secondary source material relevant to the project and completed the shoreline analysis. The field investigations occurred on April 30, 2019 and included the excavation of shovel tests at 10-meter intervals, a GPR survey, and metal detecting. The background research and shoreline analysis showed very little to no potential for current day Morris Island to contain any remnants of Battery Wagner or earlier settlements. The field investigations identified no cultural materials other than modern refuse inside the APE and study area. Two large metal objects were identified southeast of the APE which might represent unexploded ordnance. Archaeologists observed rocks associated with the south jetty 100-meters west of the active dune ridge. Since the archaeological testing near the south jetty on Morris Island identified no archaeological deposits associated with Battery Wagner or any other historic (50 years old or greater) occupation within the APE or study area, the proposed repair of the south jetty will have no effect on historic properties. Current plans for the south jetty stabilization project do not include any disturbance beyond surface disturbance from heavy equipment. If extensive excavation is needed, an archaeologist should be present to ensure that no deeply buried archaeological deposits or human remains are uncovered. If any ground disturbing activities will occur near the two large metal objects, the Charleston bomb squad should be consulted before work begins.

P - 14 REFERENCES

Bache, A. D. 1858 Preliminary Chart of Charleston Harbor and Its Approaches. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Bailey, Ralph 2003 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of Cummings Point, Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Mt. Pleasant.

Butler, C.S., A.A. Chapman, J.B. Legg, and C.T. Espenshade 1992 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, The United States Coast Guard Facility on Folly Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. Prepared for the United States Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. Savannah, Georgia.

Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists (COSCAPA), South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, and South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 2013 South Carolina Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations. South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Columbia.

Conyers, Lawrence B. 2004 Ground Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, New York.

Charleston County, South Carolina, Deed Books (CCDB) n.d. Originals at the Charleston County RMC Office, Charleston, South Carolina.

Charleston County, South Carolina, Will Books (CCWB) n.d. Originals at the Charleston County Probate Office, Charleston, South Carolina.

Duffield, W. W. 1897 Charleston Harbor and Its Approached. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Johnson, John 1890 The Defense of Charleston Harbor. Walker, Evans & Cogswell, Charleston, South Carolina.

Nichols, Christopher Clyde 2000 An Examination of Shoreline, Barrier Ride Area, and Cultural Change on Morris Island Using GIS and Remote Sensing. Master’s Thesis, The University of Charleston and Medical University of Charleston, Charleston.

Poplin, Eric C., and David S. Baluha, Bruce G. Harvey 2000 Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of Long Island Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Mt. Pleasant.

SCBPT 1995 Civil War Sites Survey, Charleston Harbor Project. South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Charleston, South Carolina.

P - 15 SCIAA 2019 ArchSite. http://archsite.cas.sc.edu/ArchSite/(pcgcyf5515hkja3bsjinsd45)/default.aspx, accessed June 2019.

The Jager Company, Allen & Associates, Brockington and Associates 2008 Historic Battlefield Parks at Folly Island and Morris Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. Draft Master Plan Report. The Jager Company, Gainesville, Georgia.

TRC 2006 The History of Cummings Point on Morris Island, Charleston County, South Carolina: An Overview. Submitted to The Trust for Public Land, Charleston, South Carolina. TRC, Columbia, South Carolina.

USGS 1983 Charleston, SC quadrangle. General Printing Office, Washington, DC.

1979 Fort Moultrie, SC quadrangle. General Printing Office, Washington, DC.

1979 James Island, SC quadrangle. General Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Willenbucher, E. 1865 General Map of Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, Showing Rebel Defenses and Obstruction. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Wise, Stephen R. 1994 Gate of Hell: A Campaign for Charleston Harbor, 1863. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

P - 16 Mount Service Layer Pl easa nt Credits: Source: Esri, Cha r lest on DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, Charleston USDA, USGS, Har bor AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Sullivan's Community Isl and

Ja m es Isl and ^_ APE

Mor ri s Isl and

Atl an ti c O cea n

Foll y B each

Area of Potential Effect

South Jetty

Study Area

0 200 400 Feet

0 60 120 Meters

Figure 1. Location of the Morris Island APE, study area, and south jetty.

P14 - 17 Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i- cu b ed

53

^_ 38CH2104

53 ^_

38CH272

^_ Civil War Earthwork Archaeological Site 0 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 300 600 Meters

Figure 2. Location of the APE and nearby cultural resources on the United States Geological Survey ([USGS] 1983 CharlestonCharleston, 1979 Fort Moultrie and James Island, SC quadrangles. P15 - 18 Shovel Test

A Hand Auger GPR/Metal

Service Layer Detection Area Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, 0 50 100 Feet GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and 0 10 20 30 Meters the GIS User Community

Area of Potential Effect (APE)

A A A

A

South Jetty A A

A

A

Study Area

Figure 3. Location of the field investigations inside the APE and study area.

P16 - 19 0 100 200 300 Sh ore lin e 0 100 200 300 Sh ore lin e 0 100 200 300 Sh ore lin e

Meters 1849-1854 Meters 1900 Meters 2012 1857-1858 1921 2013 1864 1933 2014 1900 1955 2015 1999 2016 2010 2017 2012 17

^_ ^_ ^_ APE APE APE

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community the GIS User Community the GIS User Community

Figure 4. Shoreline changes between 1849 and 2017 on the northern portion of Morris Island.

P - 20 Sh ore lin e Sh ore lin e Sh ore lin e 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 1900 1900 1900 Meters Meters Meters 2017 2017 2017 18

^_ ^_ ^_ APE APE APE

Service Layer Credits: Service Layer Credits: 1858 1865 1897

Figure 5. Location of the 1900 and 2017 shoreline on various histoiric maps (Bache 1858, Willenbucher 1865, and Duffield 1897).

P - 21 ^_ Magnetic Anomaly 0 50 100 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 0 10 20 30 Meters CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Area of Potential

Effect (APE)

û

û

û

û

û

û

û n

û

o n

û

û o

n

û

o n û

û

o n

û

n o

û o n û

û o n

û o n

û û o n

û o n û û o n û o n û û o n û o n o n n o o n o n o

^_^_

Apparent Landward Existing Jetty Extent of Existing Jetty

Study Area

Figure 6. Location of all identified features during the archaeological investigations.

P19 - 22