THE PROPERTY NOBODY WANTED:ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL

INVESTIGATIONS AT FORT JOHNSON, S.C.

Research Series 43

Michael TnnkleyNatalie AdamsDeb] Hacker

Chicora Foundation, Inc.PO Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus DnveColumbIa, South Carolina 29202

803/787-6910

Prepared ForCalcara Duffendack Foss Manlove, Inc.

Kansas City, Missoun 64105

June 1994

ISSN 0882-2041

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Trmkley, Michael.The property nobody wanted archaeologIcal and hlStoncal

mvestlgatlons at Fort Johnson, S.C. / Michael Trmkley , NatalieAdams, Debi Hacker.

p. em. -- (Research serelS, ISSN 0882-2041 , 43)Includes bibliographIcal reference1. Fort Johnson (S.C.) I. Adams, Natalie, 1963 - II. Hacker,Deb!. III. Title. IV Senes: Research senes (ChIcora Foundation), 43.F279.F65T75 1994975 7 ' 91--dc20 94-27306

CIP

The paper used m this publicatlOll meets the mmunum requirements ofAmencan NatlOnal Standard for Information SCiences - Permanence ofPaper for Prlllted Library Matenals, ANSI Z39 48 - 1984. 00

ii

IrratIonally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.-- Aldous Huxley

ABSTRACT

ThIS study reports on an mtenslvearchaeological and hlStoncal survey of the FortJohnson facility on James Island ill CharlestonCounty, South Carolina. Jomtly owned andmanaged by the S.C. Department of Wildlife andManne Resources, the College of Charleston, andthe Medical Umversity of South Carolina, the 90acre tract mcorporates a Wide range of hlStoncaland archaeologIcal sites spannmg the penod fromabout 1000 B.C. to at least A.D. 1940. The currentstudy was undertaken to mventory these resourcesand explore long-term management options for theproperty's umque resources.

The entIrety of Fort Johnson's 90 acreswere placed on the National RegISter of HistoncPlaces m 1972, largely because of the site's militaryhIStory which spans Queen Anne's War, theAmencan RevolutIOn, the War of 1812, and theCivil War. In addition to these hIStone resourcesthe current study has also Identified likelyplantatIon sites, additIOnal Native Amencanencampments, and the extenswe development ofthe tract dunng the late nmeteenth and earlytwentieth centunesas a quarantme statIon. Inorder to facility management of the resources, thecurrent archaeological site number, 38CH69/71 hasbeen extended to cover the entIre facility, with 10areas of specific occupation or hIStonc SignificanceIdentified by thIS mvestIgatlOn.

ThIS study found that while the site hassuffered noticeable losses through developmentactivities, construction, and everyday use, many ofthe resources remam mtact and are clearly of

exceptIonal SIgnificance. In fact there IS only onearea of the tract, amountmg to less than 6 acres,on WhICh no resources have been found. Elsewherethe hlStonc and archaeological resources areabundant. More Importantly, these resources arelikely to be severely damaged or destroyed bycontmued development of the facility. Some, suchas standing structures and archaeologIcal siteswithm heavily used areas, are likely to be damagedor destroyed by even contmued routme operations.It IS essentIal that Fort Johnson develop apreservatIon plan to ensure that these hIStoneresources are protected. To aSSISt, thIS study offerssome prelimmary recommendations regardingdailyoperatIon and use of the facility, short and long­term growth optIons, mtegratlon of hIStoneresources mto facility management, andmterpretatlon of the site to the public and staff.

With the heavy mvolvement of federalfunding, which mvokes the NatIonal HistonePreservation Act, as well as the recently adoptedProtection of State Owned or Leased HistoneProperties (S.C. Code of Laws § 60-12-10 through60-12-90), it IS essentIal that a clearly defined planfor management of these resources be developedand unplemented. Further losses of archaeologtcaland hlStoncal resources at Fort Johnson would bemconslStent with not only these legISlatIVe acts, butalso the commonly perceIVed need to safeguardSouth Carolina's dwIndling resources. Sites underthe Junsdictlon of state agenCIes offer rareopportunities to ensure that future generations ofSouth Carolimans are able to understand therrheritage.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISt of Tables

LISt of Figures

Ackn uwledgements

IntroductIonBackgroundGoalsCuratlOn

Natural SettmgPhysIographyGeology and SoilsClimateFlOnstlCS

PrehlStonc and Histone OveIVlewPreVIous Research at Fort JohnsonPreViously Identified ArchaeologIcal Sites on Fort JohnsonPrehlStonc Archaeology

Early WoodlandMiddle WoodlandLate Woodland

A Histoncal SynOPSIS of Fort JohnsonEighteenth Century ActIvitIes at Fort JohnsonFort Johnson m the Nineteenth CenturyFort Johnson and the Civil WarPostbellum Use of Fort Johnson as a Quarantme StatIonThe Modern Penod

The Need for Further ResearchImplicatIons

Research Strategy and MethodsIntroductIonArchIVal ResearchField Survey MethodologyLImitatIOns of the Survey MethodologyLaboratory and AnalyslS Methods

Identified ArchaeologIcal SitesArea 1Area 2Area 3Area 4Area 5

125

68

1012

142223

30

6565

7575757885

8888899092

vii

vii

IX

1

6

14

75

86

v

Area 6Area 7Area 8Area 9Area 10

Identified Architectural SitesStanding Architectural Sites

Marshlands HousePowder MagazmeQuarantme Officer's HouseOther Quarantme StatIOn StructuresPost-Quarantme Structures

Safeguarding Histone SitesMamtenanceDlSaster Plannmg and Recovery

Landscape FeaturesEarthworksMamtenance and DlSaster Recovery ConsIderatIons

ConclUSIOns and RecommendationsHistoncal FindingsArchaeolOgIcal FindingsArchitectural FindingsIdentificatIon of Significant AreasRe-evaluation of GoalsEssentIal Management Actions

Sources

VI

93959596

102

103

112

115

118119121121123123

103

118

127

Tablel.2.3.4.5.6.78.9

10.11.12.13.

Figure1.2.3.4.5.6.78.9

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.1718.1920.21.

LIST OF TABLES

Major hurncanesAreas of subsurface cultural matenalArtifacts recovered from Area 1Artifacts recovered from Area 2Mean ceramIc date for Area 2Artifacts recovered from Area 4Artifacts recovered from Area 5LISt of artifacts recovered from Area 6Mean ceramIc date for Area 6Artifact pattern for Area 6Artifacts recovered from Area 7Artifacts recovered from Area 9Mean ceramIC date for Area 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Vicmity of Fort Johnson on James Island, S.C.Vicmity of Fort Johnson on James Island m the Charleston HarborSea level changes for South CarolinaCeramIc assemblagesWindmill Pomt m 1697Mouzon's 1776 mapArtISt's reconstructIon of first Fort JohnsonDrawmg of 1737 fortDeBrahm's plan for Fort Johnson1780 DesBarres map showmg Fort JohnsonLate eIghteenth century map of outer fortificatIons1775 survey of Fort JohnsonClinton's 1780 SIege map of Charleston1787 plan of Fort Johnson1800 plan of Fort Johnson1821 plan of Fort Johnson1833 plan of Fort JohnsonA portIon of Johnsonville ill 1842Seymour's drawmg of Fort Johnson m 1861Charleston's defensesDelafield's 1865 survey of Fort Johnson

12868889909092949596969797

279

243031343638394243434546484950525354

Vll

22.23.24.25.26.2728.2930.3l.32.33.34.35.36.3738.3940.4l.42.43.44.45.46.4748.4950.51.52.53.54.55.56.5758.5960.61.62.

viii

Boutelle's 1865 sUlVey of Fort JohnsonPhotograph of Fort Johnson after the Civil WarFort Johnson and Johnsonville1880 plat of Quarantme StatIonView of maritlll1e sanitatIon buildingsView of sterilizatIon cylinderIntenor of marit1llle sanitation buildingView of Quarantme Officer's house1919 topographIc map of Fort Johnson1943 topographIc map of Fort JohnsonProjected eIghteenth century site locatIonsProjected antebellum site locatIonsProjected Civil War site locatIOnsProjected postbellum site locatIonsLocatIon of survey transectsArtifact density at Fort JohnsonDIStnbutIon of hIStonc artifactsDlStnbution of hIStonc architectural artifactsDIStnbutIon of hIStonc kitchen artifactsDlStnbution of prehIStonc artifactsDlStnbutlon of shellAreas of Identified sub-surface remamsArea of martello towerErOSIOn at Area 2Extenor of tabby structure at Area 6lntenor of tabby structure at Area 6Bnck powder magazme at Area 9Cistern at Area 9BastIOnete exposed at low tIdeTabby and bnck sea wallView of waste treatment plant on Confederate batteryConstructIon on Confederate earthworksNorth facade of the Marshlands HouseSouth facade of the Marshlands HouseQuarantme Officer's HouseKitchen assocIated with the Quarantme Officer's HouseRadical alteratIon and loss of hIStone fabnc and contextPump HousePortIon of Civil War earthworksCivil War earthworksAreas of antICIpated hIgh, moderate, and low cultural Significance

55575759606061616364666870727779808182838487919198989999

100100101101104104109109110110111111122

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ThIS study was funded by the NatlOnalOceamcandAtmosphencAdmmlStration (NOAA)through the architectural firm of CalcaraDuffendack Foss Manlove, Inc. We espeCIally WIShto thank Mr. Steven D. Evans, AIA for thISprofeSSIOnalism and support of our efforts, as wellas those mvolved m the contraetmg office ofNOAA, espeCIally the Contractmg Officer'sTechmcal RepresentatIVe, Mr. Dail R. Hobbs. InadditIon, we apprecIate the assIStance of those atFort Johnson who have coordinated the study,mcluding Dr. Pat FaIr with the NatIOnal MarmeFishenes ServIce, Southeast Fishenes Center andMr. Foster Folsom with the S.C. Department ofWildlife and Manne Resources. Mr. Willis Keithwas, as always, of exceptIonal assIStance m helpmgus to more fully understand the hIStone resourcesof Fort Johnson and also locate a vanety ofobscure references. Without hIS cooperatIon ourstudy, while reachmg the same conclusIOn, wouldbe less complete and certamly less nch.

We also want to thank those who assIStedus with the hlStoncal and background research,mcluding Mr. Keith Dertmg and Ms. SharonPeckrul at the S.C. Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology, Mr. Steve Tutle and Dr. TracyPowers of the S.C. Department of Archives andHistory, and Ms. Sharon Bennett and Ms. MarthaZierden of The Charleston Museum. The staffs ofthe City of Charleston ArchIVes, NatIOnal ArchIVesCartographiC and Architectural Branch, NatlonalArchIVes Still Pictures Branch, the SouthCarolimana Library, and the Thomas Cooper MapRepository as usual offered therr excellentaSSIStance durmg the proJect.

The fieldwork was conducted by Ms. LynnRoberts, Mr. Jason Smith, and Mr. ChrIS Nichols -­we apprecIate theIr dedicatIon and good humordurmg the long transects through denseundergrowth.

Finally, we want to thank Mr. Niels Taylor,Staff ArchaeolOgISt with the South Carolina State

Histone Preservation Office (S.C. Department ofArchIVes and History) for hIS reVIew and commentson the study. In addition, we have receivedtechmcal reVIew comments from one additIonal,anonymous, peer reVIewer selected specifically forhlStoncal and military hIStOry expertISe. ThISadditIOnal mSIght has Significantly Improved theusefulness of the study, Identifymg severalmconsIStencles. As always, however, the ultl1Ilateresponsibility for the study lies with us.

IX

INTRODUCTION

Background

The archItectural firm of CalcaraDuffendack Foss Manlove, Inc., under contract tothe Department of Commerce/NatlOnal Oceamcand Atmosphenc AdmmIStration as an mdefimtedelivery contractor for architecture/engmeermgsemces, requested on March 25, 1993 that ChIcoraFoundatIon prepare a proposal for an mtensivearchaeolOgical and hlStoncal survey of the 90 acreFort Johnson facility. While not espeCIally detailedand calling at one pomt for only a "reconnaISsance"level survey, the scope of work specified that themvestigattons were bemg conducted m antiCIpatiOnof a proposed Manne and Envrronmental HealthLaboratory, suggestmg that an "intenSIVe" surveywas actually needed. Further, the scope noted that:

the survey shall mcludesubsurface sampling techmquebased upon random placement oftest cores throughout the sItes[Fort Johnson] as descnbed mResearch Manuscnpt No. 93 ofthe Institute of Archeology [SIC]and Anthropology or aneqUIvalent sampling deSIgn("Statement of Work to IdentifySpecific Requuements andDevelop DeSIgn Criteria andSchematlc Plans for ProposedMarme and EnVIronmentalHealth Laboratory at Charleston,S.c.," dated February 5, 1994,reVISed February 23, 1994).

And finally, the document also correctly noted thatthe entrre 90 acre facility had preVIously beenplaced on the NatIOnal RegISter of Histonc Places-- an mdicatIOn that Its archaeologIcal andhIStoncal potentIal was recogmzed and that thesurvey would need to attempt to delimit areas ofconcern.

ChIcora FoundatIon submItted a proposal

on April 4 and It was verbally accepted by CalcaraDuffendack Foss Manlove, Inc. about a week later,with an agreement prepared and SIgned by bothpartIes on April 28. While presumably theproposal, or at least the sampling deSIgn, wasreVIewed by the DOC/NOAA Contractmg Officer,the S.c. Department of ArchIves and History, andthe S.c. Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology (as stipulated by the Scope ofWork), no comments were receIved. Histoncalresearch for the project was mitlated on May 2and contmued mtemuttently through May 20 byDr. Michael Trmkley and Ms. Debi Hacker. Thefield mvestlgattons were conducted between May 3and 10, 1994 WIth Ms. Natalie Adams servmg asfield director. AsSIStant ArchaeolOgISts mcludedMs. Lynn Roberts, Mr. Jason SmIth, and Mr. ChnsNichols. A total of 256 person hours were spent inthe field, with an additlOnal 48 person hours spenton hIStoncal and background research.

A management summary was proVIded toCalcara Duffendack Foss Manlove, Inc. on May 6,with additIonal follow-up conversatIOns held onMay 12 and May 16. The mittalletter summanzmgthe research and the subsequent conversationsemphaSIZed the umque nature of the Fort Johnsonsite and the heavy density of archaeologIcal andhIStone remams found durmg the survey.

The report productIOn, mcludingcatalogmg and analysIS of recovered collectIons,synthesIS of hIStonc documents, and preparation ofthIS techmcal report, was conducted at ChIcora'sColumbIa, South Carolina office durmg the latterhalf of May 1994.

The proposed actIVItIes at Fort Johnsonwould mitIally conSISt of at least a 3600 square footbuilding and a 1000 square yard parkmg facility(letter from Ms. Donna H. Gibson to Mr. StevenSmith, dated February 17, 1993). The work wouldlikely mvolved clearmg, grubbmg, filling, andgrading of roadways; the placement of water andsewer lines, underground utilities, and perhaps

1

Figure 1. Viclmty of Fort Johnson on James Island, overlookmg the Charleston, S.c. harbor.

2000

~(- ....:.. ..•

\-/ -

SCALE IN FEET

February 25, 1993).

The pnmary goals of the Fort Johnsonsurvey were, first, to Identify the archaeologIcalresources on the undeveloped portIons of thefacility; second, to gauge the extent of hIStoneresource loss on the tract; and thud, to assess theability of the remammg resources or SItes tocontribute SIgnificant archaeologIcal, hlStoncal, oranthropological data. The second goal essentIallymvolves the sites' eligibility for mclUSIon on theNatIOnal RegISter of Histonc Sites, althoughChIcora FoundatIon only prOVIdes an opinIon ofNatIonal RegISter eligtbility and the finaldetermmatIon IS made by the SC State HistoncPreservation Officer at the South CarolinaDepartment of ArchIves and History.

These goals were ObVIously tIed tocompliance with the requuements of the NatIOnalHistone Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665, asamended), the AdVISOry Council on Histone

PreservatIon'sregulatIons(36CFR800),and the Stateof SouthCarolIna'sProtectIon ofState Ownedor LeasedHIstorICProperties

- - - .~. '\ ~~~e oi ~~s§ 60-12-10through 60­

_/ 12-90).

4000Secondarygoals were,fIrst, toexamme thedevelopmentand Impor­tance of Fort

Johnson's military sites through time; second, todetermme if very early eIghteenth centuryphllltation sites could be Identified on the tract;

o

........ Fort Johnson...:.Macr1iie::Bii:ifog IcalSta

: ·:..n~~ifiat;:::.~.:: .. :.: :'.:.~ .'.

additional faciliues such as salt-water lines fortanks; cleanng, grubbmg, and grading of thebuilding and parkmg foot prmts; constructIondamage aSSOClated with supply stockpiles, mobileoffices, and assocIated stagmg areas; and finallyconsIderable disturbance assocIated withlandscapmg and contourmg the surroundinggrounds. These actIvitIes will result m conSiderableland alteratIon with potentIal damage toarchaeologIcal and hIStoncal resources WhICh mayeXISt m the project area.

The project area IS situated onapproXImately 90 acres on the eastern edge ofJames Island across the harbor from the City ofCharleston (Figure 1). The study tract mcorporatesmaritime forest, cleared areas, and sectIOns ofextenSIve preVIOUS development. In fact, todaythere are 18 buildings on the parcel, most of WhIChhave been built smce about 1973. While somepreVIOUS archaeolOgical research has beenconducted on the property, these pastmvestIgatlons have explored limited areas and havebeen keyed to specific expanSIOn plans. No

comprehenSIve survey of Fort Johnson, capable ofprOVIding a detailed mventory of the hIStoneresources, has been conducted (see letter by Mr.Keith Dertmg to Ms. Donna Gibson, dated

2

and thrrd, to examme NatIve Amencan settlementon thIS small section of James Island. PreVlouswork by Stanley South (1974, 1975) clearlyrevealed the mtense military use of Fort Johnson,although he did not have the opportunity to fullyexplore the site either temporally or spatially.These mvestIgatlons, therefore, would build onSouth's earlier work, offermg a more completehlStoncal and archaeologIcal understanding of FortJohnson. It was also clear from the early hlStoncalresearch that the Fort Johnson tract, pnor to itsmilitary use, was a plantatIon settlement m the lastdecade of the seventeenth century and the firstdecade of the eIghteenth century. If sites could beIdentified from thIS very early penod of SouthCarolina's hIStOry they would help us betterunderstand not only life at thIS penod, but also theestablishment of plantations on the CarolinafrontIer. ThIS IS an area of extraordinarily limitedpreVIOUS research. While the survey tract 15 limIted,it mcorporates both estuanne and sound areas,offenng the opportunity to examme the diversity ofNatIVe Amencan settlement optIons. While it ISunlikely that sites would be found at the edge ofthe sound, there IS little mformatlon about thISspecific enVIronmental zone. In additIon, thISresearch would agam seek to expand, refine, orperhaps only confirm South's earlier study (seeSouth and Widmer 1976) WhICh found shellmIddens on dune ndges, but occupation areas onthe mtervenmg troughs.

Normally, once Identified, all of the sitesm the survey area would be evaluated for theIrpotentIal eligibility for mclUSIon on the NatIOnalRegISter of HiStonc Sites. In thIS case, however,Fort Johnson has already been placed on theNatIonal RegISter. In additIon, we chose to defineonly one site covenng the entIre tract. Instead ofdefinmg clusters of artifacts as sites, they weredefined as lOCI or areas of occupatIon withm thepreVIously Identified Fort Johnson site. These lOCIwere then evaluated m much the same way as a"SIte" would be.

It IS generally accepted that "theSIgnificance of an archaeologIcal site IS based onthe potentIal of the site to contribute to theSCIentific or humamstlc understanding of the past"(Bense et al. 1986:60). LoCI SIgnificance m thISsurvey was evaluated usmg the recently publishedprocess of Townsend et al. (1993).

ThIS evaluatIVe process typIcally mvolvesfive steps., formmg a clearly defined, explicitratIOnale for either the loci's eligibility or lack ofeligibility. Bnefly, these steps were:

• IdentificatIon of the SIte's datasets or categorIes ofarchaeologIcal mformatlon suchas ceramICS, lithICS, subSIStenceremams, architectural remams, orsub-surface features;

• IdentificatIon of the hIStonccontext applicable to the site,proVlding a framework for theevaluatIVe process;

• Identification of the Importantresearch questIons the site mtghtbe able to address, gIVen the datasets and the context;

• evaluation of the SIte'sarchaeologIcal mtegnty to ensurethat the data sets were suffiCIentlywell preselVed to address theresearch questIons; and

• Identification of "important"research questIons among all ofthose whIch mIght be asked andanswered at the SIte.

ThIS approach, of course, has been developed foruse documentmg eligibility of SItes bemgnommated to the NatIOnal RegISter of HistoncPlaces where the evaluatIon process must standalone, With relatIVely little reference to otherdocumentation and where only, typIcally, one siteIS bemg conSidered.

Some components of the Fort JohnsonSIte, such as those aSSOCiated WIth the U.S. PublicHealth Department operatIon of the quarantmestatIon from 1906 through the Second World War,may seem relatively recent. The remams from thISpenod, however, are over 50 years old. It ISlffiportant to pomt out that even if they were not,they would likely still be eligible gIven therrunusual contribution to the development of bothlocal and natIOnal hIStory (Sherfy and Luce n.d.. !).

3

The quarantme station represents a contmuatlon ofmedical efforts to control (successfully) themtroductlon of contagIous disease. The transfer ofthe statIon from city/state control to federal controlrepresents a exceptIOnal step m the broadenmg offederal powers dunng the first quarter of thetwentieth century. The use of the facility durmgtheSecond World War as a Coast Guard facility,trammg facility, antI-aIrCraft gun trammg statIon,and even listenmg post for German V-boat actIvity,emphaSIZes and documents the effect of the war onthe local populatIon. As such it IS likely that thesetwentIeth century actIVitIes would be eligible formclusion on the NatIonal RegISter under CritenaA and D, that IS through both linkage to Importantevents and also for theIr mformatlon potentIal.Contnbutmg resources would mclude both thearchaeologIcal remams and also those structuresstill standing whIch date from thIS penod, such asthe quarantme officer's house.

The Civil War components at the FortJohnson site should likely be evaluated m therrcontext as encampments, fortificatIons andbattlefields (see Andrus 1992). As encampmentsand fortificatIons they· are likely eligible for therrmformatlon content under NatIonal RegISterCritenon D, although theIr role m firmg the firstshots of the Civil War and defending Charlestonfrom the Vmon blockade mdicate equalImportance under Critenon A, theIr linkage toevents of exceptlonalImportance. As a battlefield,Fort Johnson may also be conSIdered an eligibleproperty under Critena C, as well as preVIouslymentIoned Criteria A and D. The earthworkdeSign, constructIon of the vanous battenes, andmodificatIons of eXlStmg facilities representImportant engmeenng features charactenstlc ofConfederate fortifications, many of which m theCharleston area have been destroyed.

In the case of a survey WhICh IdentifiesmultIple sItes, or multIple areas, the processoutlined by Townsend et al. (1993) can becomeburdensome. Consequently thIS study has electedto combme some of the steps, makmg the processmore streamlined, WIthout substantIvely altermgthe clear goal -- to ensure that lOCI capable ofprOVIding SIgnificant mformatlon are prOVIded theprotectIon afforded m the hIStonc preservatIOnprocess. The development of a hIStonc context wasnot undertaken for each lOCI, but IS found bnefly

4

outlined m the followmg sectIons of thIS study,whIch prOVIde an overvIew of the prehIStoric andhIStone archaeology and research for the regIOn.The IdentificatIon of "important" research goalswas achieved by mcorporatmg research goals andquestIons, agam outlinmg SIgnificant questions tothe disCIpline and the public.

OtherwISe, the evaluatIve process wasessentIally the same as outlined by Townsend et al.(1993). For each lOCI or area the data setsIdentified durmg the survey, such as the presenceof pottery or the likelihood of archItecturalfeatures, were discussed. At tImes the absence ofdata sets dommates the disCUSSIOns, such as whenthe Identified area had been thoroughly mIXed bypreVIous development or when It conSISted of fillmatenal. Reference was made back to the hlStonccontext and the research questIons a particulararea mIght be able to address, while at the sametIme the loci's mtegnty was clearly defined. Weopted to use the mtegrity areas developed byTownsend et al. (1993:17-23) smce they are morecommonly used With National RegISter sites thanthe archaeolOgIcal propertIes developed byGlassow (1977). Those most Important forarchaeologIcal sites bemg evaluated for eligtbilityunder Critenon D (sItes that have yIelded, or maybe likely to Yield, mformatIon Important mprehIStory or hIStOry) are loeatIonal mtegrity,deSign mtegrity, mtegnty of matenals, andaSSOCIatIve mtegrity

LocatIOnal mtegritymeans that discemablepattemmg IS present. If a site lacks patterning, ifthe artifacts are displaced, if actIVity areas are nolonger recogmzable, then It likely lacks locatlonalmtegrity. Integrity of deSIgn IS most oftenaddressed as mtra-site artifact and featurepattemmg. Integrity of materIals IS typIcally seen asthe completeness of the artifact/feature assemblageor the quality of feature or artifact preservation.Finally, aSSOCIatIVe mtegnty IS often exammed mthe context of how strongly assocIated the data setIS with lffiportant research questIons. Clearly theevaluatIon of mtegrity IS somewhat subJectIve, butthIS research found that most site areas eitherclearly exhibIted mtegnty, or clearly lackedmtegrity. There were relatively few over whIchthere could be any real debate.

The tOpIC of research questIons IS perhaps

more controversIal, smce every archaeologISt candevelop research tOpICS WhIch may, or may not, beof mterest to hIS or her colleagues. What makes aresearch tOpIC Important can be debated -- IS itsomethmg that partIcularly mterests the public? ISit somethmg that can offer methodologIcaladvancement? IS it somethmg that can assISt mbetter management ofarchaeologIcal resources? Itseems, frankly, that all of these are must beconsIdered valid if we WISh to preserve as realsense of the past. Of even greater controversy ISwhen a research ISsue IS settled and how muchtestmg a conclUSIOn should have before It ISaccepted. After all, it IS never possible to "prove"theones; they can only be disproved. Most of theresearch areas eVIdenced by Fort Johnson havereceIved little preVIOUS mvestIgatIon so there wasrarely any real concern over redundancy of data.

It IS lIDportant to at least bnefly reVIew theFort Johnson NatIOnal RegISter nommatlon as Itcurrently eXISts, espeCIally smce some may wonderwhy we didn't SImply evaluate the lOCI as either"contnbutmg" or "non-contnbutmg" resources tothe eXlStmg nommatIon. Regrettably the FortJohnson nommatIon, prepared over 20 years ago,offers little m the way of substantIve gUIdanceregarding what mIght be VIewed as contributmg.Although the nommaUon IS titled "FortJohnsonJPowder Magazme," both the boundarydescnptlOn ("90 acres" with four mclUSlVe latItudeand longitude coordinates) and the category C'site")clearly reveal the mtent to mclude the entIre tractas a somethmg approachmg a hIStonc distnct.Specifically mentIoned as "Areas of Significance"are the site's military and archaeologIcal hentage.The nommatIon, while mcluding a number offactual errors, concentrates on the property's longmilitary use, clearly mcluding all of the vanouspenods from milIal constructIOn through the CivilWar. We do not believe, however, that thenommatlon IS suffiCIently clear to a pnon conSIdereIther the NatIve Amencan, late seventeenthcentury plantatIon, or late nmeteenth and earlytwentleth century quarantme statIon remams as notcontributmg to the SIgnificance ofthe sIte. QUIte tothe contrary, these additIOnal penods ofoccupatlon make Fort Johnson an even moreexceptIonal hIStonc resource, tracmg thedevelopment of Charleston over the past 3000years.

Curation

The archaeologIcal SIte forms at the SouthCarolina InstItute of Archaeology andAnthropology have been updated to reflect the lOCInumbermg system employed m thIS study.

The field notes, photographIC matenals,and artifacts resultmg from ChIcora FoundatIon'smvestIgatlons at Fort Johnson have been curatedat the South Carolina InstItute of Archaeology andAnthropology. The artifacts have been cleanedand/or conserved as necessary. Further mformatlonon conservatIon practIces may be found m thesectIon of thIS study dealing with Research Strategyand Methods. All ongmal records and duplicatecopIes were prOVIded to the curatonal facilitIes onpH neutral, alkaline buffered paper and thephotographIC matenals were processed to archIValpermanence. CopIes of the field records have beenprOVIded to Calcara Duffendack Foss Manlove,Inc. as stipulated by the scope of work.

5

NATURAL SETIING

PhysIOgraphy

Charleston County IS located m the lowerAtlantic Coastal Plam of South Carolina and ISbounded to the east by the Atlantic Ocean and asenes of marsh, barner (such as Folly), and sea(such as James) ISlands (Mathews et al. 1980:133).ElevatIons m the County range from sea level toabout 70 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Themamland topography, which consISts ofsubtle ndgeand bay undulatIons, IS charactenstIc of beachndge plams. Seven major dramages are found mCharleston County. Four of these, the Wando,Ashley, Stono, and North Edisto, are dommated bytIdal flows and are saline. The three withsIgnificant freshwater flow are the Santee, formmgthe northern boundary of the County, the SouthEdisto, formmg the southern boundary, and theCooper, whIch bISects the County. Because of thelow topography, many broad, low-gradient mtenordrams are present as either extenSIOns of the tIdalnvers or as flooded bays and swales.

Coastal ISlands are generally placed mtothree major groupmgs, based on geomorphology,area, sediment composition, and enVIronment ofdeposition. The claSSIC sea ISlands such asDaufuskIe, Hilton Head, and James ISlands, areerosIOnal remnants of coastal sand bodiesdeposited dunng the PleIStocene. Some, such asHilton Head, also have a ocean fnnge of beachdune ndges developed durmg the more recentHolocene penod. Barner ISlands, m contrast, arecomposed of alternatmg beach ndges and lowtroughs or lagoons onented roughly parallel to thepresent shoreline, deposited durmg Holocene highsea level stands. Marsh ISlands, such as RaccoonKey and Moms Island, are composed of ISolatedor WIdely spaced Holocene sand ndges surroundedby recent salt marsh. They are typIcally situated mthe filled lagoons behmd the barner ISlands,although they are also found frontmg the AtlantiCOcean where erOSIOn has removed the protectmgbarner ISlands.

6

James IS classified as a sea ISland. It ISsituated between Folly Island to the south andCharleston to the north. James Island IS separatedfrom Folly by the Folly RIver and frolll themamland by the Wappoo Creek, Elliott's Cut, andthe Charleston Harbor. It IS separated from JohnsIsland to the west by an expanse of marsh and theStono River (see Figure 2).

The ISland lacks beach access andtherefore have limited erOSIOn, largely confined tocreek banks. A notable exceptIon, of course, is theerosIOn which charactenzes the harbor exposure,which has hIStoncally lost over 200 feet. The islandIS 7 miles long and about 7 miles m WIdth,encompassmg about 11,000 acres of high groundand 4,800 acres of marsh -- makmg it the thudlargest South Carolina sea ISland, followmg HiltonHead and St. Helena.

ElevatIons on the ISland range from sealevel to 30 feet MSL while on Fort Johnsonelevations average about 10 feet, but range from 5to nearly 27 feet MSL. The tract IS basically a"penmsula," bordered to the north and northeast bythe Charleston Harbor, and to the southeast andsouth by marsh and tidal creeks. The westernboundary IS artifiCIal, reflectmg hIStonc propertylines. The property IS bISected east-west by a pavedroad which only very approXImately follows thehIStone locatIon of the Fort Johnson Road. To thesouth of thIS road, m the southwestern corner ofthe tract, the topography IS dommated by severalsand ndges paralleling the creek and marsh. To theeast and north the property becomes more level,although local rISes are still present and tend todommate the landscape (thIS topography is evenmore notIceable, and spectacular, when the tract IScleared of understory vegetatIon). The northeasterncomer of Fort Johnson has been extensIvelydeveloped, WIth a portIon of the penmsula bemgformed from recent ballast deposits.

The mean tidal range for James Island IS

SCALE IN MILES

-....l

CummingsPoint

~. -Pt:' :J:~'\~ -,.- J 0'lUU \)" \ ~\;<::::::: .. l~ ) 0. 1 # V q ar"n Cd, 7 2

~

1

3 4

approXilllately 5.2 feet, wIth a Spnng tIdal range ofapprmamately 5.9 feet. These tIdes generate strongcurrents m the tIdal mlets and major tidalchannels.

Geology and Soils

Coastal Plam geologIcal formatlOns areunconsolidated sedimentary depOSIts ofvery recentage (PleIstocene and Holocene) lymgunconformable on anCIent crystalline rocks (Cooke1936; Miller 1971.74). The PlelStocene sedimentsare organlZed mto topographIcally distmct, butlitholo~callysImilar, geomorphIc umts, or terraces,parallel to the coast. Kiawah Island IS classified byCooke (1936) as part of the Pamlico terrace, WhIChmcludes the land between the recent shore and anabandoned shore line 25 feet above present sealeveL He notes that the fine sandy soils aretypIcally underlam by a blue or gray somewhatsandy clay.

On an ISland such as James, water appearsto be plentiful, yet sources of fresh water arescarce. The pnnClpal deep water aquifers are thelimestone of Eocene age known as the SanteeFormatIOn and the sands ofCretaceous age, knownas the Pee Dee and Black Creek formatIons,although these are at depths of 400 to 500 feet and1600 to 2000 feet respectIVely. The SanteeFormatIon has been pumped so heavily that thereIS now a "cone of depreSSIon It with the result thatchlonde levels exceed 400 mgll m some areas (S.C.Water Resources ComnussIOn 1973:100).

Lynch et al. note that colomal wells rarelyexceeded 20 feet mto the sands WhICh were"everywhere saturated with the water WhICh itreceIVed from a ramfall averagmg 43.78 mcheseach year" (Lynch et al. 1882:258). Consequently,wells 12 to 15 feet deep proVided "an unfailingsupply of water of the very best quality" (Lynch etaL 1882:259). Water quality gradually declined asthe populatIon mcreased and antebellum wellsbecame deeper, although they rarely exceeded 60feet m downtown Charleston. One antebellumbnck-lined well on Damels Island, about 5.5 milesnortheast of Charleston, was only 10.7 feet ill

depth (Zierden et al. 1986:4-44). Cisterns, ill

common use throughout Charleston, could prOVIdevery safe, potable water, although LynCh et al.(1882:292-293) also found many of the CISterns m

8

Charleston "foul," eVldencmg hIgh levels ofammoma.

There IS extenSIve documentatIon of wellsbemg dug on the sea and barner ISlands by UnIOntroops durmg the Civil War. Copp noted:

m our camp at Hilton Head,every company had its well, bydiggmg through the sand to adepth of from four to SIX feet,empty barrels would be mserted,and the well as complete, withplenty ofwater although brackIShto the taste It was not as bad aswe were frequently obliged to usem our later campaIgns (Copp1911:94).

On nearby Folly Island Barlow remarked:

all the water used on the ISlandwas obtamed by diggmg belowtIde-mark and curbmg withbarrels. The finest and bestprotected well m camp was madeby cuttmg mto a sand dune andmakmg a wmding passage to thewater, thus placmg the watercontmually m the shade andprotectmg it from dust and dirtblowmg around the camp (Barlow1899:158).

It IS therefore clear that durmg the hlStonc penodwells were m common use, although shallow wellsprobably tended to be less healthy and more saline.

Another SIgnificant aspect of coastalgeology to be conSIdered m these disCUSSIOns IS thefluctuatIon of sea level dunng the late Pleistoceneand Holocene epochs. Pnor to 15,000 B.C. there IS

eVIdence that a warmmg trend resulted in thegradual mcrease ill PleIStocene sea levels(DePratter and Howard 1980). Work by Brooks etal. (1989) clearly mdicates that there were anumber of fluctuatIons durmg the Holocene. Therrdata suggest that as the first Stallings phase SItesalong the South Carolina coast were occupIedabout 2100 B.C. the sea level was about 4.2 feetlower than present. Followmg that penod therewas a gradual fall m the sea level to about 11.0

Figure 3. Sea level changes for South Carolina (after Brooks et a1. 1989).

A r- !' ~~ /A(\ / V I

"-./

/ f I II\ "

/ v I V" ,, "1 V

"

EARLY WOODlAND MIDDLE WOODLAND LAli WOODLANDIMISSISSIPPIAN1 I

2000 AD

formatIon of soils m the study area IS affected bythIS parent materIal (pnmarily sands and clays), thetemperate climate (to be discussed later m thISsectIon), the vanous soil organIsms, topography,and tIme.

While a range of soil senes occur onJames Island, only one IS found withm the FortJohnson tract. The Wando loamy fine sands arefound throughout the survey area and arecharaetenzed as deep, excessIvely dramed to welldramed soil that IS sandy throughout. The AphOrIZon, about 0.7 foot m depth, IS a dark-brown

The mamlandsoils are PleIStocene mage and tend to havemore distmct honzondevelopment anddiversity than theyounger soils of thesea and barflerIslands. Sandy toloamy SOlIspredommate m thelevel to gently slopmgmamland areas. TheISland soils are lessdiverse and less welldeveloped, frequentlylackmg a well-definedB honzon. Orgamcmatter IS low and thesoils tend to be aCldic.The Holocenedeposits typIcal ofbamer ISlands andfound as a frmge onsome sea ISlands,conSISt almost entrrelyof quartz sand WhICh

exhibits little orgamc matter. Tidal marsh soils areHolocene m age and consISt of fine sands, clay,and organIc matter deposited over olderPleIStocene sands. The soils are frequently coveredby up to 2 feet of saltwater dunng hIgh tides.Histoncally, marsh soils have been used ascompost or fertilizer for a vanety of crops,mcluding cotton (Hammond 1884:510) and AllstonmentIons that the sandy soil of the coastal regIOn,"bears well the admlXture of salt and marsh mudwith the compost" (Allston 1854:13).

1000 ADolOOOBC2000BC3000 BC4000 Be

~ 18o~ 21l:Q

~es 24r..

feet below current levels by 1850 B.C. Sea levelsgradually mcreased dunng the Thom's Creek phaseto a level withm about 2.0 feet of the currentstands by 1650 B.C. Followmg thIS was a secondlowermg about 1250 B.C., to a level of 9 7 feetbelow that of today The sea level mcreased

through the late Thorn's Creek phase to a hIghabout 2.8 feet below modem levels by 1050 B.C.Another low, about 9.7 feet, occurred at 350 B.C.after WhICh the sea levels tend to mamtam agradual nse to therr modem levels (see Figure 3).

Data from the nmeteenth and twentIethcentunes suggest that the level IS contmumg torISe. Kurtz and Wagner (1957:8) report a 0.8 footrISe m Charleston, South Carolina sea levels from1833 to 1903. Between 1940 and 1950 a sea levelrISe of 0.34 foot was agam recorded at Charleston.These data, however, do not distmguISh betweensea level nse and land surface submergence.

Withm the coastal zone the soils areHolocene and PleIStocene m age and were formedfrom materIals that were depOSIted durmg thevanous stages of coastal submergence. The

9

loamy sand overlymg a C1 horIZon of brown loamysand up to 2.8 foot m depth (Miller 1971:30-31).The season hIgh water table IS 5 or more feetbelow the surface (Miller 1971.Table 7).

Soil dramage may reasonably be expectedto Impact prehIStonc and hIStonc settlementpatterns, as well as cultIvatIon (and henceplantatIon wealth) dunng the antebellum penod.Plants such as mdigo and cotton requITe welldramed soils, while nce requITes flooding (andtherefore soils capable of holding the water)(Hammond 1884; Hilliard 1975; Huneycutt 1949).A number of penod accounts discuss theIDlportance of soil dramage. Seabrook explamed:

subsoil so close as to beIDlpefVlous to water; so that theexcess of the rams of wmtercannot smk. Nor can it flow off,because of the level surfaceThe land thereby IS keptthoroughlywater-soaked until latem the sprmg. The long contmuedwetness 15 favorable only to thegrowth of coarse and sour grassesand broom sedge aCid andantISeptIc qualitIes of the soilsponge-like power to absorb andretam water IS barren, (foruseful crops) from two causes ­excessIVe wetness and greataCidity. The remedies requITedare also two; and neither alonewill be of the least useful effect,with the other also. Drammg mustremove the wetness - calcareousmanures the aCidity (Seabrook1848:37).

Hammond expanded on thIS, mentlOnmg:

dramage has of necessityalways been practIced to someextent. The remarkably hIgh bedson which cotton IS planted here,bemg from 18 mches to 2 feethIgh, subserve thIS purpose. Thebest planters have long had opendrams through theIr fields. Thesewere generally made by runnmgtwo furrows with a plow and

10

afterwards hauling out the loosedirt with a hoe, thus leavmg anopen ditch, if it may be sotermed, a foot or more m depth(Hammond 1884:509).

Climate

John Lawson descnbed South Carolina, m1700, as havmg "a sweet AIr, moderate Climate,and fertile Soil" (Lefler 1967:86), although hetended to romanticIZe Carolina. In December 1740Robert Prmgle remarked that Charleston washavmg "hard frosts & Snow" charactenzed as Itagreat Detnment to the Negroes" (Edgar 1972:282),while m May 1744 Pnngle states, tithe weatherhavmg already Come m very hottt! (Edgar1972:685).

The major climatIc controls of the area arelatitude, elevation, distance from the ocean, andlocatIon WIth respect to the average tracks ofmIgratory cyclones. Fort Johnson's latitude of32°37'N places it on the edge of the balmysubtropIcal climate typIcal of Flonda, furthersouth. As a result, there are relatIVely short, mildwmters and long, warm, humId summers. The largeamount of nearby warm ocean water surfaceproduces a manne climate, WhICh tends tomoderate both the cold and hot weather. TheAppalachIan Mountams, about 220 miles to thenorthwest, block the shallow cold aIr masses fromthe northwest, moderatmg them before they reachthe sea ISlands (Mathews et a1. 1980:46).

The average hIgh temperature on JamesIsland ill July IS 81°P, although temperatures arefrequently m the 90s dunng much of July (Kjerlve1975:C-4). Mills noted:

m the months of June, July, andAugust, 1752, the weather mCharleston was warmer than anyof the mhabitants before had everexpenenced. The mercury m theshade often rose above 90°, andfor nearly twenty succeSSIVe daysvaned between that an 101° (Mills1972 [1825]:444).

Much of coastal Charleston normally expenencesa hIgh relatIve humIdity, adding greatly to the

discomfort. Kjerfve (1975:C-5) found an annualmean value of 73.5% RH, with the hIghest levelsoccumng dunng the summer. Prmgle remarked m1742 that guns lIsufferr'd wIth the Rust by Lymg soLong here, & whIch affects any Kind of Iron Ware,much more m thIS Climate than m Europe" (Edgar1972:465).

The annual ramfall on James Island IS 49roches, farrly evenly spaced over the year. Whileadequate for most crops, there may be penods ofboth excessIVe ram and drought. Kjerfve (1975 :C-8)notes that the Charleston area has recorded up to20 mches of ram m a smgle month and the ramfallover a three month penod has exceeded 30 Illchesno less than 9 tImes m the past 37 years. LikeWISe,penods of drought can occur and causeconSIderable damage to crops and livestock. Millsremarks that the "Summer of 1728 wasuncommonly hot; the face of the earth wascompletely parched; the pools of standing waterdned up, and the field reduced to the greatestdistress" (Mills 1972 [1825]:447-448). In 1818 thestreqIDS went dry. Another stgnificant hIStoncaldrought occurred m 1845, affectmg both the Lowand Up Country. The drought of 1848 caused suchlow fIVer flows m the Low Country that a tIdalsalinity mvaSIon severely damaged nce crops.

The annual growmg season IS 295 days,one of the longest III South Carolina. ThIS mildclimate, adequate ramfall, and long growmgseason, as Hilliard (1984:13) notes, IS largelyresponsible for the presence of many southerncrops, such as cotton and sugar cane.

Hilliard also pomts out that "anydesCflptlon of climate III the South, however bnef,would be mcomplete without reference" to ameteorolOgIcal event frequently Identified with thereglon -- the tropIcal humcane. Humcanes occurm the late summer and early fall, the penodcntIcal to antebellum cane, cotton, and ncegrowers. These storms, however, are caprICIOUS moccurrence:

ill such a case between the dreadof pestilence m the city, ofcommon fever ill the country, andof an unexpected humcane onthe ISland, the mhabltants areat the close of every warm season

m a pamful state of aDXlety, notknowmg what course to pursue,not knowmg what IS be to bedone (Ramsay, quoted mCalhoun 1983:2).

The coastal area IS a moderately hIgh nskzone for tropical storms, with 169 hurrIcanes bemgdocumented from 1686 to 1972 (about one everytwo years) (Mathews et a1. 1980:56). Table 1 liststhe major storms of the seventeenth, eIghteenth,and nmeteenth centunes.

The climate of the Charleston area,regardless of storms, temperature, humIdity, orramfall, was often VIewed as harsh and unhealthful,espeCIally for the white populatIon. Mills states:

the numerous swamps, bays, andlow grounds WhICh mdent the lowcountry, retam the waters that fallm rams; and m consequence ofthese, occasIOn thick fogsthroughout the nIght, dunng thesummer months. Under suchClfcumstances it IS a matter oflittle surpnse that fevers prevail.

The two fevers most dreadedhere, are, what are commonlytermed the country and yellowfever. The first IS peculiar to thecountry, and to aVOId it, theplanters are ill the habit either ofreSiding m Charleston dunng theSIckly season, or retUlllg to theSea Islands or Sand hills. Thesecond belongs exclUSIVely to theCIty, and IS generally fatal tostrangers only, who have not, as itIS termed, become climatlZed(Mills 1972 [1825]:140-144).

Expounding on the evil of the swamps, Mills alsoexplamed:

that to the extenSIve swamps andstagnant pools, which cover Itssurface, are we to attnbute thecause of our epIdemIcal diseases.The rank luxunance of vege­tatIon on these waste lands, therrperpetual mOISture, and the

11

thickets). Of these the Oak-Pine forests are mostcommon, constitutmg over half of the forestcommunities m the area. In some areas palmettobecomes an Important sub-dommant. TYPIcallythese forests are dommated by the laurel oak Withpme (pnmarily loblolly WIth mmor amounts of

longleaf pme) as the majorcanopy co-dominant.Hickory IS present,although uncommon.Other trees found are thesweet gum and magnolia,With sassafras, red bay,Amencan holly, and waxmyrtle found m theunderstory.

In the Mixed OakHardwood forests pine ISreduced m trnportance andthe laurel oak IS replacedby the live oak. Yauponholly and red bay ormagnolia are found in theunderstory. The Palmettoforests are charactenzed byopen palmetto stands withan understory of waxmyrtle, red cedar, Yaupon

holly, and magnolia. The Low Oak woods orthIckets are found as a band behmd the hIghdunes. ThIS aSSOCIation IS contmuous with the Oak­Pine-Palmetto forests. The mIScellaneous woodedareas mclude wax myrtle thIckets found in lowareas behmd the dune fields.

DamageFlooding, WUld damageFlooding, at least CJ7 deathsFlooding. perhaps 70 deaths23 shIps damaged or lost, forests leveledExtenSive flooding. damage, deathFlooding. extensIVe property loss7 foot storm tIde, 500 deaths lD SCSevere WlDds, tIdes, mueh crop lossExtensive crop losses, 300 deaths90 milelhour WlDds16 foot tIde. 700 deaths lD Georgla and SC21 deaths lD O1arleston, 125 mile/hour WInds17 to 19 foot storm tide. up to 2000 deathsFlooding. several deaths12 deaths, WlDds of 75 miJeslhOUI100 mile/boUI \IVlDds12 foot storm tIde58 miles/hour WInds lD Charleston

MajorGreatMajorMajorExtremeMajor C)GreatGreatMajorMajorMajorExtreme

ExtremeMajorMajorHumcaneHumcaneMajor

OassifieatlonLoeanonCharlestonClarlestonO1arlestonCharlestonO1arlestonCharlestonSavannahCbarlestonO1arlestonSavannahSavannahBeaufortO1arlestonCharlestonSavannahSavannahSavannahMyrtle Beach

operation of a powerful sun, pro­duce at certam seasons of theyear, m a degree mdeed ex­tenSIve, the rapId de-compositIOnof thIS vegetable matter: themIasma ansmg from thIS

decomposition contammates thesurrounding aIr, WhiCh afterwardsIS wafted by the wmds over thecountry, and pOISons, more orless, the whole atmosphere (Mills1972 [1825]:462).

Table l.Major Hurncanes Through the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centunes

DateAugust 25. 1686September 14/16. 1700September 5/6, 1713September 13/14, 1728September 15, 1752September 1784September 7/8. 1804August V. 1813September 27, 1822September, 7/9 1854August 27, 1881August 25. 1885August 27, 1893October 13, 1893September 28129. 1896August 31. 1898October 2. 1898October 31. 1899

Flonstics Mills, m the early nmeteenth century,remarked that:

James Island exhibits three majorecosystems: the marittrne forest ecosystem WhIChconSISts of the upland forest areas of the ISland,the estuanne ecosystem of deep water tIdalhabitats, and the palustrme ecosystems WhIChconslSt of essentIally fresh water, non-tIdalwetlands (Sandifer et al. 1980:7-9).

The maritIme forest ecosystem has beenfound to consISt of five prmcipal forest types,mduding the Oak-Pine forests, the Mixed OakHardwood forests, the Palmetto forests, the OakthIckets, and other mIScellaneous wooded areas(such as salt marsh thIckets and wax myrtle

South Carolina IS nch m nativeand exotIc productions; thevanetles of its soil, climate, andgeolOgical positIons, afford plantsof rare, valuable, and medicmalqualitIes; fruits of a lUSCIOUS,refreshmg, and nounshmg nature;VInes and shrubs of exqUISitebeauty, fragrance, and luxunance,and forest trees of noble growth,m great vanety (Mills 1972[1825]:66).

12

The loblolly pme was called the "pItch orFrankmcense Pine" and was used to produce tarand turpentme; the longleaf pme was "much usedm building and for all other domestIc purposes;"trees such as the red bay and red cedar were oftenused m furniture makmg and cedar was a favontefor posts; and live oaks were recognIZed as yIelding"the best of tlffiber for ShIp building;" (Mills 1972[1825]:66-85). Mills also observed that:

m former years cypress was muchused m building, but the difficultyof obtammg It now, comparedwith the pme, occaSIOns little of Itto be cut for sale, except m theshape of shmgles; the cypress IS amost valuable wood for durabilityand lightness. BeSIdes the twonames we have cedar, poplar,beech, oak, and locust, WhICh areor may be also used m building(Mills 1972 [1825]:460).

The "Oak and hICkory hIgh lands"according to Mills were, 'well suited for com andprOVISIons, also for mdigo and cotton" (Mills 1972[1825J:443). The value of these lands ill the IDld­1820s was from $10 to $20 per acre, less expensiVethan the tIdal swamp or roland swamp lands(where nce and, with dramage, cotton could begrown).

The estuanne ecosystem m the Vlcmitymcludes those areas of deep-water tIdal habitatsand adjacent tIdal wetlands. Salinity may rangefrom 0.5 ppt at the head of an estuary to 30 pptwhere it comes ill contact with the ocean or theopen harbor. Estuanne systems are mfluenced byocean tIdes, preCIpitatIon, fresh water runoff fromthe upland areas, evaporatIon, andwmd. The meantIdal range for James Island 15 5.2 feet, mdicatlVeof an area swept by moderately strong tIdalcurrents. The system may be subdiVIded mto twomajor components: subtIdal and mtertldal(Sandifer et a1. 1980:158-159). These estuannesystems are extremely lIDportant to ourunderstanding of both prehIStonc and hIStoncoccupatIons because they naturally contam a hIghbIOmass (Thompson 1972:9). The estuarme areacontnbutes vascular flora used for basket makmg,as well as mammals, brrds, fish (over 107 speCIes),and shellfish.

While shellfish are only bnefly itemIZed byMills ill the context of a food source, he elaboratesm hIS disCUSSIon of building matenal, observmgthat:

lime IS obtamed from bummgoyster shells. It makes a very goodmortar, where good sharp sand ISused, though it IS not equal to thestone hme (Mills 1972[1825]:460).

While the prlIDary hIStonc use of shellfISh mayhave been for the productIon of lime, the largenumbers of shell mIddens m coastal area clearlymdicate the 1ll1portance of shellfish ill theabongmal diet (see Tnnkley 1991:214-215).

The last enVIronment to be brieflydiscussed IS the freshwater palustnne ecosystem,WhICh mcludes all wetland ecosystems, such as theswamps, bays, savannas, pOCISms, and creeks,wherethe salinitIes measure less than 05 ppt. Thesepalustnne ecosystems tend to be diverse, althoughnot well studied (Sandifer et a1. 1980:295). It ISlikely, however, that small freshwater ponds will befound m vanous troughs scattered across theISland. Others may represent remnant freshwatersloughs WhICh filled and became maetlVe as the sealevels rose and therr gradients decreased. Anumber of forest types may be found m thepalustnne areas WhICh would attract a vanety ofterrestnal mammals. The typIcal vegetatIon mightconSISt of red maple, swamp tupelo, sweet gum,red bay, cypress, and vanous hollies. Also foundwould be wading blfds and reptiles. It seems likelythat these freshwater envrrons were of partIcular1D1portance to the prehIStonc occupants.

13

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC OVERVIEW

Previous Research At Fort Johnson

In late 1972 the S.C. Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) enteredinto discussions with the College of Charleston andthe S.C. Department of Wildlife and MarineResources (SCDWMR) regarding the continuingdevelopment of Fort Johnson. In a November 16,1972 letter then State Archaeologist Dr. RobertStephenson remarked that:

the entire area of Fort Johnson isnow on the National Register forHistoric Places. If there is anydanger to historic resources . . .we should have an opportunity toevaluate the potential loss and seeif there isn't a way to avoid suchas loss (letter from Dr. RobertStephenson to Mr. W.J. Keith,dated November 16, 1972).

By that time the ca. 1759 sea wall (forming part ofone of the early forts) had already sustainedextensive damage from the construction of a largelaboratory complex and placement ofmodem drainpipe. Plans were being developed for theconstruction of additional facilities by the Collegeof Charleston and the SCDWMR ("New Buildingis Planned for Fort Johnson Center, CharlestonEvening Post, October 27, 1972). Perhaps theseplans stirred local interest as well, since RobertStockton shortly afterwards also wrote an articlediscussing the difficulty dating the variousstructures at Fort Johnson and the need for morehistorical and archaeological research ("PinpointingFort's Date Tough," News and Courier, October 30,1972).

SCIAA eventually entered into amemorandum of agreement with the College ofCharleston (as well as presumably with SCDWMR,although no copy of that agreement could beimmediately located) to conduct about a month of

14

research on the site of the proposed construction.A proposal for the research with the College ofCharleston and the SCDWMR specified that thework was intended to be "testing and exploratory,"although it might also incorporate "major salvage"to allow the area to be "entirely cleared for theplanned construction at no further inconvenience"(Anonymous n.d.:l). While the procedures may beunusual by today's standards of "compliancearchaeology," twenty years ago such agreements bya wide range of archaeologists were all toocommon. The proposal is perhaps more importantsince it conveys information on the state ofknowledge regarding Fort Johnson at the time. Itis quoted at length for the historical perspective itprovides:

the sea wall is still to be seen onthe east and west sides of thepeninsula. It also extendedthrough the yacht basin where thewall was found during theexcavation for that feature.Judging from this, it would beexpected that the wall may befound beneath the yard of theMedical University property inthe area of the huge cistern . . . .

It was not possible to seeinside the "powder magazine"structure, but several importantobservations were made regardingthe exterior of this structure. Thestructure is of brick, rectangularin shape, with three [there areactually only two] buttresses onthe north and south sides. Theroof is of brick that has beencemented over, but this hascracked and allowed water andsoil to enter, and grass is nowgrowing there. Large cracks are tobe seen in several places, where

the pressure on the roof is forcingthe walls outward. This building isin serious need of repair to save itfrom rapid deterioration. Sincethis is the oldest and mostcomplete above-ground structurestill standing from the earlierhistoric period of the site, it isimperative that steps be takentoward saving this structure.

The interior of theoriginal brick structure has had athick liner of brick added tostrengthen and thicken the walls.This may have been done at thetime of the Civil War when theentire building was beneath asand embankment added toprotect the contents of thestructure, during the time itserved as a magazine. Thebuttresses on the exterior of thestructure were added at a timeafter the original building wasbuilt. In order to do this and toinsure a tight fit between theadded buttresses and the standingbrick wall, the bricks werechiseled out of the wall to allowthe buttresses to be tied into thewall. In doing this it wasnecessary to cut through thebricks in the wall, and thisevidence is clearly revealed in thearea where the buttresses join thebrick wall.

The question arises as towhat function the brick buildingserved originally, and since it wasknown as a "powder magazine"during the Civil War, this namehas tended to influenceinterpretations regarding its

.original use. The narrow slit forventilation on the side, and thesingle window at the end mightindicate that it served originally asa magazine, but it could also haveserved as a jail, which would needno more than a slit for ventilation

and a single window, provided thewindow is original (a point whichremains to be checked).l

No rectangular structuresuch as this is shown on theMoultrie Fort map of 1800,through there is a possibility thatthe structure is the prison or themagazine shown on this map,structures that stood about twentyor so feet apart. The fact that thestructure we now see isrectangular and the map showssquare buildings is not necessarilyan indication that the presentbuilding is not one of thesestructures, but it surely points toit not being one of the MoultrieFort buildings. This question issignificant in interpreting theearly fort maps, particularly the1800 map, in relationship to thepresent site. Archaeology here inthe area of this structure, to theeast, south, west, and north,should help toward interpretingthis structure in relation to theremains of other structures in thearea. It is suspected that this CivilWar "powder magazine" is astructure built in the period ofconstruction on the site after the1800 map was made. Thebuttresses may have been addedat the time of the Civil War,before the covering of soil wasadded. Such buttresses wouldhave insured that the brick wallswere strong enough to supportthe weight of the soil being usedto cover the building (Anonymousn.d.:1-4).

The proposal also specifies the work which was to

Subsequent historical research hasdocumented that this structure was a powder magazine,although it was always plagued by dampness.. Only inthe Second World War was it known to be temporarilyused as a military jail.

15

be undertaken by SCIAA.

1. To reveal anyarchItectural features m the areato the east and south of the "Hitshaped building between thatbuilding and the road.

2. To cut profile trenchesto the west, east, and north of the"powder magazme" to locatearchaeologIcal features and toproVIde an mterpreted date forconstructIon of thIS building.

3. To cut an exploratorytrench to the north of the uRu

shaped building to determme if atabby fort wall can be seen m thearea where rums m the marsh tothe east mdicate that it might be.

4. To cut exploratorytrenches to locate the tabby wallfound durmg recent mstallatton ofa telephone line.

5 To photograph allfeatures located and to plot theseon the master map of the site foruse m future correlatIon of thesite with the hIStone documents(Anonymous n.d..7).

The proposal, pared down from a monthto two weeks, was apparently accepted smce thework was conducted by SCIAA from May 21through June 1, 1973. The project conducted forthe College of Charleston was completed with afive page publicatIon a year later, m June 1974(South 1974). South obseIVed that the hIStonemaps "did not reveal any structures other than atabby wall to the west of the area underconsIderatIon" and that a 1865 watercolor of theSIte area showed the project area to be low andmarshy (South 1974:1-2). A senes of trenches wereexcavated, along with at least one backhoe cut.South found only scattered artifacts and theremams of several dramage ditches. He concludedthat, 'with thIS extenSIve testmg of thIS site carnedout it appeared that there was no eVIdence thatwould mdicate any extenSIve occupatIOn had

16

occurred ill thIS sectIon of the site, and thatconstructIon of a building here would not damagearchaeologIcal rums" (South 1974:4). In addItIon tothe research m the VIcmlty of the laboratorybuilding, South also bnefly mentIons that someadditIonal testmg was conducted "across the roadtoward to the east to the west of the watertank tower" where houses were proposed, and"near the entrance gate to the property, on thesouth SIde of the road" where a Food andTechnology Building was planned. While Southfound some eVIdence of the Civil War fortificatIonsm the former area, he adVISed that constructIon"should pose no major damage to the configuratIonof the works unless conSIderable bulldozmg wascarrIed out" and that "no major hIStone rum"would be damaged (South 1975b:4). The latterarea was "probed" and, finding nothmg, "thereappeared to be no reason why constructIOn couldnot proceed" (South 1975b:5).

The results of the testmg conducted forthe SCDWMR was published m October 1975(South 1975b). ThIS study prOVIded a synOpSIS ofFort Johnson's hIStory begmnmg with Its mceptionill 1708 and stoppmg Just short of its extensIVemvolvement m the Civil War. South detailed hISmvesttgatlons at the site and also workedextenSIVely to correlate the vanous maps,commentmg that hIS work was hmdered by theabsence of an accurate map of the project area(South 1975b:52). A number of researchconclUSIons and speculatIons can be scatteredthroughout the study, mcluding:

• South found a TPQ date of1798.5 for the constructIon of thepowder magazme.2 Based onpenod maps and additIonalstratIgraphIc clues, he veryreasonably suggested that themagazme was built durmg theWar of 1812 (South 1975b:32-35).

• South recovered thearchitectural and archaeologIcalremamS of the barracks built at

2 The termmus post quem. or TPQ. IS the dateafter whIch the building had to be built, In thIS caseabout 1798.

Fort Johnson perhaps as ·early as1790 whIch contmued to be usedthrough the Civil War, at WhIChtlffie they were "Officer'sQuarters" (South 1975b:42). Heattnbutes the CISterns to thIS useof the building.

• South suspected that the landface of the 1759 tabby fort wasnever constructed smce no attackby land was antICIpated, althoughhe cautIons that "the questIoncannot be answered withoutknowmg more about what ISgomg on beneath the groundrelative to the maSSIVe tabby wallremammg from thIS fort" (South1975b:52).

• South found that by overlaymgthe 1800, 1821, and 1849 mapsusmg the structure respectIVelyknown as the "U.S. Barracks,""Quarters," and "16 rooms" on thethree maps as the focal pomt, hewas able to predict or mterprelatethe location of a number ofadditIonal architectural features,including:

• Governor William Moultne's1793 fort,• the U.S. Battery of 1794,• the rums of the 1759 fort (asshown on the 1800 map),• the "Bake House" (as shown onthe 1800 map),• the "Hospital" (as shown on the1800 map),• the "Store House" (as shown onthe 1821 map) and the "8 roomstructure" (as shown on the 1849map) are suggested to theremams of the west end of therow of the "U.S. Barracks built

m 1796,"• the "HospItal" (as shown on the1800 map) IS suggested to be thesame structure as that shown ill

the same area on the 1849 map,

• the "Bake House" (as shown onthe 1800 map) IS suggested to bethe same structure as that shownm the same area on the 1849map, and• the humcane tIde line ofOctober 1 and 2, 1803 IS atVIrtually the same locatIon as thepresent tIde line.

South also suggested that basedon thIS map research, the CISternson the site likely dated to theconstructIon of the U.S. Barracksm 1796 and were placed at thecomer of a porch to collect ramwater from the roof (South1975b:46).

• South was also able todemonstrate that a senes ofcontours on the 1821 map arepositIOned "directly m the area ofthe survivIng tabby sea wall andcaponxer basttonette," suggestmgthat the bastlOnette was built asearly as the War of 1812, but by1821 was m rums, Just as it IS

today (South 1975b:49).

While all of these observatIons are ofexceptIonal Importance and will be referencedagam m latter sectIons of thIS study, it IS alsolIDportant to understand South's recommendationsregarding constructIon. His observatIons arereproduced below:

If the site were pnmevalwilderness today, havmg beenabandoned after the Civil War, itwould be a site so nch ill

potentIal for hIstOrIcaldevelopment and mterpretattonthat any Impact on such a settmgby modern constructIon would bea senous VIolatIon of the site.However, the recently constructedbuildings by the three presentowners, agenCIes of the State ofSouth Carolina, has [SIC] sodamaged the hIstOrIcal

17

development potentIal of the sItethat the enVIronmental, hIStoncalImpact of yet another buildingtakes on quite a differentperspectIVe than would be thecase were the hypothetIcalpflIDeval state outlined above stilleXlStmg. ThlS does not mean thatwe should Ignore the possibilitythat further constructIon willlikely damage histoncal-archaeologIcal values on thecontrary. It does mean thatthe owners have a more mtenseresponsibility toward the meagerdata that remams, for therecovery of thIS mformatlon IS notfor the purpose of publicInterpretatIOn through thedevelopment ofan hIStoncal park,but rather for the contnbution toknowledge that further excavatIonbeneath the Fort Johnson soilmay add to that we already knowfrom the written documents thathave SUrvIVed ill some abundance(South 1975b:53).

In 1975 the SCDWMR and the GeneralServIces AdmmIStratlOn contacted SCIAAregarding plans to construct the "SoutheasternUtilization Research Center"3 on a sandy ndge onthe southwestern edge of Fort Johnson. South(1975c) conducted a bnef reconnaISsance onSeptember 30, 1975, at the same tIme exammmg aproposed waste treatment plant. At the wastetreatment plant he obseIVed a:

CivilWar embankment contammga sally port m the lIllII1ediateVIcmity of the proposed plant.ThIS proposed locatIon IS

directly m front of, and but 20feet from, the sally port. It ISdirectly upon the spot wherefederal forces attacked the fort. Awaste treatment plant m thISlocatIOn would Irreparablydamage the hIStone value of the

3 Now usually known as the NOAA building.

18

Civil War defenses and would bea senous VIolation of the hIStonemtegrity of the SIte (South1975c:2).

ThIS waste treatment facility was constructed mspite of South's comments and without any furtherarchaeologIcal or hlStoncal mvestigatlOn.

Also of concern was SIte 38CH16,ongmally recorded by The Charleston Museum mthe 1930s. South also recorded another nearbyshell mIdden, 38CH275. In additIon to theprehIStonc sherds, South also found a smallcollectIon of eIghteenth and nmeteenth centurymatenal, probably aSSOCIated WIth the vanousmilitary occupatIons at Fort Johnson. He notedthat to the southeast of 38CH275 and east of38CH16 was an "artillery emplacement .constructed by the Confederates dunng the CivilWar" (South 1975b:3). He suggested that barracksnught be nearby, supported by the occurrence ofceramICS, bncks, and other refuse.

As a result of the mitIaI exammation of38CH275, South proposed a somewhat moredetailed mvestlgatlon:

a sampling of both the ndges[contaInIng 38CH16 and38CH275] and the low-Iymg areasaround them IS needed m orderto determme WhICh componentsarea present, therr tIme frame,and the extent of these remamswithm the area of SIte CH275 tobe destroyed by the constructIonactIvity. If such remams are foundto be extenSIVe and Important tounderstanding the cultural past ofthe site, mitIgatIon measures mustbe undertaken relevant to thesecultural resources (South1975b:4).

Specifically, South noted that it was Important tomvestIgate both ndges to allow a "compansonbetween these ndges," although it was equallylDlportant to mvestIgate the low-ground area tounderstand how perhaps earlier groups had usedthe enVlfonment (South 1975b:5-6). An additIonalgoal of the study would be:

the testmg of sampling methodsfor locatmg sub-surface sites. Thesampling of sItes usmg soilsampling augers and postholediggers will be explored, and thedegree of reliability of such amethod will be tested agamst fivefoot squares dug m the samelocatIon (South 1975b:7).

South also recommended that a "thoroughtopographIcal, and archaeologIcal, and hIStoncalsurvey" be made of Fort Johnson to allow thedevelopment of a master plan rather thanexplormg "one sIte at a tIme as IS now the case"(South 1975c:5). No such survey of Fort Johnsonwas conducted pnor to the current work byChIcora FoundatIon, nearly two decades later. InadditIOn, as preViously mentiOned, the wastetreatment facility was constructed over theObjectIons by South.

A study outlined by South for 38CH275,however, was apparently approved by theSCDWMR and the U.S. General SelVlcesAdmmIStratlon, and was conducted m Februaryand March 1976 (South and Widmer 1976). Itshould be realized that thIS study was umque forits tlffiet askmg baSIC methodolOgIcal ISsues,explormg survey approaches and results, andexammmg a sIte type about WhICh very little wasknown. The mtensIVe of the survey matches orexceeds surveys bemg conducted todayt nearly 20years later. Consequently, therr study hastremendous validity even today.

Consldenng the methodologIcal ISsuesSouth and Widmer were unable to determmewhether a random-aligned or mterval-alignedsampling strategy was better. They did, however,suggest that for denSity studies the Importantvanable was likely not the alignment approach butrather the number of samples, with larger samplesunderstandably prOViding vastly supenor resultsover smaller samples (South and Widmer 1976:20).They also found that posthole diggersoutperformed pod and gate augers t although shoveltestmg and power augermg would eventuallyoutdistance even posthole diggers. TheIrcomparISon of posthole samples to 3-foot test umtswas limIted to testmg "the vanability ill confidencewe can have m SYMAP mterpoiatlons of the

vanous artifact classes" (South and Widmer1976:24). QUIte reasonably they found that theclasses WhICh produce larger samples providebetter data than those classes for which there arefew samples. In other words, nail distributIons arebetter at predictmg hIStonc SIte locatIons than thedistributions of musket balls and oyster shellseemed better at predietmg prehIStonc occupatIonthan pot sherds.

The disperSIon of hIStone remamssuggested to South and Widmer (1976:35) that a"mid-nmeteenth century military occupatIon" wasconcentrated on the second ndge (lymg between38CH16 and 38CH275). ThIS correlated with thepresence of several "craters" thought to representwells aSSOCiated WIth the Civil War encampment.The distnbutIon of prehlStonc remams revealed apattern suggestmg that the densest portIon of thesite was not on the ndge Itself, but Just back fromthe ndge away from the tIdal marsh. Theresearchers suggested that "thIS locatIon Just overthe crest of the ndges IS a more sheltered one forconsummg oysters m wmter when cold wmds blowfrom the tIdal marshes" (South and Widmer1976:36, 38). Even the presence of small sherdconcentrations suggested "small campsites m theselow lymg areas behmd the hIgher ndges" (Southand Widmer 1976:38). The sampling program alsoallowed South and Widmer to Identify what wasmitIally thought to represent a smgIe componentHanover "oyster roastmg area or dwelling site"(South and Widmer 1976:40).

Additional excavatIons m thIS arearevealed a dense concentratiOn of shell mIddenabout 18 feet m diameter and about a foot mdepth. At the center was a Clfcular pit 5 feet mdiameter and 2.4 feet deep. Radiocarbon datesobtamed from the aSSOCIated oyster shell yIeldeddates of 180 B.C. and 150 B.C. (South andWidmer 1976:45). While no post holes or otherstructural eVidence was encountered thIS featurehas often been mterpreted as a Hanover[WiImmgton] house.

The artifacts produced several mtnguingtheones. One mvolved the use of clam shells aspossible tools, an Idea WhICh to thIS date has stillnot been adequately tested. At least one clam shellwas Identified WhICh appeared to have a groundsurface, while a number of additiOnal shells

19

appeared to the authors to have been mtentlOnallyaltered (South and Widmer 1976:46-56).Another mvolved the presence of specific actIVItyareas at the site. South and Widmer suggestedthat:

two distmct actIvity areas apartfrom the shell mIdden are locatedat the sIte: a presumedbutchenng/food processmg areaencrrcling the mIdden with anassoCIated fire burned area, andan occupatIOnal or actIvity area mthe provemences north of themIdden, yet adjacent to the firescorched area as well. The typesof actIVitIes assoCIated wIth thISarea are unknown (South andWidmer 1976:59).

In spite of these findings, South andWidmer remarked that: ''because of the nature ofthe data already revealed, no major mItigatIOn IS

recommended" (South and Widmer 1976:63). Theyalso remarked that on the southern edge of therrresearch frame, perhaps Just outSIde the area ofdirect constructIon Impact, there were:

a number of bnck chmmey-baseremams. These are from theoccupation of the site byConfederates and Federal forcesdurmg the Civil War. Such rumsare the remams of chlDlDeys madeof bncks salvaged from otherrums, probably combmed withwooded barrels or clay-lined stIckchmmeys of the type illustrated byEdwm Forbes who saw suchchmmeys m military quartersdurmg the Civil War (Dawson1957). A dozen such chImneyrubble piles were located withmthe research frame at FortJohnson. Histonans of the CivilWar penod may be extremelymterested m these rums m theyears to come.

Three of these chImneybases are wlthm the constructionarea and will be destroyed by the

20

construction of the building.Others are outSide theconstructIOn area, but some areso close that they may well bedamaged by constructIon actMtyunless care IS taken to protectthese rums. These rums shouldalso be protected from damage bylandscapmg and mamtenancecrews, as well as from vandalssearchmg for Civil War relics.

In the same area as thesechmmey bases are several craters"(about 20 feet across and 3-4 feetdeep) that appear to have beensurface wells that havesubsequently collapsed. It IS urgedthat these too, be preserved andnot filled m as they are part ofthe story of the garnsons of FortJohnson m the Civil War Penod.

Since these features are,for the most part, out of theactual construction area theeffects on them mIght beconSidered "secondary Impact."They are located m such relatIonto the constructIon area that they9ill. be preserved, without conflictwith the constructlOn. Ifconstruction actIvitIes cannot bedone without damage to thesefeatures or if landscapmg andmamtenance must destroy themthen additional archaeologIcalwork will be reqUITed to mitIgatethe adverse effect on thesecultural resources (South andWidmer 1976:63).

AdditIOnal concern regarding these CivilWar features was expressed by South, whoremarked that It was difficult for hIm to believethat the construction would not cause damage(letter from Mr. Stanley South to Dr. RobertStephenson, dated February 5, 1976). A letter tothe SCDWMR specifically called attentIon to theseremams:

I do call your attentlon to the

comments regarding nearby bnckchmmeys and "craters' While,mamly, these are not ill thedesIgnated constructIon areacautIon must be used to aVOiddamage to them as a secondaryeffect of the constructIon" (letterfrom Dr. Robert Stephenson toDr. Edwm Joseph, datedFebI1lary 9, 1976).

As will be discussed m greater detail m asubsequent sectIon of thIS study these featureswere not avoIded by constructIon and few, if any,could be relocated. It IS likely that most weredestroyed by either the constructIon or subsequentground modificatIon.

In additIon, durmg constructIOn of thefacility a cemetery was discovered on one of thendges (although the exact spot cannot today beIdentified). The cemetery was likely mISsed by thearchaeologIcal mvestlgatlons because of the lowdensity of aSSOCIated artifacts, the SImilarity of theassoCIated artifacts to the dispersIon of Civil Warremams, and the absence of human bone m therelatively shallow testmg. In fact, discovery of suchabandoned cemetenes IS very difficult and wasclearly outsIde the scope of the conducted survey.Apparently no effort was made to eithermvestlgate these bunals or mstitute a rebunalprogram. One employee of the SCDWMRmentIOned that the ''bones" were pIcked up afterhavmg been bulldozed from the site and werestored m cardboard boxes m the stanwell of theadmInIStrative building for several years. Some ofthe remams eventually made their way to Dr. TedRathbun, a forenSIC anthropologISt with theUnIVersity of South Carolina. He noted that thematenals were passed on to hIm under theUniform AnatomIcal DonatIon Act by theCharleston County Medical Exammer'sOffice afterthe retrrement of Dr. Joel Sexton, although he wasnot familiar with how the matenals came to theMedical Exammer's Officer (Dr. Ted Rathbun,personal communIcatIon 1994). His bnefexammatIon mdicates very fragmentary remams offour Afncan Amencan adults, mcluding threefemales and one male.

A more detailed study was conducted bytwo students, Mona Cantu and Jo Ann Allen, who

exammed the two most complete mdiVlduals.IndiVIdual 1, found to be between 18 and 22 yearsof age:

appears to have been a petiteblack female from coastal SouthCarolina,S' to 5'2" tall who wasat least unIparous. She was alsoprobably nght-handed and thelack of muscularity mdicates afarrly non-stressful occupatIon.The absence of Lmear EnamelHypopiasias and lines ofmcreased denSIty support aconclUSIOn that the mdividuallived a farrly healthy andunstressed life (Cantu and Allen1981.25).

IndiVIdual 2 was SImilarly a small, black femaleprobably 22 to 29 years old and:

about 4'911 to 5'1" tall. No massIVemuscle msertlons were noted,WhICh IndIcates a slightmusculature. However, thiSconclUSIon IS tentatIVe due to theabsence of several bones(espeCIally those of the upper armand grrdle). Poor dental healthmay pomt to a lower econonucstrata (Cantu and Allen 1981:41).

Summanzmg therr study, Cantu and AllenobselVed that:

the presence of coffin handles4

leads to the conclUSIon that atleast one of the mdiVIduals wasgIVen a formal bunal. Two of themdivlduals were small petitefemales with no eVIdence ofextreme musculanty, thus,probably not engaged ill a verylabonous occupatIon. These facts

4 Two speCImens of two lug swmg bale coffmhandles were mcluded In the collectIOn. ThIS style ISmost common pnor to 1880, but use did contmue mtothe twentIeth century (see Hacker-Norton and Tnnkley1984).

21

probably pomt to an mcomesomewhere above the povertylevel. There are postmortem cutson vanous bones. ThIS, as well asthe fact that the remams werecommgled, leads to the conclusIOnthat a plow or tractor of somenature massed over the skeletons(Cantu and Allen 1981:42).

They also bnefly noted that rrregular bony depositsat the center of the ulnar notch of both IndiVIdual2 and 4 'WhICh could possibly mdicate a familiallinkage" (Cantu and Allen 1981:39).

In 1989 several siteswere re-mventoned byPreservatIon Consultants (1989) as part of aNatIonal Park SerVIce Survey and Plannmg GrantadmmIStered by the S.C. Department of ArchIvesand History, with additIonal funding prOVIded byCharleston County. Unfortunately, the onlystructures mcorporated mto thIS study were theFort Johnson powder magazme (Survey Site #0880112), an unnamed beach battery (possiblyBattery Harleson) at Fort Johnson (Survey Site#2490083) and the Marshlands PlantatIon House(Survey Site #0890096).

PreVIOusly Identified ArchaeologicalSites on Fort Johnson

Six different archaeologIcal sites, witheIght discrete numbers, have been preVIouslyrecorded for the Fort Johnson facility. TWo sites,38CH16 and 38CH34, were ongmally recordedwith The Charleston Museum m the late 1920s bylocal mdivIduals who collected small quantiUes ofNatIve Amenca artifacts from the along the marshedge at the southwest comer of the current FortJohnson tract. The matenals collected mcludedDeptford and Wilmmgton sherds from 38CH34,and bone fragments and a "chert drill from38CH16 (38CH16 and 38CH34 sIte forms, S.C.Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,UnIversity of South Carolina). While unclear fromthe eXlStmg SIte records, the current study hasrevealed that these two numbers represent onlyone SIte. As IS common for mCldental reports suchas these, the recorders saw different portIOns ofthe same extenswe shell mIdden and recorded eachexposure as a different site.

22

38CH22, also recorded as 38CH74, IS oneof the more cunous sites recorded for FortJohnson. Filed m 1972, It descnbes the MarshlandsPlantatIon House, WhICh was moved to the facilityill December 1961 from Its ongmal Cooper RIverlocatIon ill the Charleston Naval Yard. While theplantation, and the assocIated house, had a longhIStOry, at its current secondary locatIon thestructure cannot legitunately be conSIdered anarchaeologIcal site.

Site documentation for 38CH69, alsorecorded as 38CH71, was completed m 1971. Likemany sites recorded durmg thIS penod we can onlyguess at the exact mtentions of the recorder. Whilethe form stlpulates a site sIZe of between 10 and 20acres, which represents only a fractIon of the FortJohnson tract, and that the site IS sItuated "on [a]pomt of land at north end of James Island Juttmgmto [the] Charleston Harbor," the descnptIOnsuggests the site was mtended to mcorporate notonly the early forts on the pomt, but also vanousCivil War fortificatIons much further mland. SuchcontradictIons are the result of the SIte bemgrecorded on the basIS of a bnef walkmg tour,absent any meanmgful survey. Other portions ofthe site form also reveal that so little was knownabout the complexities of Fort Johnson that noreasonable, or appropnate, managementrecommendatIons could be offered.

ArchaeolOgical site 38CH274, the martellotower on the north central portIon of the FortJohnson facility, was recorded m 1975, agam basedon a very limited exploratIOn. To further confusematters, the SIte form stipulated that 38CH274 IS"part of 38CH69 " No boundanes are provided bythe site form, so it IS unclear whether it wasmtended to mcorporate only the architecturalrums, or any additIonal ground.

The Native Amencan shell mIdden38CH275 was recorded m 1975, agam as "part of38CH69." No further mformation IS provided bythe SIte form and the study by South and Widmer(1976) must be consulted for additIonalmformation. Therr study makes it clear that theymterpreted 38CH69 to mcorporate the entITe 90acre tract, notwithstanding the recorded SIte form.In additIon, they describe 38CH275 as occupymg,"a ndge of sand lymg east-west, measurmg 100 feetWIde by 500 feet long, separated from the ridge of

site 38CH16 by a distance of 100 feet of lowground" (South and Widmer 1976:1). As therrstudy progressed it becomes ObVIOUS that theoccupatIOn was not confined to the mdiVldualdiscrete sand ndges, but extends illto themtervenmg trough, or low, areas, blurrmg theseemmgly easily defined boundanes between38CH16 and 38CH275).

Consequently, the site files for the FortJohnson area are perhaps better at documentmgthe evolVlDg attitudes toward site boundanes andsurvey approaches than m offermg any substantIvegUIde to the archaeologIcal resources. We havesynthesIZed from these discussIOns that 38CH69was ongmally Intended to proVide t1umbrella lt

coverage for all of the resources assoCiated WIththe hIStone occupatIon of Fort Johnson (regardlessof tIDle penod or nature), although there was aclear recogmtion that the prehlStonc resources,while overlappmg, were not necessarily part of38CH69

Prehistonc Archaeology

For the purposes of these disCUSSions theWoodland Penod begms about 1000 B.C., orunmediately after the Thorn's Creek phase (seeFigure 4). Most researchers call the penod fromabout 2000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. the Late ArchaiCbecause of a perceived contmuation of the ArchaiClifestyle m spite of the manufacture of pottery.Regardless of the termmology employed, thepenod from 2000 to 1000 B.C. IS well documented,although many of the technologIcal changes andmuch of the reorgamzatiOn of the culturallandscape IS only begmnmg to be fully realized,understood, and studied (see Sassaman 1993; seealso Tnnkley 1993 for a bnef reVIew of thIS earlypenod).

Early Woodland

Followmg the Late ArchaiC Stallings andThorn's Creek phases IS the Refuge phase, stronglyaSSOCIated With the GeorgIa sequence and theSavannah dramage (DePratter 1979; LeplOnka etal. 1983; Williams 1968). The Refuge Phase, datedfrom l070±1l5 B.C. (QC-784) to 510±100 B.C.(QC-785), IS found prIDlarily along the SouthCarolina coast from the Savannah dramage as farnorth as the Santee RIver (Williams 1968.208).

Anderson (1975.184) further notes an apparentconcentratIon of Refuge SItes m the Coastal Plam,particularly along the Santee RIver. The pottery 15

found mland along the Savannah RIVer (Peterson1971.151-168), although it does not extend abovethe Fall Lme (see Anderson and Schuldenrem1985:719; Garrow 1975.18-21).

The Refuge senes pottery IS SImilar mmany ways to the preceding Thorn's Creek wares.The paste IS compact and sandy or gntty, whilesurface treatments mclude sloppy slDlple stamped,dentate stamped, and random punctate decoratIons(see DePratter 1979:115-123; Williams 1968:198:­208). Anderson et al. note that these typolOgies are"marred by a lack of reference to the Thorn'sCreek senes" (Anderson et al. 1982:265) and thatthe Refuge Punctate and InCISed types aremdistmgul5hable from Thorn's Creek wares.Peterson (1971.153) charactenzes Refuge as botha degeneratIon of the preceding Thorn's Creeksenes and also as a bndge to the succeedingDeptford senes. There 15 a small stemmed bifaceaSSOCIated with the Savannah dramage RefugeSItes. ThIS type has been termed Groton Stemmedby Stoltman (1974:114-115) and DeptfordStemmed by Trmkley (1980b:20-23). Petersonsuggests that, "a change from the 'Savannah RIVer'to the small stemmed pomts, a dimmutlonbaSIcally, could occur durmg the Refuge" (Peterson1971:159), although pomts smilar to the SmallSavannah RIVer Stemmed contmue to occur.

While large Refuge shell mIddens, such as38JA61 (Leplonka et al. 1983), occur, a SIgnificantchange m the Refuge settlement pattern andsubSIStence base IS clearly eVIdenced. At the end ofthe Thorn's Creek phase a number of small, non­shell midden sites are found. ThIS pattern of smallsites, situated away from potentIal shellftsh sources,contmues m the Refuge phase (see, for example,Peterson 1971.164-168). Refuge pottery 15 commonon coastal SItes south of the Santee RIVer, but 15

usually found ill sandy buned soils with fewfeatures or orgalllc remams (see, for example,Tnnkley 1982 and the distributIon disCUSSIOns byAnderson et al. 1982:266).

It IS difficult to reconstruct the subSIStencebase, although the SItes suggest small, seasonalcamps for small groups (Trmkley 1982). Thesettlement fragmentatIon, which began at the end

23

SOUIllERN LOWER SANTEE NOR11IERN NORTIi CAROLINANORTIi CAROLINA VALLEY, GEORGIA COASf PIEDMONT

COAST soum CAROLINA(PHELPS 1983) (ANDERSON 1982) (DEPRATIER 1979) (COE 1964)

GUAlE__eJ;!AW~Y__ I

IDSfORICWACCAMAW ------- PEE DEE

ASI-U...EY ALTAMAHA

AD 1500 PEE DEE IRENEMISSISSIPPIAN

OAK UWHARRIE ··ISLAND JEREMY SAVANNAH ··SANTEE II Sf CATIIERINES

AD 1000 CLEMENTS

WILMINGTONSANTEE I II YADKIN

WILMINGTON IMCCLELlANVILLEAD 500

DEPTFORD III DEPTFORD IIMOUNT VINCENT

PLEASANTWOODLAND

AD DEPTFORD II DEPTFORD IBC BADIN

..._......._._....._..DEPTFORD I

DEEP CREEK IIISOO BC ------- REFUGE

DEEP CREEK II REFUGE II III

REFUGE IDEEP CREEK I REFUGE II1000BC -

mOGEI ·mOM'S ··CREEK II •·ST SIMONS II · AROWC··1500 Be - ····mOM'S ·CREEK I

ST SIMONS I

2000 BC -STAlliNGS

2500 BC -

Figure 4. CeramIc assemblages and cultural penods for the Carolinas.

24

of the Thorn's Creek phase, around 1000 B.C.,probably relates to the mcrease m sea level, froma Thom's Creek phase low of 10 feet below thecurrent hIgh marsh surface at 1200 B.C. to a hIghof about 3 feet below the current hIgh marshsurface at 950 B.C. (Brooks et a1. 1989). ThISmcreasmg sea level drowned the tIdal marshes (andsites) on WhICh the Thorn's Creek people relied.The followmg Refuge phase eVIdences thefragmentatIon necessary when the enVIronment,WhICh gave rISe to large sedentary populatIons,disappeared. Hanson (1982:21-23), based onSavannah Rwer data, suggests that subsIStencestress present durmg the Thorn's Creek phase mayhave resulted m an expansIon of the settlementsystem mto diverse envrronmental settmgs. Itseems likely; however, that the development ofmature, upland tnbutanes was also an essentialmgredient m thIS process. ThIS same Ifsplintenng"1$ observed on the South Carolina coast.

Middle Woodland

The Deptford culture takes its name fromthe type site located east of Savannah, GeorgIa,WhIch was excavated ill the nud-1930s (Caldwell1943:12-16). Deptford phase sites are bestrecognIzed by the presence of fine to course sandypaste pottery with a check stamped surfacetreatment. ThIS pottery IS typIcally m the form ofa cylindncal vessel with a coDOldal base. OtherDeptford phase pottery styles mclude cordmarkmg, SImple stampmg, a complicated stampmgwhich resembles early Swift Creek, and ageometnc stampmg WhICh conSISts of a senes ofcarved tnangles or diamondswith mtenor dots (seeAnderson et a1. 1982:277-293; DePratter 1979).

The Deptford technology IS little betterknown than that of the preceding Refuge phase.Shell tools are uncommon, bone tools are"extremely rare" (Milamch and FaIrbanks 1980:77),and stone tools are rare on Coastal Zone Sites. Allof thIS mdicates to some researchers that ''woodmust have been worked mto a vanety of tool types"(Milamch and FaIrbanks 1980:75). One type ofstone tool aSSOCIated with South Carolina Deptfordsites IS a very small, stemmed prOjectile pomttentatwely descnbed as "Deptford Stemmed"(Tnnkley 1980b:20-23). ThIS pomt IS theCUImmation of the Savannah Rwer StemmedreductIOn seen m the Thorn's Creek and Refuge

phases. Similar pomts have been found at a vanetyof Deptford sites (see Milamch 1971.175-176;Stoltman 1974:115-116, Figurd 20i-J, 40h-j). Alsofound at Deptford sites are "medium-sIZedtnangular pomts," SImilar to the YadkmTnangular pomt (Coe 1964:45, 47, 49; Milamchand FaIrbanks 1980:75-76). In the Savannah RIVerarea Sassaman et a1. (1990:156-157) report thatDeptford pottery appears much more stronglyassocIated with tnangular prOjectile pomts (Badinand Yadkm types) than with the small stemmedpoints. They note, "small stemmed bifaces areattnbuted to the Early Woodland penod with therecognitIon that they probably persISted mto thesubsequent penod but were rapIdly and thoroughlyreplaced by tnangular forms by 2000 B.P "(Sassaman et a1. 1990:157).

Perhaps of even greater mterest IS the co­occurrence of the larger triangular pomts (such asBadin and Yadkm) with smaller tnangular forms(such as Caraway) traditIonally attributed to theLate Woodland and South AppalachIanMisSISSippian penods. ThIS situatIon has beenreported at Coastal Plam sites (Blanton et a1.1986:107), Savannah Rwer sites (Sassaman et a1.1990:157), and Coastal Zone sites (Tnnkley 1990).Blanton et al. (1986) suggest that these pomt typeswere used at the same tIme, but perhaps fordifferent tasks.

Anderson (1975:186) has found Deptfordwares distnbuted throughout the South CarolinaCoastal Plam, with major sites at the mouths of theSantee and Savannah RIvers. The earliest date forDeptford, 1045:t110 B.C. (UGA-3515), has beenobtamed from 38LX5 m Lexmgton County(Tnnkley 1980b:11). The most recent date comesfrom St. Simons Island, Georgia, where a date ofA.D. 935±70 (UM-673) was obtamed. Milamchand FaIrbanks (1980:60) suggest a tighter range ofabout 500 B.C. to AD. 600, while Anderson et a1.(1982:281) suggest a date range of about 800 B.C.to A.D. 500.

Deptford sites on the South Carolina coastare often small, espeCially when compared to theearlier Thorn's Creek mIddens, and they areusually multlcomponent. Deptford Coastal ZoneSItes, while contammg shell, do not representmaSSIve mounds, but rather thm mIddens formedas senes of small shell heaps WhICh have been

25

deposIted adjacent to the marsh and graduallyformed contmuous masses. These heaps were theresult of short penods of site use, perhaps as abase camp for shellfish collectmg (see MilaOlchand Farrbanks 1980:72-73; Tnnkley 1981b). Resultsof soil chemIcal analyses from the Pinckney IslandmIdden (Tnnkley 1981b:53-54) suggest less thanmtenslve occupatIon. The chemIcal studies supportMilamch's assessment that occupatIon was not onthe shell piles, but adjacent to them (Milamch andFaIrbanks 1980:72-73; Tnnkley 1981b:53-54).

Milamch (1971.192-198; see also Milamchand Farrbanks 1980:70-73) suggests that theDeptford phase settlement pattern mvolves bothcoastal (Le., Coastal Zone) and mland (i.e.,Coastal Plam) sites. The coastal sites, WhICh arealways situated adjacent to tIdal creek marshes,eVIdence a diffuse subSIStence system. The mlandsites are also small, lack shell, and are sItuated onthe edge of swamp terraces. ThIS situatIon ISsmtilar to that found m South Carolina, althoughthere are Deptford nuddens WhICh exhibit a veryfocal subSIStence emphasIS (Tnnkley 1990). Sitessuch as Pinckney Island (38BU67 and 38BU168;Tnnkley 1981b) and Minm Island (38GE46;Drucker and Jackson 1984; Espenshade andBrockmgton 1989) eVIdence large Coastal ZoneDeptford occupations, while sites such as 38BU747(Tnnkley 1990) eVIdence only small, focal shellmIdden occupatIons. Sites such as 38BK984(Roberts and Caballero 1988) prOVIde eVIdence ofCoastal Plam non-shell midden DeptfordoccupatIon.

At Pinckney Island the bulk of the calonescame from shellfish while mammals played arelatIvely mSIgnificant role (Tnnkley 1981b:57-60).A slIDilar situatIon occurs at Min1lll Island(38GE46), where late spnng and summeroccupatIon IS documented with a reliance onfishmg, with mammals bemg a secondary, if notmmor food source. In the fall there IS eVIdence ofmtenslve oyster gathermg and possible use ofnearby hICkory masts (Drucker and Jackson 1984;Espenshade and Brockmgton 1989).

Inland, SItes such as 38AK228-W, 38LXS,38RD60, and 38BM40 mdicate the presence of anextenSIVe Deptford occupatIon on the Fall Lmeand the Coastal PlaID, although sandy, aCIdic soilspreclude statements on the subSIStence base (see

26

Anderson 1979). These mtenor or uplandDeptford sites, however, are strongly aSSOCIatedwith the swamp terrace edge, and thIS enVIronmentIS productIve not only m nut masts, but also mlarge mammals such as deer. Perhaps the best dataconcernmg Deptford ''base camps" comes from theLeWIS-West site (38AK228-W), where eVIdence ofabundant food remams, storage pIt features,elaborate matenal culture, mortuary behaVIOr, andcraft speCIalizatIon has been reported (Sassaman etal. 1990:96-98).

An often offered VIew of an estuarmeDeptford adaptatIon WIth romor mtenoroccupatIons must be re-evaluated based on theSavannah RIver dramage work of Brooks andHanson (1987) and Sassaman et al. (1990:293-295)who suggest larger reSIdential base camps andforagmg zones along the Savannah RIVer, coupledwith smaller, household reSIdences and foragmgzones ill the uplands along small tributanes. Whileit 15 not yet clear if these upland sites represent aperenmal settlement pattern or a seasonalfisslOnmg typIcal of the Late ArchaIC, it seemslikely that the pattern was equally affected bydemographIc pressures and external sOCIo-politIcalmfluences (see Sassaman et al. 1990:303-304). OfconSIderable potentIal SIgnificance 15 eVIdence oftrade between coastal and mtenor Deptfordgroups. For example, the LeWIS-West site(38A.K228-W) has produced eVIdence of sharks'teeth and whelk shells from the coastal regIOn.

The later Middle Woodland m SouthCarolina 15 characterIZed bya pattern of settlementmobility and short-term occupatIon. On thesouthern coast it 15 aSSOCIated with the Wilmmgtonphase, while on the northern coast it 15 recognIZedby the presence of Hanover, McClellanville orSantee, and Mount Pleasant assemblages.Wilmmgton and Hanover may be VIewed asregIOnal vanetles of the same ceramIC traditIOn.The pottery 15 characterIZed almost solely by Itscrushed sherd temper whIch makes up 30 to 40%of the paste and WhICh ranges m SIZe from 3 to 10mm. Wilmmgton was first described by Caldwelland Warmg (Williams 1968.113-116) from coastalGeorgIa work, while the Hanover descnption wasoffered by South (1960), based on a survey of theSoutheastern coast of North Carolina (WIthmcurSlOns mto South Carolina). The Wilmmgtonphase was seen by Warmg (Williams 1968.221) as

IUtruSIVe from the Carolina coast, but there IS

consIderable eVIdence for the mcluslOn of Deptfordtraits ill the Wilmmgton senes. For example,Caldwell and McCann (1940:n.p.) noted that, "theWilmmgton complex proper contams all of theIIlarn kmds of decoratIon WhICh occur m theDeptford complex with the probable exception ofDeptford Lmear Checkstamped" (see alsoAnderson et a1. 1982:275). Consequently, surfacetreatments of cord markmg, check stampmg,slffiple stampmg, and fabnc Impressmg may befound with sherd tempered paste. Anderson et a1.(1982) suggest that Hanover IS SImply a vanant ofWilmmgton m a type-vanety system, presentmg acompelling approach to deal with thIS typOIOgI<Al1overlap.

Sherd tempered Wilmmgton and Hanoverwares are found from at least the Chowan River mNorth Carolina southward onto the Georgia coast.Anderson (1975.187) has found the Hanover senesevenly distnbuted over the Coastal Plam of SouthCarolina, although it appears slightly moreabundant north of the Edisto RIVer. The heartlandmay be along the mner Coastal Plam north of theCape Fear RIVer m North Carolina. Radiocarbondates for WiImmgton and Hanover range from135±85 B.C. (UM-1916) from site 38BK134 toAD. 1120±100 (GX-2284) from a "WilmmgtonHouse" at the Charles Towne Landing site, 38CHl.Most dates, however, cluster from A.D. 400 to 900;some researchers prefer a date range of about 200B.C. to A.D. 500 (Anderson et a1. 1982:276).

Largely contemporaneous with the sherdtempered wares are the Mount Pleasant,McClellanville, and Santee senes. The MountPleasant senes has been developed by Phelps fromwork along the northeastern North Carolina coast(Phelps 1983:32~35, 1984:41-44) and IS a MiddleWoodland refinement of South's (1960) preVIOUSCape Fear senes. The pottery IS characterIZed bya sandy paste either WIth or WIthout quantitIes ofrounded pebbles. Surface treatments mc1ude fabncImpressed, cord marked, and net Inlpressed.Vessels are usually conOIdal, although SImple,hemISphencal, and globular bowls are also present.The Mount Pleasant senes IS found from NorthCarolina southward to the Savannah RIver (bemgeVIdenced by the "Untyped Senesll ill Tnnkley1981b). North Carolina dates for the senes rangefrom A.D 265±65 (UGA-1088) to A.D 890±80

(UGA-3849). The several dates currently availablefrom South Carolina (such as UGA-3512 of A.D.565 ±70 from Pinckney Island) fall mto thIS rangeof about A.D. 200 to 900.

The McClellanville (Trmkley 1981a) andSantee (Anderson et al. 1982:302-308) senes arefound pflffiarily on the north central coast of SouthCarolina and are charactenzed by a fine tomedium sandy paste ceramIC with surfacetreatment of prImarily v-shaped slIDple stampmg.While the two pottery types are quite SImilar, Itappears that the Santee senes may have laterfeatures, such as excurvate nms and mtenor nmstampmg, not observed m the McClellanville senes.The Santee senes IS placed at A.D 800 to 1300 byAnderson et a1. (1982:303), while theMcClellanvilleware may be slightly earlier, perhapsA.D. 500 to 800. Anderson et a1. (1982:302-304;see also Anderson 1985) prOVIde a detaileddisCUSSIon of the Santee Senes and its possiblerelatlonshlps with the McClellanville Senes.Anderson, based on the Santee area data fromMattassee Lake, mdicates that there IS eVIdence forthe replacement of fabnc Impressed pottery bysmple stampmg about A.D. 800 (DaVId G.Anderson, personal commumcatlon 1990). ThISstrongly suggests that McClellanville and Santeewares are closely related (or even IdentIcal), bothtypOlOgIcally and culturally. Also probably relatedIS the little known Camden Senes (Stuart 1975)found m the mner Coastal Plam of South Carolina.

Sand bunal mounds have been knownfrom the GeorgIa and southern South CarolinaCoastal Zone smce C.B. Moores mvestIgatIons m1898. Recent studies mclude those by theAmencan Museum of Natural History on St.Cathermes Island, Georgta, whlch document theEarly to Late Woodland use ofsand burIal mounds(Larsen and Thomas 1982; Thomas and Larsen1979), as well as the re-ffivestIgatlon of theCallawassle Island bunal mound (38BU19) illBeaufort County, South Carolina (Brooks et a1.1982; Tnnkley 1991).

Although it IS not yet clear whetherossuanes and sand mounds are found along theentrre South Carolina coast, nor IS there preCISedatillg or a thorough understanding of therrcultural SIgnificance, Wilson notes that, "the sandbunal mounds cannot be assocIated with any

27

one prehIStOrIC phySIcal type or abongmal group,"for m North Carolina they are found m the contextof probable IroquOlan, Siouan, and AlgonqumpopulatIons (Wilson 1982:172). The availablemformatlon, however, suggests a relatIVelyegalitanan SOCIety was common to all. Andersonsuggests that, "these mound/ossuary complexesappear to represent prmCIpal bunal areas for lncallineages or other currently unrecoglllzed SOCIalentitles" (Anderson 1985:56).

These later Middle Woodland CoastalPlam and Coastal Zone phases contmue theDeptford pattern of mobility. While sites are foundall along the coast and mland to the Fall Lme,shell mIdden sites eVIdence sparse shell andartifacts. Gone are the abundant shell tools,worked bone Items, and clay balls. RecentmvestlgatIons at Coastal Zone sites such as38BU747 and 38BU1214, however, have prOVIdedsome eVIdence of worked bone and shell items atDeptford phase mIddens (see Trmkley 1990).

In terms of settlement patterns, severalresearchers have offered some conclUSions basedon localized data. MichIe (1980:80), for example,correlates nsmg sea levels with the extenSIOn ofMiddle Woodland shell mIddens further up thePort Royal estuary. Scurry and Brooks (1980:75-78)find the Middle Woodland site pattemmg m theWando RIVer affected not only by the sea levelfluctuations, but also by soil types (see alsoTnnkley 1980a:445-446). They suggest that thestrong soil correlation IS the result of upland siteshaVIng functIoned as extractIon areas, pnnCIpallyfor exploitatIon of acorns, hICkory nuts, and deer.Shell mIdden sites, they suggest, also representseasonal camps and therefore exhibit small SIZe,low artifact density, and mfrequent re-occupatIOn.Ward's (1978) work ill Marlboro County suggeststhat mtenor site pattemmg changed little from theEarly to Middle Woodland. Sites contmue to befound on the low, sandy ndges overlookmghardwood swamp floodplams, WhICh suggests thatwhile pottery styles changed, site locatIons, andpresumably subSIStence, did not (see also Ferguson1976). Drucker and Anthony's (1978) work ill

Florence County, South Carolina reveals VIrtuallycontmuous short-term occupatIon along theterraces assocIated with the floodplam of Lynch'sLake. DePratter's (1985) work at the Dunlap site,however, suggests that a few, relatIVely stable

28

villages were present m the Middle Woodland.

Middle Woodland research m SouthCarolina has concentrated pnmarily on theabundant shell mIddens found along the coast.Vanous means of classifymg these shell middenshave been offered (Tnnkley 1991 has offered adescnptlVe scheme, while Espenshade et a1. 1993has offered what purports to be a more functIOnalmterpretatIOn), although It seems clear from thedebate that additIonal research IS necessary to fullyaddress both descnptlve and functIOnal questIons.Some aspects of Middle Woodland shell mIddenresearch have been outlined by Trmkley (1993) andTnnkley and Adams (1993), With tOpiCSconcentratmg on a WIde range of ISsues:

• The ceramICS themselves can beexammed for mformatIon on km­based groups usmg cordageanalysIS at an mtrasite level,companng matenals between avanety of discrete midden piles.Similar analysIS can also beaccomplished usmg chemIcalanalysIS of the paste, perhapsconcentratmg on a small array oftrace elements.

• ChemIcal analyses of thepottery may prOVIde clues to theclay sources, WhICh m tum mayprOVIde mformatlon regardingseasonal (or other) rounds. Theseanalyses may also be able, oncethere IS a suffiCIent data base, toproject the limIts of differentgroups.

• Both chemIcal analyses andcordage studies may be useful torefine typologIcal ISsues, espeCiallywhen conducted ill additIon tomore traditIonal paste studies.For example, thIS battery ofanalytIC approaches may be ableto refine our understanding of thearray of clay and grog temperedWilmmgton, Hanover, and St.Cathennes pottery Perhaps thereIS good reason to reVIew the

Mattassee Lake report (Andersonet a1. 1982) and adopt a type­vanety system.

• Even usmg different analyticapproaches, such as the conceptof estImated vessel equIValence,may provide a betterunderstanding of mter andIntraslte ceramic dIVerSityLikewIse, makmg completecordage analysIS a standardfeature of all studies would assIStm allowmg others to adopt acolleagues work to new anddifferent theoretIcal approaches.

• Radiocarbon datmg, based onrelatively large charcoal samples,could be used to date a vanety ofdiscrete shell middens wlthm onesite, with 10 to 20 dates refinmgour understanding of sitefunction. It might be possible toIdentify sufficient charcoalsamples from distmct levels withmthe midden to allow for begmnmgand ending dates for mdiVldualmIddens (acceptmg one or twosIgIlla deVIatIOns), prOVIding evencloser temporal control. Further,each charcoal date could becompared to a shell date from thesame midden ill an effort todevelop better alternatives whenthere IS msuffiClent charcoal for areliable date.

• Pollen analysIS at mdiVldualmiddens could explore the natureof site vegetation, testmg foreVIdence of site disturbance,second growth or weedy species.ThIS mformatIon might betterhelp us understand how, and howmtensIVely, the sites were used.Such studies could be combmedWith more tradItionalethnobotanlcal research toIdentify wood species for cross­checkmg.

• IncorporatIon of additIonalshellfish studies may be able tofurther refine OUf understandingof seasonal use, espeCIally whenseveral seasonal mdicators areused as cross-checks from discretemidden areas. It may also beuseful to examme middens on ashellfish assemblage basIS 1D aneffort to reconstruct specificecotonal use areas.

There seems to be ample eVldence that there IS

still much to learn from coastal shell mIddens.Viewed from a different perspectIVe, we are noteven close to the pomt of redundancy at thesesites.

Late Woodland

In many respects the South Carolina LateWoodland may be charaetenzed as a contmuatlonofpreVIous Middle Woodland cultural assemblages.While outside the Carolinas there were majorcultural changes, such as the contmueddevelopment and elaboratIon of agnculture, theCarolina groups settled mto a lifeway notappreCIably different from that observed for thepreVIous 500 to 700 years. ThIS situatIon wouldremam unchanged until the development of theSouth AppalachIan MisSISSippIan complex (seeFerguson 1971).

Sassaman et a1. (1990) echo the belief thatthe Late Woodland eVIdences relatively littlechange from earlier penods, observmg that it "isdifficult to delineate typolOgically from itsantecedent of from the subsequent MisSISSippianpenod," but that the best typolOgIcal break may be"the decline m stamped Deptford wares at about1500 B.P" (Sassaman et a1. 1990:14).

Along the central and northern SouthCarolina coast, Anderson et a1. (1982:303-304)suggest a contmuatlon of the Santee senes mto theLate Woodland. The Hanover and Mount Pleasantsenes may also be found as late of A.D 1000.Along the southeastern North Carolina coast,South (1960) has defined the Oak Island complex,which IS best known for its shell tempered ceramICSwith cord marked, fabnc 1IIlpressed, smple

29

In spite of the threat and a failedlegISlatIve attempt to build a fortificatIOn as earlyas 1703, Mustard clearly demonstrates that theongmal fort on Windmill Pomt was notconstructed to guard the harbor entrance until1708 (Mustard 1963:130). He notes that of theongmal act only the sectIon regarding the fort,entitled "An Act for the building a fortificatIon onWindmill Pomt, and to barr and lay Booms crossthe Channel of Ashley RIver and to case upTrenches along the White Pomt and othernecessary Places, and, to PrOVIde a Public Store ofPrOVISIons, AmmunitIon and small Arms, and todraw Money out of the Publik Treasury to defraythe Charges of Same," has fortuitously beenpreserved (see Trott 1736:153). Amanuscnpt letter

In the late seventeenth andearly eIghteenth centUrIes the area nowknown as Fort Johnson was calledWind Mill, Windmill, or Mill Pomt and"the Windmill" IS shown on MaunceMathews' 1697 Carte Partlculiere de laCaroline (Figure 5). ThIS tract waslikely granted to William Russell m1694, although neither the warrant northe grant for the 100 acres specifies theactual location (Salley 1915:58).Russel, however, sold "a plantatIonContammg one Hundred Acres of Land

known by the name of Mill Pomtbemg on James Island" to John King m1704 so It IS reasonable that the earliergrant was the same parcel (S.C.Department of ArchIVes, Records ofthe Secretary of the ProVInce: Grants1704-1709, Vol. D, p. 67). Since Kingalready had possessIOn of the tract at

the time of the grant It IS likely that he had leasedthe plantatIon the year before, suggestmg that hewas already engaged ill agrIcultural actIVIties. InAugust 1706, durmg Queen Anne's War (1702­1713) a combmed French and SpanISh forcesattacked Charleston. When thIS was unsuccessfulthey attempted landings, mcluding one on JamesIsland where they burned a structure. Theseattacks were also repulsed with the Colonymflictmg heavy losses on the expedition (Wallace1951.75). Afterwards a number of planters claImedlosses, mcluding one by King for £30 (Mustard1963:134).

.J4CfTT1 ~

Figure 5. Windmill Pomt shown on the 1697 Carte Partzculiere de laCaroline.

A Historical SynopsIs of Fort Johnson

stamped, and net Impressed surface finIShes. Thephase IS bnefly discussed by Phelps (1983:48-49),but cunously thIS manifestatIon 1$ almost unknownsouth of the Little RIver m South Carolina. Verylittle IS known about the northern coastal SouthCarolina Late Woodland complexes, although SItessuch as 38GE32 may document the occurrence ofvillage life m the Late Woodland.

There are a number of general oveTVlewsor secondary sources for the hIStOry of FortJohnson, m partIcular the reVIew of Fort Johnsonby Courtenay (1883), the early hIStOry of ItsconstructIon by Mustard (1963), the details on theevents there durmg the Civil War prOVided byBurton (1970), and the general synthesIS prOVidedby South (1975b). Preservation Consultants (1989)offer a synthesIS of James Island hIStOry WhICh IS

partIcularly mterestmg and useful to place the localevents m a WIder context. While thIS study hasmtegrated a number of prImary sources, mcludingsome materials from the NatIOnal ArchIves, thereare a tremendous number of prImary sources WhIChhave not been mcorporated because of either theproJect's tIme frame or the cost of the additIOnalresearch. Areas of future research, however, arerecommended at the conclUSIon of thIS sectIon.

Eighteenth Century ActIVIty at Fort Johnson

30

r17,1708rb Jur IS a,)) eS Shottw !)uilding

whichark of the

\)lL Office2(}3-210).

'nr1ete by:h> House

to the Board of Trade, dated Septer;explamed, "at the entrance to the J

place called Windmill Pomt withm carof which all vessels must pass by, IS

and almost finIShed a tnangular forwhen finIShed will be the key and bl:Provmce" (Records m the BntlSh }Relatmgto South Carolina 1701-171(,The fortifications were certamly ,February 1709 when representatlVes

jI'/,:

.J A .t11'; .\' I.1I. A " /)

~J

(0

appraISers to value hIS "house and land thereuntobelongmg, conslStmg of 100 acres, or thereabouts,as also some damage done to the Crops of the saidKing by negroes employed by the public lastSummer" (Mustard 1963:131). The appraISal cameback at £140, WhICh presumably was eventuallypaId.

The hIStOry of the fort dunng the first halfof the eighteenth century was relatIvelypeaceful. A May 7, 1709 statuteestablished a guard of a Captam,LIeutenant, and 12 men (Cooper 1837'333). A road was ordered cleared andbuilt from Fort Johnson to "causeyleading to Wappoo Bndge" m 1719(Cooper 1838:111:103). ThIS IS likely thesame road shown on the CharlestonHarbor mset of Mouzon's 1776 AnAccurate Map of North and SouthCarolina (Figure 6). By 1723 the guardwas bemg encouraged to "clear, fence,plant prOVISIons, make gardens andother Improvements to theIr ownproper use," likely to encourage themto stay close to the fort and also toreduce the cost of upkeep (Cooper1838:III:236).

Figure 6. Fort Johnson shovm on Mouzon'c 1776 map.

VISited the site, although it was not until P. Jri! thata commander, Captam Jonathan Dra:e, wasselected (Mustard 1963:121). While it IS u'lcertamwhether all the armament was actually p'-oVlded,the "New Fort at the entrance of the H;mor onMill pomt" was allocated, "16 Guns Cann'D 42lbsShott" and "12 Demi Cannon6 36 lb Shott"(Mustard 1963:131). It was also not utiI May1709, however, that the ISsue of compensatmgJohnKing for hIS plantation was brought up. At thattIme King appeared before the House andrequested £300. In reply the House sent out

5 Carbme or carabme, IS a kmd of fire-arm,shorter than the musket and often used by t"e cavalryand other troops.

6 As the name Implies. the demI-cannon has asmaller bore than a cannon.

On June 12, 1724 theCommons House received a report onthe conditIon of Fort Johnson. They

found the carnages, arms, and ammunItIon all In

good order, although the fort itself was showmgconSIderable SignS of detenoratton. Specificallythey reported that:

it IS absolutely necessary Thatlarge QuantitIys of Ballast StonesShould be thrown at the foot ofthe Piles of the Battery WhICh theCommittee are of Opmlon IS theonly way for effectually preservmgthe same agt

• all Hurncanes andIncroachments of the Sea. theNorth East Pomt Ought to beSecur'd with Pine Saplins, Marshmudd & Oyster Shell a Lare ofeach m the same manner IS

already done WhICh they find tostand fIrm and good, and that the

31

same be forthwIth done beforethe hurrIcane tIme approaches.

several BastIons ought to befloar'd wIth Cypress plank & ShIpCarnages made for the Gunsthermo the Parts m theBattery ought fortwith to be fac'dwIth Bncks and Cypress pland.

that two wells ought to be Sunkm the Battery for the use of theGreat Guns m case of anEngagement. upon reVIewmgthe Magazme find it unfett topreserve powder wIthout somemore effectual method be takenby makmg Draught for AIr asshall be thought proper bymakmg Funnels for an Inlett tothe same. Cpt HouseArmoury and Store Roomought to be RalS'd Eight foothIgher, Convement Windows puttm to gIVe AIr to the Arms (Salley1944:29-30).

The next day the Commons House receIved aproposal made by Arthur Hall to secure thenortheast bastIon of the fort. Specifically hesuggested makmg:

a Mudd Wall Eighty feet LongTwenty feet WIde Six foot ofWhICh to be solid Mudd & theRemr of Timber & Oyster Shellsthe saId Wall to be Six foot hIghthe Front whereof to be securedby piles drove m the Ground forWhICh ConSIderatIon doe expectthe Sum'e of Two hund'd & fiftypounds & the pnvilege of gettmgthe Timber that's wantmg for thes'd Worck off the Publick's Lands(Salley 1944:37).

By the next year the reVIew commIttee found littlepositive change, suggestmg that Hall's proposal wasrejected:

32

plank of the EmbrazIer7 on thebattery IS mtrrely gone & greatpart of the mudd wall washedaway & that the Com'ittee are ofopmlOn great part of theremamder will likewISe be carnedoff. The Com'ittee are of OpmlOnthat between the Pallasadoes ofthe outward breast work be filledup WIth oyster Shells from thepomt adjommg to the Fort. Thatthe breach m the North east pomtstill IS unrepaued & grows worseby every storm so that there IS anabsolute neceSSIty for repamngthereof & Ballast as shell thrownbefore it to protect it form theencroachmt. of the Water. Thatthe South West BastIon IS m greatdanger; if not timely secur'd Withlarge ballast & other out works.That there IS an absoluteneceSSIty of an lII1lIlediate reparr,of the dwelling house there bemgnothmg done smce the last View.That outward draw bndge IS

mtrrely rotten. That the gun'sought to be lifted to See whatConditIon the carnages & Axselthrees are m; & that themagazme IS not a fit place tokeep any quantity of powder m.

that Ladles Ram'ers &Spunges8 are Wantmg (Salley1945:50-51).

ThIS plea for repaIrs was taken more senously and£634.2.0 were appropnated for at least some of theneeded reparrs (Salley 1945:69) although CUrIously,thIS seems to have had little Impact.

7 Embrasure, an opemng, WIdemng fromWIthm, made In the parapet for the purpose of allOWInga gun to be fired through It.

8 The sponge was used to clean the barrel andextmgulsh sparks WhICh mIght remam from the preVIOUScharge. The ladle was used to measure the correctcharge of powder. The rammer was used to ram thecharge horne, or compact It.

In 1726 the Commons agam heard of theproblems at Fort Johnson and the committee'sreport IS quoted at length below'

First m the N .E. Bastlon9

A Gun of Six pound called thesIgnal Gun the carnage broke.1 of 3 lb m Camage much honeycomb'd, Flaft staffFlagg and Pendant.In the Curtam10 between the N.E.BastIon the Tenaillell on theN.W Angle of the Fort.

2 gun's of 6 lb: each ill

carnages m good order1 of Ditto carnage broke

and dismountedIn the Tenaille

1 Gun' of 2 lb:dismounted & an old carnageIn the S.W BastIon

1 Gun' of 2 lb: m acarnage m good orderWithm the Fort between 15 and16 rounds of Round and BarrShotta Cooper ladle for the 12 lb:Gun }12 Spunges & Ram'ers }In Good order1 Worm12 40 launces }12 small Arms }12 Cartouch boxes filled as theCapt. says12 DO. empty

9Diamond-shaped bastIons allowed cannons tobe pOSItioned so as to create a deadly cross fire Wlththose In an adjacent bastIOn.

10 TIus IS the plaIn wall of a fortificatIOnconnectIng two bastIons.

11 Tenaile, a small low work conSIstIng of oneor two re-entenng angles placed before the curtaIn wallbetween two bastlOns.

12 ThlS was a corkscrew-like deVIce used toremove unburned fragments of cartndge wrappIngs.

20 Hand Spikes13, defectIVe

In the Magazme60 lb: of powder, but

dampIn the Battery

15 Gu'ns of 12 lb & 9 Ib1 dismounted 3 carnages badThe Condition of the FortFront of the Battery much Sunk& the work read to fall to pIeces,The Embrasseurs qUIte gone &the Platt form so rotton cannotbe used, so that there IS alID'mediate necessity for thISwhole work to be through outrepaIred.The foundatIon of the N.E.comer of Ravelin14 before thedraw bndge undermmed and thework down. The Pallasadoes mthe Ditch & the other parts of theFart mostly decayed.The bndge gomg mto the Ravelinwants much repaIr & the frame ofthe Gate and Draw bndge m Sd.

Ravelin must be mtrrely new, theParapett of that work IS quitelevel it havmg been leftunfinIShed when the last RepaIrSwere made; The bridge leadingfrom the Ravelin mto the Fort ISm pretty good order requrrmgonly two or three new Planks butrope IS wantmg for Pullies to themner draw bndge.The Parapett of the S.W Bastion& some part on the Tenaille ISstill unfinIShed & severall of theParapetts round the Fort must berepaIred it havmg been muchshaken by finng of the Gu'nswhile the work was new.Platforms for all the Gun's withmthe Fort are wantmg -----

13 These were most likely bars used as levers totram the pleces by mOVlng the carnages from Slde toSIde.

14 ThIS lS a tnangular over work shIelding thefort's entrance from enemy fire.

33

Figure 7. ArtIst's reconstructIOn of the first fortifica tion at Fort Johnson(after Irvers 1970).

The Guard house m good RepaIr& the Capt. house raISed and maybe finIShed.Cartndge paper & match & 6sIZable ladles are wantmg a Ginto mount several of the Gu'ns.If the Magazme ofJohnson's Fortwas filled m about three feet wIthbnck & alI funnels make 'twouldprevent the damp WhICh distroysthe powder kept there.The Captns: account of expenee ofpowder not ready but promISes tolay it before the Com'ittee m twoor three days.The Front of theBattery & Plattform to be mterelynewThe FoundatIon ofthe RevelinrepaIred. The severalParapetes to befinIShed, New Plattforms to be madewithm 4000..0..0

the Fort. The gateof the Ravelin to benew & the DrawbndgerepaIredThe Pallisadoes roundthe Fort all new &ten new Carnages aNew Gin &ca

For two Pernagoesto secure the ballastfor the servIceof the several parts

34

of the FortificatIons &Johnsons Fort500..0..0(Salley 1946:78-80).

These detailed accountsallowed Ivers to reconstruct theappearance of thIS first fortificatIon,although at least some of the detailsare speculatIve (Figure 7):

the tnangular shapedfort sat on a low hillat the harbor's edge.

A moat surrounded the structureon the land SIde, and the mudfrom the moat, alternated WIthlayers of pme saplings and oystershells, formed the wall. A palisadewas planted along the bottom ofthe moat. At each comer of thewall was a bastIon with mountedcannons. The entrance to the fortwas protected by a ravelin, adetached 'V" shaped earthen walland palisade. A drawbndgespanned the ravelin's moat andanother spanned the pnnClpalmoat between the fort andravelin. Guarding the harborentrance was a battery of heavycannons constructed at the fort'sbase, or harbor side, several feetlower than the fort Itself. Thebattery wall, constructed of earthretamed by dnved piles wasprotected from the sea by a largenumber of ballast stones.Although the number and

composition of buildings mSIdethe fort vaned from decade todecade, there was usually acommander's house, a barracks, aguardhouse, a magazme, and astorehouse. The houses wereconstructed by sldemg a frame ofheavy, hewn tIDlbers WIthclapboards and roofing it withshmgles. Durmg most of thecolonIal penod the barracks wereprobably crude, post-framed, andclapboard-SIded huts havmg

earthen floors (Ivers 1970:26).

A drawillg of the fortificatIon, made m 1737,reveals how accurate Ivers descnptIon IS (Figure8). The drawmg, commISSIoned by theConmllssioners on Fortifications, also reveals thatthree structures were present, the Captam's House,the "Old Barracks,1I and the powder magazme.

Not only was the fort almost always ill

poor conditIon, but at least one of its commanderswas embroiled m controversy. Captam JamesSutherland was appomted to command the fort m1722, but was removed by the South CarolinaCouncil ill 1729 Sutherland remarked that he wasdischarged ''without any regard to my past ServIcesor any Just Reason or Complamt ll and the positionwas IIsold to a Hatter who IS an utter Stranger notonly to Military DISCipline, but to the Use &almost Name of Armsll (letter from JamesSutherland, ca. 1729-1730, South Carolina HistorualMagazzne 68:81). He eventually receIVed a RoyalCommISSIon and was remstated, only to beremoved agam m 1737 after a Commons HousemvestIgation found the fort and equIpmentdilapIdated, the soldiers either ill-eqUIpped orabsent from theIr posts, and Sutherland·'s two-year·old son on the muster role (Ivers 1970:52). Theaccount of the fort mdicated that it was "in arumous and defenseless ConditIon." It noted that:

there are at Present lodged ill thesaId Fort 190 Dutch twelve poundShot, unsIZable for the Cannonbelongmg to the saId Fort, 60Twelve pounds SIZable, 170nmepounds Shot, 28 SIX pounds Shot,30 lbs. of Powder, two Pieces ofCannon fit for semce and 19unfit. the Guns upon theupper Platform are grown rustyand unfit for ServIce, throughNeglect of the CommandingOfficer. the CarrIages arevery much lIDparred for Want offrequent movmg, and that theShot lay buned m Sand, and bythat Means have contracted somuch Rust that they can't withSafety be made Use of (Easterby1951.234).

Thomas Brougton came to the defence ofSutherland, askmg the Assembly·

conSIder with me, that as the lastHumcane made such greatDestructIon of that Fortress, aswell as ill the Buildings &c, as mdismountmg and burymg theGuns m the Sand; it cannot beexpected he could put the Sameill Order without bemg enabledand directed, WhICh cannot findhe has been (Easterby 1951.273).

Broughton also added an additIOnal plea that theAssembly also conSIder lithe movmg Cercumstancesof hlIDSelf and Family.1I Somehow SutherlandsUTVlVed the charges he was agam remstated ill1739, only to die m 1740. While he receIved hISback pay of a little over £81, the Assembly refusedto pay hIS estate the £200 owed for the currentyear's salary (letter from James Sutherland, ca.1729-1730, South Carolina Histoncal Magazzne68:79n).

While there are a number of mventones ofthe military Items and ordinance, at Fort Johnson,a 1736/7 mventory prOVIdes a rare glimpse of themore routme Items, mcluding a lantern, "speakmgtl)lmpet," two "large lfon pots," an axe, a spade, agrmdstone, an lfon pestle and mortar, eIght"narrow hoes, one com mill and one "iron Crow"lS(Easterby 1951.261-262). ThIS mventory suggeststhat life was spartan at Fort Johnson, WIthrelatIvely few of the Items expected for even amodest sIZe plantation -- and certamly notadequate eqUIpment to mamtam the fort'searthworks.

A 1740 appraISal of Fort Johnson foundthat the "Captam's House IS not habitable" and acarpenter adVISed that It was not even worthrepamng -- the culmmatIon of at least 16 years ofneglect. The comnllttee recommended rebuildingthe house "from the Bnck Work, which IS tISFoundation." In additIOn, the commItteerecommended that barracks, a kItchen, and a storehouse be built, suggestmg that earlier facilitIes had

15 Possibly a reference to a crowbar. but morelikely a grappling hook.

35

~0\

0,.,~l) J,;... fi..n

a • .... .... -

.A ell,.'" ,;r. ...~ C ()!I13",t",J

11 ~ _, J'lTtof "Jl.~

.- · -. r··.- .............

..

...........

..,.

\I\1

\\

\

2l"""",.,.A.. "j.y. .rlt ~,..~,u;,. ~."". ,~(,(; ,.: 7t ~ "rl' .,.~... ". It.... ,/',,.,. flrT..\ ""'.;r,. ,. ,,4. ,.. .iT. If" ,,1 r J'".11 y""r,..';.,..

~.JnI/fltlt..l"JJ"""i II' )I,..y ,., ~.f' ,-i.,,ltl, ,.?,.... 11t __ .... ./,,4 .....~"

,., ....1 .. J ,..,." ..,.,.. ".,;.,.~

;.J. ]J1j~.;.

ri

: .. ... eo, ,:'(,'; I. .. C f' ";'e r" ,. ('-

Figure 8 Drawing of 1737 fortifications at Fort Johnson (National Archives, RG 77, P&R File, #270-2)

completely collapsed (Easterby 1952:269).Apparently some level of mamtenance wasundertaken smce ill 1742 the Assembly reportedthat "it IS great SatISfactIon to us that Fort JohnsonIS already put mto a good Posture of Defence"(Easterby 1954:18). In 1744 additIonal funds wereraISed for the constructIon of new barracks(Easterby 1955:83). By 1745 the fort's armamentlllcluded 33 cannon of 18, 12,9,6 pound shot witha garnson of up to 25 men. In spIte of the fortbelllg m the best conditIon smce Its ongmalconstructIon, the Assembly was nohcmg that Itwasn't likely to be a very effectIve fort:

[the fort] cannot be remforcedunder some Hours by the MilitIaof that Island, WhICh consISts ofbetween seventy and eIghty Men,unexperIenced In theManagement of great Guns or theDefence of fortified Places. ThatbeSIdes thIS there IS an openunguarded Channel through HogIsland Creek. By a late Survey ofWhICh It appears that any Vesselthat can come over Charles TownBar may pass out of the Reach ofthe Guns of Fort Johnson(Easterby 1955:477).

While South Carolina couldn't do much about thedeep water channels or the range of the guns,Governor James Glen urged the Assembly thatthey could mcrease the SIZe of the command atFort Johnson:

the Barracks of Fort Johnson arenot capable of contammg moreMen than are already there,though it IS absolutely necessaryto encrease the Number, neitherIS there the smallestAccommodatIons for any of theOfficers. I therefore hope you willcome to ResolutIon of enlargmgthe Barracks for the Use of Fortypnvate Men and theIr Officers(Easterby 1956:109).

At least some of the requested changes were madesmce m 1749 the Assembly heard that "FortJohnson but lately finIShed, and was not long ago

m good Order" (Easterby 1962:272).

The French and Indian War, WhICh beganm 1754 and whIch was offiCIally declared two yearslater, caught South Carolina off guard. Thehurncane of September 15, 1752 was perhaps theworst South Carolina had SUrvIVed smce itsfounding (Ludlum 1963). The damage to low lymgstructures was extenSIve and Governor James Glennoted that the "shadow" fortificatIOns as he calledthem, were wrecked. In an effort to strengthen thecolony from feared French attacks, WilliamDeBrahm was IDVlted to VISIt and offer hISexpertISe.

DeBrahm wrote that Fort Johnson wasabout 2% miles southeast of Charleston and thatthe fort had barracks for 50 men (prOVIdingadditIonal support for the pOSIted expansIOn). Heremarked that:

thIS Fort lays on a hIgh Bluf,commands the Channel, WhICh IShear only % of a mile WIde, butthe ConstructIon and Age of thISplace cannot afford muchDefence, unless from a newBattery, whIch IS lately erected atits Foot, mountmg fifteen 18pounders and five 9 pounders, mall twenty cannons, rather tooweak a Battery to stop a vesselfrom passmg.

The Author proposedAnno 1755 to Governor Glen aProject of a new Fort at the sameplace, with two (VIde, a high andlow) battenes of 200 cannonstogether, and a Bastion detacheem the Channel to mount 50Cannons more, and a Boom tobarncade the Channel betweenthe Fort and Its detached Bashon(DeVorsey 1971:91).

While thIS ambitIous new plan, shown m Figure 9,mIght have accomplished all that DeBrahmpromISed it, like most of hIS other schemes (suchas constructmg a moat to make Charleston anISland), was far too costly for South Carolina and

37

;'I

I

/.' ..

/I'

Ii

/

..

Figure 9. DeBrahm's plan for the Fort Johnson fortificatlOns, WhlCh were never lmplemented.

38

.-i

,I

~

/

.~ .

was never Iffiplemented. Its sIgnificance IS purelythat of a hlStoncal cunosity, revealing the manyefforts to make somethmg useful out of FortJohnson.

RG 77, Drawer 64,

In spite of the Impending crISIS, m 1756 anact was passed WhICh requrred all vessels to anchorat Fort Johnson for an mspection by a phySICIan.The fort, for the first tlIDe m its hIStOry, wasassocIated with the mamtenance of Charleston'shealth (Cooper 1838:IV:28). In that same year areport described the fort as conslStmg of only athm case of bnckwork filled with loose sand. Atthe water level, below the upper fort, a lowerbarbette16 battery had been constructed WhIChwould probably present a greater threat to enemyShIpS than the mam fortificatIons (LIpscomb1991.15). By 1759 funds were finally approved fornew constructIon at Fort Johnson and Courtenayreports that atapal or tabby fort was built,probably on the SIte of the first fort (Courtenay1883:472). The new fort was apparently tnangular,"wIth salients!7 bastIoned and pnest-capped18

, the

16 TIns IS a platfonn or mound on WhICh gunsare raIsed so they can be fired over the parapet.

17 These are lines of earthworks whIch meet atan angle.

gorge19 closed, the gate protected by an earth­work, [and] a defensible sea wall of tapia extendedthe fortificatIon to the West and Southwest"(Courtenay 1883:473). LIpscomb (1991.15) notesthat the fort was reparred and plans weredeveloped by LIeutenant Emmanuel Hess, anengmeer WIth the Royal Amencan RegIment, toenlarge the fort through the constructIon of atabby hornwork on the land SIde. As the threatsubSIded so too did the enthusIasm of theAssembly to pay for the work and constructIon wasapparently never completed. Although no copy ofthe ongmal plan can today be Identified, acontemporary DesBarres map shows an eccentncgroundplan whIch suggests that he may have hadaccess to Hess' plans and smply mcorporated themmto hIS drawmg without verifymg therr accuracy(LIpscomb 1991.15) (Figure 10).

Between the end of the 1750s and thebegmnmg of the RevolutIOnary War there IS littlerecord of actIVItIes at Fort Johnson. AlthougherOSIon certamly contmued, there were no majorhumcanes, so it IS likely that munediate threats tothe fort seemed remote. In 1764 cracks appears mthe seaward face of the old fort, some extending allthe way down to the foundatIon. In spite of ItsrapIdly detenoratmg conditIon, Fort Johnsonobtamed notonety m 1765 as the landing place fora supply of BntISh stamped paper carned by aBritISh sloop-of-war. The local citJZenry formed abattalion of about 150 men under the leadershIp ofFranCIS Manon, Charles Pinckney, and BarnardElliott and marched to Fort Johnson under coverof darkness, surprISed the garnson placmg themunder guard, and securmg the stamped paper. Thelocal forces raISed a flag with a blue field and threewhite crescents. At daylight a BritISh officer wassent from the sloop to ascertam the meanmg of theflag. Upon seemg the preparatIons and bemg toldthat the volunteers mtended to burn the paper if itwasn't retneved, the BritISh forces accepted thecargo and retreated from the harbor. ThIS actionwas unprecedented, "Charleston paraded armedmen by authonty of a Town meetmg, captured aBntISh fort while under the authonty of the crown,

18 A pnest-cap was an outwork With threesalient and two re-entrant angles.

19 The gorge was usually the neck of a bastIOn.

39

and displayed a blue flag wIth three whItecrescents, " ten years before the AmencanRevolutIon ~legan (Courtenay 1883:474). ThISverSion, hov,ler, has been disputed by Mary A.Sparkman, Secretary of the Histoncal CommISsIon,who noted that:

It IS true that the stamped paperWhICh arnved from EnglandOctober 18, 1765, was placed atFort Johnson, and the stampofficers, Saxby and Lloyd wentthere, feanng the wrath of thepeople ill Charles Town. But Itwas not until Monday mornmgthe 28th (of October) that a partywent over to Fort Johnson,fnends of the stamp officers, tobnng them up to town undertherr protectIOn, They cameashore at noon from a boat ill thehead of which was hOISted aUnIon flag (Le. a BntISh UnIonJack) with the word "liberty" mthe centre and a laurel branch onthe top of the staff. ArrIved mtown the stamp officers gave therrvoluntary, solumn pledge to anassembled crowd, not to distnbutethe stamps at that tIme, so thetwo men were allowed to go mpeace to therr homes (notes onfile, City of Charleston ArchIVes).

At the start of the Amencan Revolution m1775 Fort Johnson was once agam seIZed, althoughthIS tIme by an order of the Council of Safety. NoreSIStance was met and the South Carolinacaptured twenty-one guns (Courtenay 1883:474).Johnson prOVIdes a detailed account of the attack:

orders were accordingly ISsued toCol. Motte, who detachedCaptam T Heyward's company ofthe Charleston Artillery, WIthothers, to effect thIS duty. Theyembarked after dark, ill openboats with every thmgnecessary to take the fort andretaIn possess of ItUnfortunately, Just after they hadembarked, they were overtaken by

40

a severe gale of wmd from theeast WIth heavy ram. dnvenby the gale about two mileswestward of the fort. Here theylanded, WIthout a dry thread uponthem; theIr ammunitlon all wet,and therr match ropes and portfires20 all fUmed. Theymarched forward and fortunefavored therr brave enterprISe.They met no oppOSitIOn; noteven the challenge of a sentmelwas heard; the BntISh troops hadeVidently abandoned the fort mhaste; the guns were dismountedor overturned, and everythmg leftm great confuSIOn. Every thmgbemg wet with the ram, theycould not flash a pIStol, orotherwISe strike a light. WilliamJohnson bemg a pnvate ill

Captam Heyward's company, wasone of thIS expedition; whilegropmg hIS way m the dark, hISfoot struck agamst somethmg mone of barracks, WhICh, onexammatton, proved to be bagbelongmg to the BntlSh gunner.On openmg it, the first thmg thathe put hIS hand upon was a tmderbox and matches. These gave hlffilight, and kmdled a fire. Then, hefound m the bag a hammer, acold chISel, and files; then gnnlets,nails, &c. They could now see thesituation of the cannon andcarnages, and could now proceedactIvely to clear and remountthem. By the dawn of daythree of the cannon weremounted, ammunitIon and ballsfound m the fort, the gunsloaded, and everythmg ready fordefence As soon as thekmg's ship discovered that thefort was m the hands of the rebelsthey drew off, anchored nearSullivan's Island, and were

20 Port fires consIsted of a flammg compoundon a short stIck used to fire artillery pIeces.

subsequently expelled from thatpositIon also, bearmg off LordWilliam Campbell wIth them toJamaIca (Johnson 1851:63-65).

By at least November of 1775 work was underwayto erect a redoubt west of Fort Johnson,presumably to protect the fort from land attack(Hemphill 1960:115). Courtenay reports that thISsupportmg battery mounted twelve guns and wasloeated five hundred and forty-eIght yards (about0.3 mile) west of the fort (Courtenay 1883:474).About the same tIme Col. William Moultne,havmg been made commander of the fort, wasmstructed to stop and search all boats leavrngCharleston "in order that no correspondence beearned on, whIch mIght prove mJunous to thecolony m its present state" (Hemphill 1960:112).

An undated map m the National ArchIVes(RG 77, Drawer 64, Sheet 1) a copy of WhICh IS mthe files at nearby Fort Moultne, shows the outerearthworks aSSOCIated with Fort Johnson, as well asseveral structures (including a store house and the"General's Quarters"), as well as the "WestBattery:' It seems possible that thIS map datesfrom the last quarter of the eIghteenth or firstdecade of the nmeteenth century and shows thegeneral area as it appeared shortly after theAmencan RevolutIon. It IS, however, notable thatthe earthworks between the harbor and the marshto the south are different ill form than those shownon the sIege map (Figure 11).

A survey made m June 1775 by BenJammLord, Deputy Surveyor, at the request of theCommISSioners of Fortifications, found FortJohnson to mc1ude 89% acres "exclUSIve of thefort" (South CarolinIana Library, HoratioGouverneur Wnght, May 8, 1883) (Figure 12).The survey also reveales that the fort was notsituated on hIgh land, but was on a "bank ofshells." with the sea wall protectmg its northeasternflank. LIpscomb notes that thIS survey wasconducted:

ostensibly to settle a seventeen~

year-old dispute over theboundary line between the publicland and the adjommg propertybelongmg to the helTs of Thomas

Lamboll. Since the plat bore thedate of 29 June 1775, however,the SUspICIon ames that thecolomsts were more mterested mcollectmg military mtelligenceabout the defenses of FortJohnson than m settmg aboundary dispute (LIpscomb1991:16).

In June of the followmg year GeneralHenry Clinton receIVed a report saId to be fromtwo Amenean deserters "of the Artillery mountedfor the Defence of the Town & Harbour ofCharlestown, South Carolina." At thIS tlII1e FortJohnson was thought to have sIXty guns of 26, 24,and 18 pounds (South CarolinIana Library, Ms. ofHenry Clinton, June 6, 1776). ThIS mformatlon wasof course bemg collected as the BritISh prepared toattack Charleston. The June 28 attack wasmtended to land soldiers on Long Island, crossBreach Inlet (separatmg Long from Sullivan'sIsland) while the BritISh navy attacked FortMoultne on Sullivan's Island. The plan resulted ma SIgnificant loss for the BritiSh -- over 100 mendead and at least one ShIp sunk (Rosen 1982:53).

While successful, perhaps thISconfrontation with war caused the GeneralAssembly to react more favorably than it had mthe past when requested to Improve the defenses.A plan by General Robert Howe to case the oldmasonry of the fort with palmetto logs wasapparently approved, with the deSIgn mtended toprevent enemy cannon fire from shockmg the wallsand causmg theIr failure. LIpscomb also suggeststhat by the late 17705 the fort may have taken ona quadrilateral shape (LIpscomb 1991.15).

Charleston afterwards saw three years ofpeace and some prosperity smce the harbor wasopen. However, the SIege of Charleston began onApril 13, 1780 and lasted for a month with thetown finally surrendermg. Charleston remamoccupIed by the BritISh for the remamder of thewar and Rosen remarks that the "Revolutlon wasalmost as much a CIvil war ill Charleston as it wasa war for mdependence" (Rosen 1982:55). OneSIege map of Charleston (Figure 13) reveals theshape of the fort present at the tme, as well asearthworks thrown up between the harbor to the

41

J ttf J'r .. ,• ,•• ......... ,- £" '!~-

+:0­N

~\J.. ...~~~ 1..

l{(!~3• I'~

.~~~ G4" - I

//" ~Oi..~.::-,,· ~'...... - I ",'1-0 /. ,~""

". . ~~ ~".;~~'

~-1!, -~

~i .~'~ It~\~~~"

-. ~-.- -- -- -.l'

l

Figure 11 Late eighteenth century map showing outer defensive \oVOrks at Fort Johnson (National Archives, RG 77, Drawer 64, Sheet 1)

-...."0,

KJ VEl\.

Otdo./I".-I",

I.)'~'1flH ~, A

A ,-~}I LEY

Figure 12. 1775 survey laYIng out the boundanes of Fort Johnson (NatIOnal ArchIves, RG 77, Drawer 118, Sheet 86).

Figure 13. 1780 sIege map shOWIng Fort ohnson (S.C. Department 0

ArchIves and History, SC Map CollectIon, MB 2-6).

After the BntiSh evacuated Charleston atthe end of the RevolutIon on December 14, 1782attentIon was agam turned to the defence of theharbor. Courtenay reports that m 1787 plans weresubmItted by Col. John Chnstian Senf, the

north and a tributary of LIghthouseCreek to the south. A somewhat slffiilarBritiSh map (NatIonal ArchIves, RG 77,1-14) shows the "enemy works"protectmg the rear of Fort Johnson, aswell as the fortification and associatedsea wall. Sir Henry Clinton's Siege Mapof 1780 deSIgnates Fort Johnson as"destroyed" after the military actIon(National ArchIves, RG 77, Drawer 64,Sheet 77), although Courtenay remarksthat "whether by military order or bystorms IS not known" (Courtaney1883:475; however, see below foranother commentary which suggests thefort was destroyed by the retreatmgcoloniSts).

I S LA N D

Engmeer for the State of South Carolina, for anenclosed battery of eIght guns, near the locatIOn ofthe old fort, WhICh IS shown on the drawmg dashedlines, suggestmg an advanced state of disrepaIr.More lffiportantIy, the map shows the barracks,four unlabeled structures, the "Commandant's

43

House" as a cluster of at lest three buildings on anse, and the Gunner's House conslStmg of twostructures also on a nse. Nearby IS "Bunker Hill"(Figure 14).

In 1791, dunng George Washmgton'ssouthern tour, he VISited the garrnon at FortJohnson and LIpscomb reports that Washmgton:

walked a short distance east andmspeeted the rums of the fort(1708-1779). He described theworks as "quite fallen." An earlierVISitor's travel diary had beenmore specific: "The Irregularworks, of no partIcular strength orcompass, are run up of oyster­shells and lime, They were ill partblasted by the Amencansthemselves when they abandonedthIS fort m [1779], and storms andwaves have done the rest"(LIpscomb 1993:34).

Fort Johnson ill the Nineteenth Century

Although Senfs plans had not beenimplemented by the tune of Washmgton's VISit m1791, they were still alive and a vanatIon were builtto the rear of the preVIous forts by WilliamMoultne m 1793 (Courtenay 1883:475, SouthCarolinmna Library, HoratIo Gouverneur Wnght,May 8, 1883). ThIS work was later repaIred by theU.S. Government (Courtenay 1883:475). An 1800map (Figure 15) proVides exceptIonal aSSIStance illI1puttmg together" many of these eIghteenth centuryforts. It shows the plan of the 1793 fort built byMoultne, as well as how much of thIS fortificatIonwas destroyed by the October 1800 "gale." It alsoshows the additIonal battery built by the U.S.Government ill 1794 and the barracks added ill

1796. At least some of the early 1759 tabby worksare also shown to the west of the current forts,along the edge of the water (and WIth a bastion mthe water). The palmetto works from theRevolutIOnary War are also shown north and eastof the current fort, as well as some additIOnalworks erected by Moultne. The map also revealsthe locatIon of three wells, the forfs hospital, the

44

bake house and the Artificers21 shop.

One of the few references to the fort mthIS penod IS a June 28, 1800 letter from thecommander of the fortifications to Washmgton,D.C. where he declined a shIpment of drugsmtended for the hospital. He noted that:

unfortunately I am at presentwithout a Surgeon's Mate -- Dr.Thomas who has been appomtedill the place of Dr. Dalcho, hasbeen here but two mghts and oneday; he offered hIS reSIgnatIon tothe Secretary of War and left meWithout medical aSSIStance (SouthCarolimana Library, ConstantFreeman, June 28, 1800).

Beyond thIS, an April 1807 report by LIeutenantColonel Jonathan Williams reported that, "Nothmghas been saId as to the present state of FortJohnson, as the subscriber does not perceIve thatany part of the rums can be brought m to useunless it be by formmg a mass m front to preventthe future depredatIon of the sea" (SouthCarolimana Library, HoratIO Gouverneur Wright,May 8, 1883).

It appears that sametnne between 1800and 1807, perhaps as the result of the September7, 1804 hurncane, that the fort was abandoned.Whether gamsoned or not, it seems clear that itsconditIon had been allowed, once agam, to decline.By 1812, when hostilitIes with England werecertaill, re-establishmg the fort was agam critIcaland General J.G. Swift reported that two battenesat the fort would be ready for seIVlce m a shorttIme (South Carolimana Library, HoratIoGouverneur Wnght, May 8, 1883). While sourcesat NatIOnal ArchIVes have not been explored toIdentify maps of these battenes and assocIateddefenSIve works, it seems that the effort waslimited and perhaps even ·'half-hearted." In 1815

LIeutenant James Gadsden of theEngmeers reported to General

21 An artificer was a soldier-mechamc attachedto the ordnance, artillery. or engmeer seIVIce toconstruct and repaIr military matenals.

.......r&

~

\\."

......... .....-.-~ --.L- -

PLAN

.r~<~~..l&? 4­~heb~7/k·~

,-of .f?.~ r(-.u<~ ,,0

ofall mc~sed13aLteTj£lI.r !,NjU'Sf!d, to It J;

mId/,:~7td;onJ/zmes7lca'llle ..:J>-Iaa tf -ae ot

.~.itm" _ 1181~

-c'?~

\

A

//

~~

1:I'R~r....L..Q..I.f;~

AshlJ - River rtWii5<"))",,~,,~~~"""~':'~~JI1i...M...w.w..f . -' ~<"'L .J .!.'

::::. ,It _ • ,.- L'

L?~?0'\

11'11{

, -_:~~~+;~-: " . -, ~--'\~. 1.' • ~: . ~ 0 _- ..~v~ "-'~~ ~-~ :'),;:.:~ I~ ., ·vl--...w.- '" ----- --. '~':'..:.1 I~ :'>-f: .'_.~ ~::' ~.~~)'-*- __ ~- __ ::.....;fi~~ ....:>.N t- ~ .='J__ ~ ......._-- .''J. • *"\. - .....~ ~- -~ .

......J .. ~. .. ~',~ - ~,-..l;...:-:' - - -.M.~ - ~.... ~,:'II II/II .,~ .. ~ =- ,~. ~:.; .~ ~,,~ _~:>~~ -~. ~--':f._4:"_.~!<,=--':-~~J/;>:~ ~~~ ::.~ _ ~.- .fllrT7'J"h -u...- .,.. ---oiloo.- ?:::;);

-~ ~F\~'~ l~ -'"'- -- ~ --- -,-~~ ~ ~~r·t..... \ 71/it: IIi,S' 00

, -w.a.- - ~. _ -- _ ..IV.. - --- ........)/.<...... ,: ....... ~ "U/.1I : .... _- ~ - . '.:-..S" ' -~l' ~ ~ -:~ ~. ;r ..,>J!I!!",- ~

.. ... - '( ~ .. -.-.lII6-. ---t2 " ' )(' ~~:\ - ~ ~ _ ~ ~.

::@ :;/' , \-<~ ~,,-"'~ -~ (J(~,,,L.U,:r";ftJ,g;fJJ/,""{7X/<J-:...- ,-1~'! '."j- \ '\. )~--'-"~-.:-' - a~,r47f~C/l-U~-r.c/'e-r.d~~7 -~~.

~ I l'ii", :;., I \\ I : ::.Y--. ..~~ ~.... &$rt~-4 /;C2-~A.~,~427~/;.k, ~f/. ~,-,,,/.r,";J ';t, ,.... ,. I', ~ ~71. 17 -, ...... 1 ~;,':.~.}ii I ;:Ii/'//// "\\\\\III\./i/U .............. - _ -- L ..R...~obr-tL$.J?!UM~ed y.C2 ·';.<N!Ik/l..--~to~-L ~.u~' ";'~~, I':. 'II/. " \ '''f!/£!/ --. _ "}""7 ntb/~./ o"'«T"~ -',~ l~ ~ "~fl,~\\\!'Wi~£~~\'~~M~~;, -:... ~ -- d#1/~ ~~#t<H~~ek~ad~

; , ~ . -1.': ~ ",~~~~~ .~\~~ " ..,~........ - /"LJ' /~ I- // .-/'/ -L/r./ ~ pi,

/

.C>.. I~ 4. . • '._--§~~\ ~~;:::===:::.......e.-. -"'- a«a.,.Hup --:1 rf7J nr.t. ""'~"FCJ4'~·Ot(7."..~>J~~ .I ~~ ~ - 'W§': -;"#~(III:~~ ~. - -= 7 //) /7 // CAJ' ,-

// ~ :1 Ie ~ 0." .. ~~J!:..jif/III\~~ --~~ _. r-n~7~utf~6/~vrd'~.71~&-~/ (~ I.,,> { I N::==-.I.II"'\\~~.:Jo..... -. ~ ~ I vj<'g-~ "I.G;Q ~~ :,.....~ __ . L:I\I~;~~:' '1\\:'-"-- _ --A!. - _~I' c/d ~-J.#~K"-~0;-h/un-/~J.~,v I _ ,,, I', 11 \I\\\~:\' ", , ,.-- /-/~"7,v - . t:)V"

} ,liAl~n'~~~¥WJ!I~~~,I't~'I;\\.ft"'.. "::"" (,'"- .:;....-' .... 1 rn<~~~a-~ht.e.£~7f~~d~ t??V

0' '~ ." 1l~\\~~.~ • I\~\ \ •. ; _ . _f,e: ~- -~:: 0" ~ ~(?ad; ~~:f'u~/~~Y /~r,1~- ilL.:' ~~ . ~ ~. _ - --J'. • £--- ",..

+>­VI

Figure 14 1787 plan of the Fort Johnson area by Colonel John Christian Senf

~\;

\

,o~o J a.'t'US ..i-";.,tJo·- '.ft. ·to .t.:>-r,.Pi 'Y: Ck't'leV ~ S',,-.l<,"'.:: ":-.::~­

::'1 64 ya~'d~ ~-(Y.l':W W :Ful'~ 1v.te~.~I~"~~_ , .. C;"'"~""·."':'C':'T. -

~ \\\

\ \\ \

\ \

Chal.. les{.Oll If a.rl,j Oc:t..obe,.. 1Soo

Figure 15. "Plan of Fort Johnson" datmg to 1800.

46

Swift as follows. Fort Johnson IS little better thana battery m rums the gale of 1813 havmg nearlydestroyed it. LIeutenant Gadsden recommendedthe abandonment of the site and the constructIonof a new work a 12 gun battery a short distance ill

the rear of it (South Carolinlana Library, HoratloGouverneur Wnght, May 8, 1883).

Another survey was conducted ill 1821 by CaptamW.T Poussm of the TopographIc Engmeers andthe fort was still shown m rums, no Improvementshavmg been made (Figure 16). The survey does,however, show the locatIon of a storehouse,quarters, barracks, and the powder magazme. ThefortificatIons present are shown on thIS survey andconSISt of remnants of several preVIOUS "forts. InMarch 1826 the Board of Engmeers referred toFort Johnson has havmg "a few remams." The verynext year the descnptlon was downgraded to"scarcely a vestIgage remams" (South CarolinxanaLibrary, HoratIO Gouverneur Wnght, May 8,1883). Courtenay reports, from unspecifiedsources, that m spite of these reports twopermanent buildings and a martello tower wereadded to the fortificatIon sometune later.

An 1833 map of the Fort (Figure 17)mdicates that while the fortifications had beenallowed to fall mto rums, Fort Johnson was athnvmgmamtenance facility for the U.S. Board ofEngmeers. Figure 17 illustrates that the fortmcluded a wharf and two small docks; theengmeer's quarters (or barracks); quarters for theclerks, master carpenters and masons, andcommISary; store rooms and offices, mcluding theDoctor's office; a carpentary work shop; theoverseer's tool house; a blacksmith shop; the "oldmagazme" (still standing), WhICh was mtended tobe used as a CIStern; a house for the overseer, Mr.Peronneau, WhICh also prOVIded boarding formechanICS; a house for the steamboat captam, Mr.Maxcy, whIch also served as a boarding house; and"negro houses." The map also shows two sheds "inrums," as well as four "pumps," WhICh appear to beCISterns and/or wells. To the southeast of thefacility are the begmnmgs of a summer planters'village (discussed m more detail below). Includedwere houses for Dr. Lebby (likely Dr. RobertLebby) and Captam RIVers, as well as a church.

Martello towers were small CIrcular fortswith maSSIVe walls, usually contammg vaulted

rooms for the garrISon and haVIng a platform ontop for the mountmg of one or two guns. Thename comes from Cape Mortella m CorISlca wherea tower of thIS type was captured only with somedifficulty by the English on two separate occaslOns.The English were so Impressed with these towersthat a number were built for the defence of theBritISh ooast. There are a number SUrvIVIng onEngland's south coast, m Ireland, on the ChannelIsland, and elsewhere. As late as the 1867publicatIon of Sailors Workbook the martello towerwas noted to be an excellent defenSIVe work smcebemg round, It was difficult to hIt WIth cannon fire.

Sutcliffe reports that very few towers werebuilt ill North Amenca and only two were locatedon the AtlantIc coast of the United States. Onewas ill GeorgIa at the mouth of the SavannahRIVer and the other was on James Island. Althoughthe date of constructIOn has not been verified,Sutcliffe remarks that It was likely the first of thetwo, bemg built perhaps as early as 1821 (Sutcliffe1972:153). When new It measured 38 feet III

heIght, had a base diameter of 52 feet, and ItSwalls were 10 feet thIck. Cunously, unlike ItSEuropean counterparts, the James Island martellotower had no central pillar to support the flat roof,"but mstead there was an unWIeldy constructIon ofradiatmg beams not unlike the spokes of anumbrella" (Sutcliffe 1972:153). By 1833 the towerreqUITed extenSIVe repaIrs, the flat roof andparapet haVIng rotten, and some alteratIons wereundertaken. The walls of the tower were used asthe parapet, lowermg the wooded barbette floor byabout 8 feet. The other recommended alteratlonswere apparently not 1IIlplemented smce a 1846draWIng reveals the structure to be the same as Itwas drawn 10 1833. KeIth reports that the woodenmembers burned ill 1859 and the tower was neverrebuilt (Keith 1984).

The 1833 plat, however,also reveals thatthe summer village, discussed below, covered anarea of 900 feet south of the fort area. Otherstructures were scattered over the 90 acre SIte(NatIonal ArchIves, RG 77, Drawer 64, Sheet 9).

In 1843, Edmund Ruffin VISIted FortJohnson durmg hIS survey of the state. At the tmea Captam Bowman was commander of thefortificatIon. Bowman was also spending much ofhIS tIme collectmg and transportmg oyster shells

47

&

lJraWtr6j:Skeet .9.

) ,"t\ I/ T",n', /,In>L .21'J~ 3 f,,,

r;;r< bi~e.,,1 I I "'" I I I I I ..p~''i'. -\ /;1',al(111.: -J' nt. L,~/'d" 1""/. J" 1',,_

.I" /"' I I 'Br.. /" L i F L J. m: ~ ?... 11>,

~f .t::~7!v!:-/, .,. /:h !'..e-AA ..~·1W'l....._""'~4...'If'!f.!-;"'~-"'".. _.

_".B

~~~#/'II hi tA, f'~L.'td

~nj k~lI>ll f {',J/,yt,,,,,,:t',,, ('n~?~....i"

nUl

Figure 16 1821 survey of the Fort Johnson fortifications (National Archives, RG 77. Drawer 67. Sheet9)

/

/

,_.. _ .. ~CA.l...1'. C''}' S~l'."'i' ..... 'h...]..&. I... ,ftl zC;

Figure 17 1833 map of Fort Johnson shoWing actIVItles assocIated WIth the U.S. Board ofEngmeers (NatIOnal ArchIves.RG 77. Drawer 67. Sheet 14).

49

I

Al.AJ:1Y'iT:Al Jl., ~RAI)ViJ··jfAV'rr. ~/,(;',." .."-j.'f-(j,,,1"-01<'<'''/00.0/('hi .,.('~ r/.PO/}7' J £I';'..I.,/yJ O/X: Clzarl....d(1n /f",.!,cHU· .r.e

.hOWUI/fih",rf'ON<!it,o.. on {/,.... .,1f).l~ .f'1lf"ulun,· /S-f)! - ... · ~· .........~/·"' ••h·_ _ ('''-''''.N, ..~

;;;::;A

I/~---,----.1/3/,.

//

./

...rr=

Figure 18. A portIon of Johnsonville planters' village In 1842 (National ArchIves, RG 92, P&R File, Map 270-3).

50

from a nearby oyster bank or rake, although Ruffindoes not explam if the shells were bemg used atthe fort. It IS possible that they were bemg used tostabilize the shore and retard further erosIon.Ruffin descnbed hIS VISit m some detail:

Old Fort Johnson two milesbelow Charleston, IS no longermamtamed for defence & mdeedthere IS no fortification, except fora ndiculous watch [?] Tower. ThISsite of the fort IS used by theplanters of the ISland as theIrsummer resIdence, & there ISquite a village of small houses, ofplam & unpretending appearance.I heard here some cunous facts mregard to the local limits of themalana from WhICh thIS spot ISexempt, though no person's lifewould be safe if sleepmg onemght but 100 yards back from thebeach. The old hospital stoodabout half as far m the rear; &every phySICIan who succeSSIVelyattended it was of the opmIonthat one end was healthy & theother SIckly, from bemg subject tomalana. A few of the houses ofthe summer reSIdents are below& a little back from the waterbehmd a narrow marsh. ThISsituatIon IS as healthy as theothers on the beach; but it ISsupposed that directly betweenthese houses & the others, thoughnot 150 yards apart, there was anmterval subject to malana, & toaVOId walkmg through WhICh atmght, a foot bndge was madeacross the narrow marsh to thebeach (Mathew 1992:102).

One of the more mterestmg maps of thIS village ISreproduced here as Figure 18 (NatIOnal ArchIves,RG 92, P&R File, Map 270-3). It shows the namesof at least a few reSidents, mcluding JosephHinson, Jonothon Rivers, Robert Lebby, JohnMinot, William Godber, William Mathews, HoraceRIVers, Mrs. Calder Michel, Elijah RIVers, WilliamSeabrook, Thomas Legare, and Winborn Lawton.It also reveals that the village had not only a

Presbytenan Church, but also a school house.Although commeraal establishments are notshown, the lower part of the map IS cut off andother plats, while not labeled, reveal that thIS likelyrepresents only a quarter of the total village.

By 1848 Tuomey's chief mterest m FortJohnson was to note that the remams there offeredan mterestmg example of coastal processes. Notmgthat ongmally built on dry land, "the foundatIonmay now be seen on the strand, at low water"(Tuomey 1848:198).

By 1842 there was renewed mterest mattemptmg to mamtam Fort Johnson and a senesof yearly plans were developed for Jetties, shellpiles, log emplacements, and sand filled berms -­all deSIgned to cease the contmued erOSIOn. Oneplan (National ArchIVes, RG 77, Drawer 67, Sheet22) reveals that a manne railroad had been built atthe northwest comer of the property. OtherwISe,the buildings shown on earlier maps were still ill

place and bemg used m a SImilar fashIon.

Fort Johnson and the Civil War

Fort Johnson apparently did not see agreat deal of actIOn, nor did it generate anyspecific mterest, agam until the Civil War. Thereare a number of references datmg from thIS penodand thIS synOpSIS will mention only a few,concentratmg of events and maps which are mostlikely to help mterpret and evaluate the site.Confederate forces occupied the fort sometlDlepnor to April 12 and had constructed two battenesdescnbed at some length by Robert Lebby, whowas statIOned at Fort Johnson dunng thIS penodand who later served as the Quarantme Officer:

there were two mortar batteneserected at Fort Johnson for thereduction of Fort Sumter. Onesituated on the front beach,ffildwaybetween old Fort Johnsonand the Lazaretto pomt, anddirectly west of Fort Sumter, andknown as the beach, or east,battery, and the other waslocated due northwest of theformer on a hill near some housesand contiguous to the present

51

Figure 19 Captam T. Seymour's draWlng of the Fort Johnson area as seen from Fort Sumter m April 1861.

quarantme resIdence. Theremams of thIS battery are stillplamly VISible. It was known asthe hill, or west, battery. The east,or beach, battery has been washedaway by the sea The postFort Johnson consISted, at thatdate [April 12, 1861], of these twobattenes of mortars and acompany of mfantry as reserves,all under command of CaptamGeorge S. James, South CarolinaState troops (Lebby 1911:142).

Lebby also reveals that the mfantry were encampednot far away, near the martello tower and theConfederate troops attempted to blow up at leastone of the nearby houses, owned by a Mr. Greer,feanng that it was too close to the hill, or west,battery (Lebby 1911.143, 144). ThIS house wasalmost certamly one of the summer housesmentIoned by Ruffin m 1843.

A senes ofpanorannc drawmgs were madeby a Captam T Seymour from Fort Sumter mFebruary 1861. The one for Fort Johnsonillustrates the beach battery, describmg it as bemg"constructed upon the beach of sand, with plankrevetment. A line of sand-bags on the east, formfantry fire. Number of mortars unknown." Themartello tower locatIon IS shown WIth the notatIonthat it had been "destroyed by fire some yearssmce," mdicatmg that it was m rums (but stillstanding) pnor to 1861. A second battery IS shownon the pomt, "constructed of sand its form.Three embrasures, two of which are directed uponthe anchorage toward Castle Pinckney, the thIrdtoward, but not upon, Fort Sumter. They contamthree guns of light caliber saId to be 24 pdrs." It

52

seems likely that the second, or hill, batterymentIoned by Lebby could not be seen by Seymourand was therefore not mcorporated mto hlS VIew.LikeWISe, the seaward battery was probably notmentIoned by Lebby smce It was not a mortarbattery and did not partICIpate m the mitlalshelling. But perhaps of greatest Importance mSeymour's drawmg are the number of housescompnsmgthe planters'summervillage (Figure 19).

The first shot begmnmg the Civil War wasfIred from the east, or beach, battery on April 12,1861, with the second shot commg from the westbattery seconds later. After thIS mitIal few hours ofglory, or mfamity, Fort Johnson lapsed mto amilitary routme dommated by fatIgue duty. A letterfrom William Gyles to hIS mother m February 1862suggests that the pace contmued throughout muchof the war, "we have been workmg very hard thelast few days building battenes" (South CarolinIanaLibrary, William Alfred Gyles, February 22, 1862).

The "Map of Charleston and Its Defenses"drawn m 1863 (Figure 20) illustrates at least In

general form the earthworks at Fort Johnson, aswell as the locatIon of Battery HarlestoD to thesouthwest, an unnamed battery to the southeast,and Battery Simpkms at the end of Shell Pomt. Offthe project tract were Battenes Wampler andCheves. An essentIally IdentIcal map, Map of theDefenses of Charleston Harbor, 1863-65," wa~

produced some years after the Civil War by JohIJJohnson.

In April 1863 the Dmon forces madttheIr first, unsuccessful, attempt to take ForSumter. While Fort Johnson was m range of thlattack, Burton notes that smce all its guns werltramed on the mner harbor, they were not able tf

Courtenay (1883:477) notesthat thIS account IS mcorreet, prOVidinga different mventory of armament,although there seems to be little reasonto debate the actual number ofplacement of the various pIeces, at leastfor the current study.

Wnght explams that:

Water Battery210" Columblad rifled & banded2 10" Smooth bore

Extreme Left4 10" Columbl3.ds smooth

bore

The fort with its outworks formed anentrenched camp of conSiderable strength& capacity (South CarolinIana Library,HoratIo Gouverneur Wnght, May 8,1883).

when it [Fort Johnson] fell mtothe hands of the United States mFebruary 1865 the armament wasas follows:

Flankmg Guns{ eight field pIeces{ one 8 siege howitzer

one 32 pounder rifled &banded

two 10" sea coast mortars

Shortly after occupatIon byUnIOn forces Fort Johnson and theother harbor defenses came underscrutmy and, a senes of plans wereproduced, mcluding two reproducedhere (Figures 21 and 22). The first,sUlVeyed in between March and May1865 by Brevet Major General R.Delafield proVides very detailedmformatIOn on the fortificatIOns,Including earthworks, gunemplacements, bombproofs, BattenesHarleston and Simkms, the remnant of

the tabby seawalls, several structures, a cIStern, andthe "remams of the Old Fort." An essentIallyIdentical sUlVey was produced under the directIonof C.O. Boutelle, also m 1865 While It fails toillustrate any of the details outside the

Figure 20. Charleston's defences dunng the Civil War around FortJohnson.

the abortIVe attempts by the Umon forces to takeCharleston. Fort Johnson was never assaultedagam and stood until evacuated along with theother harbor defenses on the mght of February 17,1865

i tI!'. :u'I

partiCIpate m the battle (Burton 1970:138-140). Asecond effort III September of the same year wasno more successful, although Fort Johnson didpartiCIpate m repulsmg the Umon forces (Burton1970:192). Another bnef bit of hIStory occurred at

I Fort Johnson on August 30, 1863 when the: submanne Hunley, tied up at the wharf, was

flooded and drowned five of her crewmen (Burton1970:230-231).

I The fIrst of two amphibiOUS assaults on, Fort Johnson came on July 3, 1864 when troops ofI the 52nd Pennsylvama Volunteer Infantry, the

127th New York Volunteer Infantry, and the ThrrdRhode Island Artillery mtended to land south ofFort Johnson as part of a larger assault. Only asmall number of the troops, all from the 52ndPennsylvanIa Volunteers, actually made landfall.Fired on by both Fort Johnson and BatterySimpkIns the UnIOn forces were routed With nohope of remforcements the Umon forces surrender(Burton 1970:287). A second assault was made onJuly 10, 1864, although Keith remarks that "reportsof thIS second attack are scant and not muchImportance seemed to have been placed on it(Keith 1975a:39). ThIS effort also failed, ending

53

/~~",/ (te;:".~ f!.,.,

/ ~~~,/

/'

All' """ 'u 0- ;~wh

"'."""."F .... t ",,"J ;::~,:;r

.1':,.,..., , ,.,."" ..

'r-

.•.;~:.;..~:..~~;~ .":.-

~~L~"

~..

. "'",..'- ".ll ".,..

pt" .".::' ~-~~/._ ..

~ -~ '-~

\

:,;,\,,'r,,'~: ~'" .'\ ,"",},

~" ••U.I'7""II""'".::-~ ;''\'! J

-..~..

&I."'~~~."~""

Vl.;:::.

Figure 21. Delafield's 1865 survey of Fort Johnson.

_ ....,. ;; " "•...0;.";:: '_ 0' 1~~ ~1l.!L

~.'l' "~~.~_,

, :-j,-'.'" .'. ~I. __ :~-::::' •• '" .'.. '. ... ',"'.:""

. " \ .,,",.m,-,,~'C~,

-:;j:,.~

1..,hllnw•••)(:;;-fhAa...

~

~-~ IlK

~1r:=J\

~ u./~~"of 111

LL....... Cl _ ... _CL~ . D~_-.L\""('./1$

~

L:\.-.L}.

_~"\....Cl_

"1,« I J...r~ u~'"

~.....

_!!~~~...."

=~

~~~<<IS

~; ,* .jf!j,rL i ~2\~~«~

~. f,"

/! ~/~"itll

__,JJrA~r:t,· 3{ . f,). <",'_ _,....._~~

",vn", '''''.,m I '~Ir"lIIfltI, II' I,

tI,;"''''"J" III rfJ.lJuul,lI" 1...... / ("nll'. , ..

I~" I'.;~fr Ilf II'd/,.,tlu; 1,1'1

I.~M

~')'~~~:.I

No.!

'fowl ,.:...

11 H CU\!'\I Ml'l\\ E'

1'1lItl 1Il1lN~IlN

FnnlIF1('''IION~ON .1Al\Il ... S I~LANI)

nEFI~NCES or CHAHLESTON I1AHBOH

R'IJ(;l.u-vnllin

~<I"r

-:--

..,.IlIw.,.'.... :

u \rT~H\ W\MI I t:1t..... .,..0-7-.,.- .. ., .... lo-_J"o_

'~'

-..~~~"'.1 .... "

~~~v.":\__~0,:,."

"yl I~

H~"",,.·'i""

1\\\ IEIIY t;lnv!-:n

...·,.1 , ...II \I 11':111 1l\!'lKAII

'n

.--;-;--;;-:;--.......~-~-,.-

~~~~._--~

." ....... ,. .. or .... _ ....

~---::;-;~~~

~

.~J~,'(..... If!.~;..~. ,/u,w,.,d 1(,,,,,..,'1 III /1" ...." .~,.,,' •• , ,J.. ,Y',Vr.

Figure 22 Boutelle's 1865 "Defences of Charleston Harbor - Fortifications on James Island"VlVl

fortifications, the earthworks and various batteriesare clearly shown. Curiously, both of these plansfail to reveal any evidence of the planters' villagewhich existed as late as February 1861, suggestingthat the Confederate forces had razed all of thesebuildings in the intervening years.

There are also a series of photographstaken by Union photographers which show thecondition of the works and the associatedencampments shortly after the Confederateevacuation. Many of these have been published byKeith (1975a) and one is shown here as Figure 23.

The 1866 "Charleston Harbor and ItsApproaches" (Figure 24) shows the extensiveplanters' settlement at Fort Johnson, but none ofthe Civil War defenses, suggesting that the CoastSurvey Office simply used earlier surveys withoutmodification or correction, Consequently, this mapprobably shows the area as it appeared in the late1840s or 1850s.

Postbellum Use of Fort Johnson as aQuarantine Station

On March 4, 1872 an Act was passed bythe South Carolina legislature to establishquarantine stations at Georgetown, Charleston,and Hilton Head. After only six months 366 vesselshas passed through the Charleston station, whileonly 44 were reported in Beaufort and 122 wereinspected at the Georgetown harbor. Dr. RobertLebby, who had previously been stationed as aConfederate soldier at Fort Johnson, wasappointed the Quarantine Officer and reportedthat the quarantine crews and health officers hadnot yet been paid (Lebby 1872:727, 734). In spiteof what appear to be continuing problems, Lebbywrote to Dr. Harvey E. Brown, the U.S. Inspectorof Quarantine, that:

quarantine laws are municipalacts, to be regulated by theseveral states . . . . I am ofopinion that it is not advisable forthe General Government toassume the charge of thequarantine (Lebby 1872:737),

a view which recalls states' rights debate of only afew years earlier. Waring suggests that Robert

56

Lebby's brother, Brewerton Monroe Lebby, mayhave served as a quarantine officer at Fort Johnsonprior to Robert's service. He indicates that RobertLebby did not assume duties at Fort Johnson untileither 1876 or 1878 and continued to serve until1906 when the U.S. Public Health Service tookover control of the facility (Waring 1967:256, 258).Regardless, Lebby was clearly at Fort Johnson by1880 when he wrote his father in Charleston aboutvisiting since there were no infected ships at FortJohnson which required his attention (LebbyFamily Papers, South Caroliniana Library, August11, 1880). It is also clear that Robert Lebby was atFort Johnson during its most active period at theclose of the nineteenth century.

The exact nature of the transfer of theproperty from the federal government to SouthCarolina is not clear, although documents at theNational Archives reveal that reservation was"originally ceded to the U. States by the State ofSouth Carolina, 17th Dec. 1805 and subsequentlyresurveyed and regranted to the U. States by Actof Legislature of South Carolina dated December18, 1846" (National Archives, RG 77, Drawer 189­SC 5-2). By February 7, 1880 the S.C. Board ofHealth had applied to the United Statesgovernment for use of Fort Johnson (Nationa]Archives, RG 77, Drawer 67, Sheet 43; reproduce,here as Figure 25). This application reveals th(location of three structures, an old buoy shed, th(existing ''health officer's house" likely occupied b~

Dr. Lebby, and a "negro dwelling." Theaccompanying map, however, incorporates only,little over 31 acres. Presumably the remainder 0

the Fort Johnson tract was continued to blmaintained as federal property.

Even while the quarantine station waoperating at Fort Johnson, the site's militarimportance was still being considered. Wright notethat in 1881 the Board of Engineers "reported th<if Fort Johnson was armed with large barbette gurit would add to the protection of Charleston l

that it should therefore be preserved" (Horat:Gouverneur Wright, South Caroliniana LibrarMay 8, 1883).

About the same time a more detail(inventory of the site was conducted:

This old earthwork,

58

of Health. These buildings areone frame house 70x25', threerooms; in good condition andused for storage purposes. Twosmall one-story frame buildings,each containing one room 12' x12'; in fair order and used asoffices. There are besides somerough cabins on the reservation,occupied by colored people underwhose authority is not known, butthere seems to be no occasion fordisturbing them.

The fresh water supply ofthe Fort Johnson reservation isrepresented by two tanks, holdingabout 6,000 gallons each.

February 24, 1874 Gen.Gilmore submitted a project for abattery for four 13-inch mortars,to be placed south of FortJohnson, gun battery as originallyconstructed, and facing thechannel between forts Sumter andMoultrie; thus reserving the oldposition of Fort Johnson for itseventual restoration as a gunbattery.

February 27, 1874 thisproject was referred to the Boardof Engineers and returned by itMarch 24, 1874 recommendingthe plan for approval, with theexception of the height ofparapet, which should beincreased two feet. The plan aschanged by the Board wasapproved by the Chief EngineerMarch 28, 1874 and itsconstruction authorized "from anyfunds which may now be, or mayhereafter be available for thatpurpose."

The platforms for thisbattery were on hand (creosoted)and paid for, but its constructionhas not been commenced(National Archives, RG 77,

Drawer 67, Sheet A).

Perhaps the best synthesis of quarantineactivities in the late nineteenth century comes froma series of papers published by Dr. H.B. Horlbeck,City of Charleston Health Officer (see Horlbeck1890, 1891 for examples). In these articlesHorlbeck explains the operation of the quarantinelaws in Charleston, noting that their recentlyadopted approach was the "Holt System," namedfor the health official (Dr. Joseph Holt) whodevised the method in New Orleans several yearsearlier. In fact Charleston's health officials visitedNew Orleans with a draftsman in 1889 in order todevelop the plans "out from which the presentplant [at Fort Johnson] was constructed" (Horlbeck1890:151). Horlbeck offers one of the fewdescriptions of the facility:

two wharves have been built, withconvenient pier heads affording22 feet of water at low tide.Disinfection and fumigation arepractices from one, and ballast­listing at the other. On the ballastwharf, to the west, there is asteam winch, capacity twenty tonsper hour, railroad track and carsfor carrying ballast. It is furnishedwith a naphtha launch forboarding, and also for ready andconvenient communication withthe city. This form of launch hasgiven the fullest satisfaction -- 25feet in length. On the wharf tothe east are facilities for fasteningvessels at anchor, and affordingthem sulphur fumes from a 12­inch galvanized tube; alsoaffording thembichloride mercurysolution from iron tubes. Thestation is provided, further, with alarge and commodious dwelling­house for the quarantine officer,convenient office for business,dwelling-house for engineer, andone for the captain of thenaphtha launch; also barracks forofficers, female passengers, andcrew of vessels undergoingfumigation, fever hospital andpest-house, and large storage

·;.

. .6f>"::q,,~

7. OZd-; .:Br.:e-oySh.ed- (ho't:~ u-s-ej2... Kea«-h-_ O~<:-e.'r~ JZo~e...J. ..tJrcP;9'7"C>.:D>re~~ •

~'..; , ;....Cop--y"J#"a- dra.«J~ a.c.o~~Y~:J'

7"<:'r7"b <l~..L~«S.A...J)-:t'~CL"'~~.Y'Feb,7. /J'd>-o

.' 'Qn,.- ·a;rj!... ~.·cC''('.·'''7V' ?T .s~Y;;l3o~cf.ZL~.... '/"0-'- ~e-

'.. "'.-;a.zGrC.70kn-s'o~. 6~~--:7 ~.s,,",,"e- Z .,-p. (:07-.r-/cYh>~

Figure 25. 1880 plat of the quarantine station (National Archives, RG 77, Drawer 67, Sheet 43).

59

building, boarding skiff for boarding, whenrequired; naphtha launch for boarding andcommunication with the city, and boat-house forsame (Horlbeck 1890:149-150).

The first operation was apparently toremove the ballast, thought to be a source ofconsiderable possible contagion. Horlbeck notesthat some vessels used very soft stones which"cannot be regarded as a healthy ballast, anddoubtless may become a vehicle for infecting aship" (Horlbeck 1890:148). Others used mud, earth,or even refuse "scraped up directly from theshores." Regardless, these materials would beremoved from the holds of the ships originating atsuspected or infected ports, placed in the railroadcars on the wharf, and transported to elsewhere onthe shore (perhaps only a short distancd to theeast), and dumped. Horlbeck noted that this hadbeen dqne for the past 10 years (since at least1880).

Clothing and bedding from these vesselswould be removed and placed in a 30 foot longcylinder 8 feet in diameter for heat sterilization atdry temperatures of about 2400 F which"thoroughly destroys all bacteria inimical to humanlife" (Horlbeck 1890:150). The vessel wasmeanwhile washed down on the inside with themercuric chloride solution which was presumablythen dumped in the harbor. The source of this"corrosive sublimate solution" was a 35 foot hightank near the wharf. After "the entire cleaning ofthe vessel, the hatches are covered over, and fumescontaining 18% sulphur dioxide gas are forced inand the foul air driven out, one hatch temporarilyleft open, until the vessel is thoroughly filled upwith disinfecting medium" (Horlbeck 1890:150).The sulfur dioxide was obtained from a "sulphurfurnace," which was designed to bum largequantities of sulfur (anywhere from 200 to 300pounds). The vessel was closed for upwards of 24hours and then vented. The ships company mightbe held in quarantine for an additional five days.

A series of illustrations prepared byHorlbeck of the· Fort Johnson facility arereproduced here as Figures 26-29. Figure 26illustrate the eastern wharf, looking back towardthe quarantine station with its work building andtank for "corrosive sublimate." To the right (orwest) were the quarters for the ship's company.

62

Figure 27 provides a view of the cylinder used fordisinfecting bedding and clothing in the process ofbeing loaded. Figure 28 shows this tank, boiler,and sulfur furnace within the work building. Figure29 (which should be compared to Figure 56) is anillustration of the quarantine officer's dwelling tothe south of the work buildings.

By 1906 the decision to transfer operationof the quarantine station to the federal governmenthad been made and a July 1906 The CharlestonEvening Post article reported that a T.J. Raymond,of the U.S. Marine Hospital Service, was at FortJohnson inspecting and inventorying the facilities.The article reveals that this inspection wasexacting, "not only are the lines of the propertymeasured, but the government official has takenthe dimensions of the various houses andstructures of the station, even to the sizes of therespective rooms, with a full description of themachinery and everything about the plant" ("CloseLook at OUf Quarantine," The Charleston EveningPost, July 24, 1906).

Although this study did not explore thefederal .operation of the quarantine station indetail, an oral history by Mr. Marion L. Bum, Jr.of its operation is in the files of Mr. Willis J. Keithand was consulted. Mr. Bum's familiarity with thestation is primarily during the late 1930s throughearly 1940s. He reports that throughout hismemory there were about four families on theproperty and the operation included not only theMedical Officer in Charge, but also boat pilots,boatmen, maintenancecrew,carpenters, inspectors,and others. He reports that each vessel wasinspected by a medical doctor (for contagiousdiseases) and a sanitarian (for rodent infestations).The fumigation was conducted using Zyklon (aproprietary name for hydrocyanic acid).

One of Mr. Bum's the most interestingremembrances concerns at least one of thecemeteries on Fort Johnson:

as an 11 year old, one of my firstacquaintances was Mr. EllisPinckney (whose family still livesjust outside the entrance of theS.C. Marine Resources Center).He told me of early sailors from a

It seems likely that this cemetery was the. onedestroyed by the construction of the SoutheastUtilization Research Center, although it is notknown if additional graves might still exist.

foreign ship [that] had died andwere II ••• shot in the ground."After much discussion, in Gullah,I realized that these persons hadbeen afforded a military funeraland that these sailors (7 of them)had had the traditional volleyfired over their graves.

The graves are locatedjust inside th'e entrance to theMarine Center on the right about500 yards from the gate. Thismust have been common practiceon quarantine Stations because Iknow of others buried on [the]Brunswick, Georgia QuarantineStation (Bum 1987a:1.2).

A large boat houseprojects over the water. Offices aswell as quarters for governmentofficials are scattered about thegrounds. At the southeastern sideof Quarantine, surrounded by abed of clover, stands an old fortof Revolutionary fame (Cohenn.d.:1).

branching off the Folly BeachHighway at a signed marked"Light House Point", and travelingdue east over a hardsurfaced roadcut between blending shades ofgreen shrubbery, tall pines, andwide spreading oaks, one passeslarge farms where Negroes arebusily loading trucks, hoeingcabbages or gathering vegetablesin season. Black children in multi­colored garments are standing bythe side of the road offeringbunches of wild flowers for sale .. . . This is the Quarantine withits patches of bright green grassand neatly kept governmenthouses. The place commands afine view of Charleston' harborwith its surrounding islands, fortsand bridges. Water splashes softlyagainst the sea wall and from theocean comes the smell of oystersand salt marshes. As the nameQuarantine implies, all ships fromforeign lands must stop here forexamination before proceeding toCharleston.

The earliest identified map' of FortJohnson during this period is the 1919 WarDepartment topographic surveys (Charleston andJameslsland quadrangles) shown in Figure 30. Theeastern wharf for vessels and the western wharf forballast removal are clearly visible, as are a series ofthree structures just south and a forth somewhatfurther to the southeast. By this time thequarantineactivities had been taken over by the U;$. PublicHealth Service. In the late 1930s the quarantinestation was descnbed by a WPA writer:

1947.

.·~·:~~~~~F~IJf;?::<I;~).~-

~~~~\~~-~:~;-~~~fi~~1Figure 30.1919 Charleston topographic map showing

Fort Johnson.

". _: a ~.' .- .• : ••••---

Bum reports that during the early years ofthe Second World War the quarantine station wasused by a U.S. Coast Guard detachment with thetroops billeted in the hospital. The post alsotrained military guard dogs, with the animals'housed "closed to the present pump house near theentrance to the Marine Center on the left" (Bum1987a:2).1t was during this period that the powdermagazine was refitted as a jail and that anti-aircraftbatteries came to the station to practice. Bum alsomentions that the present slip, or basin, at theMarine Resource Center was originally built in

63

Figure 31. 1943 topographic map showing Fort Johnson.

Education, and Welfare, offered the 90 acre tractto the State of South Carolina. For five years theproperty set vacant with local and state groupsunwilling, or unable, to reach a consensus on theuse of the property. Finally, HEW reclaimed thetract.

In 1954 Dr. George D. Grice, president ofthe College of Charleston, developed a plan totum the facility into a marine biological researchcenter. With the Medical College of SouthCarolina cooperating, HEW granted quitclaimdeeds on Fort Johnson to both institutions in June1954. This gave about 50 acres to both the Collegeof Charleston and the Medical University. Thelatter used the facility to carry on animal researchand small colonies of sheep, dogs, primates, andhogs were maintained at Fort Johnson for thestudy of disease. ,The College of Charlestonconcentrated on marine biological research and inAugust 1955 named Dr. Joseph Merkel director ofthe laboratories. He converted the hospitalbuilding into the first labs ("Former Fort isTransformed Into Scientific Work Center,'Charleston News and Courier, March 18, 1957). In1961 the Marshlands antebellum plantation housewas donated to the City of Charleston by theCharleston Naval Base. Funds were raised by theCollege of Charleston to move the structure and itwas transferred to their Fort Johnson facility for

use as a faculty residence (Keith1975b:2).

At least by 1967 plans wereagain being investigated to convert FortJohnson into a historic park. TheCollege of Charleston, anxious toproceed with expansion plans inCharleston was interested in selling 40of its 50 acres, maintaining only 10acres on the point where the earlylaboratory building was located. Localgroups, including Mayor J. PalmerGaillard of Charleston, urged the S.C.Department of Parks, Recreation, andTourism to purchase the site, but thiswas never realized (Proposal Made toUse Fort Johnson as Park," CharlestonNews and Courier, November 9, 1967).Instead, around 1970 the bulk of theproperty was transferred from the

I

\\)/

II

JOHNSON

I­

III

----

While the observation concerning the fortis likely inaccurate and the comments about thestation itself rather ambiguous, it seems that thefacility changed little between 1890 and 1930.Perhaps the most notable change during these 40years was that the wharfs had been replaced by aslip, the land being created by the dumped ballastextending dry land further outward into CharlestonHarbor. This is best shown by the 1943 Charlestontopographic sheet (Figure 31). The I-shapedbuilding to the southeast of the slip was thehospital, while the other buildings are locations ofthe various offices, warehouses, quarters, andhouses on the property.

The Modem Period

As early as 1935 local officialsrecommended that the fed~ralgovernmentdevelopFort Johnson as a historical park, favoring thislocation over either Fort Moultrie or even FortSumter ("Site Chosen for Historical Restoration,First Fort in Carolina, Overlooks 2 Other FamedMilitary Posts," Charleston News and Courier, July1, 1935).Regrettably,somehow this recommendationwas ignored and while both Sumter and Moultriebecame federal parks, in 1948 the quarantinestation, with its 14 buildings including a 40-bedhospital, was abandoned by the federalgovemmentand its custodian, the Department of Health,

64

College of Charleston and the Medical Universityto the S.C. Department of Wildlife and MarineResources for use as a research facility, endingefforts to utilize the unique history and heritage ofthe area as a park.

The Need for Further Research

It will be obvious that this brief synopsishas only touched on the most obvious primary andsecondary sources available for Fort Johnson -­many others remain either unidentified orunexplored. The goal here is to only brieflymention some of the sources which otherresearchers may wish to examine.

No real effort has been made to explorethe agency records of the S.c. Department ofWildlife and Marine Resources,. the College ofCharleston, or the Medical University forinformation on how the fort was used, whatactivities may have taken place on the property, orhow these activities may have changed the face ofthe tract. Clearly a tremendous amount of grounddisturbing activities have taken place and at leastsome of these may be documented by facilitiesreports, engineering records, or physical plantinventories. Other information may be available incorrespondence files. Unfortunately, most stateagencies - have relatively short institutionalmemories and searching for this information islikely to be tedious and the- files voluminous.

There .are likely files concerning FortJohnson in the records of the Public HealthService (National Archives Records Group 90),especially the Records of the Quarantine Divisionswhich date from 1878 to 1936 (with the periodfrom 1906 to 1936 being appropriate for thisstUdy). There is in addition a category of recordsknown simply as the General Records of the PublicHealth Service. which may contain furtherinformation. The Records of the Hospital Divisionmay contain information on the operation of theFort Johnson hospital. Since this Divisionmaintained records on the patients, these recordsmay shed additional light on the recurring rumorthat the quarantine station operated a cemetery onFort Johnson.

Prior to the federal government assumingcontrol of Fort Johnson, it was operated as a joint

City and State facility. While there seem to be noremnant City records (based on a review of theCharleston City Archives), some information maybe present in the State Board of Health files andespecially those relating to the City of Charleston(1883-1887, 1892-1894, 1896-1897, 1899-1900).There is also, under the State Board, records fromthe Committee on Quarantine. Of particularinterest, however, are the State records from thePort of Charleston Health Officer (dating from1869/70 - 1881182). Willis Keith also notes that adescendant of one of the last quarantine boatcaptains, Mr. Marion Bum, Jr., is still alive. Thisindividual should be interviewed since his memoryof the station is likely to be of exceptional use.

This study has not attempted anythingresembling a definitive examination of Civil Wardocuments relevant to our understanding of theFort Johnson defenses. There eXist, for example,not only the Offidal Records, but also the WarDepartment Collection of Confederate Records(National Archives, Record Group 109) whichinformation on fortifications, military commands,and related items. As anyone who has researchedthe Civil War records of the National Archivesrealizes, pertinent information may be found in awide range of Record Groups, including theRecords of the Office of the Chief of Engineers(Record Group 77). Regimental histories,especially for Confederate troops which may havebeen stationed at Fort Johnson, have not beenexamined.

For all the periods there are likely to berecords surviving at the local level. The collectionsof the College of. Charleston, the CharlestonLibrary Society, and the South Carolina HistoricalSociety have either not been examined, or havebeen explored only superficially. In addition, noeffort has been made to examine the various earlyCharleston newspapers.

Implications

This research has multiple implications.First, and certainly most fundamental, is that theFort Johnson facility is a unique historical resourcewhich has much to offer the citizens of SouthCarolina. Its nearly 160 years of continuousmilitary use traces the historical development oftheCarolina colony, its struggle for survival, and

65

Site Number123

45

6789

101112

13

14

66

Figure 32. Caption for Eighteenth Century Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

Description"Commandant's House," 3 bldg., 1 circular ruin"Gunner's House," 2 bldg.elevation, with earthwork"Bunker Hill," 1 bldg.2 bldg."Encampment of the Army" [British]1 bldg."Barraks," [sic] 1 bldg.1 bldg."New Wharf'interior of battery, with barrackswalls of batterybldg., in ruinsFortifications (including "Captain's House," "Old Barracks,"

"Powder Magazine""Fort Johnson""Fort Johnson, destroyed'"Old Fort," in ruins"Strong redout, erected near Ft. Johnson"earthworkearthworks

Date1787.178717751787178717801787178717871787178717871787

1737178017801787178017801780

Figure 33. Caption for Antebellum Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

S~ Nurubl=r Dooip<"'" 0." Si~ Numbu DclCripcion 0.",

"'Gcnk Quo"",,- I bI4 11m 35 wl\orf 1833

""-her kaoIl. Oft whdo. •• houae that wl\orf IIl3li

was IOftIC lirK pI.$1. OlXUpled ..narf lIlA •

br Cd. Scnl. II'< EA,....r c( wharf 18-C~

rhcSa~· 11mI bidS- 1833 ..... rf '1lA3..rf 11m 36 a..,~rb 01'.,.11 IIl33.....rf 183J 37 , bld&. 1103"Hoopilal: I bI4 1800 'C'<p<m<r'. won: &hop' IIl33

M<.loI.uty: ~tca"Bcot Co"", 4 Bconlin& -Woobhopo: 1 bId&. lIlA2

Hooo<: ...n. 3 bidS- 11133 "o<bhop .te: 1 bid,. 11lA3

I bI4 lllA6 38 1 b&d,IC had o(wt.n 11133-s..... Hooo<: I bid&- lllOO

IbId&. lllOO ~t.hp· 11lA3~ta[ion IlIOO 39 "Dr. Lcl>by: J bid,. \833

2b1d&. 11133 1 bidS- 1838I bidS- IlIOO 2 bid,. '1lA2Ibid,. 1800 "Robe. Lcl>by: 2 bld,_ f<na<t la.~

OW,",8&ucry" lID> I bid,. 1_-West &ttct)". c:nx:lcd it. tt.r RC'OIUltOn. 4() 'OlUo<h: I bid&- 11lJ3

ftOW'aJCirdy Ninc,(t IIr:lO I bld&. IIlJ8crodcdca~ llOll "l'ral¥<rian Cbuod>: 1 bld,_ 18-t2

10 ctnhwotb ICttJIS pethiKuIa .,iI:b CI """1"'" Ko.ac: I bld._ 11133op:nilta II "'P\IbIic: R.oItf" lID> 1 bidS- 11l3li

II

a_1600 1 bid,. '841

12 -rl4' I bids- lei 'tAboroun:n' Ouo""n: j.CI 2~ 1842"Old t-upu.e. ~Jt>r-Ciucm" IIl33 "'bou~n' qtancn: 1 bidS- 1843"Mapu.e:lbIdJ- 1842 <2 -c'pC Ri\<ft: 3b1d&. 1833"Map.....' I bIdJ- 18(3 ~ La",,,,,: ) bldS-- I<n=! lS42

1b14 1846 Ibid,. I_II ib< bomc:b buJIIl d>c apcm< of th< <) rL Pemnnc.au.- ~n.ecr 1C\d 8c:a~

US. ., 119l5" lllOO [or M<dwnOcb: I bl<l&- 1103"Qoa""n." I bidS- lei I bid,. IIl3liI bid,. 110) •Jno. RMn: I bid&- (cn«.d IBe2"Eoc""t', Ouo"",,: Ibid._ ordl '"'" .. -Propo~d Sir far 1J<ItlJ4r MiT 11133

-p.GIX- ncar comen. 183) _S I bldS- .uocialed with litl: 13 11133lblds- IlOS I bidS- lBe2I bids- 18(1 I bidS- 1843"En,""rQuart<n: I bIdJ- ISC2 46 I bld&_ au.o:iltc.d with ,it.c: 13 1103"OlI"an Qua"",,: I bids- '84) , bld&- 1S42I bi4 IIlA6 1 bid,. lBe)

1< -s..... Hooo<." I bl4 lei .7 1 bld&_....x.<cd "'dI .a. 13 IIl331bl4 11m 1 bid,. LS4:!"CIcrblloolom, CalJlC*ctlMa"", t-uoonl I bld&. lIlA 3

c........ry)Quo~" 110) ell w1urf 1103Jbl4 18'3] <9 "'Old lhcd in NW· 1103~....... Quo"",,: 2 bid&- 184; 1 bldS_ IBe2~...." 0-"".... 2 bI4 18() so ·oId 'ht.d in fU....• 1l0~

I bids- 18C6 , bldJ. UW2IS 1bldJ- lei SI ..nan 11133

~...." Tool !iouo<."1llacbndl Shop" 1103 'k_: ,,_ jc<cy. us f.ce ., len¢' lBeI"MOby:2bl4 18-<2 "-JUrY IBe2....0Ily: -"'"'~,,: 2 bl4 18() ,.uy ,8()

16 "1lornc:b: I bids- lei jcny 1_1bl4 11lJ3 52 2b1d&. Iltlll-s..... -. oIr..... indudiat Coao<'.- 18'3) 53 "Shc4.-lblds- 18(:I bids- IlOS -ohcA- I bldS- 184)I bids- lIlA I Ibid&- 18C6'Ocra. Hoopilal. Ae.: 1 bids- 1S-2 SC Ibld&- (Be2""'pilaVocra:l~ 18-<3 5S "'SdlOOI H""",,: I bids- 18(21bldJ- 1846 Sd I bidS- Iltlll

,7 -n..maoc.- leI 'JoM "'1'-: ) blds-- fen=! 11A218 whorf IlIOO SI ,;:;,.Ua,K'C: o( los and uone 1841

who ... ISlI bruMlcr o( shell. ttotlC .nd I. lIlA2"MarincR.my'" ISH b«Irr-w.tcr or none. thr:lI. and "nd lBe),...rifle tailrwd 18-<2 ..harf 1_'"M.rirtcra......." lIlA) 58 I bidS' 1838JC<fr 18C6 "M". C.ldcr MdocJ: , bld._ IIC2-..rirK ..)I'o Ill'<l 59 I bid•. Iltlll

19 "The """"0 Wotb" .nd "The won: -'\Vra. M..(hc... : 1 bld3_ fc.t'lOt.od 18042.....ed by <Xl'll MouI,,,,,' 1800 60 I bldS- 11l:'8

Ion ... lla 16:!1 ihc:lma' Lep~.• ~ blei& .• lcnc:cd 18A~

20 (on ... Ih IS;\ 61 I bld,. 11l:'821 "The Hoop;ur ISl'O "WOftbom 1..0"'",,: ) bld,_ kneed 1&4;

...- 1&11 62 I bld._ '838:u '"ThcBoo,_a..J,"17IlO" •lIOO "f"ok ~.-4: I bidS. 18(223 ,he tabby ....rt ""'do. ..... bu., ;n 17yr 1800 63 "'Wm. S.eabl'OOok: 1 bidS.. {C'no:.d ISC!2' the: r.abby wort ..mich WI:~ bYih In 11YT ISOO lI-' '"El~.h R~~.· 3 bid8~ knczd I SoC 125 'ihc LIbby wort: ..-ftx;h ....1' budl ttl 17'fr 1600 65 I bld._ lllJ826 "'The A4"lirlC(~ 1.ho9- nd "Sm.U '6IClClOt:n -Huna: Rio.oc,,: ~ blda~ (C'ncc.d 1S41

buiidin,al,.c.t '" !'\lIN" IROO 66 ·UOt1: room: l b'd&. IS(~

,7 ""Wdi 1810 67 new brt',lrwIlcf of uonc.. lhcll. •• lId w~ LIlA)28 """NeW 1!Ul brakwltcr 1&4~29 '"The 81lu: Hcuc- 'BO:' bft-lrwwlC'f IBSOJ(l -A ""c:l1, now r"kd ",p. [&1.0 6S 1 b(d~ [8ll:)1 ·A fMllC'ty buill an 17'9-4 by the US.- IIltO [ bldX· ,s.t6J2 ,he (on: b.uh b)' <;0... Moulln.t In 179'3 (y9 [bldS_ 18-<6

.nd n::FMu't':d at lhe u::pc(Uc 70 c1C"\-atcd.~ 11l:',\01 rhc lIS. \1'1 1796· I bldg n.d» -"" knoll e-l1ed BunkeR Hill on which .I 72 ~ b!<3S_~~I(;rc.aedtnlt-.e: ') .......clrRC"w'OIutk,)(l· 'SUU pump n.d

I bldg. 16:3) .......cll-l< -A knoll 00 _t1d'l a. a hoUlo( OCC\Ip<..d by ",""p. n.d.

C,plilln ~hc.cn- 1&1.'-' 75 "JOt. HU'IQu: I bld,l. (C:('oCTC I &4 ~

"M.al1tlloT\,No'cr'" IS~~ I bld~ I..."na."c:Uo 10000'Ct 1&-1(, '6 "'\lo'm (;odl::w-r: I l>ldA I f'..4~

68

Figure 34. CaptIon for Civil War Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

Site Number DescnptIon Date1 "Battery Hallsted" 18652 "Wharf' 18653 1 bldg. 18654 battery or fortificatIon 1863

battery or fortificatIon, 3 bldg. 18655 "cIStern" 18656 earthwork, possibly old 18657 powder magazme and earthwork 1865

1 bldg. 18668 Earthworks of Fort Johnson 1863

Fort Johnson walls 18659 seawall 1865

10 "Remams of Old Fort" 186511 "ClStem" 186512 earthworks 1865

3 bldg. 186613 3 bldg. 186514 1 bldg. 1865

2 bldg. 186615 "Bty Wampler" 1863

battery 186516 wharf 1860

wharf 186617 wharf 186618 3 bldg. 186619 3 bldg. 186620 "work shop," 1 bldg. 1860

1 bldg. 186621 "Jettee" 186022 "quarters," 1 bldg. 186023 "overseer's quarters," 2 bldg. 1860

2 bldg. 186624 1 bldg. 186025 "officers' quarters," 1 bldg. 1860

1 bldg. 186626 1 bldg. 186027 1 bldg. 186028 1 bldg. 1860

2 bldg. 186629 1 bldg. 186030 earthwork 186531 "hospital/office," 1 bldg. 1860

1 bldg. 186632 1 bldg. 186633 1 bldg. 186634 3 bldg. 1866

70

Figure 35. Caption for Postbellum Sites Identified on Fort Johnson.

Site Number Description Date1 "Mound Covering Old Magazine" ca. 1880

earthwork 18801 bldg. 1943

2 "Old Barrack," 1 bldg. ca. 18803 "Store House/Light House Depart't," 1 bldg. 1874

"Store House," 1 bldg. ca. 1880"Old Buoy Shed (not in use)" 1880"Quarantine Bldg.," 1 bldg. 1892 .

4 "Wharf' ca. 18805 "Sea Wall" 1874

"Old Wharf' ca. 18806 "Stone Work" ca. 1880

"Breakwater" 1880"Old Breakwater" 1892

7 1 bldg. ca. 1880"Dr. Lebby's Outbuilding," 2 bldg. 1892

8 "Old Stone Jetty" 1880wharf 1919

9 "Health Officer's House," 1 bldg. 188010 "Negro Dwelling," 1 bldg. 188011 wharf 1919

"Quarantine Wharves" 189212 1 row of 3 bldg. 191913 1 bldg. 1919

1 bldg. 194314 1 bldg. 1892

1 bldg. 194315 1 bldg. 194316 1 bldg. 194317 2 bldg. 194318 1 bldg. 194319 1 bldg. 194320 1 bldg. 1943 .21 1 bldg. 194322 "Negro Cabins," row of 4 bldg. 189223 "Cabin," 1 bldg. 189224 wharf 187425 "Sea Wall" 187426 battery 187427 battery 187428 "Negro Cabins," row of 3 bldg. 189229 "Old Wharf' 189230 "Ballast" 189231 "Quarantine Bldgs.," 1 bldg. 189232 "Quarantine Bldgs.," 1 bldg. 189233 "Negro Cabins," 1 bldg. shown 1892

72

the obstacles faced dunng the process. Suchresources are rare and are of partIcularlll1portance. ThIS sIgnificance, of course, has beendocumented by placmg the entIre 90 acre sIte onthe NatIOnal RegISter for Histone Places.

ThIS reVIew also reveals the need not onlyfor an mtenslve archaeologIcal survey of the entlIeproperty, but also for a clear understanding of thesite's Importance, th~ potentIal Impact ofdevelopment actIVitIes, and the need for a carefullydeveloped preservatIon plan. Some of FortJohnson's Irreplaceable resources have beendamaged or even destroyed by development. It ISclear that many others will likely be threatened mthe future. A preservatIon plan for the facilitywould Identify those resources WhICh, under noCIrcumstances, should be lffipacted, those resourcesWhICh mIght be suitable for data recoveryexcavatIons if the need anses, and those resourceswhIch may perhaps be redundant or alreadysuffiCIently lffiparred that no further archaeologIcalor hIStoncal research IS necessary pnor todevelopment. In additIon, a preservatIon planwould establish clear procedures for compliancewith state and federal law and would also establishwritten procedures for recovery of operatIons afternatural disasters (such as humcanes) WhICh will notadversely affect the resources. While theconclUSIOns of thIS study offer some generalrecommendatIons m each of these areas, thedevelopment of a detailed preservatIon plan ISbeyond the scope of the current proJect. Itsdevelopment, however, should not be Ignored orpostponed.

The hlStoncal research has also served tosupplement the archaeological mvestIgatIons,offenng an exceptional opportunity to betterunderstand the resources on Fort Johnson. Figure32 shows the eIghteenth century hIStonc SItesoverlaId on a modern map otthe facility At leastfifteen specific areas of concern were Identified,although SIX of these have clearly been destroyedby erOSIOn. The remammg, however, represent aWIde range of potentIal cultural resources,mcluding the locatIon of the "Commander's House"from 1787, a structure on what was knownthroughout the perIod as "Bunker Hill," twostructures assocIated WIth the "Gunner's House."

Figure 33 illustrates 76 different

74

nmeteenth century SItes, mcluding a largeconcentratIon covermg the pomt or extremIty ofthe tract. While thIS was clearly the area mostoften used, eIther for fortificatIons or for theplanters' village, there are also a number ofISolated structures, earthworks, and features on theremamder of the modern-day Fort Johnson facility

Figure 34 shows documented Civil Warearthworks and assocIated features. These nearly20 different sIte areas mclude battenes,earthworks, wharfs, structures, CISterns, andbuildings spread throughout the tract, butconcentrated on the northeastern half.

Figure 35 illustrates the locatIon of thestructures thought to be aSSOCiated WIth theQuarantme StatIon dunng the late nmeteenth andearly twentIeth centunes. Twenty-three differentfeatures, structures, or wharfs were Identified fromthIS general penod.

These maps offer a graphIC representationof how the hIStonc use of the facility has changedthrough tme. They also reveal the complexity ofFort Johnson's cultural resources, offenng yetanother resource, m COnjUnctIOn WIth thearchaeologIcal and archItectural studies, to helppreserve and protect thIS unIque heritage.

RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODS

Introduction

M was preVIously mdicated, the pnmarygoals of the Fort Johnson survey were to Identify,record, and assess the sIgnificance ofarchaeologtcal sItes withm the approXImately 90acre tract at the end of Fort Johnson Road onJames Island. Secondary goals mc1uded anexammatIon of several major known hIStOrical sitesdatmg from the Amencan Revolution throughCivil War, the exammation of settlement andsubsIStence patterns for prehIStonc sites, theexammatlOn of soils and dramage as they affect thelocatIon of prehlStonc sites, and an effort toIdentify late seventeenth and early eIghteenthdomestIc sites thought to eXISt on the facility. Asthe hIStonc research was conducted, it also becameobVIOUS that another goal should be theIdentificatiOn of the antebellum. summer village ofplanters known to have eXISted on the FortJohnson tract. NomaJoranalytlcalhypotheseswerecreated pnor to the field work and data analyslS,although certam expectatIons regarding thesecondary goals will be outlined m thesediscussions. The research deSIgn proposed for thISstudy IS, as discussed by Goodyear et al. (1979:2),fundamentally exploratIVe and explicatIVe.

Archival Research

The study of Fort Johnson mcorporated areVIew of the site files at the South CarolinaInstitute of Archaeology and Anthropology andcoordinatIon with the S.C. Department of ArchIVesand History for mformatIon on preVIOUSarchitectural surveys and NatIOnal RegISter sites. InadditIOn, archIVal and hlStoncal research wasconducted at the Thomas Cooper Library MapRepository, the City of Charleston ArchIves, theNatIOnal ArchIves CartographiC and ArchitecturalBranch, the South Carolina Department ofArchives and History, and the South CarolinianaLibrary. While the hlStoncal research IS notexhaustive, It does prOVIde a clear background and

context for the evaluatIon of Identified sites. It alsooffers a SIgnificant base for future work m theproject area. ThIS hIStoncal and archIVal researchwas pnmarily conducted by Dr. Michael Trmkley,with aSSIStance from Ms. Debl Hacker.

Field Survey Methodology

The typIcal methodology for a compliancesurvey of a tract such as Fort Johnson IS toestablish a systematic mtensIVe survey methodologyWhICh exammes the entIre acreage forarchaeological and hlStoncal resources. Such anapproach, although extremely labor mtensIVe, wasused on Fort Johnson smce the tract IS verycomplex and exhibits a WIde range of culturalresources.

The mitIally proposed field techmqueswere based on the Scope of Work which stIpulatedthat "the survey shall mclude subsurface samplingtechnIque based upon random placement of testcores throughout the site as descnbed m ResearchManuscnpt Senes No. 93 of the Institute ofArcheology and Anthropology" (Statement ofWork to Identify Specific ReqUIrements andDevelop DeSIgn Critena and SchematIc Plans forProposed Marme and EnVIronmental HealthLaboratory at Charleston, SC, dated February 5,1994 and reVISed February 23, 1994).

Such an approach does not prevent theresearch from evaluatmg the archaeologIcalpotentIal of the tract and desIgnmg different levelsor mtensitIes of InVestIgation. Often areas ofposited high potential are mvestIgated usmgtransects spaced 100 feet apart with tests every 100feet, while areas of reduced potentIal are exploredusmg transects spaced 200 feet apart with testsevery 200 feet. In the case of Fort Johnson,however, preVIOUS mveStIgations combmed WItheven the prelimmary hIStoncal research, suggestedthat no portIons of the property could legItlffiatelybe classified as haVIng a "low potentIal" for

75

archaeologIcal resources. In fact, qUIte the contrarywas likely -- Fort Johnson exhibited a near uniformhIgh to very hIgh archaeologIcal potentIal. InadditIon, almost all of the tract was known to bewooded with many areas exhibItmg very denseunderstory vegetatIon resultmg from the loss ofoverstory dunng Hurncane Hugo In 1989Consequently, shovel testmg was proposed ontransect lines m order to prOVIde a systematIcexammatIon of the vegetated areas. Shovel tests,approXllllately 1.0 foot square, would be excavatedat 100 mtervals along transects also placed at 100foot mtervals. Transects were typIcally staggered,producmg offset shovel tests. A total of 496 shoveltests were placed on 80 transects (Figure 36). Allsoil was screened through %-mch mesh and allrecovered cultural matenals was retamed, exceptfor shell, bnck, and mortar whIch would bequalitatIvely assessed and discarded m the field.IndiVIdual shovel tests whIch produced culturalmatenals were flagged so that lOCI could berelocated should additional mvestlgattons benecessary.

Normally, if archaeologIcal remams arediscovered dunng testmg operations, the spacmg ofthe tests IS decreased to no greater than 50 feet(both parallel and perpendicular to the ongmaltest) m order to better Identify the limits of thesite. These shovel tests are mtended to aSSISt notonly m determmmg site boundanes, but also mdetermmmg site mtegrity, artifact density, andtemporal penods of occupatIon. At Fort Johnsonthe density of remams and the overlappmg ofvanous components made such an approachdifficult. There were few areas where boundanescould be identified on the basIS of an absence ofcultural matenals. More often boundanes had tobe determmed either topographically or becausethe assemblage changed.

There were, however, three areas pomtedout durmg the field mvestlgatIOn as bemg the mostlikely locatIons for development actIvities. Thesemc1uded an area m the northwest comer of theproperty Just north of Fort Johnson Road, an aream the south central portIon of the tract m theVICmIty of an eXlStmgradio tower, and a ndge mthe extreme southwestern corner of the tractadjacent to the marsh. In the northwestern cornerof the tract the 100 foot shovel tests revealed such

76

a low density of remams no additional closemterval testmg was conducted. In the other twoareas shovel testmg was conducted at 50 footmtervals to prOVIde more accurate mdicators ofoccupatIOnal mtenslty and actMty areas. An areameasurmg 600 feet north-south by 400 feet east­west (about 5.5 acres) ill the Vlcmity of the radiotower was mtensively exammed, while an areameasurmg 300 feet north-south by 600 east-west(about 4.1 acres) In the VICInIty of the marsh edgewas also explored at 50 foot mtervals.

In additIon, ChIcora relocated andassessed all preViously Identified sites recorded ill

the S.C. InstItute of Archaeology andAnthropology SIte files. ArchItectural survey datawas collected for standing structures not preVIouslyrecorded. It was ongmally antICIpated that thepreVIously recorded archaeologtcal SItes would bere-evaluated with the mformatlon compiled foreaSIer use.

As discussed earlier, for both lOgIStIcal andphilosophIcal reasons we deClded to mcorporate allof the Identified archaeologIcal matenals mto38CH69 as preVIOUS defmed. ThIS approach waslOgIStIcally the sIDlplest course. Boundarydistmctlons were' difficult at best and a number ofdifferent lOCi will eventually overlap. For example,Johnsonville, the antebellum planters' villageoverlaps the Civil War military earthworks andencampments, parts of which also overlapprehIStonc sites. Under such CIrcumstances a lOCIapproach seems more reasonable and IS eaSIer forfuture researchers to adapt to therr specific needs.PhilosophIcally, it avOIds the problem of Sitemflatlon, or attemptmg to Identify what amounts tospecific actIVity areas withm a broader context.ThIS approach IS sunilar to that adopted byresearchers workIng m the urban settmg whereslffiilar complexity reveals that the whole area IS a"site," with specific areas defined on the basIS ofnnmediate needs. It 15 also Important to pomt outthat our approach 15 the most conservative andallows future researchers to take a different pathwithout bemg burdened by vast numbers ofpreVIously aSSIgned site numbers (thIS approach hasalso been reVlewed and approved by the SCIAAInformatIon Management DIVISIon).

ThIS survey methodology 15 conSIStent WIththe South Carolina State Histone PreservatlOn Office

yJ-~O~

X?'\o~dJ"~

BEACH EXPOSED AT LOW TIDE

I~I

~i~.@!I t II ~ N

!~~~

~

~

~

.=J£

o 200 400~==-----

SCALE IN FEET

• HISTORIC SrRUCTURE

SSl MODERJ"I snWC'TlJRF.

[] DIRT ROAD

-....J-....J

Figure 36 Location of the various major 100 and 50 foot survey transects on Fort Johnson

GuuJelines and Standards for ArchaeologzcalInvestzgatwns and was provIded for reVIew by theS.C. Department of ArchIves and History and theS.C. InstItute of Archaeology and Anthropology

The only maps available for the surveyarea were a 1973 boundary plat wIth notopographIc features and only limIted culturalfeatures (such as buildings and roads), a 1980 mapshowmg suspected hIStonc sItes but no topographIcfeatures, and an undated map whIch provIdedgeneralized topographIc data and very datedcultural mformation. Durmg the field mvestlgatlonswe did not have access to mappmg whIch provIdeddetailed topographIc data and cultural features.Because these maps are dated and offer fewtopographIc features the vanous lOCI or arealocatIons Identified must be consIderedapproXllllate, WIth an average accuracy of ± 50feet.

Limitations of the Sunrey Methodology

One pnmary goal of thIS study was todetermme the nature and extent of culturalremams on the property. In order to accomplishthIS goal a testmg program usmg shovel tests at 100foot mtervals on transects spaced every 100 feetwas lffiplemented. It IS tmportant that thelinlltatlons of the adopted survey methodology befully understood.

The use of 100 foot mterval testmg IStraditIonal m archaeologIcal research, representmga comproffilSe between acceptable levels of SItediscovery and acceptable levels of cost. ObVIously,the closer the mterval the more field tIme mvolvedand the hIgher cost of the survey. Years ofarchaeologIcal research has demonstrated thattestmg every 100 feet allows many, although notall, SItes to be found. There IS, however, mountmgeVIdence that thIS approach not only fails toIdentify some SItes, but also fails to provIdepartIcularly accurate boundanes for other SItes (seeTnnkley et al. 1993:58-69). As a result, there hasbeen expenmentatton usmg testmg at mtervals asclose as every 10 feet, although 50 or 25 footmtervals are likely to produce more acceptablecost-benefit ratIos.

Regardless, It IS lffiportant to understandthat the 100 foot transects mcorporated mto thIS

78

study offer only a gross level for a site of thecomplexity found at Fort Johnson. The failure toIdentify archaeologIcal remams ill shovel tests at100 foot mtervals cannot be taken to mean that noremams eXlSt. In fact, companson ofall the availabledata sources (archaeologu;al testing, surface scatters,architectural remazns, and poszted hzsUJnc sztes) IS

likely UJ offer the best possible predictions for thepresence of cultural remauzs at a particular areawit/un Fort Johnson. Failure to take advantage ofall of the sources of mformatIon will result III

spunous reconstructions which Ignore potentIallySIgnificant archaeologIcal and/or hIStoncalresources.

With these cautions, Figures 37 through 42help to prOVIde a general understanding ofarchaeologIcal denSIty at Fort Johnson, clearlyrevealing different areas, or concentrations or sub­surface remams.

Figure 37 illustrates the density of allartifacts, revealing espeCIally dense remaillS m theVICInity of the powder magazme and around thesupport buildings m the VIcmlty of the radio tower.When hIStone artifacts (Figure 38) are conSIderedthe distributIon IS essentIally IdentIcal, largelybecause of the ovexwhelmmg contnbutIon ofhIStone matenals when compared to prehIStoncartifacts. When the hIStonc artifacts are diVIdedbetween architectural items (pnmarily nails) andkitchen artifacts (prtmarily ceramICS and glass) theresultmg maps (Figures 39 and 40) are SImilar, butnot IdentIcal. The architectural remams perhapsmore clearly reveal the locations or general areasof structural remams, while the kitchen artifactdistnbutIon IS mtluenced by Civil Warencampments WhICh contnbuted stonewares, bottleglass, and ceramICS to the archaeologIcal record.

Figure 41 illustrates the denSIty ofprehIStOrIC remams (pnmarily pottery), illustratmgthat these tend to be sparsely distributed acrossFort Johnson. Two general contributIons are noted,one north of the powder magazme, on the pomt,and the other ill the vlcmlty of the pump houseroad. Other small areas of pottery distributIOn areshown along the edge of the marsh. ThISdistributIon IS remforced by the locatIon of denseshell mIdden, illustrated on Figure 42. Only one ofthe prehIStOrIC occupatlOn areas IS along the

BEACH ~PO$ED AT LOW nDE

//

1/

"11

""""1/1//I

""""

Figure 37 Artifact density at Fort Johnson

• InSTOR" STllllCrtJRI:

IlllI MODERN STlWCTURF.

D Oliff ROAD

o 200 400L ~_=___

SCAI F. IN FEET

TOTAL SUBSURFACEARTIFAClS

C3 10\\ DliNSln (I 2 ARTIFACTS)

~ MODER,\TE DENSIn (120ARTIFA<..JS)

a HIGH DENsrn (21 4OARTIFACfS)

00o

o 200 400c-==----=-__=_

SCAl E IN rEIT

TOTAL SUBSURFACEHJSTORIC ARTIFACTS

t'9 LOW DENSITY (I 2 ARTIFACrS)

~ MODERATE DENSITY (320ARiIFACT"S)

E HIGH DENSITY (2140ARTIFACT"S)

• K1STOlUC ST1lUCTl!RF.

Ill§ MODERN S~ucnJRF.

IJ DIRT ROAr>

B!'ACH EXrOSED loT tOW nDE

IIII

/ICl\\

II1//III

"/I"''''

1''''

IIIIII

Figure 38 Distribution of historic artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract

pownF.RM;\OAZINE

o 200 400L-=-::"~==-

SCALE IN FEET

fO rAL SUBSURFACEARCHlTErfURAL ARTIFACTS

~ LOW DENSln (I ARTIFACT)

G1 MODERATE DENSln (2 HRTIFACTS)

Ell HIGH DENSIn (6 16 ARTIFACTS)

~

----... QuARANTINEOFACER S HOliSE

• HISTORIC SllWClURE

Blll MODERN STRUCTURE

ILJ DIRT ROAD

BEACH EXPOSED AT LOW TIDE

~~dSl •/

~ ~MARSHLANDS

HOUSE//

1/ ~~"N II

"

j1//I/I

1/1/

Figure 39 Distribution of historic architectural artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract

00N

BtACH EXPOSED ItT LOW TtDE

1/

"IIII\\

"II"II"II

""II

ItIIII

Figure 40 Distribution of historic kitchen artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract

• KlSTORIC SffiUC'TURE

IlllI MODERN SffiUC'TURE

~ DIRT ROAD

SCAI E IN FEI-;I

TOTAl. SUBSURFACEKITCHEN ARiIF,\CfS

C3 LOW DENSITY (I 2ARTIFACTS)

~ MODERATE DENSm (19ARTIFACTS)

a HIGH DENSITY (1(}.24ARTIFACTS)

BEACH EXPOSED AT WW TIDE

cllll •

MARSHLANDSHOUSE

""II11\\

"1/1/

1/

II1/

//

Figure 41 Distribution of prehistoric artifacts on the Fort Johnson tract

• HISTORJ( STIlliCTURE

Ill!I MODERN STRUCTURE

~ DIRT ROAD

POWDERMAGAZINE

"~" 'X.

", ~

".0.\~

\~\'b\S;\~

\

..... QUARANTINEOFFICER SHOUSE

200 400-SCALE IN FEET

TOTAL SUBSURFACEPREHlSTORlC ARTIFACfS

l'3 LOW DENS!n (l ARTIFACT)

~ MODERATE DENSm (23 ARTIFACTS)

a HIGH DENSITY (4-6 ARTIFACTS)

tj

"II1/

II

"II

""11

II1/

BEACH E'(f'OSED AT LOW TIDE

elm •/

/MARSHl.ANDS

HOUSE

• I"STORle sTRUC'11JRE

IlllI MOOERN SlllUcruRE

~ DIRr ROAD

o 200 400I =---

SCALE IN FEIOT

SHELL DENSIn

&1 LOW DENSITY

[od MODERATE DENSITY

a HIGH DEl'lSIT\

Figure 42 Distribution and density of shell on the Fort Johnson tract

harbor; most are clustered along the marsh edge orare sItuated further mland m a non-shell mIddenarea.

When these maps are compared to thosecreated by South and Widmer (1976:Figures 3-6)strong sImilaritIes can be observed, although clearlytheIr research offers a more refined VIew of asmaller sampling unIverse. In additIon, the work bySouth and Widmer fails to proVIde mformation ondensity of remams, mstead notmg only presenceand absence.

Laboratory and AnalYSIS Methods

The cleanmg of artifacts was begun mCharleston durmg the field work and completed mColumbia. Catalogmg of the speCImens wasconducted at the ChIcora laboratones ill ColumbiallllD1ediately after the fieldwork, from May 3through May 5, 1994. All artifacts except brass andlead speCImens were wet cleaned. Brass and leaditems were dry brushed. All of the artifacts wereevaluated for theIr conservatIon needs and mostwere determmed to be stable. Those WhICh werenot stable were pnmarily mIScellaneous Ironobjects WhICh were Identified, drawn when

appropnate, and discarded.

As preVIously discussed, the matenals havebeen accepted for curatIon by the South CarolinaInstitute of Archaeology and Anthropology. Thematenals have been cataloged usmg thISmstitutlOn's accessIonmg practIces. SpecImenswere packed m plastIc bags and boxed. Field noteswere prepared on pH neutral, alkaline bufferedpaper and photographIC matenal were processed toarchIval standards. All ongmal field notes are alsocurated with thIS facility. CopIes of the field noteshave also been prOVIded to Calcara DuffendackFoss Manlove Inc. as stipulated by the scope ofwork.

AnalysIS of the collectIons followedprofeSSIonally accepted standards with a level ofmtenslty suitable to the quantity and quality of theremams. PrehIStonc pottery was classified usmgcommon coastal Georgia and South CarolinatypologIes (DePratter 1979; Tnnkley 1983). Thetemporal, cultural, and typologIcal classificatIons ofthe hIStonc remams follow Noel Hume (1970),Miller (1980, 1991), Pnce (1970), and South(1977).

85

IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

• it mdependently meets theNatlOnal ReglSter critena.

• was present dunng the penodof SIgnificance, relates to thedocumented SIgnificance of theproperty, and possesses hIStoncllltegnty, or IS capable of yieldinglffiportant mformatIon about thepenod, or

Non-contnbutmg resources do not add to thhlStonc qualitIes or assoaatlOns, or archaeologIC<

values for which a property 1

SIgnificant. An area may bconSidered a non-contnbutmresource because:

Table 2.Areas of Sub-Surface Cultural Matenal at Fort Johnson

AB preVIOusly discussed, after theconclUSlOn of the field research it was deCIded thatall of the remams found at Fort Johnson would berecorded as 38CH69, with the differentconcentrations Identified as Iocr or areas. ThISallows more convement research m the futurewithout the problems assocIated with overlappmgor poorly defined site boundanes. It serves toSImPlify management deCISIons and optIons. And itallows greater fleXlbility m future research proJeets~

Consequently, thIS portion of the report willoutline the Identified archaeolOgIcal areas and theaSSOCIated surface scatters of archaeologtcalremams (see Figure 43). The different areas are

• it does not mdependently meetthe NatlOnal RegISter critena.

ThIS approach recognIZes that while all 90acres of Fort Johnson are listed on the NatIOnal

• it was notpresent dunng theperiod ofsignIficance ordoes not relate tothe penod ofdocumentedSignificance,

• it has been soaltered, disturbed,or otherWIsesIgnifIcantlychanged that it nolonger possesses

hIStonc mtegrity or 15 no longercapable of yIelding lffiportantmformatlOn about the penod, or

Size (in feet)

50 (N-S) x 100 (E-W)200 (N-S) x 350 (E-W)450 (N-S) x 850 (E-W)150 (N-S) x 150 (EoW)

300 (N-S):t 200 (E-W)700 (N-S):t 1(0) (E-W)100 (N-S) x 150 (E-W)100 (N-S) x 150 (E-W)

350 (NoS) x 700 (E-W)

600 (N-S) x 650 (EoW)

1 380I275 Prdnstonc (Deptford phase); 19th century2 38CH274 18th/19th century military and domestlc3 20th century With standing structure4 38aI274 18th/19th century domestic5 380U6 PrehLstonc (Deptford/Cape Fear phase)

19th century military (1)6 18th1l9 century pbnters' summer wage

19th12Oth quarantine officer's house7 PrehLstonc (Deptford/Cape Fear phase)

19th century military8 19th century9 380169 18th/19th century fortifications

10 380U6 PreJnstonc shell DUdden

In an effort to help those makmgmanagement deCISIons better understand thedifferent site areas, each one IS assessed as eithercontributzng or non-contributing. Followmg therecommendations of National RegISter Bulletm16a, How to Complete the Natwnal RegzsterRegzstratwn Fonn, contributmg resources are thoseWhICh add to the hIStone aSSOCIatIon orarchaeologIcal values for whIch the property 15

SIgnificant. The area may be contributmg becauseIt eIther:

Area. PreY10US Site # Funet10n

reVIewed ill Table 2.

86

-

POWDER\MAOAZINE

" ~

... ~

".... ~..;f;\~

\\': :i

\~

ARFAC>

200-i

SCALE IN FEET

o

lllUCfURE• IDSTORIC S

11lumlRF.lllll MODERN S .

ll2I IAINSlJ

DIRT ROAI> . JDSURfACE RE~ •nONS 01· SlI'- CONCENTRA

U CE RE"IAINS~ DENSE SURFA

'N)SfD 111 1.01\ rlDF.BeltCII f)i.

1/IIII

" REA JI~A

/~"II,III

~ J hnson tractthe Fort 0'ns identified onf e rematf sub-sur acAreas 0

Table 3.Artifacts Recovered from Area 1

from the Middle Woodland (ca. 500 B.C.) and theIDid-Dlneteenth century (ca. A.D 1850). Thecentral UTM coordinates for thIS area areN3623700 E602580 and the soils are Wando senessands. The shovel tests revealed about 0.8 foot ofbrown loamy sand over the subsoil.

RegISter, not all of the archaeologIcal andhIStoncaI resources on the property have equalmportance. It IS also necessary to recognIZe thatwhile all 90 acres are on the NatIonal RegISter,that does not mean that all 90 acres contamsIgnificant archaeologIcal resources. ExammatIonof Figure 43 reveals many areas WhICh are notIdentified as "areas" of archaeologIcal remams.CautIon, however, IS agam recommended. It IS

essentIal that sub~surfacearchaeologIcal remams,above ground archaeologIcal and architecturalremams, and potentIal hIStoncal remams all betaken mto account pnor to determmmg that anspecific tract contams no cultural or hIStoncalresources. When all three resource or data setsare overlaId on the Fort Johnson facility, itbecomes ObVIOUS that there are few areas whIchcan be evaluated as contammg no SIgnificantcultural remams (thIS concept IS discussed atgreater length m the concluding sectIon of thISstudy).

Cut nail fragmentsUIn nail fragments"Black" bottle glassught blue bottle glassWhlteware, blue tp

Deptford potteryUID small sherds

Calcmed anunal bone

ST4

3

Sf7

1

ST 9 Surface2

211

ThIS area IS situated Just mSIde and southof the Fort Johnson entrance gate. It conSISts of asurface scatter of hIStonc matenals datmg to thenmeteenth century (no hlStonc matenals wereIdentified ill the shovel tests), as well as fourprehlStonc sherds recovered only from sub-surfacecontexts.

Shell m front of the security office (thefirst structure withm the gate), Just south of FortJohnson Road, appears to be a shell dnve basedon its surface dispersion, absence of aSSOCIatedartifacts, and shallow depth. No clear hIStonc orprehlStonc connection or antecedent could bedocumented. There IS, however, a small scatter ofbnck Just north of the road, although even hereshovel testmg failed to Identify artifacts. The sizeof thIS area IS estImated to be about 300 feetnorth-south by 200 feet east-west, based on boththe dispersIon of surface matenals and the lowmCldence of sub-surface remams. ThIS area wasIdentified by South dunng the survey of the nearbyNOAA facility, although no assessment was madeand no mdependent site form was completed.

A total of 26 shovel tests were excavatedm thIS area, although only three contamed materIal(Table 3). The Identified matenals tend to date

88

Too few materIals have been collectedfrom thIS area to offer an assessment regardingthe area's mdependent eligIbility for mcluslon onthe National RegISter or its contnbutIon to thedocumented hIStOry of the property. Consequently,thIS area IS recommended as a potentIallycontnbutmg resource. Further evaluation anddocumentatIon IS necessary to evaluate the area'sSIgnificance.

ThIS area was defined on the basIS of 99shovel tests, 33 of whIch were positIVe. The arearepresents the martello tower, preVIously recordedas 38CH274. Matenals recovered from thIS surve~

date from the eIghteenth and nmeteenth centunes.yielding a mean ceraIDlc date of 1803.3 (Tables 4and 5).

The martello tower Itself conSISts of 2

large rubble pile, heavily overgrown at the tIme ojthe suzvey (Figure 44 shows the area afteJcleanng). However, the area IS conSIderably largeJthan the tower Itself, perhaps representmg earlieJplantatIOn penod remams, as well as aSSOCIate,military encampments and barracks. At least thre(possible sub-areas can be discerned, although the~

are poorly defined. Boundanes, based on botlsurface scatters and shovel tests at 100,50, and ~

CloseShore General Metal General Interval

Surface Surface Detectmg Transects Transects

Table 4.Artifacts Recovered from Area 2

ThIS site IS clearly a contnbutmg resource,offenng the opportunity to explore military life andactIvitIes on Fort Johnson durmg the second

quarter of the nmeteenthcentury, pnor to the Civil War.As one of only a very fewmartello towers built on the eastcoast of the United States, theFort Johnson SIte assumesexceptIonal Importance for ourunderstandIng of militarystrategy and policy. The earlydate associated with thIS areaalso suggests that plantatIonremams, or possibly earliermilitary actIVItIes, may bemcorporated. Included are CivilWar barracks, barracksaSSOCIated with the earlynmeteenth century use of thetower, and at least fiveeIghteenth and nmeteenthcentury domestic SItes. Given themtensIve use of thIS area and thesurvey mtervals, the discretelocations of these structurescould not be identified. Since thearchaeologIcal remams fromthese locations smear mto oneanother, only very close mteIValtestmg (every 25 feet forexample) will prOVide anyresolution.

2

8

2

MartelloTowerArea

4

36

1

211

311

All use of the eXlStmgborrow pIt should ceasetmmediately (we understand thepit IS no longer used) and stepsshould be taken to restore the

pit to ffilDImlZe future erOSion and loss of culturalremams. ThIS IS an Important area of the FortJohnson site WhICh bears very close additiOnalexammatIon.

ThIS area was recorded m the ImmediateVICInity of the pump house, north of Fort JohnsonRoad. A total of seven shovel tests were excavatedm the VICIDIty of the structure, although only oneyIelded archaeological remams (a smgle fragmentof modem brown glass). Soils m thIS area conSIStof about 0.8 foot of brown sand overlymg a yellowsand subsoil. Surface materIals mcluded onefragment of clear wmdow glass and one fragment

511

81

5

2

2111

9

1

5

21

181

2

WesterwaldWhite SG SWStoneware, brown SGStoneware, gray SGStoneware, alkaline glazedRedware, clear glazeDelftCreamware, undecoratedPearlware, undecoratedPearlware, blue tp

. Whlteware, undecoratedWhlteware, blue tpBumt/UID earthenwareChmese porcelamWhite porcelam"Black" bottle glassCobalt bottle glassLt. green bottle glassAmethyst bottle glassClear bottle glassAmber bottle glassMilk glass fragmentsStemmed glasswareStove fragmentHinge fragmentCut nail fragmentsWire nail fragmentsDID nail fragmentsBrass clothIng decorationMachme gun bullet casmgDID metal fragmentsSheet metal fragmentsBallast stoneAnunal bone

foot mtervals, are 700 feet north-south by 1000 feeteast-west. The western edge of the site IS locatedabout 50 feet east of the property boundary, withthe eastern boundary bemg located approXImately200 feet west of the Marshlands plantation house.The southern boundary IS rrregular. However, thISlocus IS confined to the area north of Fort JohnsonRoad. The southwest quadrant of thIS site has beendestroyed by the recent operatIOn of a borrow PIt.Remams can be found m the walls of the borrowpit, as well as m the associated spoil piles. Thecentral UTM coordinates are N3624000 E602700.

89

Area 4 IS a small scatter of late eIghteenthand early nmeteenth century remams found east ofArea 3 and south of the Marshlands house (WhICh

of clear modem glass. The combmatIon of surfacematenals, smgle positIVe shovel test, and structurelocation prOVIde boundanes of100 feet north-southby 150 feet east-west. The central UTMcoordinates are N3624000 E602700.

22

75S looS Center2 1

25N 75N lOON 50S

of course was transported to Fort Johnson and IS

therefore not assocIated with any archaeologIcaldeposits). The central UTM coordinates areN3623840 E602720

A total of nmeteen tests were excavated at25 foot mtervals, WIth 11 producmg artifacts (Table6). Based on these remams the area IS estllIlated tomeasure about 150 feet north-south by 100 feeteast-west. The Wando soils at the SIte mclude anA or Ap horIZon of about 0.8 foot overlymgsubsoil.

either plantatIOn developments m the area or,alternatIVely, the military occupatIon at FortJohnson after the Amencan RevolutIOn.

Matenals recovered from the shovel testsmdude one creamware ceramIC, one pearlwareceramIC, one fragment of hand pamted milk glass,three clear glass fragments, seven ''black'' bottleglass fragments, one fragment ofwmdow glass, twocut nail fragments, and two UID metal fragments.The two recovered ceranucs produce a meanceramIC date of 1798) although the cut nailfragments suggest a nmeteenth century date. ThISassemblage suggests that the area may be thelocatIon ofa domestIc structure, perhaps related to

The density and nature of these remamssuggests that thlS area IS a contnbutmg resource,capable of supplymg mformatlon concemmg thelate eIghteenth and early nmeteenth centuryactIvitIes at the site. Although no above or belowground features were Identified durmg thIS study,the area has the potentIal to contam mtact featuressmce no heavy disturbance appears to have taken

Table 6.Artifacts Recovered from Area 4

XI X XI

346018811758172071641805363655801848

28852

3

25E 25W SOW 75W

(ft)211141231

16

173018811758172017911805181818601848

Mean Date(xi)

Clear glass"Black" glassMilk glassCreamwarePearlwareWindow glassNail fragmentsUID Iron

Table 5.Mean CeramIc Date for Area 2

Mean Ceramic Date = 28852 - 16 = 180325

CeramicUnderglazed blue porcelamWhite porcelamWhite SG stonewarePlaID DelftCreamware, undecoratedPearlware, undecoratedPearlware, blue tpWhiteware, undecoratedWhlteware, blue tpTotal

Although these archaeologIcal remams donot, at first glance,appear to representcontnbutmg resources,the oral hIStOry obtameddunng the .backgroundresearch mdicates thatguard dogs were tramedand housed m thIS areadunng World War II.Without addItIonalresearch to documentthis training (forexample: Was thIS theonly trammg site mSouth Carolina? Whatrole did the dogs tramed here play m the differenttheaters of operatIon?) and to better understandthe facilitis use durmg the 19405, it IS not possibleto fully evaluate these remams. Consequently, thISspecific area IS recommended as a potentIallycontributmg resource WhICh requITes additIonalresearch.

90

place m the general VIcmity. ThIS site, because ofits small sIZe and proxIDllty to currently developedtracts, could be easily damaged. Steps should betaken to ensure that it IS protected.

bottle glass, and a kaoline pipe stem. Thesematenals are conSIStent WIth a Civil War penodoccupation, although the presence of the whiteporcelam also suggests a postbellum occupatIon.The types, denSItleS, and disperslOn of artifacts areremarkably SImilar to those Identified by South andWidmer (1976).

N-S 100' inteIVal E-W SO' intetval N-S SO' UltetvalSurface 112 113 3/1 3/2 1/1 113 '111 '1J3 3/1 4!2 4,1j 4/4 5/1 5/2 5,1j 14rl 1&4 1&5 1&6

ThIS site IS recommended asa contnbutmg resource on the basISof its "stand-alone" eligibility formclUSlOn on the NatIOnal RegISteras a prehIStonc site capable ofaddressmg a broad spectrum ofresearch m the areas of settlementand subSIStence. PreVIOUS researchby South and Widmer (1976) found

that distmet structures and actMty areas would beIdentified through SImple density studies. They alsoIdentified features suitable for prOVIdingcarbOnIzed matenals for both floral studies andalso radiometnc datmg. A WIde range of tool typeswere Identified, mcluding the possibility of workedclam shells. South and Widmer also observed asettlement pattern whIch aVOIded the fore dunearea m favor of dune trough and second dune

The remams Identified ill thIS studymeasure about 350 feet north-south by 700 feeteast-west. The site, topographIcally, IS found on thesenes of ndges and troughs m the southwesterncomer of the tract. South and \Vidmer havepreVIously observed that both ndge top and troughbottom deposits are present, although the closelllterval distnbutIon studies they undertook wereHunted to a rather small portIon of the overall site,much of WhICh was destroyed by subsequentdevelopment.

Although the site was covered by verydense understory vegetation at the tIme of thISsurvey, only two out of the dozen or more of theCivil War encampments noted by South could be

found. One of hIS three Itcraters" wasrelocated, while the other two weredestroyed by the constructIon ofNOAA building. Although notmvestlgated by thIS study, theremammg feature appears to be awell, slll1ilar to others Identified atCivil War encampments on nearbyFolly Island.

1 1 11 1 1

Table 7Artifacts Recovered from Area 5

Alb1ine glazed SW 1 1AlbanyslipSW 1Rockingham"Black" boule glassWbiteware. undec.WhIte portlelamKaoline pipestem

Deptford CordDeptiOll'd Fabne Imp.Deptford CheckDeptford P1alnDeptford UIDWtlmmgton PlamSmall sherds

Of the 89 shovel tests excavated at or mthe Vlcmity of thIS area (pnmarily at a 50 foot

ThIS area represents what IS left of severallarge prehlStonc shell mIddens wlthm theboundanes of Fort Johnson. The central UTMcoordinates are N3623500 E602700. Situated mthe southwestern comer of the tract, these remamshave been preVIously defined as 38CH16, 38CH34,and 38CH275. In additIOn, thIS area also revealsthe presence of a light mneteenth centurycomponent. Whether these remams representfreedmen settlers, penpheral grave depOSIts, orpossibly Civil War encampments cannot be readilydetermmed from the available mformatlOn -- allthree remam distmct possibilitIes.

mterval), 31 yielded moderate to dense shell orartifact remams (Table 7). The prehlStonc artifactsconsISted entrrely of pottery from the Deptfordand/or Cape Fear phases or were too small toanalyze. The associated shell middens ranged fromthm sheet deposits to dense mIddens up to 1.5 feetm depth. Histonc artifacts consISted for alkalineglazed stonewares, Rockmgham ceramICS,undecorated whItewares, white porcelam, ''black''

92

ndge locatIOns. InvestIgatIon of the total SIte couldrefine thIS prelimmary study, expanding ourknowledge of Middle Woodland lifeways.

ThIS area has also produced smallquantitIes of hIStone materIals. Coupled with thehIStone research there 'IS a strong reason to believethat the area contamed IDlportant hIStoncresources durmg the penod of documentedsIgnificance at the site. There IS a very strongpossibility that llltaet Confederate encampmentsand features such as barrel wells may be found.These remams would be of partIcular Importancefor companson to sImilar encampments by UnIonforces. They would help us better understand camplife among Confederate troops dunng the CivilWar. Of partIcular mterestwould be comparmg theavailability of resources between Confederate andUnIon camps.

ThIS area may also proVIde mformatIon onthe presence of black "squatters" who likely tookup resIdence when the fortificatIOns were occupIedby UnIOn troops. Little IS known about thIS class offreedmen and research companng these mdivIduaIsto those livmg at Mitchelville, a documentedfreedman's village could expand our understandingof Afncan Amencan adaptatIons to freedomdunng the early postbellum.

Finally, it IS possible that additIonal bunalsmay be present m the VIcmity of the NOAAbuilding. Not only are any sUlVlVIDg humanremams protected by state law (S.C. Code, § 16-17­590 et seq. and 27-43-10 et seq.), but they alsooffer unparalleled opportunities for forenSICresearch, exploring issues of health, disease, diet,and mortuary pattemmg. The destructIon ordamage of the cemetery dunng constructIon of theNOAA building was a senous loss to ourunderstanding of Afncan Amencan phySIcalanthropology.

ThIS IS a partIcularly complex site area,situated m the south central portIon of the tract mthe VIcmity of the mamtenance building. It conSIStsof small quantitIes of prehIStOrIC remaInS andabundant hIStone artifacts. The central UTMcoordinates are N3623800 E603120. Matenals were

found throughout the area where ever there wasopen ground. A possible dump area eXISts on thesouthern edge of the area, where nmeteenthcentury artifacts were found ill the marsh grass.Structural remams mclude a small tabby building.AdditIonal matenals are almost certamly aSSOCIatedwith the postbellum quarantme officer's structureon the eastern edge of the area. Histoncal researchalso reveals that a large planter's village, known asJohnsonville, eXISted m thIS area pnor to the CivilWar.

The smgle above ground feature, a tabbystructure, measures about 7 by 9 feet and IS

onented N400W (Figures 46 and 47). Furthertestmg IS needed to determme the date andprobable functIon of the structure. SomewhatsImilar tabby buildings, however, have beenIdentified on Callawassle Island, where they werefound to be slave houses (Brooker 1991:145-152).

Based on shovel testmg and pedestnansUlVey of the surrounding land and marsh edge,the site measures approXImately 600 feet north­south by 650 feet east-west. The bulk of the sitewas surveyed at 50 foot mtervals. Of the 129 shoveltests excavated, 62 (or 48.1%) produced artifactsand/or bnck, shell, or tabby. Table 8 prOVIdes a listof the artifacts collected. The ceramICS yIeld amean ceramIC date of 1821.4 (Table 9) and theartifact pattern mdicates that approXlDlately 74%of the artifacts are kitchen related, while 18% arearchitectural (Table 10). While thIS most closelyresembles the pattern yIelded by many eIghteenthcentury slave sites (Wheaton et a1. 1983), a morereasonable conclUSIOn IS that the summerreSIdences were architecturally spartan. SuchSImply reSIdences mIght have resulted m akitchen:architecture ratio seen at thIS area of FortJohnson. It must also be recogmzed that thISpattern may be the result of either the samplingstrategy or too small a sample. Since nocomparative research IS available, many of thesequestions must awalt further study at Johnsonville.

Several of the shovel tests (Transect 28,Shovel Tests 2,3, and 5) contamed dense depOSItsto an average depth of two feet suggestmg thepresence of Intact features. The average soil profileconSISted of 1.1 feet of brown sand overlymg thesubsoil.

93

Table 8.LISt of Artifacts Recovered from Area 6

Center of tabby stnJetUTC: 3 kettle !rags, 1 plas.ter £rag. 2 WU1dow glass, 1 UlD =. 6 anunal bone

North Wall: 1 It. green glass, 1 lamp glass~2 WUJdow glass~: lit. green glass~2 clear bonle glass, 2 cut nails. 1 "black" glass, 1 blue tp wl11teWare~ge Surface: 3 SGSW, 10 undec wluteware, 1 blue tp wl11teware, 2 aqua glass, 3 "black" glass, 1 It. green glass, 3 amber glassGeneral Surface: 1 NottlDgham SW, 1 blue delft. 2 yellow combed slipwar-e, 1 undec creamw~,2 blue tp pearlware, 4 undocorated wl11teware, 3 amethyst glass, 9 "black" glass,

1 hand wrought nail. 10 wmdow glass, 1 pencil lead, 1 UID brass item, 1 Deptford Plam sherd

T26STI: 2 "black" glassTI6STI: 1 undec wl11teWare, 1 clear glass, 1 Thom's Creek Finger PinchedTI7STi": 1 "black" glassT27STI: 1 undec creamware, 2 WIndow glassT27ST4: 1 small prel11stonc shemT25STI.: 2undec~, 1 blue delft, 1 plam delft, 1 lead g1aud redware, 1~ tp whiteware, 4 WIndow glass, 7 "black" bottle glass, 1 clear glass, 1 lead crystal dnnkmg vessel-- fngment, S ammal bones

l28ST.3: 1 Nottingham SW, 1 undecorated creamware, 3 blue tp wl11teware, 4 'black" bottle glass, 1 clear gl=, 2 UID nail fraBments, 1 flattened lead, 1 WlDdow glass, 1 ammal-- bone, 1 Wili:mngron Cord MarkedT25ST5: S "black" bonle glass, 2 aqua glass. 3 amber glass, 1 WU1dow glass, 1 cut nail fragment, 1 keyhole escutcheon, 8 UID lIOn, 1 anunal bonenBSTh 1 small prehistonc sherdT29STI: 1 green glazed creamware, I ammal boneT29S13: 1 dalX oliYe green bottle glass, 1 wmdow glassnosn 1 lamp glass1ii5TI: 1 cut spike1iiIT4: 2 'black" bonle glass~TS: 1 clear modern glassT30ST6: 2 undcc:xnted creamware:nirn: 1 aqua glass, 1 It. green glassT.iiS'T4: 1 burnt earthenware, 1 milk glm. 1 clear glassniSTI: 1 ballast stone fngment, 1 piece of slate

:msn: 1 blue tp peartware132ST4: 1 Deptford Chec:k StampednSTI: 1 banded yellow ware, S WIndow glassTiST4: 1 UID nail fragmentTi:STI: 1 modem W1Ddow glass~ 1 Dept!ordfCape Fear Cord Marked. 5 small sherds

12ST4: 1 dear glass1251'S: 1 clear modem glassnsn: 1 milk glass frasment, 1 small~ sherd~ 1 lead glazed slipware, 1 coIonoware. 2 flint fragments, 3 ammal bonesT3STh 1 "black" glass, 12 modem dear glass, 1 small prehJstonc sherd~ 1 underglazed porcelain. 1 SGSW, 4 "black" bottle glass, 1 clear glass, 1 wr..ndow glass, 1 US generallS$Ue eagle bunanT3S'IS: 1 undee aumwue, 2 blue tp pearlware. 1 blue hp pearlwaze, 1 cut spike fragment, 1 UID lIOn, 2 ammaJ bonesT4Sn: 1 undec whiteWBre .

T4ST4: 2 undoc: creamware, 1 UDdcc whiteware, 1 SGSW~: 1 bumt eartbe1nnre, 1 blue edged pearlware, 1 blue tp~. 1 aqua green glassT4ST6: 1 molded creamware. 2 aqua glass. 1 'black" bo~ glassnsn: 1 UDdccora1ed aeamware. 1 cut nailTSST3: 1 blue edged pearlware, 1 mmIa1 bone~: 1 black bottle gI.as:s. 1 fishing weJght~: 1 undec~ 1 blue tp pearlware. 1 lead g1aud redware. 1 ~lack" bonle glass, 1 cut nail, 1 brm tailor's tlumble, 1 anunal bone, 1 Thom's Creek Shell Punctate

nsT6: 1 '1:I1ack" bonle glassUST8: 1 UID nail frapnt

~ 2 wmdow glass~ 3 undec~, 1 gnle11 edged peartware, 1 undec pearlware. 1 undergWed poo::elam, 1 wlDdow glass, 2 cut nail fragments~: 2 UID aaiJ frapnts, 2 UID UOD

~ 1 "black" bottle glass, 2 cut nail fragments, 1 UID 1I"OIJ

nsTI: 1 cut nail fragment, I un> nail fngment17STI: 1 cut nail fngment~: 1 undec aeamw~, 1 "black" bottle glass, I lIOn buckleT7S1'S: 1 UID nail fragment17S'I7: 1 blue hp pearlware, 111'011 button~nt~: 1 burnt earthenware, 2 "black" bottle glass, 2 clear glass, 1 cut nail fragment. 1 WIre nail. 1 roofing tack, 4 W1Ddow glass. 2 anunal bonesmE 6 modem clear glass, 1 UID nail fragment

~: 1 wmdow glassTIlST4: 1 blue tp whitewarem.n: 1 colonoware, I cut nail fr1Igment, 1 spike

Given that no archaeologIcal research hasever been performed at a planters' village, thIS area

94

IS partIcularly Important and IS recommended as acontributmg resource WhICh IS also mdependently

• what types of domestIc actIVitiestook place at the site?

• how do these sites comparewith rural plantation sites andurban resIdences m terms ofarchitecture, diet, and other statusmdicators?

eligIble for mc1uslon on the Natlonal RegISter. Itcontams a number of data sets (architecturalremams, kitchen related artifacts, anIDlal bone, andpossible features) which could be used to addressa number of research questIons such as:

While the archaeological remams do notseem particularly dense or SIgnificant, thISappearance IS likely deceIVing. Situated m theshadow of the Confederate battery, these remamsare probably assoCIated with small encampmentsmade here by the troops. Such remams arenotonously difficult to identify through traditIonalshovel testing. Several transects were made east­west through thIS area usmg a metal detector.While the readings were not ground trothed, thenumber and dispersIOn of remams supports a moremtensIVe military occupatIon than unplied by themeager collection. Consequently, at least thehIStonc remains in thIS area are recommended aspotentIally contrwutmg resources WhICh should beprotected from any future disturbance or damage.

addition to the remams assOCIated with theplanters' village, a standing domestic structure ISlocated on the eastern edge of the site. ThISstructure, built m 1887 and more fully discussed mthe followmg sectIon, served as the quarantmestatIon officer's house.

ThIS portIon of the Fort Johnson site IS

located at the base of the north SIde of the threegun battery hill and conSISts of a light prehIStoncand nmeteenth century scatter of artifacts.Fourteen shovel tests were excavated at 25 and 100foot mtervals m cardinal directions. Of those 14shovel tests, five (or 35.7%) were pOSItIVe. Theartifacts are summanzed m Table 11.

The central UTM coordinates areN3623720 E602920 and the soils, like elsewhere onFort Johnson, are classified as Wando sandy loarns.Soil profiles at the site consISted of 0.9 feet ofbrown sand A honzon overlymg subsoil. No mtaetfeatures were located dunng shovel testmg.

fi X Xl

346035105199176735001720

268653600

1272654153610

110881851

111602463518941853

123853

1730 21755 21733 31767 11750 21720 11791 151800 21818 71805 31805 21848 61851 11860 61895 131894 11853 1

69

Mean Dale(xi) fi

Table 9Mean Ceramk Date for A:-ea 6

CeramIc

Mean CeramIc Date = 123853 - 69 = 1821,4

Underglazed porcelamNottingham stonewareLead glazed slipwareGreen glazed cream bodyDecoraled delftPlam delftCrearnware, undecPearlware, blue hpPearlware, blue tpPearlware, edgedPearlware, undecWhIteware, blue tpWhlteware, non-blue tpWhiteware, undecWhlteware, "v1treousft

Whiteware, ~illetsft

Yellow wareTotal

• did these villages mc1ude storesor other convenIences WhIch canbe archaeoiogically Identified?

ThIS locus has been disturbed by theconstructIon of the mamtenance building, supportstructures, roads, as well as Civil War earthworks.In additIon, a small portIon of the site IS locatedon a grassless knoll WhICh IS eroding. However,many other areas of the site appear to be mtact. In

ThIS locus IS situated between Areas 2 and6, havmg central UTM coordinates of N3623900 E603200. The bulk of the area IS south of FortJohnson Road, although a small portIon extendsnorth of the road. Above ground remams conSIStof a bnck rubble pile found north of Fort JohnsonRoad Just mSlde of the woods line. Surfaceartifacts were recovered from both SIdes of the

95

road. Based on shovel testmg and surface artifacts,

ThIS portIon of Fort Johnson wasongmally recorded as 38CH69/71 and m 1972 thesite was placed on the NatIOnal ReglSter ofHistone Places, with the nommahon focusmg onthe standing magazme (Figure 48). Although nomtenslVe survey was performed on the tract, theentIre 90 acres was mcluded m the National

The temporally sensitIve artifacts, such ascut nails and amethyst glass, suggest a mId to latenmeteenth century use of thIS area. While the bnck

150W

1

25E25$1"22ST5

1'21ST6

Table II.Artifacts Recovered from Area 7

rubble pile IS SImilar to those found by South atArea 5 and may be related to the Civil War erause of the property, the assemblage more stronglysuggests postbellum freedman settlement. Likeother military posts, as soon as the property washeld by the Umon army Afncan Amencans likelybegan to seek refuge on the tract. ProXImity toUmon encampments meant not only wage labor,but also afforded some degree of protectIon. Theopen lands of Fort Johnson likely also permittedeaSIer than normal cultivatIon m areas which werenot contested by the preVIous white land owners.

Shovel testmg mdicated that the soilprofile, SImilar to other Wando soils on the tract,consISts of 0.7 feet of brown sand overlymg a tansubsoil. Much of the site has been extensIvelydamaged by Fort Johnson Road, lanclscapmg, andthe digging of utility lines. In spite of thIS theremay eXISt areas of mtact remams and the area ISrecommended as a potentIally contributoryresource. Fort Johnson's hIStOry did not stop at theCivil War and additIOnal research concemmg theAfrIcan Amencan use of the tract IS mportant tofully understanding the hIStoncal diversity of thetract. Consequently, thIS area IS recommended asa potentially contnbutmg resource. AdditIonalclose mterval testmg IS necessary to determme ifeither mtaet surface remams or mtaet mtra-sitepattemmg can be discerned.

"Black" glassUID ironDeptford UID sherdsCape Fear Cord MarkedSmall premstonc sherds

0.8%

53%

1.6%

0.4%

74.1%

17.7%

Table 10.Artifact Pattern for Area 6

Kitchen GroupCeramics 78Colonoware 2Glass 96Kitchenware 3

Subtotal 180Architecture Group

Window glass 15Door lock parts 1Construction hdw 1Nails 23Spikes 3

Subtotal 43Furniture Group

Hardware 2Subtotal 2

ClothlOg GroupButtons 2Other clothmg 2

Subtotal 4Personal Group

Miscellaneous 1Subtotal 1

Activities GroupFlShmg gear 1Other 12

Subtotal 13

the locus measures 200 feet north-south by350 feet east-west. Six shovel tests wereexcavated at 50 foot mtervals parallelingthe south SIde of the road. Of those seventests, only one (or 14.3%) Yielded artifacts.ThIS test yielded one pIece of calcmedbone and one pIece of aqua bottle glass.Surface collected were one pIece of amberbottle glass, 12 pIeces of amethyst glass(three monogram S.C. DISpensary bottlefragments), 11 pIeces of clear glass, onepIece of aqua bottle glass, one piece oflight green bottle glass, one piece of lightolive green bottle glass, one piece of light bluebottle glass, one pIece of blue bottle glass, twoBrIStol slip stoneware bottle fragments, one pIeceof white porcelam, one 5/64 mch bore kaolinpIpestem, and one cut nail fragment.

96

Mean Ceramic Date. = 35070 - 19 = 1845.8

A large portIon of the site has beendestroyed by the constructIon of the College ofCharleston bIOlogical laboratory and the Marme

fi fi X Xl

1 17304 75244 72721 18051 18483 55984 7440I 1853

19 35070

(xi)

17301881181818051848186618601853

Table 13.Mean CeramIc Date for Area 9

The mean ceramic date IS 1845.8and the artifact pattern closely resembles aneighteenth century planter's context.

dense m the eastern edge of the site) andremams here were found to a depth of 2.5feet m some areas although artifacts andbnck at the base of these tests were clearlywater worn. The artifacts are summanzed mTable 12.

However, thIS pattern IS probably due to the.sampling strategy, combmed wIth the umquenature... of the remams and vanous sitetransformatIons.

The central UTM coordinates areN3624050 E603200 and the soils areclassified as Wando senes sands. Shovel

testmg at the site yIelded a typical soil profile of0.9 feet of brown to dark brown sand overlymgsubsoil. In some areas (partIcularly south of theboat shed) the topsoil was found to a depth of 1.2

feet and appeared to be disturbed. Profiles by thewater were much deeper, exhibitmg complexstratification. The average profile here conSISted of0.4 feet of dark brown soil, over 0.8 feet ofmedium brown soil with bnck and shell, overlymg1.0 feet of light brown soil with bnck and shell,0.4 feet of medium brown soil WIth light bnck andshell, all on top of a tan subsoil.

CeramicUnderglazed porcelainWhite porcelainPearlware, blue tp

undecWluteware, blue tp

annularundec

Yellow wareTotal

2

Table 12.Artifacts from Area 9

135 --EQ..... T41sn 512 SD sn S12 S13 sn 25S sas

1122111

113

12 24

-lli..-Artifacts sn S13Pearlware, undec

blue tp

WhiteWare, undecannular

blue ttans pnntedYellow wareBrownSGSWGraySGSWWhite porcelain"Black' GlassClear GlassCutnai1sUID nailsWmdow glassUID flat metal5/64 plpestemPrehistoncAmmal OOne

RegISter nommatlon. Stanley South excavatedportions of the site and exposed the remams ofseveral eIghteenth and nmeteenth century features,mcluding barracks for the fort and constructIondetails around the magazme converted mto abombproof dunng the Civil War. He also exploredone of the two tabby CISterns (Figure 49). He alsonoted the locatIon and conditIon of several tabbysea walls assoCIated with some of Fort Johnson)searliest fortificatIOns (Figures 50 and 51).

Since South's mittal study little efforts hasbeen devoted toward stabilizmg the vanouscomponents of thIS locus. While the magazme IS mrelatIVely sound conditlon, vegetatIon WhIch Southnoted was actIVely causmg detenoration of thebnck work IS once agam present. The tabby seawalls contmue to be exposed to tidal erOSIOn. ThecISterns have not been stabilized and the tabby ISeVldencmgsenous detenoratlOn. In spite ofSouth'sstrong wammgs, a water treatment plant was builtm the mlCist of one senes of very tmportant CivilWar fortificatlons (Figure 52) and otherearthworks are bemg gradually destroyed byencroachmg construction (Figure 53).

Dunng thIS mvestIgatlon Area 9 wassurveyed either at 100 foot or 25 foot mtervals. Asa result, a total of 26 shovel tests were excavatedwith 11 (or 42.3%) yielding subsurface artifactsand/or bnck. These tests mdicated that the locusmeasures about 450 feet north-south by 900 feeteast-west. Artifactual remams were particularly

97

Resources Research Institul .~ building, m additionto the constructIon of parkmg lots, a boat shed,and a HVAC plant. In add! f.on, there were someground disturbmg actIV1tIe~)etween the MarmeResources Research Instltut~ building and the CivilWar earthworks to the so 'rh durmg hurncaneHugo cleanup (Mr. Foster Folsom, personalcommumcation 1994).

Nonetheless, shoveJ :estmg the area nearthe College of CharlestoDJIOloglcal laboratorymdicated that there are del .. ;e and deep depositsassocIated with the sIte v. nch are still mtaet.Combmed with South's excf,JtIOnal excavations, itIS clear that there are very fi;~ificant remams stillpreserved m thIS area, eveD imderlymg roads andother shallowly placed modcn features. ThIS areaIS recommended as clearly contnbutory to theNatIonal RegISter Dommai ·on and no grounddisturbmg actIVitIes shouk take place m thISportIon of the facilit' without detailedarchaeologIcal mvestigatIon:

Area 10

Area 10 represents :1 small eroding shellmIdden situated east of 38Cl 16 with central UTM

102

coordinates of N3623460 E602760. WhileadditIonal testmg may reveal that it IS assocIatedwith other nearby concentratIons such as Area 5, atthe present tIme no clear aSSOCiatIon can bedemonstrated. The SIte measures about 150 feetnorth-south by 150 feet east-west.

A senes of SIX shovel tests were excavatedm a cruciform pattern across the SIte at 25 footmteIVals. Only one of these tests produced a smglesmall prehIStonc sherd. While the tests revealed aprofile of about 0.4 foot of oyster shell mIddenoverlymg a tan sand subsoil close to the Shore, thISmIdden thms out rapIdly toward the north (inland),becommg little more than a sheet mIdden about 50feet from the marsh edge.

The data sets present at the site do notappear suitable to address a broad range of theresearch questIons appropnate to MiddleWoodland shell mIddens. Although care must beexercISed m definmg the boundanes of Area 5, andArea 10 may be found to represent an assoCIatedmidden, at present if it IS conSIdered a stand-alonelocI, it IS recommended as not bemg a contnbutoryresource nor IS it recommended as mdependentlyeligible for mc1uslOn on the NatIOnal RegISter.

IDENTIFIED ARCHITECTURAL SITES AND FEATURES

In additIon to the below groundarchaeologIcal sites and therr assocIated remams(such as the tabby walls at Area 6 or the bnckpiles at Areas 5 and 8), thIS study also Identifiedand assessed a range of standing architecturalstructures and above ground features. It IS thIStotality WhICh makes our past so nch and vaned.Explormg, or preservmg, only one aspect of ourheritage yIelds a monotonous, unl-dimenslonalunderstanding. In addition, both the federal andstate hlStonc preservation laws offer protectIon toboth archaeolOgIcal and architectural sites.

The only structures WhICh, m the past,have been recorded at Fort Johnson are theMarshlands House (SCDAR Survey Site#0890096) and the powder magazme (SCDAHSurvey Site #0890112). While thIS coverage ISlikely the result of the nature of the survey process,some may have assumed that it meant that none ofthe other structures on Fort Johnson are sIgIlificantor warrant protectIon. ThIS clearly IS not the case.Consequently, an mportant portIon of thesedisCUSSIons will concentrate on the standingarchitecture at Fort Johnson. In additIon, somebnef disCUSSIOn will be offered concemmg thearchitectural features, such as the vanousearthworks present on Fort Johnson. Theseearthen fortifications are part of the landscape atFort Johnson and represent conSIderableengmeenng skill. Both, taken together, representan exceptIOnal resource.

Standing Architectural Sites

Marshlands

Samuel Gaillard Stoney (1977) prOVIdes abnef account of the Marshlands House, notmg thatit was built m 1810 by John Ball on hIS CooperRIVer nce plantatIon. He notes that:

the laVISh and excellently executedgouge work used at Marshlands

to supplement its more formalAdam ennchments may havebeen forced on its builder by theembargoes and othermterruptIons to trade withEngland, whence the Adamornaments came. Later, Amencanputtyworkers substItuted patnotIceagles for the lost nymphs, andstars for the claSSIC rosettes, butgouge work, partIcularly amongthese plantatIons, had by thenpretty well taken the place of theolder style.

ThIS work at Marshlands wasSImilar to that m the town houseof John Ball's father and wasprobably by the same hand. Themteriors of the older Ball's houseare now m the home of EllerySedgwIck, m Massachusetts, andare m part illustrated m the"GeorgIan PerIod" (Stoney1977:77).

Stoney illustrates both the south and north facadesof the house m its ongmal settmg on the CooperRIVer, as well as prOVIding excellent photographs ofthe gouge work on the cornIce, lintels, and Jambsof the drawmg room doors; the brackets applied tothe stnng of the starr treads; and the mantle andfireplace surrounds (or chmmey pIece) withguilloche, dentil, and bellflower decoratIVeelements m several rooms.

In 1961 the house was moved from itsongmallocatIon to the Fort Johnson tract by theCollege of Charleston. Stoney reported that thehouse was to be restored by the Charlestonarchitects, Simons & Lapham. In 1972 Marshlandswas nommated to the NatIonal RegISter, m spite ofits move, based on its umque and very wellpreserved architectural detailing. The Natlonal

103

RegISter form provIdes additIOnal details regardingthe structure:

Extenor: ThIS two-and-one-halfstory clapboard house restmg onhigh bnck foundations hasremamed basIcallyunaltered smceit was built m 1810. BnckfoundatIons and chImneys,however, were taken apart andreconstructed (with the exceptIonof one chmmey) followmg a 1961move of approXImately sevenmiles.

Basement level of mamfacade features an arcade of eIghthigh bnck arches. (Two comerarches were formerly enclosed.)Also restmg on archedfoundatIOns IS a steep, straightbnck staIrway.

First floor piazza extendsthe Width of the house. Presentlyscreened and enclosed by abalustrade, the piazza has theongmal hIpped roof With dentilson the soffit of the eaves.Supportmg the WIde porch areeIght slender freestandingcolumns and two Identicalengaged columns.

Behmd the piazza thefacade proper has a centraldoorway flanked on each Side bya parr of evenly spaced wmdows.

On the second level thereare five Identical wmdows. A parrof nme-over-nme-light, doublehung sash wmdows are located oneach site of a central WIndow.Louvered shutters have not beenreplaced followmg the 1961 move.

On the hipped front roofof the house IS a centrally located,gable wmdow which IS decoratedwith dentils and contams a seml­elliptical, radiatmg fanlight. ThIS

gable IS flanked on either Side bytwo hIpped roof dormerscontammg slip-sill wmdows.

Varymg from the mamfacade, the rear of the house

[preVIously the south elevatIonwhich overlooked the mamland]has a central ten foot square openportiCO on hIgh bnck foundatIons.On each SIde of the portICO atbasement level are two wmdows.A steep eIghteen nser staIrWay onarcaded foundatIons leads to thesquare portICO. Both staIrWay andportICO are surrounded by an rronrailing (formerly a woodedbalustrade.) PortiCO IS protectedby a curved hood roof andsupported by four slenderwoodedcolumns, two of WhICh areengaged.

As m the mam facade,the back door IS flanked by twoparrs of nme-over-nme-light,double-hung sash wmdows.Topped by a five-paned transom,the doorway IS framed byrectangular tracery Sidelights. Theback entrance opens mto the onestory clapboard extenSIon.

Second level follows thehouse's five wmdow pattern.

Rear slope of the roofserved as the location for the twoongmal mtenor chImneys, one ofwhIch was damaged and has notbeen replaced smce the 1961move. A dormer m the palladianstyle with mtersectmg tracery IS

centrally placed m roof line.IdentIcal Side facades

conSISt of four evenly spacedwmdows on the basement level,three wmdows on the first level,and two wmdows on second level.There IS a hIpped gabled dormerset m roof on each Side.

Intenor: Entrance opens mto aspaCIOUS hall whIch IS flanked oneither SIde by two rooms. Fronthall IS ornamented by anelaborate acanthus leaf cornIceand a plaster ceiling medallion.ThIS hall contams an open-stnngstaIrway with mahogany charr railand paneled wamscotmg. A

105

106

mahogany bannIster andornamental brackets under thetreads also decorate the stalIWay.

The hand-carvedwoodwork m the east front roomIS a valuable example of AdamornamentatIOn. East roomfireplaee,rectangular wIth amarble surround IS framed bypilasters decorated m a wheatear-drop pattern. Above thepilasters IS an ornate three panelfneze. A goddess beanng sheavesof nee, surrounded by a foliatedscroll pattern, forms the centraltablet. On each SIde IS a panelwith floral and swag deSIgn. Allthree tablets are framed by endblocks decorated WIthmytholOgIcal figures holdingagncultural mstruments. Abovethe fneze IS a dentate cornIce andmantel shelf.

IdentIcal sIX-panel doorson each SIde of the fireplace areframed by fluted pilasters. Abovethe door and pilasters IS a dentatecornIce and a three-panel gougework entablature. Central raISedpanel IS a fan deSIgn and ISflanked by two panels m a wavemolding pattern. These fnezepanels are framed by end blockswith a vertIcal sunburst destgD.

Wall decoratIon mcludesan elaborate cornIce, paneledwamscotmg, and a chaff-rail,carved m altematmg rectangularblocks of a sunburst ellipsefollowed by a garland deSIgn onfluted background.

In the west room centralpanel of the fireplace fneze bearsa carvmg of a Roman tomb.COrolceS are of a scroll deSIgnalternatmg every three or fourmches with a square metopeWhICh formerly contamed a smallrosette, although most have nowdisappeared.

The two second storyrooms are noted for theIr fine

gouge carvmg, contrastmg withthe more formal Adamennchments ill lower level rooms.Gouge work, deeply nIchedsymmetncal deSIgns, IS recogmzedas a more mdigenous Amencanstyle than the Adam decoratIOn.In 1810 the maccessibility ofAdam mantels due to embargoesand other obstacles to trade WIthBritam mIght have mfluenced thebuilder's selectIon of the sImplergouge carvmg.

Drrectly above secondfloor rooms are two rooms on thethrrd level whIch have no mtenorcarvmg (S.C. Department ofArchIVes and History, MarshlandsNatIOnal RegISter form on file).

While transported from its ongmal, andmore meanmgful phySIcal context, the houseremams an excellent architectural example of thepenod. In the last quarter of the eIghteenthcentury vast fortunes were made from neecultIVatIOn, with planters seemg returns of over26% on therr mvestment -- all of course createdthrough the labor of Afncan Amencan slaves. Bythe 1820s, only a few years after the constructIonof Marshlands, the rate of return on ncecultIVatiOn had plummeted to a -6% andthroughout the nmeteenth century profits werenever greater than about 1 to 2%. By the eve ofthe Civil War nce cultIvatIon saw a rate of returnof -28% (Coclams 1989:141). Marshlands was builtat the crest of the nce planter wealth. Afterwardsthe few such grand houses built would beconstructed on borrowed money.

Normally moved propertIes are notconSIdered eligible for mcluslon on the NatIOnalRegISter, smee SIgnificance "embodied m locationsand settmgs as well as ill the properties themselves"(How to Apply the Naoonal Regzster Cntena forEvaluaoon, NatIOnal RegISter Bulletill 15, page 29).However, propertIes such as Marshlands can benommated under Critena C (desIgn/constructIon)when they retam enough hIStone features toconvey its architectural values and retam mtegntyof deSIgn, matenals, workmanshIp, feeling, andaSSOCIation. Clearly thIS IS the case WIth

Marshlands.

It IS mportant to note that the exceptionalsIgnificance of thIS property, restmg as it does ondesIgn and constructIon mtegrity, can be easilydamaged through neglect, deferred mamtenance,and mproper adaptwe reuse. The custodians ofthIS sIte should be partIcularly careful to ensurethat they have m place written plans for penodicmamtenance -- the first line of defence agamst awIde range of structural and cosmetic problems.Deferred mamtenance should have no place m thecare of hIStone structures and where present arelittle more than demolitIon through neglect. InadditIon, the custodians should have writtendisaster recovery plans for the structure.Marshlands, gwen its age and settmg on theCharleston Harbor, IS partIcularly vulnerable to arange of disasters rangmg from plumbmg leaks tohumcanes. The fabnc of the building must beprotected from these disasters and thIS can only beaccomplished through a detailed disasterpreparedness and recovery plan.

Powder Magazme

Stanley South prOVIded one of the firstprofeSSIonal accounts of the powder magazme In

1973, notmg that it:

IS of bnck, rectangular m shape,with three buttresses on the northand south SIdes. The roof IS ofbnck that has been cementedover, but thIS has cracked andallowed water and soil to enter,and grass IS now growmg there.Large cracks are to be seen mseveral places, where the pressureof the roof IS forCIng the waIlsoutward, and thIS IS soon to resultm portIons of the wall fallingoutward (S.C. Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology,38CH69 site file).

The 1972 NatIonal Regtster nommatIon for FortJohnson prOVIdes relatIvely little additIOnal detail,while repeatmg a number of hIStoncal errors. Thebuilding measures 27.5 by 19.5 feet and ISconstructed of bnck laId up m FlemISh bond.

There IS eVIdence that the building was at one tIDlewhitewashed. The front and rear gables, as notedby the National RegISter nommatlOn, are high:

with one-dimenSional linearextensions at therr bases on theroof line; the roof IS covered witha cement-like coatmg to preventit from talong fire. There are buttwo openmgs m the front of thebuilding: a semI-elliptIcal doorand a small square wmdow set.t.mIIlediately above the door forventilation. The Side walls arepIeced m the center with slotwmdowsmeasurmgapproXlDlatelyseven by fourteen mches. Whilethe extenor IS ongmal, themtenor IS barrel vaulted, probablyby the Confederate forces dunngthe early 1860s, to enable the roofto withstand the pressure of theearth when the building wasbuned. The mtenor was furtherfortified with additIOnalbnckwork m common bond (S.C.Department of ArchIVes andHistory, Fort Johnson NatIOnalRegISter form on file).

As South clearly revealed durmg thISresearch at Fort Johnson, the structure was mostlikely built as part of the forts modificatIons mantIClpatIon of hostilitIes durmg the War of 1812.Some reparr work appears to have been attemptedin the 1970s, although the repointmg and slDlilarreparrs are rather crudely attempted. The mtenorof the building IS used as locked storage and wasnot accessible durmg thIS study.

Of conSIderable concern IS the vegetatIononce agam growmg from cracks m the building,suggestmg a deferred mamtenance program whichIS certam to cause rrreparable harm to thestructure. In additIon, the use of the building forstorage IS mappropnate to its hIStone nature andmay .cause damage to the building throughcarelessness or fire. As will be discussed m theconcluding section of thIS study, thIS building offersan exceptIonalopportunity for public mterpretatIonand it should be mamtamed for that purpose.

107

Quarantine Officers House

ThIS structure (survey number U/19/0678/249-2045) had not been preViously surveyed,although it IS of consIderable hIStoncallIDportance,representmg one of a senes of buildingsconstructed by the City of Charleston and the Stateof South Carolina about 1887 for the use of thequarantme officer stattoned at Fort Johnson. ThIS

survey was very bnef and mcorporated onlyextenor details. No mtenor survey was conducted,although a bnef walk-through was conducted.

The two story clapboard building IS

constructed on a "L" plan and set on bnck pIersWIth later bnck mfill. On the south elevatIon,WhICh eVIdently served as the formal entrance, aretwo full story porches filling the "L." The upperporch has a shed roof. ComparISon to ca. 1890photographs reveal that the upper screened porchhas been recently added, while the lower porch hasbeen recently screened. The smgle door on thefront or south elevation has rectangular SIde andoverhead fan lights. The lateral gable roof IS

covered m a standing seam tm roof WhICheVIdences wear. There are two central chmmeysand one extenor chmmey (possibly a recentadditIon). The bulk of the wmdows are SlX-over-slX­light, double hung sash wmdows.

AsSOCIated IS a kitchen building, connectedto the mam house by a covered walkway. Thekitchen 15 a smgle story, wood frame, clapboardstructure with a lateral gable roof and standingseam metal roofing. Attached IS a screened m full­facade porch with a shed roof. The kitchen, likethe mam house, IS lald on bnck piers. Alsoassociated with the house IS a small shed, possiblypost-datmg the mitlal construction of the houseand kItchen.

The mam house and connected kItchen areevaluated as contnbutmg resources to the NatIOnalRegISter nommatlon. In additIon, they appear tobe mdependently eligible for mcluslon on theNatIonal RegISter under Critenon A (aSSOCIatIOnwith events Important m the defined hIStonecontext) Cntenon B (assocIatIon WIth Dr. RobertLebby, a noted South Carolina phySICIan whoserved m the Civil War and later helped organIZethe quarantme system), and Cntenon C(desIgn/constructIon typIcal for the penod).

108

It appears that there has been no clearrecognition of thIS structure's hlstoncalSIgnificance, gIven the haphazard modificatlons,reparrs, and "renovations." Even durmg thIS studycontractors were engaged m modificatIons whichfailed to meet even the most baSIC levels ofpreservatlon quality. Like the other architecturallySIgnificant sites on Fort Johnson, thIS complexshould have a program of proactIve mamtenance,as well as clearly established disaster preventIonand recovery plans. All future modificatIOns shouldbe as carefully assessed as those undertaken onMarshlands smce thIS complex IS no less SIgnificantm its own context.

Also worthy of note are the landscapefeatures, espeCIally the plants, aSSOCIated with thISreSIdence. Although no detailed study wasconducted, even a bnef tour of the Immediatesurroundings revealed lantana (apparentlynaturalized as a perennial), oak, spider wort,camellia, trumpet vme, English IVY, wax myrtle (ina formal settmg), azalea, amaryllis, sptrea, firstbreath of sprmg or forsythIa, and umbrella tree.These represent a WIde diversity of plant matenals,some natIVe to the area (such as oak and umbrellatree) and others clearly mtroduced plant matenal(such as the lantana and amaryllis). ThesevegetatIVe landscape features are an lD1portantdimenSIOn of the settlement and should not bedisturbed.

Other Quarantine Station Structures

There are remnants of other quarantmestation structures on Fort Johnson, although mostare heavily modified. Examples mcIude twowarehouses, the remammg portIon of the hospItal,and a small office building. Because of theextenSIve alteratIOn of the hospItal, leavmg onlyportions of its west-facmg "H" shaped facade mtact,it was not evaluated m thIS study. It seems likelythat the building has been so modified that It IS nolonger a contributmg resource. The twowarehouses, sItuated Just north of the hospital,have not been slgnificantly altered. Consequently,they are recommended as potentIally contributmgresources and additional architectural evaluation ISrecommended. Like the hospItal, thIS study did notconclUSIvely determme therr dates of constructIOn,although it IS Likely that they post-date the 1906control of the facility by the U.S. Public Health

109

SeIVlce.

A small, one-story wood frame office,apparently datmg from the late nmeteenth century,preVIously eXISted m good condition on the edge ofa Civil War earthwork, set between the quarantmewharf and the station officer's house. Durmg thISsurvey the structure was m the process of bemg"rehabilitated," with the associated loss of allhIStone fabne, settmg, and context. Not only wasthe entrre structure gutted and stnpped, but it wasso thoroughly enlarged and modified that they onlyremammg hIStonc fabnc were a few of ItS frammgmembers. The structure was essentially demolished,With a modem structure rebuilt on an enlargedsite. ThIS destruction, WIthout measured drawmgs,photographs, or recordation, represents a senousloss to the architectural resources of Fort Johnsonwhile also endangenng the below groundarchaeological resources.

Post Quarantine Structures

Most notable of the post-quarantllle (i.e.,ca. 1940, World War II VlDtage) structures on theFort Johnson tract IS a pump house (surveynumber U/19/0678/249-2045) sItuated north ofFortJohnson Road at the entrance to the tract. It IS arectangular, one-story wood frame and clapboardbuilding of slab constructIon. It has a hlp roof withvery limited over hang covered m asphalt shmgles.Windows are present, but have been boarded upand were not available for mspeetlOn. A smglepaneled door IS situated on the east facade. Thestructure was presumably built to prOVide water forthe facility as it was lIDproved m the mId-twentiethcentury. Since the mtenor of the building was notexammed, we do not know whether the ongmalpump eqUIpment IS still m place and operable.

ThIS structure, alone, does not appear tobe a contnbutmg resource. Even ill COnjUnctIonWIth additIOnal hIStoncal research or the collectionof oral hIStones It IS unlikely that thIS structure caneither contnbute to the hIStone context of FortJohnson or be conSIdered mdependently eligible.ThIS survey bnefly recorded the extenor of thestructure. Some additIonal recordatIon should beundertaken on the mtenor pnor to either itsabandonment or eventual demolitIon.

112

Safeguarding Histone Sites

Histone sites such as those on the FortJohnson tract are faced WIth both natural disasters(such as humcanes) and man-made disasters (suchas plumbmg, roof leaks, and even mappropnatemallltenance and use). Consldenng the exceptIonalresources present on Fort Johnson, bothmallltenance and disaster plans are stronglyrecommended.

Mamtenance

Mallltenance IS a relatively sIDlple -~ evenabsolute ~- ISsue: no mamtenance, no building.Stewart Brand observes that:

PreservatIonISts are so adamanton the subject [of mamtenance]that the motto of thendepartment at the US NatIOnalPark SerVIce declares"PreservatIon IS mamtenance."John Ruskm hlIDSelf, the founderof antI-scrape preservatIOn,mtoned, 'Take proper care ofyour monuments and you will notneed to restore them. A fewsheers of lead put m tIme uponthe roof, a few dead leaves andstlcks swept out of a water course,will save both roof and walls fromrum. Watch an old building WIthanxIOUS care; guard It as best youcan, and at any cost, from everymfluence of dilapIdatIOn" (Brand1994:111).

Deferred or Improper mamtenance ofhIStone structures IS the cause of many senousproblems rangmg from disfigurement or loss of thehIStone fabnc through Irreparable damage.Deferred mamtenance, begun m the 1970s as amechanIsm for reducmg mamtenance costs, seeksto prolong the use of baSIC building componentssuch as roofs, mcrease the penod between normalmallltenance actIVitIes such as pamtmg, and reducethe overall level of custodial attentIon. Deferredmamtenance IS a certam recipe for problems wlthlong-tenn consequences. Nommal mal1ltenance IS

hzghly reactive andfails w meet either the needs ofthe

bUilding or its users. Unfocused mamtenance IS stillreactive, correcting perceIVed problems WIthOUtconsIderation ofcause or effect. Frequent repamtmg,for example, without attentIon to why the pamt 15

failing, may lead to much worse conditIons.

An adequate mamtenance programmcludes a listmg of actIVItIes and controls howoften the cycle repeats. It defines, pnontlZes, andschedules all mamtenance actIVItIes. Mamtenancemust be understood as a contmuous ongomgprocess -- It should be proactIve and preventatIve.Effectlve maIntenance programs mtegrateassessment, plannmg, mamtammg, and evaluatmg.

The building's needs are penodicallyassessed through detailed mspectlons. Theassessment must avoId the temptatIon torecommend treatmentswithout fully understandingthe cause of the problem. For example, while It 18

temptmg to replace a cornIce damaged bycarpenter ants, It IS more lll1portant to find thesource of water whIch lead to the mfestatIon andtreat the problem wholistically.

After the assessment, WhICh should bewntten usmg detailed project evaluatIon sheets, aplannmg phase should determme what needs to bedone, how It should be done, who should do It,and how much It will cost. The plannmg stageshould pnontlZe the needs of the building -­treatmg all of the needs, but concentratmg oncntlcal needs first.

The thIrd phase, that of mamtammg,emphaSIZes the need for regular attentIon. A smgleperson should be held responsible, andaccountable, for buildingmamtenance. ThIS personshould also have the authority to halt work if Itappears that It IS not gomg as planned or 15

damagmg the hIStone fabnc of the structure. Anequally 1lllportant aspect of thIS phase IS

documentation. It 1$ essential to document what IS

done through photographs, drawmg, and evensamples. Twenty or fifty years from now It IS

essentIal that those undertakmg work know whatwas done and how It was done.

Finally, the last stage IS evaluatmg thework -- consldermg the quality, value, and successof the work. ThIS process helps mIStakes frombemg repeated and prOVIdes the next cycle ofmamtenance solid mformatlon on WhICh to build.

Mamtenance on hIStonc structures shouldrecognlZe that the most common problem mvolvebuilding dynamICS, mOISture, adverse approaches topreVIOUS mamtenance, chemIcal actIons, andmsects/rodentslbrrds. By understanding thepathology of a building it IS eaSIer to ensure thatcorrection actions are appropnate and treat theroot cause, not merely symptoms.

Preservation-mmded mamtenance 15

difficult for any bureaucracy to understand, muchless unplement. OrganIZed on outdated andprobably unworkable prmclples, those maderesponsible for mamtenance of hIStonc structurestypIcally have no understanding of baSICpreservatIon philosophy and SImple architecturalconservatIon procedures, much less a clearunderstanding of facilihes managementresponsibilitIes as mandated by the InternationalFacilities Management AsSOClatIon.

Requued reading, at a very general level,mIght mcIude Stewart Brand's How BuildingsLearn: What Happens After They're Built. Brandgoes beyond the traditIonal preservatIon text byexplonng how some buildings last, while otherdetenorate, notmg that much of the difference canbe found both m building care and also In howwell the building can adapt to change.

Movmg on to more technIcal ISsues, oneexcellent source of mformatlon IS J. HenryChamber's Cyclical Mamtenance for HistoneBuildings which emphases daily (such as, checkmgfire detectIon/suppressIon systems), weekly(checkmg HVAC controls), monthly (lubncatmgand adjustmg mechanIcal dnves), quarterly(cleanmg light fixtures), semiannually (soundingfire alarms and conductmg drills), annual(inspectmg boilers and controls), and qumquenntal(inspectmg and testmg eleetncal msulatlon andmstallatlon) actIVitIes.

Naturally, all work on the hIStoncbuildings at Fort Johnson should ngorously adhereto The Secretary of the Intenors Standards andRlustrated Guzdelines for Rehabilitatton, availablefrom the Supenntendent of Documents (stocknumber 0240-005-01091-2). In addition, BuildingConservatIon International offers excellentpreservatIon adVIce, mcluding:

113

• There are few panaceas mbUilding. Nothmg lasts forever,espeCIally if laced with cement.

• The easy answer IS often neitherthe nght one nor the cheapestone.

• A quality Job will be economIcaland save time and hassle ill thelong run.

• There are no hard-and-fastrules. A situatIon must be Judgedon Its merits.

An exceptIonal survey of preseIVatlon quality work15 proVIded by Gersil Newmark Kay (1991) IS

Mechanzcal and Electncal Systems for HistoneBuildings.

Disaster PlannlDg and Recovery

The first step m disaster plannmg andrecovery IS, ObvIOusly, recognIZe those threatswhIch are preventable and work to prevent them.The second step IS to recognIZe those threats WhIChare not preventable and work to reduce therrpotentIal unpact. In the first category are fires -­the leading threat to hIStonc propertIes. Fires arepreventable through the use of safe electncalsystems, occupant awareness, adequate firedetectIon systems, and appropnate fire suppressionsystems. In the second category are humcanes.While not preventable, the unpaet of hurncanes tohIStonc structures can be reduced throughapproprIate plannmg. Even after the disaster,whether preventable or not, the damage can belinuted by undertakmg the correct actIons andsteps ill a tllllely manner.

While It IS almost certam that the facilityhas some form of disaster plannmg as a researchfacility, It IS likely that these plans proVIde little, ifany, protectIon to the hIStone resources of thetract. TypIcally mstltutlonal disaster plans aregeared, understandably, for busmess contmUlty, notfor the preservatIon of hIStone buildings, earthenfort ificatlons, and underground archaeologIcalsItes.

114

It IS essentIal that Fort Johnson mstItute aprogram of rISk evaluatIOn, hazard mitlgatlon, andemergency preparedness whICh m.corporates theproperties unU/ue, and Irreplaceable, hlStonc andarcltaeologwal resources. ThIS covers a WIde range ofactIOns, mcluding Identifymg past emergencIes,determmmg the types of natural events which posea threat to the hIStone structures, determmmg thetypes of damage whIch mIght be expected, andmost Importantly, Identifymg the hazard andemergency preparedness measures WhICh areneeded to safeguard agamst the most probabledamage. Hazard mItigatiOn will mclude developmga work plan for carrymg out the structural andhazard proofing measures Identified, developmg aschedule for thIS work, and identifymg andsecurmg the necessary resources to ensure thework IS correctly performed. It IS possible, throughappropnate plannmg, to balance hIStonepreservatIon mterests with disaster protectIon.Emergency preparedness mcludes the mventorymgand photographmg of the Site pnor to anyemergency, developmg appropnate protectIVemeasures, developmg a resource list ofprofeSSIOnals to aSSISt m evaluations and recovery,developmg a emergency response network,developmg a cham of command to ensure thepreservatIon of the structures, developmg achecklist of emergency response tasks, assemblingsupplies and eqUipment for recovery efforts, andprepanng a plan for how best to recover after adisaster strikes.

Staff must be tram.ed to know the actions totake dunng disasters and emergenczes not only wprotect theIr own lives, but also W protect the culturalresources ofFort Johnson. Both can be done, but onlyif there IS clear direction and trammg.

After the disaster, the staff should have aclear understanding of how to stabilize the hIStonepropertIes, mmimIZmg additIOnal damage. Whilepersonal safety comes first, the disaster plan musthave proVlSlons for checkmg the buildings forstructural damage, stabilizIng saggmg plaster,establishmg aIr ClfculatIon, and restormg safeelectncal seTVlce. The plan should mcorporate aclear understanding of msurance. The plan shouldcontam a detailed salvage plan for the structure,mcluding measures to make the buildingweathertIght and stable. All staff members should

understand that federal and state laws may apply,even m disaster situatIons and that work mvolvmgrehabilitatIon, reparr, restoratIon, or demolitIonwill likely requrre the reVIew and approval of theState Histone Preservation Office. DemolitIon IS

an acceptable alternatIVe only when all otheralternatIVes have been exhausted. Often there arehlSloncally appropnate methods WhICh can betaken to stabilize and ultImately reparr damagedbuildings.

One very good emergency salvageprocedure checklist has been developed byCarolIne Alderson, General SerVIceAdmmlStratlon, NatIOnal Capital RegIOn, HistoncPreservatlon. For noncombustible, waterproofItems the recommended approach IS to salvage asmuch as possible and, if possible, to leave thematenals m place. Nothmg should be thrown awayuntil its possible use IS fully known. For example,even completely shattered stone may be ground foruse m composite patch reparr of other cracked orchipped stone panels. Ornamental metal should besalvaged, either for reuse or for castmgreplacements. Woodwork and ornamental plasterIS often heavily damaged by either water or fire.All mtact woodwork should be retamed and mcases of extensIVe damage samples of every typeshould be retamed for replicatIon. Whole piecesare best, but even broken plaster castmgs can beglued together to make a whole. Floonng shouldbe left m place for evaluatIon by an architecturalconservator. The mtent should be to leave thefloonng necessary to show floor patterns, color,layout, and aSSOCIated borders. The wall-floor edgeIS very Important smce it often prOVIdes a"footpnnt" for reproducmg features such aswamscottmg and built-m furnlShmgs.

Clean-up should conSISt only of non­chemical, non-abrasive methods. No detergents orpropnetary cleanmg products should be used onunpamted wood, plaster, or metal. But mostlIDportantly, mvolve an architectural conservatorlIDIDediately after a disaster to ensure thatlIDportant architectural details are not lost m therecovery.

A disaster plan for Fort Johnson shouldmcorporate mformation on these, and additIonal,steps. The mformatlon must be on-hand,understood, and capable of bemg Implemented

before the disaster After the disaster has occurredIt will likely not be the tIme to seek and gathermformatIon.

Landscape Features

The Earthworks

The prImarily landscape features at FortJohnson are the earthworks assocIated with thevanous forts, prImarily from the Civil War. Anumber of the hlStonc maps clearly show theextend, and often the constructIon details, of theselater earthworks. It IS regrettable that at the tImeof thIS study no detailed topographIC map wasavailable to aSSISt m delimItmg the extent of thesUIVIVmg features. Regardless, companson of thehlStonc maps to on-the-ground features revealsfour major sUIVlVlDg earthwork systems.

Begmnmg south of the Gnce ManneBiologtcal Laboratory are the remams of theearthworks which ongmally formed the eastern andsouthern penmeter around Fort Johnson. Todayremnants are found along the edge of the marshnorth of the waste treatment plant and along theedge of the marsh. In most areas the features arerounded, eVldencmg a topography of 4 to 5 feet.These earthworks are assoClated With the first shotsfired on Fort Sumter and on two abortIve Umonattempts to capture Fort Johnson. As StanleySouth has preVIously noted, the locatIon of thewastewater treatment plant IS the area where theheaVIest fightmg took place dunng the mitIaIUnion attempt to overpower the small guard left atthe fort on July 3, 1864. A bombproof ongmallyaSSOCIated with the southern end of the system ISstill mtaet, while a second bombproof sItuatedmore centrally has been largely destroyed byencroachmg development. The northern portion ofthIS earthwork, mcluding a battery on the pomt hasbeen destroyed through a combmatlon of erOSIon,constructIon of modem facilities, and use as fill.AdditIonal damage has been caused by theplacement a bum area m the Vlcmlty of theearthworks after HurrIcane Hugo (clearlydemonstratmg the need for a well organIZed,appropnate disaster recovery plan).

A battery situated southeast of the NOAAbuilding apparently took advantage of a sand ndgeto further enhance Its elevation. ThIS earthwork IS

115

ill generally good conditIOn, and the locatIon of thethree gun emplacements IS still famtly VISible.Penpheral to thIS site are a senes of encampments,which have been heavily lffipaeted by the NOAAbuilding.

The earthworks and Battery Harleston onthe northern property boundary, faCIng theCharleston Harbor, have suffered extenSiVeerOSIon. Although portIons still most, without swiftand definitive action these features will be clalffiedby the sea withm the next decade.

Runnmg about north-northeast by south­southwest and crossmg the Fort Johnson Road arethe remnants of trench and earthwork fortificatlonsWhICh may date from the Amencan Revolution.While the features cannot be exactly matched toany exammed maps, most of the resources fromthIS tlIDe penod fail to prOVIde the detail necessaryfor convmcmg compansons. Regardless, theseremams are likely the oldest on the property.

These remams are recommended ascontnbutmg resources to the National ReglSternommatlOn of Fort Johnson. In additIon, there ISgood eVIdence that they are mdependently eligiblefor mcluslOn on the NatIonal RegJSter (for a bnefreVIew of Civil War site preservation efforts m theCharleston area see Stine 1993). The earlyearthworks represent some of the few remammgdefense lines mtended to protect the City ofCharleston. AdditIonal hlStoncal research maymore clearly define therr constructIon date, buteven absent thIS mformation they represent unIquelandscape features assoCIated with the very earliesthIStOry of Fort Johnson. The Civil War earthworksrepresent IIDportant histoncal features aSSOCIatedwith the Confederate efforts to create a defenSIVenng proteetmg Charleston. They are furtherstgIlificant gwen therr functIon m the first fewhours of the Civil War. In additIOn, portIons of theproperty are best understand ill terms of hollowedground, where Umon and Confederate forcesactually met ill battle.

ConstructIon details of bombproofs andearthworks, coupled with the ability to reconstructcamp lifeways usmg aSSOCIated archaeologIcalremams, add yet another dimenSIon to theSIgnificance of these landscape features. Thesefeatures are recommended mdependently eligible

116

under National RegISter Critenon A (they havemade a SIgnificant contnbution to the broadpatterns of OUf hIStory) and Critenon D (they arelikely to yield mformatlon lffiportant m ourhIStory). Although madequate researched, it IS

possible that the remnants of the northernfortificatIons assocIated WIth Battery Harlestonmay represent umque constructIon technIquesfound only m the Charleston area. If so, thISportIon of the SIte may also be conSIderedmdependently eligible for mcluslOn on the NatlonalRegISter under Critenon C (they contamSIgnificant works of engIneenng).

Mamtenance and DisasterRecovery ConSiderations

Just as the standing structures requrreclear mamtenance and disaster recovery plans, sotoo do these earthworks. In the past they havebeen needlessly damaged by actIVities rangmg fromconstructIon to humcane recovery. Now that theirlocatIon, and SIgnificance, IS more fully understoodseveral areas of concern should be qUIcklyaddressed. The first IS the need to develop specificerOSIon control strategIes. Along the CharlestonHarbor it seems likely that erosion IS caused, orencouraged, by the contmued dredgmg performedby the U.S. Army Corps of Engmeers. If so, theymay be responsible for developing andlDlplementmg an erOSIon control program toprotect these sites, or alternatIVely, of undertakmgdata recovery excavations. If additIonal researchdetermmes that the Corps' actIVitIes are notresponsible for the loss of thIS site, then theSCDWMR must underlake an lndependentprogram toprotect these sues. Continued loss to eroswn IS theequJValent to the de11UJlition ofa standing stnlcture byneglect. ErOSIOn control optIons mclude theconstructIOn of a sea wall or the mstallatlon of np­rap. Along the marsh frontage erOSIon IS likelynatural and the SCDWMR 15 alone responsible formamtammg and protectmg these features. Whilecareful selectIon and encourage of vegetatIOn maybe adequate for seasonally high tide erOSIon, it IS

likely that additIOnal steps will be necessary toprotect the landscape features from hurncanedamage.

It 15 also essential that controuedoperatIOns and actiVIties undertaken at FortJohnson be deSIgned and lffiplemented not to

adversely affect the Identified cultural resources.Virtually all actMtles, rangmg from parkIngvehIcles to excavatmg utility lines will damagearchaeological and hIStorical resources. The careand mamtenance of these resources IS a publictrust which demands considerable care andattention.

DISaster plannmg and recovery shouldrecognIZe that often conventional "recovery" effortscause as much or more damage than the disaster.It IS essentIal that a clear plan be developed whichguards agamst further damage durmg clean-upefforts (for a bnef reVIew of these ISsues seeMorgan 1993).

For example, after a humcane it IS

essential that the soils be dry before downedvegetation IS mechalllcally removed. Even on drysoils only rubber tracked vehicles should be used.If skId trails are necessary they should not beallowed to cross earthworks. All clearmg should bedone usmg the least mtruslve methods possible.There should also be a recogmtlon that as thevegetation pattern of the sites change so too maytherr preservation problems. Bum areas should bephySically removed from sensitive hlStonc orarchaeological sites. In VIrtually every disaster casethere are experts available WhICh have confrontedthe Identical or slIDilar situation -- thIS expertISeshould be consulted to ensure that the hlStoncresources are not further damaged.

117

Histoncal Findings

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

map.

The research for Fort Johnson, even at thenecessarily superficIal level of thIS survey, revealsan exceptIOnal complex and nch hIStOry. Whileoften overshadowed by Forts Sumter and Moultne,Fort Johnson has played a part m the defence ofCharleston durmg the French and Indian War, theAmencan RevolutIon, the War of 1812, and theCivil War.

The first fort was built ill 1708 as aresponse to the vulnerability of the colony durmgQueen Anne's War. While no good records of thISfirst fort could be found, some hIStonans believethat it was tnangular m form with bastIons at eachcomer and a moat on the land SIde. Before thISthe .property, known as Windmill Pomt, was theplantatiOn of William Russell and later John King.Dunng thIS early penod the lands were bemgcultIVated, possibly for mdigo or subSIStence cropslike com.

By 1724 the fort was already showmg SIgnSof senous detenoratlon and the process of neglect,madequate repaIr, and dismterest was alreadyestablished. The next major renovatIon was the1759 tabby fort built m antIcIpatIon of French orSpanISh attack dunng the French and Indian War.Tabby IS a mIXture of burned shells (WhICh formslime, servmg as the bmder), whole oyster shells(servmg as the aggregate), mIXed with water toform a slurry. Poured m forms and allowed toharden it lS a good building matenal, but does notfaIT well when exposed to eIther cannon fire or theundermmmg effects of the tIdes.

As the threat subSIded so too did theenthusIasm of the Assembly to pay for the workand constructIon was apparently never completed.Although no copy of the ongmal plan can today beIdentified, a contemporary map shows an eccentncplan WhICh suggests that he may have had access tothe plans and SImply mcorporated them IDtO the

118

At the begmnmg of the AmencanRevolutIon Fort Johnson was seIZed by the Councilof Safety and held until 1780 when the BritIShGeneral, Henry Clinton, laId SIege to the city. Thefort was blown up by the ColonISts before the fortwas abandoned. It was dunng thIS penod, however,that some of the first earthworks were established.

An effort was made after the AmencanRevolutIon to once agam upgrade the defenSIVeworks and a new fort was built Just west of the oldones. Efforts were made to mamtam thIS fort, butwhen the threat posed by the War of 1812 wasrealized Fort Johnson was once agam little morethan a pile of rubble. The new battenesconstructed m 1812 to protect the harbor entrancewere almost munediately destroyed by the August1813 humcane. It was probably dunng thIS phaseofconstructIon that the bnck powder magazme stillpresent on the site was built. Accounts from 1827mdicate that almost nothmg remamed of the fort.

Rather than once agam rebuild the fort, amartello tower was constructed southwest of theold forts, along with barracks for the men andofficers. These towers, with maSSIVe bnck walls andhaVIng a platform on top for one or two guns, werethought at the tIme to be great defenSIVe value.The James Island martello tower, one of only afew constructed on the East Coast, stood until Justbefore the Civil War when it burned.

Durmg thIS penod of peace local plantersbegan a summer village at Fort Johnson, known asJohnsonville, to take advantage of the "healthfulclimate." They built a small city, laymg out roadsand establishmg an almost urban enVlfonmentsouth of the fort.

Although there were occaSIonal proposalsto reactIvate Fort Johnson's more maSSIve defenseslittle was actually done until the post was seIZed by

the Confederate forces for the constructIon of amortar battery. On 4:00 on the mommg of April12, 1861, a shell from thIS battery exploded overFort Sumter, sIgnalling the bombardment of theUnIon fort and the begmnmg of the Civil War.

Over the next several years Fort Johnsonwas consIderably strengthened. Outposts wereestablished, mcluding Battery Simkms on thesoutheast, Battery Glover about two miles to thewest, Battery Wampler m the present-dayCleafYlew SubdivIsIon, and Battery Harleston, nearthe old martello tower. In all there were at least 26guns and mortars at the vanous battenes. InadditIon, an extenSIVe entrenched camp wasconstructed at Fort Johnson mcluding bombproofs,officers and enlisted quarters, and magazmes. Theonly real actIon Fort Johnson saw durmg the CivilWar was on July 3,1864 when Umon forces landedbetween Battery Simkms and Fort Johnson.Although the Dmon forces fought therr way mtoparts of the defenSIVe system they were forced tosurrender when no remforcements wereforthcommg. On the nIght of February 17, 1865Fort Johnson and the assocIated battenes wereevacuated as part of the general Confederatewithdrawal from Charleston Harbor.

By the early 1880s Fort Johnson wasconverted mto a quarantme statIon under the JOIDtJunsdictIon of the City of Charleston and the State.Vessels from ports with suspected contagtons orwith SIckness on board were requITed to stop.Ballast would be unloaded and discarded on site,while the ShIpS were washed with merCUrICbichlonde, a powerful (and pOIsonous) dismfectantand then fumIgated with sulfur diOXIde fumes.Bedding and clothmg from the ShIpS would beplaced m a huge contamer and heated to atemperature of 2400 F for 15 to 20 mmutes.

The old military buildings were replacedby a dwelling houses for the quarantme officer,engmeer, and captam of the launch. Also builtwere barracks for officers, female passengers, andthe crews of vessels bemg detamed. A "feverhospital" and "pest.house" were built for the ill, aswell as storage buildings and warehouses.

In 1906, the U.S. Public Health ServIcetook over these quarantme dutIes from the Stateand City. In 1948 the property was abandoned by

the federal government and offered to the state.When, after five years of contentious wrangling noproposal for use of the property was advanced, theland returned to federal ownershIp. In 1954 aconsortIUm of the College of Charleston and theMedical Umversity of South Carolina proposed todevelop Fort Johnson mto a manne bIOlogIcalresearch center and m June 1954 a quitclalID deedwas ISsued by the U.S. Department of Health,Educatlon, and Welfare. While efforts to create ahlStonc park, complete with tour boats leavmg FortJohnson for Forts Sumter and Moultne, were agamraISed m the late 1960s, the bulk of the land waseventually deeded to the South Carolina Wildlifeand Marme Resources Department m 1970. Asmall portIon of the property was retamed by theCollege of Charleston for its Gnce MarmeLaboratory. The South Carolina MedicalUnIVersity kept title to a dwelling on thenortheastern pomt WhICh IS today used for officespace.

ExammatIon ofhIStoncal maps reveals thata number of structures, features (such as wells andCISterns), and earthworks were constructed on theproperty. While some of these, partIcularly thefortificatIons built on the Charleston Harbor, havebeen destroyed by erOSiOn, many others have likelySUrvIVed.

ArchaeologIcal Findings

The archaeologIcal research at FortJohnson conSISted of a relatIvely traditlonalmtensIVe surveywIth subsurface excavatIons (shoveltests) placed every 100 feet along transects alsospaced every 100 feet. Some areas of the propertyreceIVed even more mtensIVe survey, with testsplaced at 25 or SO foot mtervals or a metaldetector used to Identify military and architecturalremams. It 15 no exaggeratlon that there are fewareas on the 90 acre survey tract WhICh do notcontam some eVIdence of cultural actIVIty -- eItherpottery, glass, bnck fragments, shell, or even aboveground remams.

An unusual range of cultural resources,some of whIch are umque, are present at FortJohnson. The site's military hIStory and aSSOCiatedmilitary remams prOVIdes the opportumty to studythe lives of soldiers dunng the range of lateeIghteenth century and early nmeteenth century

119

conflicts. The ability to explore camp life atConfederate mstallatlOns offers partIcularlyIffiportant data forcompanson with the recentresearch by Legg and Smith (1989) at UnIoncamps on Folly Island and Legg et aL (1991) at aUmon camp on Hilton Head Island. Not only arethere possibly cultural differences, but the blockadeof Charleston may have reduced the supply of bothessentIal and luxury Items to Confederate troops,further reducmg the comfort of camp life. DIetarystudies may be able to proVIde additIonalmformation on the supply of troops and therrability to forage. Even Fort Johnson's earthworks,such as the sunken gun emplacement on theCharleston Harbor and at "Bunker HilI,tI may offerunIque engmeenng data not available from othersources. The rums of the martello tower, for WhIChthere are sUIVlVlllg plans at NatIOnal ArchIVes,represents one of two or three such structures builton the East Coast of the United States. Whilethere were a number of summer villages for theplanters, some of WhICh were abandoned, nonehave been archaeologIcal illvestlgated. ThISassemblage offers the opportunity to explore afacet of plantatIon life WhICh IS neither truly urbannor rural, but WhICh lies halfway between the twoextremes. Seekmg shelter ill these villages from thehot weather illness whIch mvaded therr plantations,little IS known about the architecture or thelifestyle. The use of the facility as a quarantmestatIOn offers yet another umque opportumty toexplore the lifestyle of government workers whowere m one sense ISolated from Charleston SOCiety,but m another way were mtImately exposed to thegoods and Ideas of a WIde range of cultures. Onlytwo mdiVIduals (both brothers) held the positIon ofquarantme officer pnor to 1906. Even between1906 and 1948 the post had only a handful ofhealth officers, allowmg better control of researchquestIons. While not umque, Fort Johnson alsooffers the opportunity to study the use of the "freetl

government land by Afncan Amencan freedmen.The lifeways of these squatters, who likelyrepresent a large segment of the black populatIonill the postbellum penod, have not been studiedand would offer essential comparative data to boththe freedmen of Mitchelville and more rural blacksengaged III tenancy. Even the prehIStonc SItes atFort Johnson offer exceptIOnal Opportulllties forresearch. South's work at one shell mIddenrevealed the potentIal for recovery of structuraldata, subSIStence remams, and radiocarbon data --

120

all still central ISsues ill Middle Woodland researchtoday For all of these research opportunIties -- allof these resources -- to be found on one tract IS

uncommon to say the least.

A senes of 10 "areas" were defined on thebasIS of sub-surface remams, surface collectIons,and assOCIated above ground features. These areasare bnefly recounted m Table 2 and most areassocIated WIth the property's eIghteenth ornmeteenth century hIStonc occupation, althoughseveral date from the prehIStOrIC perIod. Amanagement deCISIon, m consultatIon WIth the S.C.Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, wasmade to classify all of these SItes under the mitialSIte form, 38CH69, for Fort Johnson. ThISprevented the further proliferation of SIte numberson the tract, the concurrent problems assOCIatedwith SIte boundanes and espeCially multIplecomponents WIth different boundanes.

At some levels thIS approach may also helpslffiplify assessment for the purposes of complianceWIth eIther federal or state culturalresources/hIStonc preservatIon acts. Since all 90acres of the Fort Johnson facility were placed onthe NatIOnal Regtster m 1972, the ISsue becomesnot whether a site IS eligible for mcluslon on theNatIonal RegISter, but rather whether a partIculararea or feature IS a contnbutmg resource. It alsoencourages a more wholistIC approach to culturalresource management, emphaslZlDg that the entIrefacility IS listed on the NatIonal RegISter.

In spite of the survey mtensIty, It qUIcklybecame obVIOUS that the complexity of FortJohnson's resources would preclude slffiple answersto some management questIons. For example,while the survey ISolated areas of speCIal concernor whIch eVIdenced concentrations of culturalremams, it could not consIStently Identify if arelatIVely small area was "free" of culturalmatenals. What thIS means IS that while thIS studyoffers exceptIOnal potential for managmg culturalresources, Identifymg areas where constructIonactIvitIes will almost certamly cause damage to thecultural resources, It IS potentIally less useful ill

certifymg that small constructIon projects will haveno IDlpact m areas where the density of remamsseems lower. In other words, the study clearlyreveals where remams are, although It IS less

accurate m forecastmg where· they aren't.

Architectural Findings

The "above ground" sites on Fort JohnsonconsISt of both traditIOnal standing archItectureand also the vanous earthworks and remnantfortificatIOns, perhaps best classified as engmeermgfeatures. Both, however, contribute to the rIchnessof Fort Johnson, prOViding ulllque preservatIOnopportullltIes.

The Marshlands House, while not ongmalto Fort Johnson IS certamly an archItectural Jewelrepresentmg what Stoney has described as '1avIShand excellently executed" gouge work, as well asexcellent examples of more formal Adamennchments. Although preservatIon at Its ongmallocatlon, complete wIth a hIStonc context andarchaeological remams, would have been decidedlymore appropnate, Its relocatIon IS nevertheless asuccess story. LikeWISe the powder magazme IS avery early structure, likely datmg to constructlonaround 1812 and offers an equally Importantstanding feature for mterpretatlOn of the SIte andIts hIStory. The quarantme officer's house, whileonly recognIZed dunng thIS study as anarchitectural resource, IS certamly as Important asthe other structures m its own nght. Representmglow country vernacular constructIon, the house wasapparently constructed by the City of Charlestonand the State of South Carolina sometIme m the1880s. It represents, as far as can be determmed,the only SUrvIvmg example of thIS type of facility mSouth Carolina. There are also examples ofstanding archItecture on Fort Johnson whIchrequITe further evaluation, such as the warehousesJust north of the ongmal quarantme hospital.

Unfortunately, not all of the ongmalarchItecture at Fort Johnson has been preserved,or has been preserved senSItIvely. For example, the"HI! shaped hospItal has been so extenSIvelymodified with laboratory additlons that It no longerrepresents an archItecturally Significant resource.Even at the tIme of thIS study, a small officebuilding, likely assOCIated with the pre-1906quarantme statIon, was bemg dismantled,refabncated, enlarged, and reconstructed, totallydestroymg Its architectural mtegrity andSIgnificance (as well as damagIng below groundarchaeologIcal remams and threatenmg the

aSSOCIated Civil War earthworks). The quarantmeofficer's house IS bemg modified or "rehabilitated"usmg non-preservatIon methods WhICh may resultill devalumg its architectural Significance.

The earthworks have fared little better.Some have been extenSively damaged by erOSIon,others have been leveled for fill dirt, and stillothers have been damaged by constructIon of thewastewater treatment facility and the"rehabilitatIon" of an late nmeteenth centurystructure. Those WhICh remam, formmg fourconcentratIons or clusters, are ImpreSSIVe and ofclear unportance. They mclude the Civil War shorebattery, largely destroyed by erOSIOn; the easternand southern battery, largely mtact and also datmgfrom the Civil War; the Civil War battery south ofthe NOAA building; and portIons of an eIghteenthcentury earthwork crossmg Fort Johnson Road.

Identification of Significant Areas

All three sources of data -- the hIStoncalresearch, the archaeologIcal survey, and thearchitectural features -- must be conSidered mevaluatmg Significance. Figure 62 prOVIdes agraphIC representatIon of those areas on the facilityWhICh eVIdence Significant cultural remams.

Insofar assuch generalized representationsare useful for management deCISIons, those areasshown as havmg a high level of culturalSIgnificance should be protected from any futuredevelopment activities. In these areas the culturalremams are so dense, or complex, thatarchaeological recovery would not only be expenseand tIme consummg, but the excavatIon of the siteswould perhaps not best serve the public. Instead,these areas offer an exceptional opportunity forhIStonc site mterpretauon and public mvolvementm the hIStOry and heritage of Fort Johnson.

Those areas shown as haVIng a moderatelevel of cultural SIgnificance should not bedeveloped without additlonal archaeological surveyand, most likely, data recovery. In some areas thedata recovery may be costly and/or tIll1econsummg. However, the resources mvolved areprImarily 1lllportant for the mformation theycontam and can be satISfactorily recovered, gIVenadequate funding and tIme. Even here, however,

121

every possible effort should be made to avoid useof these areas, allowmg the sites mstead to be"banked" or preserved for future research.

Those areas shown as havmg a low level ofcultural SIgnificance can likely be developed withlittle or no additional archaeological mvestlgatlon.The current survey level suggests that culturalremams are either very sparse m these areas orthat they have been so thoroughly disturbed as tono longer retam the level of mtegrity necessary toaddress SIgnificant research questIons.

Some areas are also shown on the map ashavmg been developed, such as building sites,roads, and other heavily lffipacted areas. Contmueduse or mamtenance of these areas will not likelyaffect any cultural resources, however, expansIOn ofeXlStmg facilities, even by seemmgly smallproportIons, may result m the additIonal loss ofcultural resources.

Re-evaluation of Goals

The goals preVIously established for thISproject largely have been achIeved. The pnmarygoals of site IdentificatIOn and evaluation, coupledwith an evaluatIon of site loss, have been met.Although thIS management document focuses on"areas" of actIVity, as opposed to the moreconventIOnal concept of "site," concentratIOns ofactIVitIes and cultural remams were clearlyIdentified and assessed as either contnbutmg ornon-contnbutmg resources withm the context ofthe eXlStmgNatlonal ReglSternommatIOn. Further,thIS study has bnefly illustrated areas of culturalresource loss, not m an effort to assess blame, butto pomt out the extraordinary Importance of thISsite and the need for responsible resourcemanagement. Losses to South Carolina's heritageare not recoverable. ThIS IS a unIque site WhIChrequITes speCIal attention and conSideration.

The secondary goals mcluded exammahonof the military sItes at Fort Johnson, IdentificatIonof early eIghteenth century settlements on thetract, and explore NatIve Amencan settlement. ThearchIval research clearly documents, even at thISprelimmary stage, the mportance of Fort Johnsonas a military post. A summary of these findingshave been preVIously discussed. In addition, thISstudy also reveals that the tract has a nch hIStOry

as both an Engmeer's Office and later as aquarantme station. There IS little hlStoncal orarchaeological documentatIon for either type offacility, further supportmg careful preservatIon andmanagement of Fort Johnson. Identification ofearly eIghteenth century sites was less successful. Infact, while a few ISolated early eighteenth centuryartifacts were recovered, there are no assemblageswhich suggest the plantatIon development ofWilliam Russell or John King. There are severalequally likely explanations for thIS mlSsmgassemblage. Settlements m thIS area, Judgmg frommld- to late-eIghteenth century maps, tended tooccur relatIvely close to the harbor shore. TheWindmill Pomt settlement may therefore havebeen lost to erosIon. It IS also possible that therelatively bnef settlement, at most only extant for14 years, may have been "swamped" by the later"developments," losmg clear recognItiOn. It IS alsolikely that any structures present would have beenat least temporarily adopted by the military,perhaps for officer's quarters. WhileunrecognIzable at the survey level, it IS possiblethat detailed excavations will eventually Identify theearly settlements on Windmill Pomt.

NatIVe Amencan settlement on the pomtseems limited. ThIS, coupled with the presence ofonly one soil senes, served to limit our research mthIS area. However, it became qUickly eVIdent thatNatIVe Amencan settlements aVOIded the harborSIde m favor of the more protected marshfrontage. South and Widmer preVIously observedthat prehlStonc settlements mcorporated both thesand ndges and the mtervenmg troughs, so SImilarfindings by thIS study are by no mean "new" data(although mdependent confrrmatlon at slightlydifferent locations more strongly supports theassertIon that thIS IS not a umque situatIon).

Essential Management Actions

Fort Johnson represents a umque resourceto the State of South Carolina. Its custodians beara smgular responsibility, holding thIS SIte m publictrust. In the past the cultural resources have notalways receIVed appropnate care or conSIderatIOn.The wastewater treatment facility was constructedm the mIdst of the Civil War fortifications at thevery site of the July 1864 battle. The constructIonof the NOAA building destroyed a number of CivilWar encampments, despite assurances that the

123

sItes would be avoIded. The NOAA building evendamaged or destroyed an Afncan Amencancemetery, with no effort to locate or remove thegraves made dunng the construction. An officebuilding assocIated with the quarantme statIon hasbeen so totally altered that it no longer possessesany mtegrity or sIgnificance.

One of the first essentIal steps for themanagement of hlStonc resources anywhere,mcluding those at Fort Johnson, IS for themanagers to better understand the nature, andImplications, of preservatIon. Amenca's foremostarchitectural hIStonan, Vincent Scully, describedthe preservatIon movement as "the only masspopular movement to affect critIcally the course ofarchitecture (and hIStOry m general] ill ourcentury." Commg from seemmgly out of nowheredunng the 1970s and 1980s, it was a qUIet, populistrevolutIOn. As Brand observes, one central elementwas that, "people liked old buildings, andprofeSSionals who couldn't get along With thatcould find another line of work" (Brand 1994:88).

But the mportance of the movement wasgreater than slDlply that people liked old buildingsand It covered much more temtory than SImplyarchitectural sites. Preservation mcorporated aphilosophy of tme and responsibility for resources-- such as those at Fort Johnson -- and ItrecognIZed that these resources embody ourhIStory. As the cultural hlStonan Ivan Illich hasremarked, "History gIVes us distance from thepresent, as if It were the future of the past. In thesprrit of contemplatIon It releases us from thepnson of the present to examme the axIoms of ourbme."

Through tIme It has become mcreasmglyapparent that archaeological, hIStoncal, andarchitectural Sites all offer exceptIonal economIcpotentIal --. they have the ability to promotehentage based tourISm. They prOVIde an additIOnaldimenSion -- Fort Johnson IS not only fishenesresearch, It IS also hIStory. Under pressure frompreservatIOnIsts, economISts have begun tounderstand that hIStone SItes, like forests, are bestappraISed as possessmg mtergeneratwnal equity.

There are a number of courses WhICh aredeSIgned to help site managers better understand

124

the SIgnificance, and fragility, of archaeologIcal andhlStoncal resources. The D1VlSion of ContmumgEducatIon at the Umversity of Nevada t Renot forexample, offers courses such as "Archaeology forManagers," "Cultural Resource ProtectIon and theLaw/' and "Public PresentatIons About the Past/'while the NatIonal Park ServIce offers courses suchas "Introduction to Federal Projects and HistoncPreservatIon Law." All of these may be helpful tothose with the responsibility to manage thearchaeologIcal and hIStoncal resources present atFort Johnson.

ThIS study has Identified a range ofadditIonal steps whIch should be taken to ensurethe long.term preservatIon of these resources. EachISsue IS bnefly presented below m bold type,followed by the recommended actIon or actIons mitalics. Since the goal of thIS survey was not thecreatIon of a detailed preservatIon plan, theseessentIal management actIons are presented m onlya generalized format.

1. It IS essential that all management levelstaff at Fort Johnson recogniZe the Significance ofthe site and the legal obligation to protect theseresources. PreservatIon, to be taken senous bysupport staff, must be seen as havmg the supportof the very hIghest levels of admmlStratlon. ActIonsto ensure that the Importance of Fort Johnson ISrecognIZed may mclude clrculatwn of thIS study,mcorporatwn of cultural resource ISSUeS m staffmeetings, and a memorandum to all staff. A staffmeeting wh~h mvolves the S.c. State HistonePreservatlon Office should be conducted on s1Je toacquamt upper level management WIth thezr legalobligatwns to protect and preserve Fort Johnson'scultural resources.

2. It IS equally essential that all staffrecognIZe their part In helpIng to preserve andprotect Fort Johnson. Many tImes the actIons ofbulldozer operatIOns or JamtorIaI staff can help orhmder preservatlon efforts and they must bemcorporated m the preservatIon loop. The smallFort Johnson brochure preVIOusly prepared byCh~ora Foundatzon should be distributed to allcurrent and new staff of the facility. As additIonalpreservatlon steps are Implemented they should beexplamed to the staff, not Simply mandated.

3. Steps should be taken to ensure that thecultural resources at Fort Johnson are notdamaged by routine maintenance or researchactivities. Many seemmgly normal aetMtIes, suchas parkmg, use of hIStOrIC buildings, or laymg ofnew utility lines, can cause Irreparable damage tothe cultural resources. Immediate actrons shouldznclude limztzng parlang to wzthzn 50 feet of hIStoneresources such as earthworks and buildings, removalof all stored matenals from wzthm the powdermagazzne, and establishzng a cleannghouse for anground disturbzng actzvztles, no matter how small orznszgnificant they may seem to be. Another zmmediateactzon should be an evaluatwn of all rehabilitatzonactzons currently underway at Fort Johnson. Inpartzeular, zt zs zmportant that electncal contractzng atthe quarantzne officer's house zntegrate more sensztzvepreservatzon approaches. Moderate-term actrons (i.e.,actzons to be undertaken wzthzn the next three to SIX

months) should znclude the development of aproactzve mazntenance plan for the hzstone structureson Fort Johnson and an evaluatron of mazntenanceand preservatzon needs by an archztecturalconservator such as George Fore and Assoczates.

4. Steps should be taken to ensure that theresources at Fort Johnson are protected fromlooters, metal detector enthusiasts, and othercollectors. The cultural resources at Fort Johnsonbelong to all members of the public, but are heldm trust by the SCDWMR. As custodians of thISresource it IS essentIal that steps be taken toensure that these resources are not lost to lootersand those usmg metal detectors. TheadmmIStratIon must realize that Civil War "relics"are valuable commodities. Some buttons, forexample, will easily bnng $200 on the open market.The lootmg of Fort Johnson's cultural resourcesmvolves not only trespass, but also destructIon ofstate property. An zmmediate actzon IS to advzse allstaff members, by memo, that anyone observeddiggzng or uszng a metal detector on the groundsshould be zmmediately reported to secunty.SCDWMR Law Enforcement Officers should beacquaznted wzth the zmportance ofFort Johnson andenlisted to assISt m Slte protectJOn. Through tuneszgnage may be an appropnate actron, but thzs shouldbe further evaluated In light of otherrecommendatzons below.

s. Fort Johnson should develop plans to

help protect cultural resources from man-madeand natural disasters and to ensure that recoveryefforts are appropnate and do not causeadditional damage. The plannmg shouldmcorporate archaeological SItes, standingstructures, and landscape features. It shouldreceIVe admmlStratlVe support, mcluding adequatestaff tIDle and finanCIal resources to ensure Itssuccess. An zmmediate step should znclude formznga disaster preparedness commzttee WIth the authontyto proceed zn the planmng. A workable plan shouldrequzre no more than 3 months to prepare, revIeW,and Implement. Part ofthzs commzttee's responsibilityshould be an evaluatzon of secunty needs, especUlllyfire detectzon systems. for the standing hIStonestructures.

6. Fort Johnson is a unique historicalproperty and steps should be taken to mterpretthat history for both staff and visitors. While FortJohnson IS not a hlStoncal park, and likely willnever become one, the umqueness and SIgnificanceof its hIStoncal resources cannot be Ignored.InterpretatIon of these resources for the staff, theoccaSional VISitor, and those specifically mterestedm its hIStOry (for example, the Civil War battle sitetourISt) will ensure that the public has access tothat hIStOry and will also promote a greaterawareness of its SIgnificance to South Carolina. Ammzmal level of mterpretatzon mvolves three steps.The first zs to ensure that hIStone Sl1es, structures,and features are well cared for and offer anappropruzte Image to the public. Thzs mcludes, forexample, ensunng that the standing structures havepreventatwe (not deferred) mazntenance and that allwork zs done according to stnct preservatzonstandards. It zncludes keepzng landscape featuresaccessible and open for public vlSltatzon. The powdermagazzne should no longer be used for storage, butshould be opened for the public. The second step zs toensure that the public has some bnef hzstoncalaccount of Fort Johnson, the buildings, and thearchaeolOgICal sztes. Somethmg szmilar to Chu:ora'sbrochure would be appropnate. Thzs should beavailable at different offices and from a protectedznterpretatlve display at the front gate. The thIrd stepIS to create znterpretatzve Slgnage at major features,zncluding the NOAA building to commemorate theAfncan Amenean cemetery, the martello tower, theCivil War earthworks, and the powder magazzne.

125

7. Portions of Fort Johnson continue to beeroded and protective steps must be taken. OfpartIcular concern IS the erosIon to the CharlestonHarbor sIde of the facility and the loss of the CivilWar earthworks. Fort Johnson should znvestzgate theresponsibility of the Army Corps of Engmeers toprotect the facility's cultural resources from eroswncreated by mazntenance and use of the harbor.Regardless of responsibility, steps should be taken todevelop and lmplement an erOSLOn control programto protect the threatened cultural resources.

126

SOURCES

1985 Middle Woodland SocietIes onthe Lower South AtlantiC Slope:A View from GeorgIa and SouthCarolina. Early Georguz 13:29-66.

Anderson, DaVId G.1975 Inferences from DlStnbutlOnal

Studies of PrehIStOrIC Artifacts mthe Coastal Plam of SouthCarolina SoutheasternArchaeolOgICal Conference Bulletm18:180-194.

1979 Excavatwns at Four Fall LmeSites: The Southeastern BeltwayProject CommonwealthAsSOCIates, Inc., Jacksonville,MichIgan. Submitted to the SouthCarolina DepartmentofHighwaysand Public TransportatIon,ColumbIa.

Groups CommonwealthASSOCiates, Inc., Jackson,Michigan. Submitted to NatIonalPark ServIce, ArchaeolOgicalSerVIces Branch, Atlanta.

Proposal for Archaeologzcal andHistone Research at the Site ofFon Johnson, Charleston County,South Carolina Presented to theSouth Carolina Wildlife ResourcesDepartment and the College ofCharleston. S.C. Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology,Umversity of South Carolina,ColumbIa.

Anonymousn.d.

Andrus, Patnck W1992 Guzdelmes for Identifymg,

Evaluatzng, and RegzstermgAmenea ~ Histone Battlefields.NatIonal RegISter BulletID 40.NatIonal Park SerVice,Interagency Resources DIVISIon,Washmgton, D.C.

Essay on Sea Coast Crops. A.E.Miller, Charleston.

Allston, R.F W1854

Blanton, DennIS B., ChflStopher T Espenshade,and Paul E. Brockmgton, Jr.

1986 An Archaeologzcal Study of

Bense, Judith A., Hester A. DaVIS, LorrameHeartfield, and Kathleen Deagan

1986 Standards and GUIdelines forQuality Control m ArchaeologicalResource Management m theSoutheastern Umted States.Southeastern Archaeology 5:52-62.

Anderson, DaVId G., Charles E. Cantley, and A.Lee NOVICk

1982 The Mattassee Lake Sites:ArchaeologICalInvestrgatwnsAlongthe Lower Santee River In theCoastal Plazn of South Carolina.Commonwealth Assoaates, Inc.,Jackson, MichIgan. Submitted toNatIonal Park SerVIce,Archaeological ServIces Branch,Atlanta.

Anderson, DaVId G. and Joseph Schuldenrem(editors)

1985 Prehzstone Human Ecology Alongthe Upper Savannah Rzver:ExcavatuJns at the Rucker'sBottom, Abbeville and Bullard Site

Barlow, A.R.1899 Company G. A Record of Servzces

ofOne Company ofthe 157th N.YVolunteers In the War of theRebellion. A W Hall, Syracuse.

127

Brand, Stewart1994

Brooker, Colin1991

38SU83: A Yadlan Phase Site mthe Upper Coastal Plam of SouthCarolina. Garrow and AssocIates,Atlanta. SubmItted to SouthCarolina Department Highwaysand Public Transportatlon,ColumbIa.

How Buildings Learn: WhatHappens After They're Built.Vikmg, New York.

Callawassle Island Sugar Works:A Tabby Building Complex. InFurther Investigations ofPrehlStoncand Histonc Lifeways onCallawasSle and Spnng Islands,Beaufort County, South Carolina.Edited by Michael Trmkley, pp.110-154. Research Senes 23.ChIcora FoundatIOn, Inc.,ColumbIa.

Brooks, Mark, Larry LeplOnka, Ted A. Rathbun,and John Goldsborough, Jr.

198 Prelzmznary ArchaeologIcalInvestzgatzons at the CallawasszeIsland Bunal Mound (38BU19),Beaufort County, South Carolina.Research ManuscrIpt Senes 185.South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology,UnIVerSIty of South Carolina,ColumbIa.

Burton, E. Milby1970 The Siege of Charleston, 1861-

1865 Umversity of SouthCarolina Press, ColumbIa.

Bum, Manon L., Jr.1987a The U.S. Quarantme StatIon,

Fort Johnson, James Island, S.C.1937-1948. Ms. on file, S.C.Department of Wildlife andMarme Resources, Charleston.

Brooks, Mark and Glen Hanson1987 Late ArchaIc-late Woodland

AdaptIVe Stability and Change mthe Steel Creek Watershed, SouthCarolina, draft. Ms. on file,Savannah RIVer ArchaeologtcalResearch ProJect, South CarolinaInstitute of Archaeology andAnthropology, Umversity ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

Brooks, Mark, D.J. Colquhoun, J.G. Brown, andPA Stone

1989 Sea Level Change, EstuanneDevelopment and TemporalVarIability m Woodland PenodSubslStence-SettlementPatternmgon the Lower Coastal Plam ofSouth Carolina. In Studies In

South Carolina Archaeology,edited by Albert C. Goodyear andGlen T Hanson, pp. 91-100.Anthropological Studies 9 SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeologyand Anthropology, Umversity ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

128

1987b The U.S. Quarantme StatIon,Fort Johnson, James Island, S.C.1939-1955. Ms. on file, S.C.Department of Wildlife andManne Resources, Charleston,South Carolina.

Butler, William B.1987 SIgnificance and Other

Frustrations m the CRM Process.Amencan Annqulty 52:820-829.

Caldwell, Joseph R.1943 Cultural Relatzons of Four Indian

Sites of the Georgza Coast.Unpublished Master's thesIS,Department of Anthropology,Umversity of ChIcagO, ChIcagO.

1958 Trend and Traditzon zn thePrehzstory of the Eastern UmtedStates. Memolfs of the AmencanAnthropologIcal AssociatlOn 88.

1971 Chronology of the GeorgIa Coast.Southeastern ArchaeologIcalConference Bulletzn 13:88-92.

Caldwell, Joseph R. and Cathenne McCann1940 SemI-Annual Report on the

ExcavatIons ill Chatham County.Ms. on file, ChIcora FoundatIon,Inc., Columbia.

Calhoun, Jeanne A.1983 The Scounng Wrath of God: Early

Humcanes m Charleston, 1700­1804 Leaflet 29 The CharlestonMuseum, Charleston, SouthCarolina.

Cantu, Mona and Jo Ann Allen1981 38CH71. A Forensu Case Study.

Ms. on file, ChIcora FoundatIon,Inc., ColumbIa.

Copp, Eldndge J.1911 Remznzscences of the War of the

Rebellion 1861-1865. TelegraphPublIshIng, Nashua, NewHampshIre.

Courtenay, W.A.1883 The CentennIal of the

IncorporatIon of Charleston.Charleston Year Book, 1883.Charleston, South Carolina.

Dawson, William Forrest, editor1957 A Civil War Artlst at the Front,

Edwm Forbes' Life Studies of theGreat Army. Oxford UmversityPress, New York.

Cohen, Ethel M.n.d. Quarantlne. Ms. on file, WPA

files, South Carolimana Library,C-3-16.

Coclams, Peter A.1989 The Shadow of a Dream:

EconomIC Life and Death In theSouth Carolina Low Country 1670­1920 Oxford Umversity Press,New York.

Coe, Joffre L.1964 The Fonnatl,ve Cultures of the

Carolina Piedmont. TransactIonsof the Amencan PhilosophIcalSOCiety 54(5).

DePratter, Chester1979 CeramIcs. In The Anthropology

of St. Cathennes Island 2. TheRefuge-Deptford MortuaryComplex, edited by DaVId H.Thomas and Clark S. Larsen, pp.109-132.Anthropologzca/Papers ofthe Amencan Museum of NaturalHistory 56(1).

1985 The Dunlap Site: A WoodlandOccupation on the Pee DeeRIVer. Paper presented at theEleventh Annual Conference onSouth Carolina Archaeology,ColumbIa.

Cooke, C. Wythe1936 Geology of the Coastal Plam of

South Carolina. Bulletrn 867 U.S.GeolOgIcal Survey, Washmgton,D.C.

Cooper, Thomas1837 South Carolina Statutes, vol. 2. A.

S. Johnson, Charleston, SouthCarolina.

1838 South Carolina Statutes, vols. 3and 4. A.S. Johnson, Charleston,South Carolina.

DePratter, Chester and J.D. Howard1980 Indian OccupatIon and GeolOgIcal

History of the GeorgIa Coast: A5,000 Year Summary InExcurszons In SoutheasternGeology, edited by James D.Howard, Chester B. DePratter,and Robdrt W Frey, pp. 1-65.GUIdebook 20. GeolOgIcal SOCietyof Amenca, Atlanta.

DeVorsey, LoUIS, Jr., editor1971 DeBrahm's Report of the General

Survey zn the Southern Dzstnct ofNorth Amenca. UnIVersity ofSouth Carolina Press, ColumbIa.

129

March 28, 1749-March 19, 1750.S.C. Department of ArchIves andHistory, ColumbIa.

Edgar, Walter B. (editor)1972 The Letterbook ofRobert Pnngle. 2

vols. UnIVersity of South CarolinaPress, ColumbIa.

Drucker, Lesley and Ronald W Anthony1978 An Archaeologzcal Reconnazssance

of the Lake City WastewaterTreatment Improvements ProJect.Carolina ArchaeologIcal Semces,ColumbIa.

Drucker, Lesley and Susan H. Jackson1984 Shell m Motzon: An Archaeologzcal

Study ofthe Mimm Island NatronalRegzster Site, Georgetown County,South Carolzna CarolInaArchaeological SerVIces,ColumbIa. SubmItted toCharleston DIStnct, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engmeers, Charleston,South Carolina.

Espenshade,Brockmgton

1989

ChrIStopher T and Paul E.

An Archaeologzcal Study of theMimm Island Site: Early WoodlandDynamICs m Coastal SouthCarolina. Brockmgton andAsSOCIates, Atlanta. Submitted toU.S. Army Corps of Engmeers,Charleston DIStnct, Charleston.

Easterby, J.H.1951

1952

1954

1955

1956

Journal of the Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,November 10, 1736-June 7, 1739Histoncal CommISSIon of SouthCarolina, ColumbIa.

Journal of the Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,September 12, 1739-March 26,1741 Histoncal CommISSIon ofSouth Carolina, Columbia.

Journal of the Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,September 14, 1742-January 27,1744 S.C. Department ofArchIVes and History, Columbia.

Journal of the Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,February 20, 1744-May 25, 1745.S.C. Department of ArchIves andHistory, Columbia.

Journal of the Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,September 10, 1745-June 17, 1746.S.C. Department of Archives andHistory, ColumbIa.

Espenshade, Chnstopher T., Lmda Kennedy, andBobby G. Southerlin

1993 What Is A Shell Midden? DataRecovery Excavatzons of Thom'sCreek and Deptford Shell Middens,38BU2, Spnng Island, SouthCarolina. Brockmgton andAsSOCIates, Inc., Atlanta.

Ferguson, Leland G.1971 South Appalachzan MisszsSlppzan.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertatIon,UnIVersity of North Carolina.UnIversity Microfilms, AnnArbor.

1976 An Archaeologzcal Survey ofa FallLme Creek: Cane Creek ProJect,Rzehland County, South Carolina.Research Manuscnpt Senes 94.South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology,UnIVersIty of South Carolina,Columbia.

Garrow, Patnck H.1975 The Woodland Penod North of

the Fall Lme. Early Georgza3(1):17-26.

1962 Journal of the Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,

130

Glassow, Michael A.1977 Issues m Evaluatmg the

Significance of ArchaeologIcalResources. Amencan Antzqulty42:413-420.

1984 Atlas of Antebellum SouthernAgrICulture. LOUISIana StateUnIVersity, Baton Rouge.

Keith, Willis J.1975a Fort Johnson. Civil War Times

Rlustrated 14:32-39

Kay) Gersil Newmark1991 MechanICal and Electncal Systems

for Histone Buildings. McGraw­Hill, New York.

Johnson, Joseph1851 Traditwns and Remmzscences

Chiefly ofthe Amencan Revolutwnm the South. Walker and James,Charleston, South Carolina.

Huneycutt, DwIght J.1949 The Econom~s of the Indigo

Industry m South Carolina.Unpublished M.A. TheSIS,Department of EconomICS.UnIVersity of South Carolina,ColumbIa.

Colomal Forts of South Carolina,1670-1775. UnIVersity of SouthCarolina Press, Columbia.

MaritIme SanitatIon at Ports ofAmval. In City ofCharleston Year- 1890, pp. 135-158. Walker,Evans & Cogswell, Charleston,South Carolina.

Mantzme Samtatwn at Ports ofArnval. Republican Press,Concord, New Hampshrre.

1891

Horlbeck, H.B.1890

Ivers, Larry E.1970

Johnson, A Sidney, H.G. Hillstad, S.FShanholtzer, and G.F Shanholtzer

1974 An Ecologzcal Survey of theCoastal Regwn of Georgza.NatIOnal Park Servtce SCIentificMonograph SerIes 3Washmgton, D.C.

Hanson, Glen T., Jr.1982 The AnalysIS of Late Archalc­

EarlyWoodlandAdaptIVe ChangeAlong the Middle SavannahRIver: A Proposed Study. SouthCarolina Instztute of Archaeologyand Anthropology Notebook 14:1­38.

Hemphill, William E.1960 Extracts from the Journals of the

Provmclal Congresses of SouthCarolma: 1775-1776 S.C.Department of ArchIves andHistory, Columbia.

Hilliard, Sam B.1972 Hog Meat and Hoecake: Food

Supply m the Old South, 1840­1860. Southern IllinOIS UnIVersityPress, Carbondale.

Hacker-Norton, Debi and Michael Trmkley1984 Remember Man Thou Art

Dust:Coffin Hardware of the EarlyTwentzeth Century. ResearchSenes 2. ChIcora FoundatIon,Inc., ColumbIa.

Hammond, Henry1884 Report on Cotton ProductIon of

the State of South Carolina. InReport on the Cotton Productwn mthe Umted States, edited byEugene W Hilgard, pp. 451-526.Census Office, Department of theIntenor, Washmgton, D.C.

Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neal WAckerly

1979 L a u r ens - Ande rson A nArchaeologzeal Study of the Inter­RIverIne PIedmontAnthropologIcal Studies 4. SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeologyand Anthropology, University ofSouth Carolina, Columbia.

131

1975b The Marshlands House. Ms. onfile, S.C. Department of Wildlifeand Manne Resources,Charleston, South Carolina.

1984 Martello Tower Rums. Ms. onfile, S.C. Department of Wildlifeand Manne Resources,Charleston, South Carolina.

Legg, James B. and Steven D Smith1989 "The Best Every Occupzed..."

Archaeologzcal Invesngatzons of aCivil War Encampment on FollyIsland, South Carolina. ResearchManuscnpt Senes 209 S.C.Insitute of Archaeology andAnthropology, UmversIty ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

Lefler, Hugh T (editor)1967 Lawsons A New Voyage to

Carolina. UniVersity of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Kutz, Herman and Kenneth Wagner1957 Tidal Marshes of the Gulf and

Atlantic Coasts ofNorthern Flondaand Charleston, South Caro/ina.Studies 24. Flonda StateUmverslty, Tallahassee.

Larsen, Clark Spencer and DaVId Hurst Thomas1982 The Anthropology ofSt. Cathennes

Island 4. The St. Cathennes PhaseMortuary ComplexAnthropologIcal Papers 57(4).The Amencan Museum ofNatural History, New York.

Lynch, P.N., J.F.M. Geddings, and C.U Shepard1882 ArteSIan Wells - 1823-1879

Yearbook - City of Charleston.Charleston, South Carolina.

Early Amencan Humcanes, 1492­1870 Amencan MeteorologIcalSOCIety, Boston.

South Carolina m 1791. GeorgeWashmgton's Southern Tour S.C.Department of ArchIves andHistory, ColumbIa.

1993

Ludlum, D.M.1963

LIpscomb, Terry W1991 The Carolina Lowcountry, April

1775~June1776. S.C. Departmentof ArchIves and History,ColumbIa.

Legg, James B., Chnstopher T Espenshade, andLynn M. Snyder

1991 Camp Bazrd: Archaeologz,cal andHistoncal Investzgatwns of theAutumn 1864 Camp of the 32ndus Colored Infantry, Hilton HeadIsland, South CarolznaBrockmgton and AssocIates, Inc.,Atlanta.

LeplOnka, Larry, Donald Colquhoun, RochelleMamnan, DaVId McCollum, Mark Brooks, JohnFoss, William Abbott, and Ramona Grunden

1983 The Second Refuge Site, Locatwn22 (38JA61), Savannah NationalWildlife Refuge, Jasper County,South Carolina. UnIversIty ofSouth Carolina, Beaufort.Submitted to NatIonal ParkSerVice, Inter-agencyArchaeologIcal Servtces, Atlanta.

Climatology of Kiawah Island. InEnvzronmental Inventory ofKiilwahIsland, edited by William M.Campbell and John Mark Dean,pp. C-l - C-34. EnvuonmentalResearch Center, Inc., ColumbIa.

The First Shot on Fort Sumter.South Carolina Histoncal andGenealogzea/ Magazme 12:141­145.

Annual Report of QuarantzneOperatzons on the Coast of SouthCarolina for the Year EndingOctober 31st, 1872. Ms. on file,South CarolinIana Library,ColumbIa.

Kjerfve, Bjorn1975

1911

Lebby, Robert1872

132

Noel Hume, Ivor1970 A Guu1e to Artifacts of ColomaI

Amenca. Alfred A Knopf, NewYork.

Mustard, Harry S.1963 On the Building of Fort Johnson.

South Caroilna HistoncalMagaZlne 64:129-135.

Morgan, Robert T1993 The Effects of Humcane Hugo

on the Cultural Resources m theFrancIS Manon National Forest.In Site Destructzon m Georgza andthe Carolinas, edited by DaVId G.Anderson and VirgmIa Horak,pp 32-38 InteragencyArchaeolOgIcal SeIVIces DIVISion,NatiOnal Park Service, Atlanta.

Mathew, William M.1992 Agnculture, Geology, and Socrety

zn Antebellum South Carolina: ThePnvate Dzary of Edmund Ruffin,1843. UnIVersity of Georgta Press,Athens.

Mathews, Thomas D., Frank W Stapor, Jr.,Charles R. RIchter, John V Miglarese, Michael D.McKenZIe, and Lee R. Barclay

1980 Ecolo~al Charaetenzatzoiz of theSea Island Coastal Regwn ofSouthCarolina and Georgza, vol. 1.Office of BiolOgIcal ServIces, Fishand Wildlife ServIce, Washmgton,D.C.

MichIe, James L.1980 An Intensrve Shoreline Survey of

Archaeologz.cal Sites m Port RoyalSound and the Broad RwerEstuary, Beaufort CountyResearch Manuscnpt Senes 167South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology,UnIVersity of South Carolina,ColumbIa.

Milamch, Jerald T1971 The Deptford Phase: An

ArchaeologlCal ReconstructIOn.Ph.D. dissertatIon, UnIVersity ofHonda. UnIVersity Microfilms,Ann Arbor.

Mills, Robert1972

ClassificatIOn and EconomICScaling of English Ceramics from1787 to 1880. HistonealArchaeology 25:1-25.

Statisttcs of South Carolina.Repnnted. The Repnnt Press,Spartanburg, South Carolina.Ongmally published 1826,Hurlbut and Lloyd, Charleston,South Carolina.

Milamch, Jerald T and Charles H. Farrbanks1980 Flonda Archaeology. AcademIC

Press, New York.

Miller, E.N., Jr.1971 Soil Survey of Charleston County,

South Carolina. U.S.D.A., SoilConservatIon SerVIce,Washmgton, D.C.

Miller, George L.1980 ClassificatIon and EconomIC

Scaling of 19th Century CeramICS.Historu.:al Archaeology 14:1-40.

1991 A ReVISed Set of CC Values for

Peterson, Drexel1971 Time and Settlement In the

Archaeology of Groton Plantation,South Carolina. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertatIOn, Department ofAnthropology, HarvardUnIVersity, Cambndge.

Phelps, DaVid S.1983 Archaeology of the North

Carolina Coast and Coastal Plam:Problems and Hypotheses. In ThePrehzstory of North Carolina: AnArchaeologzcal SympoSlum, editedby Mark A. MathIS and Jeffrey J.Crow, pp. 1-51. North CarolinaDIVISIon of ArchIves and History,

133

RaleIgh. Prmtmg, Columbia.

PreservatIon Consultants1989 James Island ana Johns Island

Historlcal and ArchltecturalInventory PreservatIonConsultants, Charleston, SouthCarolina.

Pnce, CynthIa1979 19th Century Ceramzcs m the

Eastern Ozark Boarder Regzon.Monograph Senes 1. Center ofArchaeologIcal Research,Southwest Missoun Umverslty,Spnngfield.

Sandifer, Paul A., John V Miglarese, Dale R.Calder, John J. ManZI, and Lee A. Barclay

1980 Ecologzcal Charactenzatzon of theSea Island Coastal Regwn ofSouthCarolina and Georgztl, vol. 3.Office of BiologIcal ServIces, Fishand Wildlife ServIce, Washmgton,D.C.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Jr.1993 Early Pottery m the Southeast:

Trend and Innovatzon m CoolangTechnology UnIverSIty ofAlabama Press, UnIVersIty,Alabama.

Rosen, Robert N.1982 A Short History of Charleston.

Lexikos, San FrancJSco.

1946 Journal ofthe Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,November 15, 1726-March 11,1726/7 State CommerCIal

1945 Journal o/the Commons House ofAssembly of South Carolina,November 1, 1725-April 30, 1726.General Assembly of SouthCarolina, ColumbIa.

Salley, A.S. editor1944 Journal of the Commons House of

Assembly of South Carolina, June2, 1724-June 16, 1724 GeneralAssembly of South Carolina,ColumbIa.

Seabrook, WhItemarsh B.1848 An Essay on the Agncultural

Capabilines of South Carolina.John G. Bowman, Columbia.

Sherfy, Marcella and W Ray Lucen.d. Guidelines for Evaluatmg and

Nomlnatmg Propertzes That Have

Scurry, James and Mark Brooks1980 An Intenszve Archaeologlcal Survey

of the South Carolina State PortsAuthonty's Bellvlew Plantatwn,Charleston County, SouthCarolina. Research ManUSCrIptSenes 157 South CarolinaInstitute of Archaeology andAnthropology, UnIversity ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen THanson, and DaVId G. Anderson

1990 Natlve Amencan PrehlSwry of theMiddle Savannah Rlver Valley: ASynthesls of ArchaeologlcalInvestzgatlOns on the SavannahRrver Site, Aiken and BarnwellCountzes, South Carolzna.Savannah RIVer ArchaeologIcalResearch Papers 1. SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeologyand Anthropology, Umversity ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

Warrants for Land m SouthCarolina, 1692-1711 S.C.Department of Archives andHistory, ColumbIa.

Roberts, Wayne D and Olga M. Caballero1988 Archaeologzcal Test ExcavatlOns at

Site 38BK984, Berkeley County,South Carolina. South CarolinaDepartment of Highways andPublic TransportatIOn, '::;-.)lumbla.

Salley, AS.1915

134

Achzeved Significance Withzn theLast Fifty Year.s. NatIonal RegISterBulletm 22. NatIonal ParkSeMce, Interagency ResourcesD1VlSlOn, Washmgton, D.C.

South Carolina, Columbia.

1977 Method and Theory In HistoncalArchaeology. AcademiC Press,New York.

South Carolina Water Resources Comnusslon1973 Wando RIver EnvIronmental

Quality Studies, An Intenm Report.ColumbIa.

1975b Fickle Forts on Windmill Pomt:Exploratory Archaeology at FortJohnson, South Carolina. ResearchManuscnpt Senes 81. S.C.Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology, UnIversity ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

1975c Prelimmary Assessment of the Siteof the Southeastern UtilizatlonResearch Center and the WasteTreatment Plant at Fort Johnson,South Carolina. ResearchManuscnpt Senes 79. S.C.InstItute of Archaeology andAnthropology, UmversIty of

1975a A Research DesIgn forPrelimmary ArchaeolOgIcal FieldStudy at the Site of theSoutheastemUtilizattonResearchCenter (38CH275) at FortJohnson, South Carolina. Ms. onfile, S.C. Institute of Archaeologyand Anthropology, UnIVersity ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

South, Stanley and Randolph Widmer1976 Archaeologzcal Sampling at Fort

Johnson, South Carollna(38CH275 and 38CH16)Research Manuscnpt Senes 93.S.C. Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology, UnIversity ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

Stoney, Samuel Gaillard1977 Plantatlons of the Carolina Low

Country Caroltna ArtAsSOCIatIon, Charleston.

Stme, Lmda France1993 Site DestructIOn or Park

ConstructIon: Charleston County'sCivil War Sites. In Site Destructwnzn Georgza and the Carolinas,edited by DaVId G. Anderson andVirgInIa Horak, pp. 49-58.Interagency ArchaeologIcalSemccs DlVlSlOD, NatIonal ParkSemcc, Atlanta.

Sutcliffe, Shelia1972 Martello Tower.s. DaVId and

Charles, Devon, England.

Stoltman, James B.1974 Groton PIa nta lIon An

Archaeologzcal Study of a SouthCarolina Locality. Monographs ofthe Peabody Museum 1, HarvardUmversity, Cambndge.

Stuart, George E.1975 The Post-ArchaIC Occupatwn of

Central South Carolina. Ph.D.dissertatIon, UnIversity of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill.UnIversity Microfilms, AnnArbor.

An ArchaeologIcal SUlVey ofSoutheastern North Carolina. Ms.on file, Research Laboratones ofAnthropology, Umversity ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill.

An Archaeologzcal Survey of AnArea of Fort Johnson. ResearchManuscnpt Senes 62. S.C.Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology, Umverslty ofSouth Carolina, ColumbIa.

1974

South, Stanley1960

135

Thompson, Morrow B.1972 What IS an Estuary? In Port Royal

Sound Envzronmental Study,edited by the S.C. WaterResources ComnussIOn, pp. 7-15.State Pnntmg, ColumbIa.

Tnnkley, Michael1980a Investzgatzon of the Woodland

Penod Along the South CarolinaCoast. Ph.D Dissertation,UniVersity of North Carolina atChapel Hill. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

Thomas, DaVId Hurst and Clark Spencer Larsen1979 The Anthropology ofSt. Cathennes

Island 2. The Refuge-DeptfordMortuary ComplexAnthropologIcal Papers 56(1).The Amencan Museum ofNatural History, New York.

Townsend, Jan, John H. Spnnkle, Jr., and JohnKnoerl

1993 Guulelines for Evaluatmg andRegzstenng HzstoncalArchaeologzcal Sites and Dzstncts.Bulletm 36. NatIonal ParkSerVIce, NatIOnal RegISter ofHistonc Places, Washmgton, D.C.

1982 A Summary Report of theExcavatlons at Alligator Creek,Charleston County, SouthCarolina. V.S.D.A., ForestSe!Vlce, Columbia.

1993 The History and Archaeology ofKiawah Island, Charleston County,South Carolina. Research Senes30. Chicora FoundatIOn, Inc.,ColumbIa.

1993 Is There A Future for Shell MiddenResearch. Research Contnbution118. Chicora Foundation, Inc.,ColumbIa.

Department of Highways andPublic TransportatIon, Columbia.

1983 CeramIcs of the Central SouthCarolina Coast. South Ca rolinaAntzquztzes 15:43-53.

1990 An Archaeologzcal Context for theSouth Carolina Woodland Penod.Research Senes 22. ChIcoraFoundation, Inc., Columbia.

Tnnkley, Michael (editor)1991 Further Investlgatzons ofPrehzstonc

and Histone Llfeways onCallawassre and Spnng Islands,Beaufort County, South Carolina.Research Senes 23. ChicoraFoundatIon, Inc., Columbia.

The Laws of the Provmce ofSouthCarolina. Charles Town, SouthCarolina.

Trott, Nicholas1736

Wallace, DaVid Duncan1951 South Carolina: A Short History,

Tnnkley, Michael and Natalie Adams1993 ArchaeolDglCal Testzngat38BU861,

A Middle Woodland Shell Middenon Hilton Head Island, BeaufortCounty, South Carolina. ResearchContributIOn 120. ChIcoraFoundation, Inc., Columbia.

1980b Additzonal Investzgatums at Site38LX5 South CarolInaDepartment of Highways andPublic Transportation, Columbia.

1981a Archaeologzcal Testlng of theWalnut Grove Shell Midden(38CH260), Charleston County.U.S.D.A., Forest SerVIce,Columbia.

1981b Studies of Three Woodland PenodSites m Beaufort County, SouthCarolzna. South CarolIna

Tuomey, M.1848 Report on the Geology of South

Carolina. A.S. Johnson, ColumbIa.

136

1520-1948. Umversity of SouthCarolina Press, ColumbIa.

Ward, H. TrawIck1978 The Archaeology of WhItes Creek,

Marlboro County, South Carolina.Research LaboratorIes ofAnthropology, Umversity ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Warmg, Joseph 1.1967 A History of Mediczne m South

Carolina, 1825-1900 S.C. MedicalAssoCIatIon, ColumbIa.

Williams, Stephen B. (editor)1968 The Wanng Papers: The Collected

Works of Antomo J. Wanng, Jr.Papers of the Peabody MuseumofArchaeology and Ethnology 58.

Wilson, Homes Hogue1982 An Analyszs of Skeletal Matenal

from Bwo67, BrunswICk County,North Carolina. UnpublishedMaster's thesIS, Department ofAnthropology, Umversity ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Zierden, Martha A., Lesley M. Drucker, andJeanne Calhoun, editors

1986 Home Upnver: Rural Life onDamels Island, Berkeley County,South Carolma CarolInaArch aeo logical ServIces,COlumbia and The CharlestonMuseum, Charleston. Submittedto the South CarolInaDepartment of Highways andPublic TransportatIon, Columbia.

137

Archaeological Investigations

Historical Research

Preservation

Education

Interpretation

Heritage Marketing

Museum Support

Programs

Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 ▪ 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, SC 29202-8664 Tel: 803-787-6910 Fax: 803-787-6910 www.chicora.org