Hobcaw Shipyard SEARCH Archeology Report

DRAFT COPY Archaeological Survey at the Pritchard Shipyard National Register Site (38CH1049) Hernandez Family Property, 338 Coinbow Drive Mount Pleasant, SC

Charleston, SC Quadrangle Showing the Site Location as depicted by SCIAA

Submitted by South Eastern Archaeology and History (SEARCH) Lynn Harris, Ph.D. Tina Rust, M.A. August, 2004

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following people for their assistance during these investigations. Thank you to Margaret Harris Blair Toombs, and to Erubin Robeldo for their assistance during the field excavations. We are most grateful to Martha Zierden of the Charleston Museum for her advice in artifact analysis and sharing her experiences of project time management, and to Chad Long of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History for his amazing efficiency in turning back our interim summaries of the project, with detailed commentary and useful ideas.

Finally, special thanks to Pepe and Cindy Hernandez for their warm hospitality and help with the project. We will also miss old Cooper, the friendly Dalmation dog who greeted us every morning.

iii

Table of Contents Page SECTION I. THE PROPERTY Introduction Property Location and Description Project Setting: The Wando River

1 1 4

SECTION II. HISTORY Historical Background: The Shipyard and the Shipwrights Property: Probate Records, Plats and Slaves

6 10

SECTION III. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS Previous Investigations at 38CH1048 by SHPO and SCIAA 13 SECTION IV. PROJECT METHODOLOGY Setting up the Shovel Test Grid Soil Profiles

18 18

SECTION V. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS Total Material Ceramics Glassware Pipes Bone Building Materials Flint Hardware Industrial Waste Summary of Artifact Assemblages from each Lot

21 23 28 34 38 40 42 44 45 46

SECTION VI. FEATURES AND SUB-FEATURES Feature 2 Feature 3

47 49

SECTION VII. CONCLUSIONS Discussion and Conclusions

58

SECTION VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION IX. REFERENCES SECTION X. APPENDICES National Register Documentation

66 68

iv

List of Tables

Page

Table 1. Artifact Assemblage Recovered from SCIAA House Excavations in the 1993.

15

Table 2. Artifact Assemblage Recovered from Shovel Tests at Feature 100 in 1993.

17

Table 3. Application of Mean Ceramic Date Formula to Diagnostic Ceramics Recovered from Project Area

24

Table 4. Ceramic Dating.

25

Table 5. Diagnostic Bottle Glass Fragments Recovered from Project Area.

32

Table 6. Diagnostic Pipe fragments Recovered from the Project Area.

36

Table 7. Mean Date for most Intensive Occupation of Pritchard Site using Ceramics, Glassware and Pipes.

37

Table 8. Distributions of Cultural Materials from the Densest Part of the Feature 3 Area.

51

Table 9. Mean Date for the most Intensive Period of Occupation for Feature 3 using Ceramics.

52 .

Table 10. Artifact Class Groups using South's (1977) Artifact Pattern.

53 Table 11. Diagnostic Artifacts from Feature 3 giving a Mean Date for most Intensive Occupation.

54

Table 12. Cultural Material in Sub Feature A (Feature 3).

56

Table 13. Cultural Material in Sub feature B (Feature 3).

56

v

List of Figures Page Figure 1.

Hernandez Property at 338 Coinbow Drive, Mt. Pleasant, SC.

2

Figure 2.

Historic Photo of Pritchard’s House (c1912) and the Avenue of Oaks or “Flirtation Walk”.

3

Figure 3.

View of Hernandez residence from front entrance.

3

Figure 4.

Pritchard Shipyard 2004 Survey by SEARCH.

16

Figure 5.

Map showing eastern boundaries of 38CH1049 and archaeological features within the project area.

19

Figure 6.

Grid Flags.

20

Figure 7.

Blair Toombs.

20

Figure 8.

Total Percentages of Artifact Recovered in the Project Area.

21

Figure 9.

Total Percentages of Building Material Recovered in the Project Area.

22

Figure 11. Distribution and densities of Historic Ceramics Recovered from Project Area.

26

Figure 12. Ceramic Types Recovered from the Shovel Tests.

27

Figure 13. Aqua Mineral Water Bottle Neck and Fragments.

29

Figure 14. Dark Olive Green Bottle Base (1700-1800).

29

Figure 15. Pontil Mark in base (1700s).

30

Figure 16. Recycled glass tool, pipe bowl and colonoware sherd (Unit 489.51 N 581E).

31

Figure 17. Recycled Glass Tool (Unit 489.51 N 581E).

31

vi

Page Figure 18. Distribution and Densities of Glass Recovered from Project Area.

33

Figure 19. Kaolin Tobacco Pipe Morphology

34

Figure 20. Comparison of Bone Quantities Recovered during SCIAA Excavations, Feature 100 Shovel Tests, and SEARCH 2004 Shovel Test Project.

38

Figure 21. Distribution and Densities of Bone Recovered from Project Area.

39

Figure 23. Distribution and Densities of Building Materials Recovered from Project Area.

41

Figure 25. Comparison of Flint Quantities Recovered during SCIAA Excavations, Feature 100 Shovel Tests, and SEARCH 2004 Shovel Test Project.

42

Figure 26. Distribution and Densities of Flint Recovered from Project Area.

43

Figure 27. Distribution and Densities of Nails Recovered from Project Area.

44

Figure 28. Distribution of Industrial Waste Across the Project Area.

45

Figure 29. Clay substrate of Feature 2 (Unit 452N 626E).

47

Figure 30. Tina Rust excavating a 5-meter long, 30cm wide trench investigating probe tests for Feature 2.

30

Figure 31.

Plan view showing compact oyster shell and artifacts in Feature 3.

49

Figure 32. Profile showing topsoil demarcation bone in Feature 3.

50

Figure 33. Feature 3 Solid Clay Base (Unit 489.5N 581E).

55

vii

Introduction

SECTION I

This is a report of the archaeological investigations conducted at the Pritchard Shipyard Site (38CH1049) by Lynn Harris and Tina Rust of South Eastern Archaeology and History (SEARCH) in June 2004. Site 38CH1049 is located along Hobcaw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. The site was placed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1974 (see cover graphic). In 2004, in response to the pending subdivision of the Hernandez Family property containing a portion of the National Register site, the Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) required intensive archaeological investigations in the proposed subdivision area. Chad Long of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consulted with OCRM to recommend that shovel testing excavations and perhaps, test units, be excavated to determine the presence or absence of significant archaeological deposits within the project area.

Investigators used the original site grid established by the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) during previous archaeological investigations conducted on the property in 1993 (Amer 1993). Investigations encountered a potential clay floor with charcoal inclusions determined to be an industrial area (Feature 2) and a refuse midden or occupation area like a kitchen or tavern (Feature 3).

Upon completion of the present excavations, investigators attempted to integrate previous archaeological data generated by the Underwater Archaeology Division of SCIAA in order to fully interpret their findings.

Property Location and Description The Hernandez property is located at 338 Coinbow Drive, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (Figure 1). It is part of the Hobcaw Point neighborhood. The property tract fronts Hobcaw creek, and is currently bordered to the east and west by lakes formed during the 1940s when spring-fed streams on either side of the tract were dammed.

In 1991, when the Hernandez family purchased the property, it comprised 8 acres of the original 340-acre Hobcaw tract that has since been sub-divided into residential areas. The landscaped yard of the Hernandez property is a mixture of lawn and shrubs like sago palms, camellias, hibiscus, and giant live oak trees. The house is tucked away and barely noticeable from the street. The avenue, leading up to the house, is lined by oak trees, and was called “Flirtation Walk” by Paul Pritchard’s daughter. Figure 2 presents a c. 1912 photograph of the avenue leading to the house. Figure 3 presents a modern view of the house.

1

Wando River Hernandez Property

Figure 1. Hernandez Property at 338 Coinbow Drive, Mt. Pleasant, SC

2

Figure 2. Historic Photo of Pritchard’s House (c1912) and the Avenue of Oaks or “Flirtation Walk”.

Figure 3. View of Hernandez residence from front entrance

3

Project Setting: The Wando River The former Pritchard Shipyard operated along Hobcaw Creek (previously known as Wakindaw Creek) which is located northeast of the City of Charleston. Hobcaw Creek is a major tributary of the Wando River. Both are influenced by tidal flow, although the Wando is less turbid than most coastal rivers in South Carolina. Current velocity in the Wando is between 1.3 and 1.5 knots. There is little fresh water inflow from the upstream drainage area and the major source of water in the channel results from the incoming tide. The Wando River is a deep river, 17.5 miles long. The topography is flat and low. It is bordered by marsh and has several fair-sized tributaries. Elevation ranges from 3 feet above sea level at the salt marsh to about 20 feet above sea level.

The Wando is a rich fishing area and one of the most extensive sub-tidal oyster producing areas in South Carolina. Oyster beds also support a moderate to heavy population of barnacles and hooked mussels. The quantity of white and brown shrimp in the river is high compared to other water bodies in the state (Bears Bluff Laboratories 1964:w-2, w-16). Development along the river is mostly high-income residential developments, particularly along tributaries such as Hobcaw. These developments support many docking facilities for powerboats and sailing craft (SC Water Resources Commission 1973:62).

Unlike much of the Low country during the 18th and 19th centuries, this river basin could not readily support large-scale production of plantation cash crops such as indigo, rice and cotton.

The soils were poorly drained and frequently wet, and the river itself was too saline to support rice cultivation, except at its extreme upper reaches. However, the river basin did have two important assets: it’s proximity to the City of Charleston and water transportation via the tidal rivers. This led to the development of the Wando basin and the Wando Neck between the river and the Atlantic Ocean as a production center for the urban market. Agricultural production focused on produce and livestock, with supplementary income from firewood, timber, naval stores, bricks, and shipbuilding (Brockington 1987:1719).

During the last half of the 18th century, Hobcaw Creek became the colony's largest shipbuilding center, boasting as many as three commercial shipyards in the immediate vicinity. The Pritchard’s was one of the most profitable yards on the river and the region. The 4

attractiveness of this location for shipbuilding included depth of water, a fresh water spring close to the shore, and separation from the distractions of the city that lured workers attention away from their tasks of building and maintaining vessels. Other shipyards in proximity to this yard were Linn’s yard, a contemporary shipyard also on Hobcaw creek, and Fairbanks plantation/shipyard on Daniel Island, owned by one of the Pritchard’s sons in the early 1800s (Zierden 1986:7-90).

Shipyards were generally situated close to the water and probably selected with the idea of “convenience”-a concept involving proximity to timber sources; sufficient tidal ranges and depths to launch and bring ships into the yard; and mud flats, sand bars, or river banks to facilitate careening a vessel for repairs. These criteria may have varied depending on the size of the vessel built in the particular yard or whether the yard served primarily to do maintenance and repair work. It is likely that many did both (South Carolina Gazette, November 30, 1769)

5

SECTION II Historical Background Shipwrights and the Shipyard: Shipbuilding activities flourished early in the eighteenth century around Hobcaw Creek and the Pritchard this particular shipyard was one of the earliest in South Carolina. More accurately referred to as Hobcaw Shipyard, rather than Pritchard, due to it’s continuous ownership by several different shipwrights and their families through time, it appears to have been in operation as early as 1702 (1974 National Register nomination). Despite the current designation of Pritchard’s name on the National register file, archival sources reveal a continuous 300-year old ownership of the property by various individuals. During this time, it was known respectively as “Rose’s shipyard”, “Begbie and Manson shipyard”, or the “state shipyard” (Cridlebaugh 1988). For seventy years (1753-1831), it functioned as a shipbuilding facility for the Pritchard family.

The first owner of the shipyard was George Dearsley in the 1700s. In 1709, Benjamen Quelch owned the shipyard, passing it on to his wife Elizabeth; then to Andrew, his son. Thomas Bolton obtained the property at a public auction when Andrew could no longer fulfill a mortgage obligation. Shortly afterwards, he sold it to a Scotsman, James Stewart and his English partner John Rose.

By this time, James Stewart was a wealthy shipwright, but he originally came to Charleston as an impoverished shipwright’s apprentice. His upward social mobility in the colony, illustrates the opportunities offered by Charleston to immigrant shipwrights. James Stewart was an ambitious, yet dissatisfied young man who, like many Scotsmen at the time, endured marginal working conditions and back breaking laborious work in the shipyards of Europe. This included working in the King’s shipyard in Woolwich where he wrote to his father in 1737 asking for “a wig to work in” as his was in very poor condition and a “strange horse hair one they made for me they being very dear here.” Working in the exposed yard in very hot weather caused “scorching” of the skin and made his short-sighted eyes tender. His shoes were worn out, “since they are planking a 90-gun 6

ship where we kiln the plank in hot wet sand over a large furnace where we go in to shovel on & off the sand which is sometimes so hot that we stay in 5 minutes.” He also complained, with increasing irritation in his tone, that his family never wrote back and that he was always in need of money and clothes. Eventually, his father sent him four guineas to learn drafting to work towards his training as a skilled shipwright, and thereby reduce his time spent as a shipyard laborer (Dalguise Muniments 1749).

When Stewart completed his training in 1739, and healed from a leg injury and a cut toe from an adzing accident, he started making inquiries about joining his uncle Mungo Murray to be his partner serving as a carpenter on ships around Europe. He explored several options, none of which were very satisfactory, including entering the service of the King of Sweden. Journeys by boat were not to his liking and long voyages were “ worse than imprisonment.” Eventually in 1749, he engaged in articles to head to South Carolina to work as an apprentice to his uncle Mungo, who by now was a respected colonial shipwright. After he settled in Charleston, Stewart wrote a letter to his father stating “[Arrived 13th after] a long tedious passage, I can say little of this country yet I am told my business is one of the best in ye province by the merchants here who are 2/3 Scots”. His letter proceeds to detail the cost of living in South Carolina and their prospects for hiring labor for their shipbuilding business (Dalguise Muniments 1749).

As early as 1730, one sixth of the English merchant fleet had been built in the colonies due to shortages of shipbuilding lumber in Europe. English officials also regarded colonial shipbuilding as a more desirable alternative to other manufacturing industries that would compete with that of England. Rather than purchasing ships from competing European nations, authorities argued that was better to utilize their colonial possessions as shipbuilding centers, especially those with good sources of timber, like South Carolina. Selling colonial ships on the British market allowed English merchants to secure cheaper tonnage, and South Carolina merchants to obtain another source of income to pay for their manufactured goods.

Many shipwrights, like John Stewart, came not only to seek their fortunes, but also to enhance their professional training experiences.

An eager welcome awaited craftsmen at the shores of the colony.

There was a definite aura of superiority attached to European trained artisans. Most who came, including Stewart, recognized this snob appeal, and exploited it to the full extent in the press (Bridenbaugh 7

1950:68). Two years later he was wealthy enough to purchase the land at Hobcaw Point, which by this time was an established shipbuilding center for Charleston. (Charleston County Mesne Conveyance Records).

Under Rose and Stewart’s ownership the shipyard flourished financially. Shipbuilding in South Carolina presented a golden opportunity for a Scottish shipwright to rise from poverty to a relative wealthy status. In 1751 Stewart writes to his father: We came in here with about 600 pounds Sterling, we put on our treusers and went to work by the day & raised slaves by degrees lived snug & until of late nobody knew what we were worth, and now we have experience & are well known and respected by the first rank and wear Silk jackets and ruffles (Dalguise Muniments 1749).

One of their most well-known ships built in the yard was the Heart of Oak launched in 1763. Although John Rose listed himself as the sole owner of the vessel in registration records, probate information reveals that this vessel was owned partly by the plantation owner and politician, Henry Laurens. Their business acumen and success is evident from the sale of the shipyard to William Begbie and Daniel Manson in 1769, from which John Rose was able to retire with a fortune of thirty thousand pounds sterling to his name. An advertisement in the South Carolina Gazette on November 30, 1769 by these new partners lists the services of Hobcaw yard and John Rose’s wharf in Charleston as shipbuilding, heaving down, repairing graving, and mast building. Apart from service as a shipbuilding depot, the yard also supplied products for shipbuilding and repair like live oak, cypress and spars for topmasts, yards, and booms (South Carolina Gazette, November 30, 1769) The Hobcaw shipyard built and launched an impressive list of vessels from Charleston’s shores. Two were the 300-Ton Magna Carta in 1770, and the New Carolina Packet in 1771, intended for the London trade. Names of other ships reflect growing revolutionary patriotic colonial sentiment: Liberty, Fair American, and Oliver Cromwell.

On June 1778, Abraham Livingston and Paul Pritchard, an Irish immigrant, bought the property from Begbie and Manson for $50 and continued to manage it. The Pritchard’s were an elite Anglo-Protestant family of shipwrights. Although they had wealth and status in Ireland, England’s control of the country was irksome. It caused families like 8

the Pritchard’s great uneasiness. A ravenous England devoured all the best commercial activity. One of the primary concerns for ship building families was that Irish timber was plundered for use in English ship yards. This caused them to be concerned about the stability of their business in the long run. The exciting lure and challenge of a new beginning in a colony like South Carolina, more removed from English control, was great. Due to transportation problems in leaving Ireland, it was only in the early 1760s that the three brothers Paul, William, and George Pritchard arrived in Charleston (Houmes 1986:18) The Pritchard’s were extremely successful and built several large vessels. Paul Pritchard was commissioned by the Continental Congress in 1779 to build a “war galley”, and Hobcaw shipyard changed its name to “Pritchard’s Yard”. During Pritchard’s ownership they leased the yard to South Carolina Navy and Paul Pritchard managed it Under the Navy’s tenure, the ships Bricole, Truite, and Notre Dame were sent to the shipyard for repairs. These ships comprise only part of the total number of repair and construction efforts conducted at the shipyard during this period (Salley 1912:193).

During the American Revolution, many artisans and mechanics were surprisingly Loyalist in their allegiances, in contrast to the local merchants and planters. When Charleston fell to the British, the Loyalists drew up a petition congratulating the commanders on their victory and asking that loyal factions amongst them be treated with fairness. Thirty-two mechanics signed the petition with a high number of shipwrights who depended on British business for a livelihood. A small number did not and were duly penalized. For example, the British authorities confiscated Hobcaw shipyard from the rebel Paul Pritchard, the shipwright who managed the Royal shipyard until 1780. John Rose, a patriot, on the other hand, was placed on the British Committee to return the shipyard to the possession of the crown. Other shipwrights like Begby, Manson, Smith and William Tweed not only had their estates confiscated, but were banished from the colony (Walsh 1961:92, 122n) The shipbuilding industry went through a depression after the Revolution. In the late 1790’s it revived for a short time. In 1831 “Hobcaw Bill” closed the Hobcaw shipyard, selling it to John Blackwood. By 1865, the industry finally collapsed in South Carolina. The property passed into the possession of a land company and H.L. Erkmann; then was sold to Robert Muirhead 9

in November 1853, who used the land primarily for asparagus cultivation. Finally, the shipyard site was bought in 1953 by R.M. McGillivray (Amer and Naylor: 1995, 3) The Property Early archival sources reveal many different uses for the former shipyard area. During Richard Dearsley’s ownership in the seventeenth century, it is suggested that livestock and slaves were present on the site. The records claim that the land and “all buildings, timber, fences, slaves, cattle, and stock” were sold to Dearsley’s son, Major George Dearsley on April 28, 1701 for 350 pounds (Moore, 1978). The sale included seven enslaved Africans living on the site (Probate Court Records v54: 343). Dearsley was an early colonial shipbuilder who also owned a tract of land bordering Shem Creek. In his will, bequeathing property to his wife Elizabeth, it is evident that the community of slaves had grown when compared to the previous bill of sale. When Stewart arrived in 1749 it is further evident that he took advantage of slave labor stating that: “We propose to buy two Negroes to bring up to our business which will cost $60…they say here when they talk of a Man’s being Rich he has so many Negroes …if we had a Dozen Working Negroes we need work no more ourselves…if we can stop the stream for the first two years I shall be satisfied our Negroes will everyday be worth More and More to us…some carpenter Negroes are worth $150 sterling’ (Dalguise Muniments 1749) Black shipwrights in Charleston were usually hired at twenty pounds a month local currency. At least thirteen of the twenty South Carolina shipwrights in the 1730s and 1740s used slave carpenters.

The market value of the purchase of shipyard slaves was determined by their shipyard skill or experience. The large number of slaves in the colony and their high value when trained resulted in a heavy investment by South Carolinians in slave shipwrights, who were skilled in construction rather than only tasks such as caulking and painting.

This trend greatly influenced shipbuilding and labor dynamics in Charleston (Goldenberg 1976:66-67).

Mid-eighteenth century documents from South Carolina shed light on the relative value of maritime slaves. Shipwrights were worth between 300 and 800 pounds local currency, while caulkers brought 10

only 300 to 350 pounds. Shipwrights were worth nearly twice as much as a prime field hand; they typically sold for 100 pounds sterling in the 1770s, in contrast to 60 pounds for an agricultural slave (Goldenberg 1976: 67).

Maritime skills were marketed whenever circumstances dictated that a waterfront slave be sold to a new master. In 1742 one owner offered "A Fine young Negro Man, born in this Country, ... brought up to the Ship Carpenter’s trade, and can Caulk very well," and a short time later another owner advertised "A likely negro Fellow to be sold, a Ship Carpenter and Wheelwright by Trade." (Wood 1974: 198).

Shipwrights in South Carolina directed more capital toward slave purchases than their Northern counterparts. Goldenberg writes that of the total wealth listed in the inventories of nine slave-owning New England shipwrights, an average of 5 percent was tied up in slaves. On the other hand, nine South Carolina shipwrights had an average of 57 percent of their total wealth invested in slaves. This contrast may be further demonstrated by comparing Rhode Island builder Roger Kinnicut with southerner Thomas Middleton. Kinnicut’s 11 percent ratio of slave to total property was the largest of any New Englander, but it was still far below Middleton’s 20 percent, the smallest ratio among the South Carolina builders (Goldenberg 1976: 67).

During this decade, white mechanics and artisans like shipbuilders and shipyard laborers felt increasingly insecure and threatened by the large volumes of new slaves flowing into Charleston harbor. It represented more competition in their trades than ever before. Historian Richard Walsh described slave artisan labor at this time as “one of the most sticky and perrenial problems”. (Walsh 1961: 124). In fact, ship refitters such as caulkers and small-scale shipwrights complained severely in petitions to the Assembly of the monopoly on this work held by slaves (Easterby 1736-1775:541, 547).

Paul Pritchard relied on this slave labor as well. When Pritchard purchased the property in 1778, according to probate records, it included all “houses, outhouses, buildings, wharves, storehouses, orchards, gardens, marshes, trees, wells, water, water couriers, ways…etc (Probate Court Record, June 20, 1778). The slaves who helped him build and repair ships are mentioned in his will:

11

“the following Negres…Portius, Sam Moosa, Henry Junk, Caesar, Little David, Big David, Cyrus, Passage and Gray, ship Carpenters and Caulkers, Stafford and George, Blacksmith’s;my wenches Sue, Phyllis, and Chloe and my two house carpenters Sam and George…(Houmes 1986:171).

A McCrady 1786 plat shows the complex consisting of the main Pritchard house, a stable, and a springhouse. The main house has a defined yard area connecting it to wharves. There are also a series of paths, ditches, gates and fences. On the western side is one unknown structure. This unknown structure is shown again in a 1918 plat (McCrady Plats Collection, Charleston County Public Library). No other plats of this property are mentioned in previous reports. Morby speculates that this might be the slave quarters or housing for an established partner (Morby 2000; 73-74).

Besides the lack of slave quarter’s location, there is also no indication on the plats of shipyard work areas. Typically, around a large colonial shipyard, auxiliary industry supplying the needs of a shipbuilding operation grew. These included ropewalks, blockmakers, riggers, mastmen, sailmakers, smiths, founders, braziers, coopers and tanners. Ship chandlers provided nails, bolts, hinges and anchors, while butchers, bakers, and brewers all contributed to the daily lives of the shipyard laborers. In a very real sense, shipbuilding was a community enterprise (Bridenbaugh 1950:93-95).

Where are these working shipyard areas located? Where were the shipwrights and the slaves housed? Although, the location of the Pritchard main house is evident on the historic plats, there is no specific historical evidence, to date, of the locations or the physical character of: a. The auxiliary industrial areas on the property. b. Any of the main occupation areas/houses of the previous owners or shipwrights such as Dearsley, Quelch, Stewart and Rose. c. Living quarters of the slave laborers or artisans belonging to the above mentioned parties, during the Pritchard occupation or prior to that period. d. Houses, cultivation and/or storage areas of the post Pritchard period.

12

Section III Previous Investigations at 38CH1049 In 1988 Patricia Cridlebaugh, staff archaeologist of State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), visited the Pritchard site. She recommended that historians and archaeologists conduct detailed historical/archival research on the site to obtain additional information relevent to historic occupation and use of the complex. She mentioned target areas such as the main house, a second unnamed structure, the shipyard, the spring, and other potential areas identified by archival research. Slave quarters might also be located with further historical research and archaeological testing. She further stated a need for systematic underwater and terrestrial surveys of bluffs and higher elevations along Hobcaw creek.

In 1989, during construction of a private dock along the foreshore of the Hernandez property, SCIAA conducted a reconnaissance survey that confirmed the presence of 18th and 19th century materials. These included: “ballast rock, brick and ship frames eroding out of the bank, and two distinct areas on the foreshore containing wood cribbing and pilings-the remains of two of the three slipways and a wharf.” (Amer and Naylor 1996). The removal of a live oak to make way for the construction of the Hernandez’s 5,000 sq. foot home uncovered the remains of a brick structure entangled in its roots. This area was the focus of intensive archaeological investigations during the summer of 1993 (Figure 4). The structure consisted: “of the lower remains of three brick walls forming an approximately seven-meter square enclosure. Only the south wall remains to its 7.35-meter length. While the west wall extends 6.9 meters to the north, the east wall has been all but destroyed, with only the southernmost 2 meters of structure remaining. A large live oak root had deflected along the inside of the once extant east wall, and most of the brick that once comprised this wall is absent. No evidence for a wall enclosing the north side of the structure was found…” (Amer and Naylor 1996).

Results of these previous excavations are presented in more detail in the proceedings of the Mount Pleasant Archaeological Heritage Symposium held on September 21, 1996 (Amer and Naylor 1996), and are summarized in a thesis written by Sarah J. Morby (2000).

13

The 1993 excavations recovered ceramics and bottles from the 18th and 19th centuries, wrought iron and brass fasteners, wound and drawn glass beads, gun flints, buckles, thimbles, buttons, ax heads, a pair of dividers, a broken chain plate, kaolin pipe stems and bowls dating mostly from 1750-1800, and a large assemblage of burnt faunal remains (Amer and Naylor 1996). Table 1 presents a summary of the artifacts recovered from beneath the standing house.

In 1996, SCIAA returned to conduct a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey across site 38CH1049 to establish the potential layout of structures based on subsurface features. These investigations are described in detail in Sarah J. Morby’s thesis (2000: 57-64). Four areas were chosen based on the results of the 1993 shovel tests pits (Morby 2000:58).

Block 1 was located along the shoreline to determine the extent of slipways along the water’s edge. They were unable to verify the location of the subsurface remains of the slipways.

Block 2 ran parallel to the avenue of oaks in an area that had previously produced a great amount of slag. They hoped to find a blacksmith activity area. The results indicated the potential for a subsurface structure, so Block 3 was established across the northern end of Block 2 to broaden the survey area.

Block 3 data indicated the presence of a large concentration of slag. While they were unable to determine the extent of the subsurface feature, they were able to confirm its presence as a possible blacksmith activity area.

Block 4 tested the former location of the main house at the end of the avenue of oaks. Their results indicated a rough boundary of a foundation, and the subsurface toppling of the structure’s main walls (Morby 2000:63).

14

Table 1. Artifact Assemblage Recovered from SCIAA House Excavations in ARTIFACT TYPES Glass Fragments Nails Faunal Remains UID Metal Fragments Ceramics Kaolin Pipe Stems/Bowls Flint Fragments Coal Fragments Dark Green Bottle Glass Necks Sulpher Fragments Slate Fragments Ammunition Lead Fragments Spikes Non-Cultural Rocks Brick Fragments Snail Shell Fragments Mortar Fragments Wood Fragments Gun Flints Unidentified Objects Window Pane Glass Fragments Coral Fragments Buttons Native American Pottery Slag Fragments Chalk Fragments Buckles Beads Glassware Fragments Keys Top of Housewife Bits Brick Fragments – glazed Chisel Iron Hinge Barnacles Ivory Fragments Marbles Shell Fragments Bone Handle Coin Finger Ring Glass Tube Hose Clamp Thimble Fragment Caulk Fragment TOTAL ARTIFACT COUNT

1993.

COUNTS 2,958 2,584 2,230 817 774 376 194 91 40 33 31 31 26 26 25 26 21 17 11 9 9 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,407

15

Figure 4. Pritchard Shipyard 2004 Survey by SEARCH

16

After conducting the GPR survey, shovel tests were excavated around a visible surface feature on the eastern edge of the avenue of oaks in order to determine if it was an industrial component of the site. A series of 10 shovel tests were excavated to determine the extents and function of the structure. “Remnants of a brick floor were uncovered with 2-cm thick wooden planks resting on its surface. A light gray ashy material was mixed between the planks and brick with the entire area heavily inundated with creosote.�(Morby 2000:65). Excavations were not able to determine the extents of the foundation.

Table 2. Artifact Assemblage Recovered from Shovel Tests at Feature 100 in 1993.

ARTIFACT TYPES

COUNTS

Faunal Remains

65

Shell Fragments

59

Nails

33

Wood Fragments

29

Brick Fragments

20

Bottle Glass Fragments

17

Copper Sheathing

13

Flint Fragments

12

Mortar Fragments

12

Charcoal

10

Non-Cultural Rocks

8

Copper Tacks

7

Ceramics

6

Kaolin Pipe Stems/Bowls

4

UID Metal Fragments

4

Ammunition

1

Lead Nail

1

Modern Bottle Glass

1

Window Pane Glass Fragments TOTAL ARTIFACT COUNT

1 303

17

Project Methodology

SECTION IV

a. Setting up the Shovel Test Pit Grid In 2003, the Hernandez family decided to subdivide a portion of their 8-acre property into three lots, referred to as the “Northeastern Lot”, the “Southeastern Lot”, and the “Southwestern Lot”, respectively (Figure 4).

To examine these areas, investigators extended the grid previously established by SCIAA and defined a project area measuring approximately 100m N/S by 85 m E/W. Using the datum set by SCIAA at 542N 556E, investigators ran transects at 0°/180° and 90°/270°.

Initially, they laid out a 10 m interval grid with blue flags across the project area. Some of these flags were placed within easements, wetland buffers, or other areas determined by OCRM and/or SHPO to have no potential impact on the site; thus, they were replaced by white flags and were not excavated (Figure 5). The remaining 10 m interval tests were excavated to a depth of approximately 50 cm below surface (bs). Upon completion of these tests and examination of their cultural materials, investigators excavated additional shovel tests at 5 m intervals to delineate possibly significant cultural areas.

Excavators recorded shovel test information and photographed the general crew activity, project area setting, and excavations. AutoCad 2000 and ArcGIS 8.3 software programs were used to map the project area boundaries, transects, each shovel test, and the archaeological site boundaries. The coordinate system was set at Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum (NAD) 1983, Zone 17. b. Soil Profiles Depths of most shovel test pits, unless a foundation or floor was encountered, were 50cm. Sterile light yellow sand was generally occurred somewhere between 35 and 50 cm depth.

Three distinct types of soil were evident in all pits – darkish brown loamy top soil (7.5YR 2.5/2), light brown fine sand (5YR 4/2), and sterile yellowish sand (7.5YR 7/3). In most pits the dark, brown topsoil did not extend to depths below 25cm. Brick, oyster and tabby occurred in a distinct dense layer directly below this topsoil. The rubble, usually interspersed with the bulk of the other artifacts, tapered off in both rubble and artifact density into the next layer of lighter colored fine brown sand.

18

Figure 5. Map showing eastern boundaries of 38CH1049 and archaeological features within the project area.

19

Figure 6. Grid Flags. Blue for 10-meter intervals, Green for 5-meter intervals and white for the non-impact area of the subdivision.

Figure 7. Blair Toombs, recent Anthropology graduate of the College of Charleston, sorting artifacts in his screen.

20

SECTION V Results of Investigations Investigators excavated a total of 59 shovel tests in the project area. They excavated 29 shovel tests at 10 m intervals across the project area. An additional 22 shovel tests at 5 m intervals and 8 shovel tests at 1-2.5 m intervals were excavated to delineate possibly significant deposits (see Figure 4). The shovel tests revealed 10 cm of grayish brown loamy sand, underlain by 20 cm of light brown fine sand. Sterile light yellowish sand was encountered at approximately 50 cm bs.

Total Material The shovel tests on the three lots recovered 621 artifacts. These deposits fall within broad categories of glassware (40.1%), historic ceramics (26.1%), nails (10.1%), flint (9.3%), hardware (8.5%), pipe fragments (4.3%), gunflints (0.64%), grapeshot (0.32%), Native American ceramics (0.32%), and colonoware (0.16%).

Total Percentages of Artifacts Flint

9.3

Grapeshot

0.32

Gunflints

0.64

Nails

10.1 8.5

Hardware Pipes

4.3

Colonoware 0.16 NA Ceramics

0.32

H. Ceramics

26.1 40.1

Glass 0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 8. Total Percentages of Artifact Recovered in the Project Area

21

The relative quantities of buildings materials in the project area based on weight are: oyster shell (59.4%), brick (34.5%), tabby (5.4%) and slate (0.35%). Oyster shell may represent both a building material plus a food source

Total Percentages of Building Materials

Oyster

59.4

0.35

Slate

Tabby

5.4

Brick

34.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 9. Total Percentages of Building Material Recovered in the Project Area .

Other artifacts associated with industrial workings of a shipyard include slag ( ) a fused, vitrified metal and by-product of burning, hardware like nails, bolts and tacks ( ) coal, and charcoal ( ). Charcoal was also associated with refuse or occupation areas of the site, presumably linked to cooking. charcoal was found in context with bone or faunal remains (14.8%), and in areas where shipbuilding furnaces may have been situated (Figures 27-28).

22

Discussion of Artifact Assemblage Ceramics Excavators recovered 165 European and American ceramic sherds from the project area. Eighty-two (82%) percent of these ceramics were diagnostic with an identifiable manufacturing range. The ceramic types are listed in the table below with the manufacturing date range highlighted for each type (Table 3). There was a minimum of 20 different ceramic types. Some types, such as Transfer Printed Pearlware and Annular Pearlware, had the same manufacturing date range; thus, they were combined and listed only once.

The ceramic manufacturing dates ranged from 1620-1915, with a median date of 1765. But upon closer examination, researchers were able to determine which of those dates most likely reflected the occupation of the site. Using the quantitative mean ceramic date bracketing method first presented by Salwen and Bridges (1977) and later used by Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh (1991), researchers devised an occupation range of 1727.6-1812 for the occupation in the project area.

Researchers also graphed the ceramic manufacturing date ranges to attempt to identify when greatest number of different ceramic types were present in the project area. The period from 1760-1775 is represented by 13 ceramic types. This suggests that this period represents the most intensive occupation period.

23

Table 3. Ceramic Dating for 38CH1049

Brown Salt Glazed Stoneware

3

1620

1775

Gray Salt Glazed Stoneware

3

1650

1725

Delft (handpainted)

25

1660

1800

Porcelain, Blue Hand Painted

3

1660

1800

Slipware (Combed)

9

1670

1795

Lead glazed redware, black

3

1700

1800

Lead glazed redware, red

2

1700

1800

Westerwald Stoneware

1

1700

1775

Lead glazed redware, yellow

1

1700

1800

Nottingham

1

1700

1810

15

1740

1775

Jackfield

1

1740

1780

Creamware

44

1750

1820

Faience Pearlware (undecorated, handpainted, shell edged, Polychrome)

1

1760

1790

6

1780

1820

Creamware, Annular

1

1785

1815

Pearlware (Transfer Printed & Annular)

5

1795

1830

Alkaline glazed stoneware

2

1800

1880

Whiteware

5

1820

1900

Porcelain, white

4

1851

1915

White salt glazed stoneware (Barley Pattern)

Total

135

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

###

End Date

###

CERAMIC TYPE

Begin Date

###

Most Intensive Occupation (1760-1775) TOTAL COUNT

Table 4.

Application of Mean Ceramic Date Formula to Diagnostic Ceramics Recovered from Project Area.

Initial Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Final Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Brown Salt Glazed Stoneware

1620

Gray Salt Glazed Stoneware

1650

3

4,860

1775

3

5,325

3

4,950

1725

3

5,175

Delft (handpainted) Porcelain, Blue Hand Painted

1660

25

41,500

1800

25

45,000

1660

3

4,980

1800

3

5,400

Slipware (Combed)

1670

9

15,030

1795

9

16,155

Lead glazed redware, black

1700

3

5,100

1800

3

5,400

Lead glazed redware, red

1700

2

3,400

1800

2

3,600

Westerwald Stoneware

1700

1

1,700

1775

1

1,775

Lead glazed redware, yellow

1700

1

1,700

1800

1

1,800

Nottingham

1700

1

1,700

1810

1

1,810

White salt glazed stoneware (Barley Pattern)

1740

15

26,100

1775

15

26,625

Jackfield

1740

1

1,740

1780

1

1,780

Creamware

1750

44

77,000

1820

44

80,080

Faience

1760

1

1,760

1790

1

1,790

Pearlware (undecorated, handpainted, shell edged, Polychrome)

1780

6

10,680

1820

6

10,920

Creamware, Annular

1785

1

1,785

1815

1

1,815

Pearlware (Transfer Printed & Annular)

1795

6

10,770

1830

6

10,980

Alkaline glazed stoneware

1800

2

3,600

1880

2

3,760

Whiteware

1820

6

10,920

1900

6

11,400

Porcelain, white

1851

4

7,404

1915

4

7,660

137

236,679

137

248,250

CERAMIC TYPE

TOTALS

Initial Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi) 233,029/135 = 1727.6

Final Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi) 244,520/135 = 1812.0

25

Figure 11. Distribution and densities of Historic Ceramics Recovered from Project Area.

26

Ceramics Types Lead Glazed Earthenware Pipes Porcelain Faience Delft Ironstone Creamware Pearlware Stoneware 0

10

20

30

40

Percentages Figure 12. Ceramic Types Recovered from the Shovel Tests.

27

Glassware Approximately 40% (count=246) of the artifacts from 38CH1049 are represented by glass fragments of various colors, including dark olive green, light green, amber and clear. These fragments consisted of 208 bottle glass fragments, 28 flat window glass fragments, and 10 unidentified clear glass fragments.

Bottles: The 208 bottle glass fragments represent 34.3% of the total assemblage and consist of 163 dark olive green, 15 clear, 24 light green, and 6 amber glass fragments. Nine of these fragments were diagnostic with datable lips and string rims, or bases. These are listed in Table 5.

A report by Olive R. Jones (1976) entitled “Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles 1735-1850” was used to date the three diagnostic lips and string rims. Jones (1986:49) reports that the “flat topped version was the first style found on English “wine” bottles and continued in production after the introduction of the cylindrical body. It was the predominant style in the 1730s, 1740s and 1750s but was gradually replaced by other styles in the 1760s.” Occasional examples occurred as late as 1785.

One of the flat top lips had a “v-shaped” string rim; one had a “flattened” string rim; and one had a “down-tooled” string rim. Jones (1986) notes that earlier rims manufactured during the 1730s-1750s were v-shaped and down-tooled rims; the flattened rims began to appear in the 1760s. In the study by Jones (1986), a variety of different lips and string rims were recovered, mostly from whole or partially whole bottles.

The dates assigned to the bottles were used to assign date ranges to the lips and string rims recovered from 38CH1049. These date ranges are presented in Table 5.

In addition to the 18th century lips, excavators also recovered a light green lip with a “laid-on” ring. Baugher-Perlin (1982: 277) notes that natural mineral water, with or without carbonation, was being bottled in America as early at the 1760s. By 1830 and throughout the nineteenth century, mineral and soda water containers were manufactured in clear, aqua, amber, green and cobalt blue bottles (Stewart and Cosentino 1976: 78-79). Thus, the lip recovered from 38CH1049 may date from 17601900.

28

Figure 13. Aqua Mineral Water Bottle Neck and Fragments In addition to the lips, 5 bottle bases were recovered. Three of these were from dark olive green cylindrical bottles. Olive R. Jones’ article entitled “Glass Bottle Push-Ups and Pontil Marks (1991:87) provides a detailed description of the variety of techniques used in creating the push-up and pontil marks and attempts to date these techniques. These dates were used to date the bases recovered from 38CH1049 (see Table 5). Two of the bases appeared to have been created with a sand pontil. Jones (1991:94) dates bottles made with a sand pontil to the early and middle 18th century.

Figure 14. Dark Olive Green Bottle Base (1700-1800)

29

One clear base from a cylindrical bottle appeared to have been made with the blowpipe itself used as the pontil, leaving a distinct ragged pontil mark on the base (Jones 1991:94). This empontilling technique dates to the 18th century.

Figure 15. Pontil Mark in Clear base (18th century).

Finally, one amethyst colored rectangular bottle base was recovered with an embossed “B�. This color is caused by discoloration of clear glass as a result of adding manganese during the manufacturing process (Miller and Pacey 1985: 45). Newman (1970) dates amethyst glass from 1880-1925.

Recycled Glass Tool

A test pit 1.50 meters north of Feature 3 yielded a clear glass fragment that had been worked into a glass cutting tool. Retouch and flaking was evident along two edges. Ron Anthony of the Charleston Museum has also found evidence of these tools on other South Carolina colonial period plantation sites along the Wando River and in Berkeley County (Anthony, pers. com: August 3, 2004)

30

Figure 16. Recycled glass tool, pipe bowl and colonoware sherd (Unit 489.51 N 581E).

Figure 17. Recycled glass tool (Unit 489.51 N 581E).

31

Table 5. Diagnostic Bottle Glass Fragments Recovered from Project Area.

Description

Attributes

Initial Manufacturing Date (A)

Total Count (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Final Manufacturing Date Total Count (A) (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Dark olive green cylindrical bottle base

conical push-up, sand pontil mark

1700

2

3,400

1800

2

3,600

Clear cylindrical bottle base

Blowpipe pontil,

1700

1

1,700

1900

1

1,900

Amethyst rectangular bottle base

embossed with a "B"

1880

1

1,880

1925

1

1,925

1700

1

1,700

1800

1

1,800

Dark olive green cylindrical bottle base Dark olive green cyclindrical bottle lip and neck

flat top lip, v-shaped string rim

1737

1

1,737

1774

1

1,774

Light green mold blown bottle possibly clamp and cork lip closure

1760

1

1,760

1900

1

1,900

Dark olive green cylindrical bottle lip

flat top lip, flattened string rim

1765

1

1,765

1785

1

1,785

Dark olive green cylindrical bottle lip

flat top lip, down-tooled string rim

1738

1

1,738

1765

1

1,765

9

15,680

9

16,449

TOTALS

Final Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi) 15,680/9 =

1742.2

Final Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi) 16,449/9 =

32

1827.7

Figure 18. Distribution and Densities of Glass Recovered from Project Area.

33

Pipes A total of 22 pipe stems comprising 4.3% of the total artifact collection provide a mean date for site occupation 1721 to 1764 based upon bore diameter fror the 2004 SEARCH project. Geoffrey Hughes of SCIAA analyzed the pipe stems from the 1993 SCIAA house excavations (Hughes 2004:50). The results he reports were that 51 percent of excavated units returned estimated Max. Ors from 1710 to 1800+, a range of over 90 years. However, the longest possible span was from 1680 to 1800+, over 120 years represented only 13 percent of excavated units. The third largest possible time, 85 years from 1715 to 1800+ represented only 10 percent of excavated units while 26 percent of excavated units had a 40 year span, the least, from 1710 to 1750.

Estimated Max. Occupational Range By Unit

1715-1800+ 10%

1680-1800+ 13%

1710-1750 26% 1710-1800+ 51%

Figure 19. Pritchard Site Occupation based on Pipe Fragments from SCIAA Project (SCIAA report, Hughes 2004)

All the pipe stem fragments recovered during the project were undecorated. However, the vast majority of stem fragments recovered from archaeological sites are undecorated. It was not until J.C. Harrington’s work that undecorated pipe stem fragments began to be seen as chronologically ordered. He observed that fragments from kaolin pipe stems appeared to be normally distributed by the diameters of their bores. This could be verified by correlating recovered recovered pipe stem fragments with other, diagnostic artifacts that appeared in the same levels.

34

Harrington derived a relationship between bore diameters (in /64”) to various time periods, the larger the bore the older the fragment: 4/64” to the period 1750-1800, 5/64” to the period 1710-1750, 6/64” to the period 1680-1710, 7/64” to the period 1650-1680, and 8/64” to the period 1620-1650 (Harrington: 1954, 9-13). In the following passage, Ivor Noël Hume relates the reception of Harrington’s observation within the historical archaeological community: At first, what has come to be known as the “Harrington Theory” was received with considerable merriment among pundits of the pipe, but it soon became apparent to those who took the trouble to test the chart that there was a good deal of truth in it-though Harrington himself had made it very clear from the start that he considered the sampling too small and that much refinement would be necessary when more Groups of archaeologically datable pipes became available for study. He also pointed out that associations of only twenty or thirty pipes would probably be insufficient to produce an accurate answer. (Noël Hume: 1991, 29899) Later, Lewis Binford took Harrington’s system and derived a straight-line regression formula. In essence, this formula allows archaeologists to calculate a mean pipe stem date (MPSD) regardless of sample size. In this formula, Y=1931.85-38.26X, Y equals the unknown MPSD. 1931.85 represents the year at which the pipe stem’s bore diameter would completely disappear. 38.26 represents the average number of years between each /64” bore diameter. And finally, X represents the mean bore diameter of the recovered sample (Binford: 1978, 66-67; Hughes 2004).

However, some caution should be used in applying the mean pipe stem formula. Noël Hume notes that often, with later samples and sample sizes under a thousand, the mean pipe stem dates are often earlier than those derived from the combination dates for other artifact classes (Noël Hume: 1991, 300-01). Exactly why this occurs is unclear, however, it seems prudent that pipe stems should not be the last word when it comes to arriving at an absolute date whether it be for a stratigraphic level, a feature, or an entire site. Having said this, it does seem appropriate to use pipe stem dates in developing relative dating schemes throughout a site since they are the product of the formula and trends in bore size (Hughes 2004).

35

Figure 20. Kaolin Tobacco Pipe Morphology (After NoĂŤl Hume: 1991, 297.)

Table 6. Diagnostic Pipe fragments Recovered from the Project Area

Initial Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

6/64"

1680

5/64"

1710

4/64"

1750

Pipe Diameter

TOTALS

(A) Fi)

Final Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

1

1,680

1710

1

1,710

14

23,940

1750

14

24,500

7

12,250

1800

22

37,870

Initial Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi)

233,029/135 = 1721.4

(A) Fi)

7

12,600

22

38,810

Final Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi)

244,520/135 = 1764.1

36

Table 7. Mean Date for most Intensive Occupation of Pritchard Site using Ceramics, Glassware and Pipes.

Initial Manufacturing Date (A)

Total Count (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Final Manufacturing Date (A)

Total Count (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Brown Salt Glazed Stoneware

1620

3

4,860

1775

3

5,325

Gray Salt Glazed Stoneware

1650

3

4,950

1725

3

5,175

Delft (handpainted)

1660

25

41,500

1800

25

45,000

Porcelain, Blue Hand Painted

1660

3

4,980

1800

3

5,400

Slipware (Combed)

1670

9

15,030

1795

9

16,155

Pipe 6/64"

1680

1

1,680

1710

1

1,710

Westerwald Stoneware

1700

1

1,700

1775

1

1,775

Lead glazed redware, black

1700

3

5,100

1800

3

5,400

Lead glazed redware, red

1700

2

3,400

1800

2

3,600

Lead glazed redware, yellow

1700

1

1,700

1800

1

1,800

Dark olive green cylindrical bottle base (conical push-up, sand pontil mark)

1700

2

3,400

1800

2

3,600

Dark olive green cylindrical bottle base

1700

1

1,700

1800

1

1,800

Nottingham

1700

1

1,700

1810

1

1,810

Clear cylindrical bottle base (plain glass-tipped pontil)

Artifact Type

1700

1

1,700

1900

1

1,900

Pipe 5/64" Dark olive green cyclindrical bottle lip and neck (flat top lip, v-shaped string rim) Dark olive green cylindrical bottle lip (flat top lip, down-tooled string rim) White salt glazed stoneware (Barley Pattern)

1710

14

23,940

1750

14

24,500

1737

1

1,737

1774

1

1,774

1738

1

1,738

1765

1

1,765

1740

15

26,100

1775

15

26,625

Jackfield

1740

1

1,740

1780

1

1,780

Pipe 4/64"

1750

7

12,250

1800

7

12,600

Creamware

1750

44

77,000

1820

44

80,080

Faience

1760

1

1,760

1790

1

1,790

Light green mold blown bottle lip (possibly clamp and cork closure)

1760

1

1,760

1900

1

1,900

1765

1

1,765

1785

1

1,785

Dark olive green cylindrical bottle lip (flat top lip, flattened string rim) Pearlware (undecorated, handpainted, shell edged, Polychrome)

1780

6

10,680

1820

6

10,920

Creamware, Annular

1785

1

1,785

1815

1

1,815

Pearlware (Transfer Printed & Annular)

1795

6

10,770

1830

6

10,980

Alkaline glazed stoneware

1800

2

3,600

1880

2

3,760

Whiteware

1820

6

10,920

1900

6

11,400

9

1851

4

7,404

1915

4

7,660

Amethyst rectangular bottle base (embossed with a "B")

1880

1

1,880

1925

1

1,925

168

290,229

Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi)

1727.6

168

303,509

1806.6

37

Bone All the bone recovered during the 2004 project consisted unidentifiable fragments, except for one deer tooth. The crew recovered a total of 108 fragments The highest quantity of bone was distributed around Feature 3 and many fragments were burnt. The SCIAA 1993 excavation yielded 2,230 faunal bone remnants. Shovel test around feature 100 yielded 65 fragments. These comprised the remains primarily of pig, deer, bird, and fish.

SCIAA Feature 100 Stp's

65

2004 SEARCH Stp's

108

1993 SCIAA Excavations

2230

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Total Numbers of Bone Fragments Recovered During Various Project Phases

Figure 20. Comparison of Bone Quantities Recovered during SCIAA Excavations, Feature 100 Shovel Tests, and SEARCH 2004 Shovel Test Project.

38

Figure 21. Distribution and Densities of Bone Recovered from Project Area.

39

Building Materials and Industrial Waste: Brick, Tabby, Slate, and Shell The majority of the assemblage, almost 90%, is represented by building materials, industrial waste materials, wood, oyster shell, and flint cobble fragments. Each of these categories of artifacts is described in more detail below.

The relative quantities of buildings materials in the project area based on weight are: oyster shell (59.4%),brick (34.5%), tabby (5.4%) and slate (0.35%)(Figure 8). . Oyster shell may represent both a building material plus a nutritious food source, as it was, and still is, a readily available item from the Wando River in sub-tidal and inter-tidal communities.

Figure 22. Distribution and Densities of Building Materials Recovered from Project Area.

40

Figure 23. Distribution and Densities of Shell Recovered from Project Area

41

Flint SEARCH crew recovered a total of 56 flint cobble fragments. These comprised whole cobbles of various sizes, plus flakes and cores suggesting that some of these cobbles may have been worked to provide an informal toolkit. Ron Anthony of the Charleston Museum also reported similar findings at other Lowcountry Plantation sites on Wando River and at Speirs Lading on Lake Marion .

Four gunflints are included in this “toolkit�. In the SCIAA 1993 excavations the crew recovered 9 gunflints and 194 flint cobble fragments. The area around Feature 100 only yielded 12 fragments.

SCIAA Feature 100 Stp's

12

2004 SEARCH Stp's

56

SCIAA 1993 Excavations

194

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total Numbers of Flint Cobbles Recovered

Figure 25. Comparison of Flint Quantities Recovered during SCIAA Excavations, Feature 100 Shovel Tests, and SEARCH 2004 Shovel Test Project.

42

Figure 26. Distribution and Densities of Flint Recovered from Project Area

43

Hardware A small number hardware items were recovered from the shovel tests. These include nails, bolts, tacks, and a possible lead seal. These items may have been associated with building materials, a storage area, or shipbuilding and maintenance. Distribution is most dense around feature 3.

Figure 27. Distribution of Nails Across the Project Area.

44

Figure 28. Distribution of Industrial Waste (Coal, Slag, and Charcoal) Across the Project Area.

45

Summary of Excavations by lot (See Figure 4) The Northeastern Lot. This lot is located near the Hernandez house. Shovel tests yielded a higher percentage of all cultural materials in this lot as compared to shovel test units on the southeastern and southwestern lots.

Test pits along the 586E line produced the greatest number of historic ceramics. The ceramics consisted of Nottinghham and Faience stonewares, ironstone, creamware, delft, pearlware, brown saltglazed stoneware, and grey saltglazed stoneware. Excavators also recovered kaolin pipe stems and bowls, and fragments of olive green, amber, aqua, purple, and clear glass.

The shovel tests adjacent to the dirt road yielded particularly high quantities of oyster shell. Unit 487N 581E contained the greatest density of bone fragments and glassware of the entire project area. Feature 100, a brick floor recorded by SCIAA, is located well within in the wetland buffer zone at the southern end of the lot. It extends from 2 meters beyond 482N 616E southwards to 472N 616E. Southeastern Lot. This lot is located directly adjacent to the northeastern plot and extends up to the property entrance at the cul-desac of Coinbow drive. It also encompasses the Coinbow dirt road extension. Investigators encountered comparatively low levels of all cultural materials in this lot. In the southeastern corner of the lot, Unit 452N 626E yielded charcoal, tabby and brick rubble. A solid clay base was encountered at around 20 centimeters in depth. Probing and further testing revealed that this anomalous clay base extends towards the setback area. More intensive testing in this area, consisting of additional shovel tests at 2-5 m intervals, yielded only small brick fragments, tabby and slag above the clay substrate.

Test pits in this lot offered the least amount of cultural material, and only a small numbers of diagnostic artifacts. Most of the glass fragments consisted of clear window glass.

Southwestern Lot. The other entrance to the property, called the “Avenue of Oaks�, proceeds down the western edge of the Southwestern Lot. The southern boundary of this lot is close to the houses built after a previous sub-division of the Hernandez property. The southwestern lot contains a moderate amount of cultural material. Glassware is well

46

represented, with small quantities of ceramics and slag present. Flint is consistently present in small quantities in most test pits in this lot.

SECTION VI

Features

Feature 2. This feature is located in the southeastern corner of the southeastern lot. Excavators located it initially in Unit 452N 626E. It is characterized with a somewhat solid clay floor at approximately 20 cm bs, with portions having brick rubble, tabby and charcoal embedded in it. No excavations through the clay floor were excavated. The crew excavated a 5-meter long, 30cm wide trench to follow the outline. The trench revealed that the feature extended towards the water’s edge and that much of it is located within the 30-foot setback zone. A smaller portion of the floor appears to also lie outside the wetland buffer zone, inside the southeastern lot.

The crew excavated a few control pits randomly along the setback line, based on probing results, and estimated that there is a strong probability that the Feature 2 extends north, toward Feature 100, possibly associating this feature with the previously recorded brick foundation.

Similarly, it appears that this feature is an industrial or working area.

More intensive test pits and a trench around the Unit 452N 626 E revealed a sterile hardened clay floor with charcoal inclusions 1cm below surface.

0

10

20

30cm

North

Figure 29. Clay substrate of Feature 2 in Unit 452N 626E. \

47

North

Figure 30. Tina Rust excavating a 5-meter long, 30cm wide trench investigating probe tests for feature 2.

48

Feature 3 This feature was first located at Unit 487N 581E. Subsequent testing uncovered 13 more tests around this unit that are likely to either be part of this feature or sub-features. The test units in this area typically consisted of 10 cm of grayish brown loamy sand, underlain by 20 cm of light brown fine sand. Sterile light yellowish sand was encountered at approximately 25 cm below surface.

This first test (Unit 487N 581E) was distinct in that it contained dense cultural materials with considerably higher quantities of shell, faunal bones and glass than any other unit on the three subdivision lots.

The profile was so densely packed that the soil color profile was not visible. The dense oyster shell suggested that it might be a part of a refuse, kitchen or tavern area of the shipyard.

Bottle neck

Compact Oyster Shell

Figure 31. Plan view showing compact oyster shell and artifacts in Feature 3.

49

Bone

Topsoil Bottle Neck 10cm 20cm 30cm

Figure 32. Profile showing topsoil demarcation bone in Feature 3.

To understand Feature 3 more fully, the crew excavated several additional test units meters to the south, north, west, and east of Feature 3.

In order to access the analyze Feature 3, researchers decided to examine the artifacts from the densest part of the Feature, from 482N – 492N and 576E – 586E (see Figure 5). These tests yielded 276 artifacts and 11,550 g of cultural materials. Table 8 illustrates the distributions of these materials.

50

Table 8. Distributions of Cultural Materials from The Densest part of the Feature 3 Area ARTIFACT DESCRIPTION Bottle Glass

WEIGHT (g)

PERCENTAGE

COUNT 136

Historic Ceramics

88

Nails

32

Kaolin Pipes

13

Window Glass

5

Hardware

5

Colonoware

1

Native American Ceramic

1

49.28% 31.88% 11.59% 4.71% 1.81% 1.81% 0.36% 0.36%

Oyster Shell

6,259.00

Brick

3,854.00

Tabby

772

Slag

397

Non-cultural rock

91

Bone

73

Charcoal

43

Coal

26

Flint

16

Wood

14

Metal

5 276

54.20% 33.40% 6.70% 3.40% 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00%

11,550.00

Approximately half of the assemblage from Feature 3 yielded glass fragments (49.28%) and oyster shell fragments (54.2%). The next most common artifacts were historic ceramics (31.88%) and brick fragments (33.40%).

Glass. Feature 3 yielded 136 fragments of glass, including 81 bottle glass fragments. These consisted of 2 amber, 4 clear, 8 light green, and 67 dark olive green bottle glass fragments. The only diagnostic fragment was a conical cylindrical base with a sand pontil mark, which dates from 1700-1800.

Ceramics. Excavations recovered 88 ceramics, including 12 creamware sherds, 2 white porcelain sherds, 9 white salt glazed stoneware sherds, 1 colonoware sherd, 5 unidentified decorated earthenware sherds, 6 delft sherds, 4 faience sherds, 3 black lead glazed redware sherds, 2 red lead glazed redware sherd, 1 yellow lead glazed redware sherd, 10 pearlware sherds (1 plain, 1 annular, 2 transfer printed, 3 hand painted, and 1 shell edged), 1 Chinese blue 51

handpainted porcelain sherd, 1annularware sherd, 1 refined earthenware sherd, 2 gray salt glazed stoneware sherd, 2 combed slipware sherd.

The diagnostic ceramic types yielded an occupation range for Feature 3 of 1733.6 – 1804.5 (Table 9) with the most intensive occupation ranging from 1760-1795.

Table 9. Mean Date for the most intensive period of occupation for Feature 3 using Ceramics.

Initial Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Final Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

Gray Salt Glazed Stoneware

1650

Delft (handpainted)

1660

2

3,300

1725

2

3,450

6

9,960

1800

6

10,800

Porcelain, Blue Hand Painted

1660

1

1,660

1800

1

1,800

Slipware (Combed)

1670

2

3,340

1795

2

3,590

Lead glazed redware, black

1700

3

1800

3

5,400

Lead glazed redware, red

1700

2

3,400

1800

2

3,600

Lead glazed redware, yellow

1700

1

1,700

1800

1

1,800

White salt glazed stoneware (Barley Pattern)

1740

9

15,660

1775

9

15,975

Creamware

1750

12

21,000

1820

12

21,840

Faience

1760

4

7,040

1790

4

7,160

Pearlware (undecorated, handpainted, shell edged, Polychrome)

1780

5

8,900

1820

5

9,100

Pearlware (Transfer Printed & Annular)

1795

3

5,385

1830

3

5,490

Porcelain, white

1851

2

3,702

1915

52

90,147

CERAMIC TYPE

TOTALS

Initial Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi) 90,147/52 = 1733.6

5,100

(A) Fi)

2

3,830

52

93,835

Final Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi) 93,835/52 = 1804.5

Pipes. Feature 3 yielded 2 kaolin pipe bowls, 7 pipe stems, 1 pipe bowl/stem. Seven of these fragments had measurable stem diameters (3 with 4/64” diameters and 4 with 5/64” diameters).

Other notable artifacts: 1 pig tooth and 1 small mammal jaw, 1 glazed half brick, 1 sheathing tack, 1 wrought nail, 1 wire nail, wood shingle, 1 iron buckle.

52

Table 10. Artifact Class Groups using South's (1977)Artifact Pattern

ARTIFACT CLASS

COUNT

%

KITCHEN Bottle Glass Historic Ceramics Colonoware

TOTAL KITCHEN

136 88 1 225

80.07%

ARCHITECTURE Nails

32

Window Glass

TOTAL ARCHITECTURE

5 37

13.17%

TOBACCO Kaolin Pipes

13

TOTAL TOBACCO

13

4.63%

ACTIVITY Hardware

5

TOTAL ACTIVITY

5

1.78%

CLOTHING Buckle

TOTAL CLOTHING

1 1

0.36%

281

100.00%

The relative lack of variety in the assemblage, particularly no furniture items or personal items, and only one possible clothing item, suggests that this feature represents a specific-use feature, such as refuse deposit, rather than the result of any long term domestic occupation of a site.

53

Table 11. Diagnostic Artifacts from Feature 3 giving a Mean Date for most Intensive Occupation.

CERAMIC TYPE

Initial Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

(A) Fi)

Final Manufacturing Date (A)

TOTAL COUNT (Fi)

Gray Salt Glazed Stoneware

(A) Fi)

1650

2

3,300

1725

2

3,450

Delft (handpainted) Porcelain, Blue Hand Painted

1660

6

9,960

1800

6

10,800

1660

1

1,660

1800

1

1,800

Slipware (Combed)

1670

2

3,340

1795

2

3,590

Lead glazed redware, black

1700

3

5,100

1800

3

5,400

Lead glazed redware, red

1700

2

3,400

1800

2

3,600

Lead glazed redware, yellow

1700

1

1,700

1800

1

1,800

Pipes - 5/64" diam

1710

4

6,840

1750

4

7,000

White salt glazed stoneware (Barley Pattern)

1740

9

15,660

1775

9

15,975

Creamware

1750

12

21,000

1820

12

21,840

Pipes - 4/64" diam

1750

3

5,250

1800

3

5,400

Faience

1760

4

7,040

1790

4

7,160

Pearlware (undecorated, handpainted, shell edged, Polychrome)

1780

5

8,900

1820

5

9,100

Pearlware (Transfer Printed & Annular)

1795

3

5,385

1830

3

5,490

Porcelain, white

1851

2

3,702

1915

2

3,830

59

102,237

59

106,235

TOTALS

Initial Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi)

102,237/59 = 1732.8

Final Mean Date: Total (A*Fi)/Total (Fi)

106,235/59 = 1800.6

54

Feature 3: Sub-features A and B (See Figure 5) Sub Feature A. Clay Floor Base (Unit 489.5N 581E) The unit located 2.50 meters the north of feature 3 (489.5N 581E) revealed a solid brick rubble/clay base at 40cm depth that the crew left intact. This may be the remains of a floor or foundation. Between the floor and surface were an assortment of cultural materials.

Figure 33. Feature 3 Solid Clay Base at Unit 489.5N 581E

55

489.5

581

71 brick or burned clay fragments

30

489.5

581

3 tabby fragments

489.5

581

8 burned brick? Fragments

489.5

581

5

489.5

581

489.5

581

1

colonoware sherd

489.5

581

2

lead glazed redware sherd, black

30

489.5

581

3

bone fragments

30

489.5

581

4

wood fragment

burned, 3g

30

489.5

581

1

flint cobble

11g

30

489.5

581

1

489.5

581

1

clear glass fragment kaolin pipe stem/bowl

30

30

charcoal fragments

234 oyster shell fragments

30 30 30

30 30

Table 12. Cultural Material in Sub feature A (Feature 3)

Sub Feature B. Hearth or fireplace Unit 487N 576E, 5 meters west of Feature 3, had a dark stain from 46cm to 60cm below surface in the western profile of the unit wall. The stain appears to be burnt charcoal mixed into the soil. This may be a fireplace or hearth.

487 576 487 576 487 576 487 487 487 487 487

576 576 576 576 576

487 487 487 487 487

576 576 576 576 576

487 487 487 487 487 487

113 oyster shell fragments 74 brick fragments 68 slag fragments

6 6 6

91 non cultural rock UID nail red lead glazed redware sherd dark olive green bottle glass fragment 5 oyster shell fragments

6 6 6 6 9,10

1 1 2 3

12 charcoal fragments wood shingle Native American sherd nail fragments dark olive green bottle glass fragments

9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10

576 576 576 576 576 576

3 2 2 1 1 1

clear glass fragments pearlware sherds, blue transfer printed white porcelain sherds, undecorated porcelain sherd, blue decorated delft sherd, undecorated pearlware sherd, annular decoration

487 576

1

1 1 1

552g

9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10

kaolin pipe stem Table 13. Cultural Material in Sub feature B (Feature 3)

9,10

56

Both sub feature A and B contain large quantities of oyster shell and the few colonoware and Native American sherds pottery sherds recovered during this project. Both sub-feature A and B contain pipes that date between 1750-1800.

57

Conclusions

SECTION VII

The findings from the present archaeological investigations enhance our understanding of the landscape associated with former shipyards and provides a greater quantity of diagnostic cultural material to establish mean dates for the most intensive period of occupation of the project area. The period from 1760-1775 is represented by 13 ceramic types. Pipe bore diameters provide an intensive occupation date of 1721.4-1764.1. Glassware dates span 1742.2 to 1827.7. The overall estimate for the most intensive occupation, using a combination of these three sets of diagnostic data (ceramics, pipes and glassware) to establish mean dates, is 1727.61806.6.

During this time period, 1727-1806, the property was occupied the Quelch family (1709-1753 Benjamin, Elizabeth then Andrew), John Rose and James Stewart (1753-1769 and first described as a shipyard at this time) Begbie & Manson (1769-1778), and finally the Pritchard’s - Paul then later, William (1778-1831). Paul Pritchard’s son, also named Paul, owned Fairbanks Shipyard on the banks of the Wando River during the early 1800s. All these shipwrights owned slaves who represented an important labor partnership in aiding the shipwrights upward social mobility in Charleston society. The site thus represents a vignette of English (John Rose), Scottish (James Stewart) and Irish (Paul Pritchard) immigrant history in Charleston. The presence of shipyard slaves is a important piece for further understanding of South Carolina’s labor history and labor relations in the Lowcountry.

The shovel test results suggest that the eastern edge of the property, bordering both the north and southeastern lots, was used for shipyard activities. We concur with Sarah Morby’s speculation in her Master’s thesis that Feature 100 is possibly a location of pitch

58

manufacture or storage, a mainstream activity in a shipyard.♣ Feature 2 and random control tests along the eastern bank revealed that charcoal, tabby, and brick rubble, embedded in a hard baked clay substrate, was possibly due to the presence of furnaces and burning related to shipyard tasks like steaming frames. As John Stewart complains in his letters about the shipyard work he detested “since they are planking a 90-gun ship where we kiln the plank in hot wet sand over a large furnace where we go in to shovel on & off the sand which is sometimes so hot that we stay in 5 minutes.”

Morby’s conclusions were based on the excavations of Feature 100. It appears that Feature 100 represents an intact section of the industrial or work area of the shipyard where pitch was used, but that remains of a “baked” clay floor resulting from the operation of a furnace run along the entire eastern property border of the Hernandez property, and are represented in our excavations of the Feature 2 trench. Artifacts found around Feature 100, like copper sheathing, tacks and lead nails, suggest work on ships at this location. Faunal remains and oyster shell may be the refuse disposed and burnt in the furnaces.

How does this fit into spatial considerations of a shipyard layout?

Firstly, the busy, noisy working area of the shipyard with smell of pitch and heat from furnaces (especially during the summer months), and other noxious fumes, would be situated away from the vista of the main house. Historical sources routinely discuss the unhealthy living

Pitch is a viscous, dark-brown to black substances obtained by the destructive distillation of coal, wood, petroleum, peat, and certain other organic materials. The heating or partial burning of wood to make charcoal yields tar as a byproduct and is an ancient method for the production of both tar and pitch. Coal tar is a residue in the manufacture of coal gas and coke. By the application of heat, tar is separated into several materials, one of which is pitch. The terms tar and pitch are loosely applied to the many varieties of the two substances, sometimes interchangeably. For example, asphalt, which is naturally occurring pitch, is called mineral tar and mineral pitch. Tar is more or less fluid, depending upon its origin and the temperature to which it is exposed. Pitch tends to be more solid. When ships were made of wood, tar had numerous uses, and an available supply of tar was an important factor in maritime growth. Tar made vessels watertight and protected their ropes from deterioration. ♣

59

around a working shipyard. For example, in a letter from Norfolk shipyard in Virginia Commodore Lewis Warrington writes: “The work carrying on, and to be carried on…renders it unfit for a family from June to November on account of its unhealthiness, for the whole year, by reason of exposure to the noise and the observation of the workmen.” (Norfolk Naval Shipyard Website: 3).

The Hobcaw work area would also be conveniently located along the water’s edge on a tidal creek, where workers could douse fires or even dispose of shipbuilding refuse. The lake/creek/brackish pond near feature 100 is relatively shallow – probably 3 to 4 feet. The whole lake used to be marsh, except for the damming structure (near the new Hernandez dock/pier). The earth filling as well as the damming structure went up around 1955. No underwater archeology work has been conducted within 150 feet of feature 100, or for the matter in any part of this 10-acre lake.

Water was a practical consideration for a shipyard. Shipyard workers could use exclusively the deeper, more accessible water wharves at the northern end of the property to launch or haul up ships for repair, or unload cargoes. The shallow area may have been the ideal mudflat for careening vessels for repair work.

Domestic activity of some kind took place closer to the northern end of the property, to the right of the main house and close to the water. Higher concentrations of cultural materials like ceramics, glassware and bone are evident, especially along the 586E gridline in of the northeastern lot where the crew selected to excavate units at 5meter intervals. Feature 3 (Unit 487N 581E) reveals an extremely dense cultural deposit and offered the highest quantity of bone, other than the shovel test excavated by SCIAA around Feature 100. A greater volume of brick rubble and oyster shell is also present in much higher weight volumes in test pits on both 586E and 596E gridlines within this lot. This may have been a refuse area situated close to the shore, but far from the main Pritchard house, in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

The relative lack of variety in the assemblage, particularly no furniture items or personal items (Table 10), and only one possible clothing item, suggests that this feature represents a specific-use feature, such as refuse deposit, rather than the result of any long term domestic occupation of a site. The diagnostic ceramic types yielded an occupation range for Feature 3 of 1733.6 – 1804.5 (Table 9) with the most intensive occupation ranging from 1760-1795. The occupants of 60

the SCIAA excavation area of 1993(now the Hernandez house) may also or alternatively have used deposited their refuse here. Fifty-one percent of the kaolin pipes, analyzed by Geoffrey Hughes from the SCIAA Collection, suggest a date range of 1710 to 1800 and twentysix percent date from 1710 to 1750. Forty-three percent of Feature 3 pipes date from 1750-1800, while fifty–seven percent date from 1710 to 1750.

43

Feature 3 Pipes

57 1750-1800 1710-1750 51

SCIAA 1993 Pipes

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentages

Figure 34. Comparison of SCIAA and Feature 3 Pipe Date Ranges

If, not a refuse area, who could have occupied the waterfront, close to the wharves and shipping activity? SCIAA excavations under the present Hernandez house uncovered the lower remains of three brick walls forming an approximately 7-meter-square enclosure, a hearth and an unidentified section of brick masonry (Amer and Naylor: 1995, 8-9). The assemblage from the SCIAA house excavations contained many personal items and faunal remains (see Table 1).

Recovered artifacts include: numerous pipe stems (most dating from 1750 to 1800+), ceramics and glass (dating from the 18th and 19th centuries), iron and copper fasteners, glass beads, marbles, buckles, thimbles, buttons, a horse’s bit, a 1720 Dutch trade token, wine glass stems, an adz, axe heads, dividers, and large amounts of faunal remains comprising pig, deer, bird, and fish (Amer and Naylor: 1995, 9). This may represent an occupation area for shipwrights from the 1700s through the 1800s.

61

Feature 3 -Refuse Area

SCIAA House Excavations

Shipyard Work (Furnaces)

Feature 100 -Pitch Manufacture

Habitation area

Figure 35 . Proposed land use patterns on site 3CH1048 based upon current and past investigations.

Could slaves have resided here too? Typically, slave cabins on Lowcountry plantations are located along the avenue of oaks terminating in the main or “big” house. This does not appear to be a spatial preference either at Pritchard’s (based on SCIAA shovel testing) or at Fairbanks, another plantation/shipyard on the Wando River owned by Paul Pritchard in the 1814. Historic plats and archaeological evidence revealed that, like the Fairbanks shipyard, the slave quarters were located to the right of the main house and slightly behind it. In addition to the slave quarters, the dwelling of a “resident worker manager” was also situated at the right of the main house and associated with the densest cluster of kitchen rubble (Figure 36; Zierden 1986:Fig.3-11, Fig. 3-12 Fig. 3-13). If the Hobcaw plantation followed this pattern, the probable workers quarters would also be ato the right of the main house, but in front of it close to the water’s edge (Figure 37).

62

Slave Quarters Worker / Manager Dwelling

Fairbanks Mainhouse

Avenue of Oaks

Wando River

Figure 36.The Layout of the Fairbanks Plantation Showing locations Slave and Laborers Quarters

Pritchard Mainhouse

(Entrance to 338 Coinbow Property)

Industrial Area Tidal creek

Avenue of Oaks Slave Quarters or Refuse area (Northeastern Lot)

Shipwrights Dwelling

(Hernandez House)

Hobcaw Creek

Figure 37. The Proposed layout of the Pritchard Hobcaw

Plantation/Shipyard showing locations Slave and Laborers Quarters

63

The heterogeneity of the ceramic assemblage recovered in further shovel testing may indicate a kitchen area containing hand-me down dinner wares from the main house or alternatively occasional purchases of any available or affordable wares by the laborers or slaves in Charleston markets or from visiting ships. It is widely recognized by historians that South Carolina Low country slaves, and particularly slaves connected to boats and ships, participated in the southern market economy (Wood 1974; Genovese 1962, 1974, Rediker 1987).

But why would laborers or slaves, presumably with limited resources, use ceramics like Faience, delft, porcelain, pearlware and high quantities of creamwares? Scholars argue that ceramics are often the least sensitive indicators of status. William Kelso proposes that other forms of material culture should be examined such as ”matched sets of ceramics, monogrammed wine bottles, book clasps, and coats of arms are indisputably all items that indicate wealth and status far more strongly than whatever one can tentatively conjecture from masses of numbers of cups or bowls that happened to be broken and thrown away.” (Kelso 1984:205-206).

The absence of colonoware and Native American wares most likely reflects a different microcosm of slave culture or perhaps “laborer kitchen culture” in a shipyard situation. Based on the probate records of the families it was a relatively small slave “community” that lived on the property. Their lifestyles probably contrasted to that of the vast slave communities on the Lowcountry plantations, like Mepkin and Pimlico on the Cooper River, where colonoware is so prevalent in the archaeological record. Did shipyard slaves simply not make colonoware? Did they not have time to make or the need for colonoware because there were ample European ceramics available? While the presence of colonoware or Native American wares may be an indicator of ethnicity on plantations, it is seems less likely to be an indicator at a site such as this one. One artifact that may instead be an indicator of class and/or ethnicity is the one recycled, worked glass tool. Ron Anthony of the Charleston Museum has found similarly worked pieces on plantation sites and these are most commonly associated with an African American presence (personel communication, Martha Zierden: July 1, 2004). If Feature 3 were a slave occupation area, why would ceramics be readily available combined with a need to make essential tools out of recycled glass or flint. This question needs further investigation(personel communication, Ron Anthony: August 4, 2004).

What possible clues are there from this small amount of shovel test data about the brick structure in proximity to these dinnerware, glassware and food remains? One unit (489.5N 581E)

64

reveals what seems to be a clay floor. Most others contain brick and tabby rubble at approximately the same depth below surface. Fanny Kemble, wife of a Georgia coastal planter writes in her diary that her kitchen was “a mere wooden outhouse, with no floor but bare earth.”

(Kemble 1863: 26). Other coastal plantations in Georgia have also had dirt floors containing hundreds of broken ceramics inside them and middens situated just outside (Adams and Boling, 1991:64). Could unit 487N 581E, with the heavy concentration of oyster shells and ceramics, be a midden near the kitchen or tavern?

In contrast to Fanny Kemble’s “kitchen” the Pritchard shipyard kitchen appears to have be a brick structure, but also had a dirt floor and a similar pattern of ceramic disposal. Likewise, the kitchen area of the Nathaniel Russell House in downtown Charleston also yielded heavy concentrations of refuse like bone and ceramics. Material was mixed into foundation rubble and in a crawl space beneath the wooden kitchen floor (pers. communication, Martha Zierden: July 1, 2004; Zierden 1996: 79,172).

Further information about this area of the Pritchard site might be gleaned from a future analysis of more diagnostic faunal remains to gain insights into the dietary habits of the occupants. This might be available from SCIAA 1993 excavation catalogs where archaeologists report recovering a large faunal assemblage. It would also be useful to compare data from other combination domestic/shipyard sites or Charleston back lot kitchen areas during this time period. Examples of sites like this include the Stewart Colonial Shipyard in Maryland or the Nathaniel Russell House in downtown Charleston.

65

Recommendations

SECTION VIII

Will the proposed development of the three lots adversely affect the site? The site is listed in the National Register partly for its information potential as well as its association with significant events and historical trends. The present archaeological investigations on Pritchard Shipyard Site (38CH1049) yielded cultural material that suggest shipyard use or have the potential to further our knowledge of the shipyard activity.

The two cultural features encountered, reflect land use patterns: a.

An extensive work area along the eastern edge of the project area

b.

A refuse area at the western boundary of the north eastern lot. Other less likely alternatives are a kitchen or tavern area for laborers, visiting shipwrights or slaves.

Feature 100 (Well-preserved brick work platform recorded by SCIAA) Feature 100 is located within the sewer easement on the eastern side of the property in the vicinity of a proposed storm water drainage line. The feature has been recorded to some extent by SCIAA. It is recommended that any construction that might impact the feature directly should be monitored.

Feature 2 (clay base with charcoal, tabby and brick rubble): This feature is most likely associated with Feature 100 and represents a working area along the water’s edge. Present investigations revealed little cultural materials other than brick rubble and charcoal present within the clay base. Is unlikely that this feature has the potential to contribute significant information beyond that already learned from feature 100. Much of the feature will be protected by the setback and the buffer zone.

66

Feature 3 and Sub-features: This feature is distinct in the quantity of artifacts and faunal remains, as compared to than other test pits excavated during these investigations. It is quite similar to the findings conducted by SCIAA on the western side of the property, in terms of date ranges from pipes. The SCIAA collection and SEARCH 2004 shovel test collection alike, include large quantities of faunal remains and diagnostic cultural materials like ceramic, glassware and pipes. The SEARCH collection contrasts to the SCIAA collection in the lack furniture, tools or personal items. It appears that this feature is likely to contribute further to our understanding of the domestic /subsistence/refuse disposal activities at 38CH1049.

SEARCH recommends that the subdivision of the three lots will not adversely affect 38CH1048’s archaeological potential as shipyard/industrial/domestic site pending: a. Any potential impact of the storm water drainage to feature 100 should be monitored. b. That further excavations, based upon SEARCH shovel test results, be conducted in the vicinity of Feature 3.

Artifact Curation: The preferred option is to keep the entire artifact collection from the current project and past SCIAA projects together. Christopher Amer, principal investigator of past projects, will be consulted about the curation and housing of the current collection.

67

SECTION IX References Amer, C. and Carleton Naylor

1995

Investigations of South Carolina’s Largest Colonial Shipyard, Conference on Underwater Archaeology.

Unpublished Paper.

Amer, C. and Carleton Naylor 1996 Pritchard’s Shipyard (38CH1049): Investigations at South Carolina’s Largest Colonial Shipyard. Mount Pleasant Archaeological Heritage. Amy McCandles, ed.

1996:36-49.

Baugher-Perlin, Sherene 1982 Analyzing Glass Bottles for Chronology, Function, and Trade Networks. Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process. edited by Roy S. Dickens, pp. 259-290. Studies in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY. Binford, L. 1961 A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipestems. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 9(1).

Bears Bluff Laboratories Inc. 1964 Biological Studies of Charleston Harbor, S.C. and the Santee River:Submitted to the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Services. Bears Bluff Laboratories Inc., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. Boling, Sarah Jane, and William Hampton Adams 1991 “Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on Three Georgia Coastal Plantations.” In Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists by George L. Miller et. al. p. 59-86.

Bridenbaugh, Carl 1950 Colonial Craftsmen. New York University Press, New York.

68

Brockington, Paul E. 1987 Archaeological Survey of Proposed Development Areas at Hobcaw Plantation, Charleston County, South Carolina.

Brockington and Associates, Inc. Prepared for Newkirk Environmental Consultants, Charleston, South Carolina.

Charleston County Mesne Conveyance Records N-N:426; M-3:340; Z 4-10:583;1753-1790 and 17901830 Dalguise Muniments South Carolina Historical Society, Shipbuilding File Collection 30-13-30.

Easterby, James Harold, et. al 1951-1983 Journal of the Commons House of Assembly, 21 Voumes. University of South Carolina Press.

Genovese, Eugene d.

1969 The World the Slaveholders Made: Two Essays in Interpretation. Pantheon Books, New York

Genovese, Eugene D. 1974 Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. Pantheon Books, New York.

Goldenberg, Joseph 1976 Shipbuilding in Colonial America. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Harrington, J. C. 1954 Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 9(1).

Houmes, Terry and Gary 1986 Bubbling Spring. The Edward Kriegsman Pritchard Family History. A Direct Line Study. Professional Research Publishing Company Charleston, South Carolina.

69

Hughes, Geoffrey 2004 Analysis of Kaolin Pipe Stems Recovered at Pritchard’s Shipyard Site 38CH1049. A Technical Report Prepared for Christopher F. Amer, State Underwater Archaeologist, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. Published by SCIAA. Noel Hume, I. 1991 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. 1 ed. Vintage Books, New York.

Jones, Olive R. 1976 Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles 1735-1850 Canadian Government Publishing, Ottawa – Canada.

Jones, Olive R. 1991 “Glass Bottle Push-Ups and Pontil Marks in Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists edited by Miller, George L., Olive R. Jones, Lester A. Ross, and Teresita Majewski. The Society of Historical Archaeology, Braun-Brumfield Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Kelso, William M. 1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia. Academic Press, New York.

Kemble, Francis Anne 1863 Journal of a residence on a Georgian Plantation in 18381839. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, London.

McCrady Plats Collection Charleston County Public Library.Moore, T. ed. Records of the Secretary of the Province of South Carolina 16921721. The R.l. Bryan Co. of South Carolina, 1978.

70

Miller, George L, Olive R. Jones, Lester A. Ross, and Teresita Majewski 1991 Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists. The Society for Historical Archaeology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Miller, George L. and Antony Pacey 1985 Impact of Mechanization in the Glass Container Industry: The Dominion Glass Company of Montreal, a Case Study. Historical Archaeology 19(1):38-50.

Miller, George L. et al.

2000 Telling Time for Archaeologist. In Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol. 29, pp. 1-22.

Moore, T. 1978 Records of the Secretary of the Province of South Carolina 1692-ed. 1721. The R.l. Bryan Co. of South Carolina.

Morby, S. 2000

Pritchard’s Shipyard: A Landscape Analysis of South Carolina’s largest Colonial and Antebellum Shipyard.

Masters Thesis, University of South Carolina.

Newman, T. Stell.

1970. A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles.

Historical Archaeology, 4:70-75.

Probate Court Records South Carolina Room, Charleston County Public Library.

Rediker, Marcus.

1987 Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo-American World, 17001750: Cambridge University Press, England.

71

Salley, A. ed.

Journnal of the Commissioners of the Navy of South Carolina,9 October 1769 to March 1779. Columbia, SC. State Company, 1912:193.South Carolina Gazette Salwen, Bert, and Sarah T. Bridges 1977

Cultural Differences and the Interpretation of Archaeological Evidence: Problems with Dates, In Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association 17(1): 165-173

SHPO file.

12/14/1988

Compiled by Patricia Cridlebaugh,

South, Stanley A. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology.

Academic Press, New York.

South Carolina Water Resources Commission 1973 Wando River Environmental Quality Studies: An Interim Report. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Columbia.

Stewart and Cosentino 1976 1976 Bottles: A Guide for the Beginning Collector. Golden Press, New York.

Toulouse, Julian 1968 Empontilling: A History from Glass Industry. The Glass Industry, Part 1 March 1968, Conclusion – April 1968.

Turnbaugh, William and Sarah Peabody Turnbaugh 1991 Alternative Applications of the Mean Ceramic Date Concept for Interpreting Human Behavior, in Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists edited by Miller, George L., Olive R. Jones, Lester A. Ross, and Teresita Majewski. The Society of Historical Archaeology, Braun-Brumfield Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Walsh, Richard 1961

Charleston’s Sons of Liberty. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

72

Waterhouse, Richard 1989 A New World Gentry: The Making of the Merchant and Planter Class in South Carolina, 1670-1770.

Garland Press, New York.

Wood, Peter 1974

1975 Zierden, Martha 1996

Black Majority. Negroes in Soth Carolinafrom 1670 through the Stono Rebellion. W.W. Norton and Company, 1974.

Big House/Back Lot: An Archaeological Study of the Nathaniel Russel House. The Charleston Museum Archaeological Contributions 25.

Zierden, M, Drucker, L. and Jeanne Calhoun 1986 Home Upriver: Rural Life on Daniel’s Island, Berkley County, SC. Volume 1. Carolina Archaeological Services, South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation.

Zierden, M, Drucker, L. and Jeanne Calhoun 1987 Home Upriver: Rural Life on Daniel’s Island, Berkley County, SC. Volume 1. Carolina Archaeological Services, South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation.

73

Appendix A: Laboratory Analysis

74

Appendix B: National Register Documentation

75

Figure 34. Comparison of SCIAA and Feature 3 Pipe Date Ranges.

61

Figure 35. Proposed land use patterns on site 3CH1048 based upon current and past investigations.

62

Figure 36. The Layout of the Fairbanks Plantation Showing Location of Slave and Laborers Quarters.

63

Figure 37. The Proposed layout of the Pritchard Hobcaw Plantation/Shipyard showing locations Slave and Laborers Quarters.

63

viii