UCONNAJSSANCE OF THEBROWN CEMETERY9 38CH16199

MARYVIlLLE AREA, CJITY OF CHARLESTON

CHiCORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 185

RECONNAISSANCE OF THE BROWN CEMETERY,38ClFI1619, MARYVILLE AREA, CITY OF CHARLESTON

Prepared By:Michael Trinkley, Ph.D.

CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 185

Chicora Foundation, Inc.P.O. Box 8664 0 861 Arbutus Drive

Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8664803/787-6910

February 22, 1996

This report is prepared on permanenl, recycled paper ex>

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted as a result of areport that the Brown Cemetery, in the MaryviIlearea of Charleston, west of the AsWey River, hadbeen damaged. A brief reconnaissance to thecemetery allowed the' condition to bephotographically documented Subsequently, a briefexamination ofarchival and ownership records wasconducted at the Charleston County Register ofMesne Conveyances and the South CarolinaHistorical Socie!y.

TIle examination of the cemetery revealedthat approximately one quarter of the cemetery, orabout 0.7 acre, had been damaged by trackedequipment, most likely a bulldozer. It appears thatinitially a number of trees, some measuring at least6 inches in diameter, were removed bychainsawing. Afterwardsheavy equipmentwas usedto push the cut trees, associated understoryvegetation, and about 0.3 to 05 foot of soilsouthward to the edge of a water-filled borrow pitor marsh area. Incorporated in this spoil werefragments of monuments, bricks, shells, andprobable grave goods. Portions of at least twodamaged stones were found in the cleared area.Shells are present. A large number of fragmentarygrave goods, including primarily ceramics andglassware, are also present. There is significantdamage to nearby monuments, including breakageand displacement. It is also likely there has beendamage to associated vegetation, although atpresent the only vegetation which can be identifiedas displaced, damaged, or destroyed, are floweringperennials.

Another push or spoil pile was found atthe south-southwest edge of the site, although alarge quantity of construction debris wereincorporated, suggesting that this pile reflectsprimarily recent garbage which had been dumpedon the edge of the cemetery.

The part damaged appears to be anoriginal, or older, portion of the cemetery. The

remnants of this old portion are still foundbetween the bulldozed area and the marsh to thewest. No estimate of the number of graves eitherdamaged or remaining is currently available. Theportion of the cemetery which has not beendamaged is recommended as potentially eligtble forinclusion on the National Register of HistoricPlaces based on the property's historicalsignificance, its potential to contnbute to researchon African-American mortuary behavior, and forits ability to provide biocultural data.

Based on the avaUable information, itappears that the damage was inflected as a resultof the cemetery's caretakers' efforts to "clean-up"the cemetery. It is higWy unlikely that theequipment operator failed to realize the damagebeing inflicted to the stones and grave plots,although it is clear that some effort was made toavoid at least some monuments. As part of thisreconnaissance, this cemetery was recorded withthe South Carolina Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology and has been assigned the statewidesite number of 38CH1619.

This case should be referred to theCharleston County Sheriffs Department and theDeputy State Archaeologist at the S.C. Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology for furtherinvestigation and possible criminal charges.

List of Figures

Introduction

Background Research

Field Examination

Conclusions

References Cited

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Iv

1

3

7

19

15

iii

Figure1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.

IV

UST OF FIGURES

Location of the Brown Cemetery in the Maryville area of CharlestonBrown Cemetery shown on the current USGS topographic map1943 Charleston USGS topographic mapProprietors plantation in 1673Area of the Brown Plantation in 1863Brown or Hillsboro Cemetery laid out in 1950Cemetery in the Hillsboro area in 1947Gate to the Brown or Hillsboro CemeteryNew section of the Brown CemeteryView of trash and debris at the southern edge of the cemeteryView of the damaged portion of the cemeteryGraves east of the cleared section showing lowering of ground surfaceStone and associated brick feature showing damage and the lowered ground surfaceEdge of the damaged portion showing trees cutDisplaced shell grave goodsDisplaced and damaged grave goodsShattered monumentBroken tablet collected from the spoil pileBroken tabletDamaged stone off cleared area, displaced by we.ight of bulldozerSpoil pile containing grave goods, monuments, shell, and brickMortared bricks used as a grave edging in the spoil pileSmall fragment of grave stone found deep in the spoil pileView of the spoil pile at the southwestern edge of the cemeteryStone base found in the road on the western edge of the cemetery

12234568899

1010111112121313141415151616

INTRODUCTION

On Wednesday, February 21, ChicoraFoundation received a report from a concernedcitizen that an African-American cemetery hadbeen heavily damaged by ''bulldozing.'' Located inthe Maryville section of Charleston west of theAshley River, the graveyard was known as theBrown Cemetery. It was reported as being situatedoff Fifth Avenue, at the end of Justin Street on themarshes of Old Town Creek (Figure 1).

We were told only that thecemeteryhad apparently been damagedsometime between February 18 andFebrumy 21 by an unknown party. Weunderstood from this initial telephoneconversation that many stones bad beenbulldozed and were now in a large spoilpile. We also understood that manytrees had been cut down and eitherpushed to the edge of the site orpossibly trucked away. We were toldthat the portion bulldozed was theoldest portion of the cemetery, whichwas thought to date at least back tonineteenth century. although there wasa local belief that it might be muchearlier, perhaps dating from theeighteenth orpossibly even seventeenthcentury. It was reported that grave goods werewidely scattered across the bulldozed area.

We advised the citizen concerning theSouth Carolina law protecting cemeteries and,based on the limited available information. werecommended that the citizen contact theCharleston Coroner and Sheriff/Police to reportthe damage, file a complaint, and request acriminal investigation. We also advised the citizento contact Dr. Jonathan Leader. the Deputy StateArchaeologist with the South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology.

On the evening of Thursday, February 22we had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Lynette

Strangstad of Stone Faces, who was also advised ofthe damaged and who visited the site earlier thatday. She reported essentially the same level ofdamage, noting that she observed several brokenand/or fragmentary stones. She also had been toldthat the damage was apparently done by anindividual hired by the "cemetery's caretaker" to"clean_up" the "old section."

Examination of Chicora's map filesrevealed that while the 1958 Charleston USGStopographic map, photo revised in 1979 shows thecemetery and identifies it as ''Brown cemetery,"the 1943 edition fails to reveal its existence(Figures 2 and 3). The 1863 "Map of Charlestonand its Defences" revealed that the cemetery wassituated on a plantation owned by Brown. Thissuggests that the cemetery may date from theplantation and may have originally been used byAfrican-American slaves.

With this limited information, the site wasvisited by the author of this report on Friday

1

morning, February 22, 1996. Approximately twoperson hours were spent walking the site, takingphotographs, and examining the spoil piles. Asketch map of the site and a general inventory ofgrave goods were made. The amount of damagewas estimated.

Afterwards the Charleston County TaxAssessor's Office was yjsited todetermine the property ownerof record and the Register ofMesne Conveyanceswasvisitedto review the most recent deedfor the property. In addition,the South Carolina HistoricalSociety was consulted foradditional backgroundinformation on the Maryvillearea of Charleston. Neithereffort was exhaustive, but wasonly intended to provide somegeneralized background on theproject area and confirminformation provided by thelocal informant.

This report has beenproduced immediately afterthis initial visit of the site. Thegoal is to provide an overview

2

of the cemetery and evaluationof the damage. Hopefully thiswill be of assistance to thoseconducting a more detailedinvestigation of the cause ofthe damage.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

The Brown Cemetery has not beenpreviously recorded as an archaeological site, norhas it apparently attracted any previous attentionoutside of the community which has used it at leastfor the past 100 or so years. Even the Maryvillearea, in spite of its rich and unique history, isrelatively unexplored. Although a portion of theMaryville area associated with the LordsProprietors Plantation was documented for aNational Register of Historic Places nomination in1974 (form on file, South Carolina HistoricalSociety, 30-15-157), it was apparently neverprocessed and there is no listing on the NationalRegister (Anonymous 1991). Nor is the areamentioned in the Berkeley-Charleston-DorchesterHistoric PreselVation Plan (Berkeley-Charleston­Dorchester Regional Planning Council 1972).

Piecing together at least a portion of thearea's history, however, is not difficult. The generalarea is variously referred to in the early records asthe "Proprietors' Plantation" or the "Governor'sHouse," with the initial ownership under three ofthe Lords Proprietors - Ashley, Carteret, and

Colleton. In included a star-shaped palisade, inwhich Governor West had his "mansion" andaround which were a number of additionalbuildin~ and gardens (Figure 4). The palisade mayhave encompassed something around 30 acres,although the total plantation ranged up to about500 acres. Although DO archaeological study hasbeen conducted to identify this plantation, thepalisaded fort is thought by some historians tohave been situated in the Maryville area near theintersection of Main Street and Fifth Avenue andan abandoned railroad bed (Jaycocks 1973).

In 1675 the Proprietors attempted to divestthemselves of the plantation and offered it to Westas partial payment for his service as "store-keeperor agent." West declined and in 1696n and again

in 1699 the plantation was included ingrants to John Godfrey (Smith 1915).Although there' seems to be littleindication of the subsequent use of thetract, it continued to be called either"Governor's Point" or "Governor'sCreek." Ownership continued in theGodfrey line, becoming known asHillsborough Plantation in theeighteenth century. One of its owners,Dr. John Lining, was likely buried on asmall island, known locally as "GhostIsland," in the marsh (Berkeley­Charleston-Dorchester RegionalPlanning Council 1972: 58). Lining isbest known as a leader in colonialscience.

About 1834 the property leftthe God~y line and was held by

several different owners and this nineteenthcentury occupation has not been very carefullyresearched. The 1863 "Map of Charleston and itsDefences," however, reveals that the owner at thetime of the Civil War was "Brown" (Figure 5). It islikely from this antebellum owner that thecemetery took its name, suggesting that thecemetery was used by African-American slaves at

3

After the Civil War the property wasapparently owned by C.C. Bowen, a sheriff ofCharleston County during Reconstruction. In the18808 the property, still known as ''HillsboroughPlantation," was sub-divided and sold to IOCe'l1

blacks by General W.N. Taft and the widow ofe.e. Bowen.

Taft is a rather interesting individual in hisown right. He was born in Providence, RhodeIsland and selVed as ~ private in Company B ofthe Third Rhode Island Heavy Artillery and wasstationed in Charleston when released from activeduty. He acquired a bar on East Bay and a smalldry goods store. He also became active inCharleston politics, holding a variety of localoffices ranging from alderman to coroner.Eventually he was elected to the State Senate,setving from 1876 through .1880. In 1881 hemarried the widow of C.c. Bowen. He selVed asthe Charleston Postmaster, SupelVisor forCharleston Schools, and Commissioner of theCharleston Orphan House. As an owner ofconsiderable property in S1. Andrew Parish (westof the Ashley River), he is also credited by somewith the founding of Hillsboro and Maryville(Bailey et al. 1986:1574-1575).

There is, however, another side to theMaryville story. Mary Mathews Just is credited bymany as the more immediate leader and founderof the Maryville community (which was namedafter her). Manning (1983:14-17) provides a brief

4

overview of her life, noting that she was anexceptionally strong black woman who went towork in the phosphate fields, unheard of duringthe period. She invested her substantial savings inreal estate, purchasing a substantial holding. She is

reported to have persuaded the other residentsto "transform the settlement into a town"(Manning 1983:15). Manning notes thatMaryville, ''was, one of the first purely blacktown governments in the state, a modelcommunity for blacks not only in SouthCarolina but throughout the United States"(Manning 1983:15). Mary went on to organizeboth religious instruction classes andeducational opportunities for the Maryvilleresidents. Little more is currently known aboutthe c.offimunity.

In 1950 Lawrence M. Pinckney, EstelleMeN. Harris. Ferdinanda I. Legare Waring,Hermena B. Legare Kerrison, Julia GadsdenLegare Porcher, and Lila Rhett Birthrightsigned a quitclaim dead transferring a cemeterylot, known today as the Brown Cemetery, to the

St. Paul AM.E. Church, the Emmanuel AM.E.Church, the First Baptist Church, and theJerusalem Church R.M.E. The tract was describedas being "a part of Hillsboro, called Maryville" andas containing "2.8 acres of Highland, more or less,and 2.5 acres of Marsh land" (Charleston CountyRMC, DB BS3, p. 453). A plat prepared at thattime sho,",,:s the parcel butting lots 7 and 524 to thesouth with Simon Street (today Justin Street) deadending on the property line (Figure 6) (CharlestonRMC, PB H, p. 20). This plat, in tum, referencesa 1947 plat showing portions ofHilsboro, includingthe cemetery (Charleston RMC. PB G, p. 25A)(Figure 7).

The Charleston County Tax Assessor liststhe property as "Hillsboro Cemetery" at the end ofJustin Avenue. The owner of record is St. PaulAME Church, et a1.,. in care of Mrs. VictoriaStewart, 930 Main Street, Charleston, SC 29407.The only St. Paul AM.E. Church listed in theCharleston directory is on Rivers Avenue, althoughthe Emmanuel A.M.E. Church is still listed at 1057Fifth Avenue in the Maryville community.

--,---=---,-, .

. ,

ri:1i,,

• ;.t.

fi.ljh ha.n£-je..at:JIc~

.Nta.r:$l}.. #!. •.s:. ~ ..' ':411_"'"-- .-:5";:)~

.,.....=:.. ::i.

Figure 6. Brown or Hillsboro Cemetery as laid out in 1950 (Charleston County RMC PB H, page 20).

5

6

r, ,.. ""~.

I

~.",

Figure 7, Part of Hillsboro in 1947 showing the cemetery at that time (Charleston County RMC. PB G. page 25A).

, .

FIELD METHODS

The cemetery was visited on the mom.i:ngof Thursday, February 22. The road leading to thecemetery is undeveloped, although numerous pilesof construction debris and other refuse wereobserved on the west side of the road. At theentrance to the cemetery there is a locked metalgate, although there are no identifying signs nor isthe property posted (Figure 8) . This gate allowsaccess to the southeastern edge of the cemetery,with the tract extending as a finger of land intothe, marsh to the north and to the west.

The access road opens into what appearsto be the newest portion of the c;emetery. Here thelandscape is reminiscent of Euro-Americancemeteries, with cut grass, occasional stones, andrelatively few trees'aside from several ornamentalplantings (Figure 9). This ~modern" portion of thecemetery accounts for the eastern 50% ofthe tract.To the west of the access road, along the southernborder of the "modem" cemetery there is a largepile of debris. Some of this material is dearlyassociated with the cleaning and maintenance ofthe cemetery and includes dead flowers, oldwreaths, and grass clippings. Much of the pile,however, represents construction and landscapingdebris which are likely not associated with thecemetery, but which have apparently been dumpedon the edge of the cemetery by an individual orindividuals with keys to the gate (Figure 10).

Prior to the recent disturbance, thewestern 50% of the cemetery was apparentlyovergrown by both overstory trees and understoryherbaceous vegetation. The area recently affectedrepresents about 25%ofthe total cemetery or50%of the "older" portion. It occurs as a linear striprunning from the southern boundary northward tothe marshes of Old Town Creek. Just beyond thisstrip to the west there is the remnant of the "older"portion of the cemetery still undisturbed.

The disturbance is quite severe.Approximately 0.3 up to 05 foot of soil has been

stripped off of the cemetery (Figure 11). This isevidenced by the "pedestaling" of some grave areaswhere the heavy equipment operator recognizedmonuments and sought to avoid them (Figure 12)and by the remnant soil staining on markers wherethe soil was removed from around them (Figure13). All vegetation has been removed, creating atotally denuded landscape (see Figure 11). In somecases very large trees were cut and simply rolledinto the remnant portion of the old cemetery(Figure 14).

The massive amount ofground disturbancehas not only destroyed the vegetation of thecemetery, but has also displaced a large quantity ofgrave goods, including shells (Figure 15) andceramics or glassware (Figure 16). A number ofthe stone and brick monuments have likewise beendamaged, displaced, or destroyed (see Figure 13;FIgUres 17-19). Even markers off the strippedtract were apparently damaged by the operation ofheavy equipment (Figure 20).

Many of the broken monuments, gravegoods, and planted vegetation were simply pushedinto a large pile at the southern edge of the tract(Figures 21-23). Portions of broken monumentswere found in this spoil pile, as well as stillscattered in the open area (see Figure 17). Asecondary spoil pile was found at the southwestcomer of the cemetery (Figure 24). While this pileincluded some earth spoil from the cemetery, itwas dominated by construction debris apparentlydumped on the cemetery and subsequentlybulldozed to this point. Much of this materialappears to be very recent, perhaps being dumpedat the time of the "clean_up" or only a few weeksearlier.

Further to the west there is a portion ofthe older graveyard which is still intact. Althoughthis sUlVey did not explore the woods, it waspossible to see a number of stones in the

7

8

Figure 8. Entrance to the Brown or Hillsboro Cemetery in Maryville. View is to the North.

Figure 10. View of trash and debris piled up at the southern edge of the cemetery. just west of the gate. Thesematerials include debris from the maintenance of the cemetery. as well as c.onstruction trash.

Figure 11. View of the damaged section of the cemetery looking to the north. To the right (or east) is the newsection of the cemetery. To the left (or west) is the remaining portion of the old section of thecemetery. .

9

10

Figure 12. Graves just east of the cleared section showing how they were pedestaled while the surroundingground surface was lowered' about a half foot.

Figure 13. View of stone and associated damaged brick feature in the "clean-up" section of the graveyard.Notice also how the ground level has been lowered by at least 05 foot around the monument.

, ..-- .

. ;;: .--.'

- - ...-- ...

'-- ............ \. . -

I ~~-4'J_. 7~-"" ". - r,,~. . . . - .....

. ...

<.

... ......

j

Figure 14. Edge of the damaged portion of the cemetery, showing large tree cut and rolled into the remnantold section. Notice how aU vegetation has been removed,

Figure 15. Example of shell grave good left displaced by the heavy clearing and grubbing conducted at thegraveyard.

11

12

Figure 16. Example of ceramics and glass grave goods broken and displaced by the clearing and grubbing.

Figure 17. Example of marble tablet broken and scattered by the clearing and grubbing of the old section ofthe cemetery. Also shown are severa} displaced grave goods found nearby.

Figure 19. Tablet marked "FJ. Stewart" broken in two and recovered from the spoil pile. Note not only thebreak. but also the chipping and fresh incisions in the marble as a result of heavy equipment damage.

13

14

Figure 21. Spoil pile containing soil, vegetation, bricks, shells, grave goods, and monuments pushed up at thesouth edge of the cemetery. Notice the truck and bulldozer tracks in the loose soil. View is to thesouth.

15

16

Figure 24. View of spoil pile at the southwest edge of the cemetery. This pile contains primarily soil and veryrecent construction debris probably deposited in the cemetery within the past several weeks.

-

vegetation, as well as a few grave goods. There isa road extending around the western edge of thesite, adjacent to the marsh. While walking this roadthe base of stone was observed (Figure 25),revealing that even this road has been used forburials.

Evidence of the operation included theremains of wood chips produced by the use of achain saw, the spoil pile, the damage to thecemetery, tracks such as produced by a bulldozer,and the tracks of a truck. We understand from ourlocal informant that this damage was done earlierin the week, apparently by an individual or firmhired by the caretaker of the cemetery to "clean­up" the old portion. Although we have not pursuedthis issue, there seems every reason to believe thatthe individual responsible for this damage can beidentified.

This survey included only a pedestrianexamination of the graveyard. No excavations orprobing were conducted. No grave goods werecollected or otherwise disturbed. All materials wereleft where they were found and no effort was madeto repair or replace any monuments. The onlyexception is that a fragmentary human parietal(skull) bone was found on tbe surface of thecleared and grubbed portion of the cemetery. Itwas reburied where found.

17

CONCLUSIONS

Even this reconnaissance levelinvestigation has been adequate to document: (1)that the Brown cemetery likely dates back at leastto the antebellum period, (2) that the cemeterycontained an older and a more recent section, (3)that the older portion of the cemetery, in spite ofits proximity to uman settlements, maintained aclose connection with older African-Americancultural and mortuary rituals, (4) that the cemeterycontained many African-American grave goods anda number of graves, and (5) that the cemetery wasunder the care and supervision of at least onechurch.

We have been told, but Mve notindependently confirmed, that the caretaker of thegraveyard hired or contacted some other party to"clean-up" a portion of the cemetery. Whether thiswork was conducted under the direct supervision ofthe caretaker has also not been determined.Likewise, we have not determined whether thelarge quantities of construction trash were placedin the cemetery before or during the "clean-up."

We have documented e:nensive damage toapproximately 25% of the cemetery, or 50% of theold portion. This damage includes: (1) clearing andgrubbing of all vegetation ranging from smallunderstory plants to large overstory trees, (2)removal of between 0.2 and 0.5 foot of soil frommuch of the area, (3) damage, destruction, and/ordisplacement of grave stones and cemetery plots,(4) damage, destruction, and/or displacement ofgrave goods including shells, ceramics, andglassware, (5) dispersion ofprobable grave outlinesor markers, and (6) removal of physical evidenceof graves such as depressions. While large or easilyrecognizable stones were left seemingly more orless in place, a great amount of information wasdestroyed by the "clean-up." This work wasaccomplished using minimally a chainsaw, truck,and bulldozer or similar tracked (not rubber-tired)piece of equipment.

There is reason to believe that the workconducted in the cemetery may have violated theSouth Carolina law protecting cemeteries (SouthCarolina Code of Laws §16-17-600 et seq.).Specifically. this law makes it a felony to destroy ordamage human remains and a misdemeanor todamage or destroy a grave, gravestones, otherlllonuments, fences, or vegetation.

This has not only affected the integrity ofthis site, but it has also made it impossible to easilyidentify grave locations. There is no longer thepotential to use the placement of grave goods, thelocation of plantings, or grave depressions toidentify probable grave locations. Location ofgravelocations is now considerably more complex andwould require either extensive probing andaugering or possibly even stripping of the overlyingsoil to reach clear grave shaft stains.

While it would be possible to salvage, andrepair, the vast majority of the monumentsdamaged by the "cleaning" this would be a costlyundertaking requiring the skill and expertise of astone conservator such as Lynette Strangstad. Evenafter the work was accomplished, however, it is nolonger possible to associate these monuments withany specific grave.

The complete removal of trees creates avery different landscape than was present prior tothe cleaning, or which was probably present duringthe entire use of the cemetery. Restoration of thevegetation, while possible, would be costly andwould likely cause additional damage to belowground remains.

Since the damage is so great, and the exactcauses are still not clearly known or understood, itremains our opinion that the damage should bereported to the Charleston County Coroner andthe appropriate law enforcement agency. Acriminal investigation should be conducted todetermine the appropriateness of filing charges

19

against those responsible for the damage to thecemetery. This effort should be coordinated withthe South Carolina Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology, which has responsibility foroverseeing the archaeological protection ofcemeteries in this state.

Some effort should be made to stabilizethe damage to the cemetery. Minimally, this maymean carefully sorting through the spoil pile torecover grave goods and monuments. Althoughthese cannot be returned to their correct locationthey can be placed at some safe location in thecemetery.

The remaining spoil, and trash, should betrucked off the cemetery site. Leaving it in placewill only encourage additional dumping andinappropriate use of the cemetery.

The newly opened area should bestabilized with a rapid-growing, drought-resistantground cover to minimize soil loss through windand water erosion. Currently the totally denudedsoil is at risk to severe erosion.

Finally, no additional clearing andgrubbing should be allowed in the cemetery. Anyfuture "cleaning-up" should be accomplished onlyby hand.

20

Anonymous1991

REFERENCES CITED

National Register ofHistoric Places1966-1991: Cumulative ListThroughlLme 30,1991. AmericanAssociation for State and LocalHistory, Nashville.

Bailey, N. Louise1986 Biographical Directory ofthe South

Carolina Senate, 1776-1985. Vol.III. University of South CarolinaPress, Columbia.

Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional PlanningCouncil

1972 Historic Preservation Plan.Berkeley-Charleston-DorchesterRegional Planning Council,Charleston, South Carolina.

Jaycocks, Lucia H.

1973 The Lords Proprietors Plantationand Palisaded DwellingCompound, 1670-1675. Ms. onfile, Charles Towne Landing, S.c.Department of Parks, Recreation,and Tourism, Charleston, SouthCarolina.

Manning, Kenneth R.1983 Black Apollo of Science: The Life

of Ernest Everett Just. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Smith, Henry A.M.1915 Old Charles Towne and Its

Vicinity. South Carolina Historicaland Genealogical Magazine 16:1­15,49-67.

21

Cemetery Preservation Plans

Historical Research

Identification of Grave Locations and Mapping

Condition Assessments

Treatment of Stone and Ironwork

Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 ▪ 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, SC 29202-8664 Tel: 803-787-6910 Fax: 803-787-6910 www.chicora.org