• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

DATA RECOVERY AT 38CH1220: EXAMINATION OF A UNION CAMP ON KIAWAH ISLAND, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA CHICORA FOUNDATION RESEARCH SERIES 75 The cover illustration is a portion of the 1854 Ocean Survey Chart T-491, “Kiawah River and Island and Portions of Folly, Cole’s, John’s, and Seabrook’s Isl.” This chart shows the northern end of Kiawah Island and the vicinity of 38CH1220 during the Civil War. Also shown is the Vanderhorst Summer House, as well as several additional buildings – all of which have been lost to shore erosion. DATA RECOVERY AT 38CH1220: EXAMINATION OF A UNION CAMP ON KIAWAH ISLAND, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Research Series 75 Michael Trinkley Debi Hacker Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 ▪ 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, SC 29202-8664 803/787-6910 www.chicora.org May 2015 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Trinkley, Michael. Data recovery at 38CH1220 : examination of a union camp on Kiawah Island, Charleston County, South Carolina / Michael Trinkley, Debi Hacker. pages cm. -- (Research series ; 75) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-58317-077-9 (alk. paper) 1. Kiawah Island (S.C.)--Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)--South Carolina--Kiawah Island. 3. South Carolina--History--Civil War, 1861-1865--Antiquities. 4. United States--History--Civil War, 1861-1865-- Antiquities. 5. Military camps--South Carolina--Kiawah Island--History--19th century. I. Hacker, Debi. II. Chicora Foundation. III. Title. IV. Title: Examination of a union camp on Kiawah Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. F277.B3T535 2015 975.7'91--dc23 2015017845 2015 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transcribed in any form without permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors and publisher. ISBN 978-1-58317-077-9 ISSN 0882-2041 The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.∞ South Carolina is too small to be a republic, and too big to be a lunatic asylum. -- James Louis Pettigru, 1860 ABSTRACT This document provides information on recovery methods for Civil War camps have relied data recovery excavations conducted by Chicora on wide-scale stripping in order to identify these Foundation for Kiawah Partners of Charleston, SC specific features. at archaeological site 38CH1220, a Union Civil War encampment, under an existing Army Corps Such an approach is impossible at Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and 38CH1220 since it is situated in a nearly pristine supplemented by an Office of Coastal Resource maritime forest on beach dune and trough Management (OCRM) MOA approved on April 5, topography. The area is dominated by mature live 2012. oaks and stripping would irreparably harm the vegetation and devalue the property. As a result, The work was based on a data recovery the SHPO approved the suggestion that the site be plan submitted by Chicora archaeologists and investigated by the use of ground penetrating approved by the State Historic Preservation Office radar (GPR), magnetometer, near surface metal in 2011. The field work was conducted by Chicora detecting, and pedestrian survey. It was hoped archaeologists from March 25 through April 12, that these techniques would identify features such 2012 with GPR and magnetometer research as wells and privies, found to be distinctly shaped provided by GEL Geophysics. A total of 444 person and often 3 feet or more in depth at other sites. hours were spent in the field. An additional 8 person hours were spent in the field laboratory A series of three north-south and three during rain periods. east-west transects were established for the use of different explorative techniques. These areas were Previous archaeological investigations defined based on the assumption that the included a survey of a portion of the site in 1991, encampment was laid out using U.S. Army followed by additional testing in 2011. The data regulations. recovery plan was based on this 2011 work that revealed an area of denser remains, although Coupled with this approach was almost no evidence of Civil War activity was additional historical research with the goal to identified. While historic research documented determine if any detailed information could be the presence of both Confederate and Union identified concerning Union encampments on activities on Kiawah, no maps showing specific Kiawah. The historic research was conducted at encampments appears to have been prepared. One the National Archives from February 14 through map shows the Union picket line running down 19, 2012. the Stono River, with only the eastern tip of Kiawah considered to be under Union control in The historic research provided a broad 1863-1864. range of general information to supplement that already identified for Kiawah, although no Previous Civil War research suggests that detailed accounts of Kiawah activities were camps tend to produce few materials recoverable identified. using traditional archaeological survey or data recovery methods, for example close interval The field investigations using near surface shovel or auger testing, followed by block metal detecting identified over 200 targets, mostly excavations. It has been argued that camps were ferrous items. The pedestrian survey identified a “policed,” removing the normal surface middens, broad range of brick scatters across the site, as concentrating artifacts in features such as privies well as over a dozen areas of metal detecting and wells. Consequently, the preferred data looting. The magnetometer survey identified i about 20 substantial metal objects, although all because of standing water and wetland proved to represent individual items at or near delineation. During a period of reduced rainfall the surface. No features were identified. The GPR and posited lower sea levels, these trough areas work failed to identify any features – only broad may have been less wet than today. Nevertheless, geological deposits could be identified. these areas are not contiguous and do not fit the pattern proposed in Army regulations. Since there were no features to investigate, two small test units were excavated in The presence of artifacts scattered across order to explore two of the brick piles. These the site also suggests that military regulations excavations provided clues concerning the regarding the policing of camps were not adhered function of these brick piles and also a small to – a conclusion that seems to some degree quantity of artifacts associated with the piles. supported by historic research. The failure to identify features, Finally, it is clear that 38CH1220 has been specifically wells and privies, suggests that the heavily impacted by metal detector looters. The posited regimental layout defined by Army site was known to be heavily collected in the regulations was not used at 38CH1220. Of course, 1980s and our discoveries indicate that collecting it is possible that had broad areas been stripped, continued at least into the period from about 2005 features would have been identified. It is also through 2011. possible that wells and privies were located in areas of 38CH1220 that we could not investigate ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures v List of Tables vi Introduction 1 Natural Setting 1 Research Orientation 7 Research Questions 14 Data Recovery Plan 16 The Civil War on Kiawah Island 19 Kiawah in Context 19 The Civil War on Kiawah 22 Current Status of Civil War Sites on Kiawah 33 Methodology 35 Clearing 35 Geophysical Investigations 37 Archaeological Investigations 39 Artifacts 45 Previous Finds 45 Surface Finds 45 Metal Detecting 45 GEL Finds 51 Excavated Artifacts 51 Distribution 51 Synthesis and Conclusions 53 Historic Research 53 Clearing 53 Pedestrian Survey 54 Geophysical Prospecting 54 Looting 54 Archaeological Excavations 56 Artifacts 57 Conclusions 61 Sources Cited 63 Appendix 1. Artifact Lists 69 iii iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Charleston County in South Carolina 1 2. Location of 38CH1220 on Cougar Island 2 3. Examples of the dune and rough topography on Cougar Island within 38CH1220 3 4. Regimental infantry camps 9 5. Map of 38CH1220 from 1991 11 6. Aerial photograph of the project area in 1994 12 7. Results of additional survey in 2011 13 8. Critical root zones in a small area of 38CH1220 16 9. Posited site areas 17 10. Map of Charleston Harbor 20 11. Map of the Defenses of Charleston City and Harbor 21 12. Forts on Kiawah Island 25 13. Confederate fortifications on Cole’s Island 26 14. Remnants of the Kiawah “upper redoubt” 27 15. Portion of the “Map of the Defenses of Charleston” showing the Union picket line 30 16. Union graffiti on the Vanderhorst house walls 30 17. Civil War sites on Kiawah Island 32 18. Investigations at 38CH122 in 1993 34 19. Grid designations for the study tract 35 20. Cleared and uncleared areas 36 21. Wetland 37 22. Dense chipped vegetation 37 23. Geophysical work 38 24. Metal detecting 40 25. Test excavations 41 26. Parrott shell recovered from Block 41 43 27. Location of recovered artifacts 46 28. Probable Civil War artifacts 47 29. Probable Civil War artifacts 48 30. Probable Civil War and later artifacts 49 31. Looting in Area 17 52 32. Evidence of looting 55 33. Evidence of looting 56 34. Topography and vegetation 57 35. Tents and stakes 59 36. Tents and stakes 60 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Artifacts recovered from metal detecting in 1991 14 2. Artifacts recovered from Test Units 1 and 2 51 vi Introduction This project involved the exploration of a requirements, to South Street Partners of Union Civil War camp (38CH1220) situated on the Charlotte, North Carolina (“Kiawah Partners’ New east end of Kiawah Island in Charleston County, Owner Talks About Blockbuster Real Estate Deal,” South Carolina (Figure 1).

Load more

  89

Copy Link