Let Me Tell You About the Very Rich

“Let Me Tell You About the Very Rich” Archaeological Data Recovery at 38BU1788 and 38BU1804 Palmetto Bluff Beaufort County, South Carolina Final Report

Brockington and Associates, Inc. Atlanta Charleston Raleigh 2004

“Let Me Tell You About the Very Rich” Archaeological Data Recovery at 38BU1804 and 38BU1788 Palmetto Bluff Beaufort County, South Carolina Final Report Prepared for

Palmetto Bluff, LLC Bluffton, South Carolina By Joshua N. Fletcher Archaeologist Carol J. Poplin Archaeologist and Eric C. Poplin, Ph. D., RPA Archaeologist

Jeffrey W. Gardner Principal Investigator

Brockington and Associates, Inc. Atlanta Charleston Raleigh April 2004

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are not like you and me.” F. Scott Fitzgerald

ii

Abstract

Brockington and Associates, Inc., conducted archaeological data recovery investigations at 38BU1804 between 26 June and 2 August 2002 and at 38BU1788 on 2-12 December 2002 under the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Palmetto Bluff, LLC, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the SC Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) for each site. The investigations at each site were conducted in partial fulfillment of the stipulations of the MOA, under Treatment Plans approved by the SHPO. The SHPO approved the 38BU1804 Treatment Plan on June 25, 2002 and the 38BU1788 Treatment Plan on October 23, 2002. The SHPO’s acceptance of the 38BU1804 Management Summary on September 19, 2002 and the 38BU1788 Management Summary on February 11, 2003 permitted initiation of land disturbing activities within each site. Archaeological sites 38BU1804 and 38BU1788 are located in the “Village Area” of the Palmetto Bluff Phase I Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. The owner of the tract, Palmetto Bluff, LLC, proposes to develop the area as a residential and commercial area. Site 38BU1804 was identified during an intensive cultural resources survey of the tract by Poplin (2002a). Gardner et al. (2003) tested the site and recommended the remnants of the early twentieth century Wilson House eligible for the NRHP. Gardner et al. (2003) recommended either preservation of the building ruins and their immediate surroundings or data recovery investigations at the site should preservation not be feasible. Data recovery investigations at 38BU1804 entailed hand excavations and mechanical scraping of areas in the area of the Wilson House and several outlying areas where architectural/cultural features were expected. Investigators conducted extensive excavations in the Wilson House and also identified the remnants of six outlying structures associated with the Wilson House. We employed information gained from the mapped house foundation plan and recovered artifacts from the house, as well as inspection of a collection of photographs taken of the house exterior and interior, to determine an approximation of the arrangement of rooms within the house. Site 38BU1788 was identified during an intensive cultural resources survey of the tract by Poplin (2002a). Site 38BU1788 is a secondary refuse deposit associated with the Wilson House (38BU1804). Based on its association with the Wilson House, Poplin (2002a) recommended the site eligible for the NRHP. Data recovery investigations at 38BU1788 entailed surface collections, mechanical excavations, and hand excavations in the area of two refuse pits. Our excavations at the site revealed that a full complement of kitchen-related Wilson House refuse was discarded at the site. From our excavations, we created four bottle type collections that will be available for researchers to view and compare with collections of glass vessels from other sites. iii

These investigations were conducted as proposed in the SHPO-approved Treatment Plans for data recovery at sites 38BU1804 and 38BU1788. These data recovery investigations recovered samples of significant information from each site. These samples were employed to address research questions consistent with the periods and type of occupation outlined in the Treatment Plans. Completion of these investigations is sufficient to resolve the adverse effect that proposed land disturbing activities will have on these NRHP sites. Land disturbing activities at 38BU1804 and 38BU1788 should be allowed to proceed as planned. As an aspect of the data recovery investigations at all sites in the Palmetto Bluff development tracts, including 38BU1804 and 38BU1788, Palmetto Bluff, LLC implemented a program for the dissemination of information about the history and development of Palmetto Bluff to its residents, visitors, and the general public. This program includes site specific activities and actions as well as more broad reaching policies. In February 2003, Palmetto Bluff, LLC, and the Hilton Head Chapter of the Archaeological Society of South Carolina (HHC-ASSC) entered a cooperative agreement to provide opportunities for the Chapter’s members to participate in archaeological investigations. The center point of this program is the ongoing excavation of the remaining portions of the refuse pits at 38BU1788. In January 2004, the HHC-ASSC and Palmetto Bluff, LLC, will conduct a workshop for a local Boy Scout troop designed to provide interested Scouts with their Archaeology merit badge. This will include excavations at 38BU1788.

iv

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Patty Richards, the Environmental Services Manager for Crescent Resources, for her assistance during this project. Without her interest in the project, we would not have accomplished as much as we were able to. Mr. Colin Brooker provided valuable information about the types of construction methods used at the Wilson House and we appreciate his expertise. The field crews at each site were very professional and helped provide us with valuable data that enabled us to learn more about the Wilson family’s tenure at Palmetto Bluff. The field crew at 38BU1804 consisted of Dave Dellenbach, Ellen Giese, Emily Jateff, Dave Jenkins, James Page, Julie Wilburn-Peeler, Terry Powlis, Dawn Reid, and Jen Webber, under the direction of Josh Fletcher. Dr. Eric Poplin operated the backhoe and should be commended for his skill in carefully and safely removing massive amounts of rubble from the Wilson House ruins. Dave Dellenbach, Ellen Giese, and Emily Jateff mapped in all of the architectural features at the Wilson House, providing us with a great foundation (pun intended) for understanding the construction and layout of the massive house. The field crew at 38BU1788 consisted of Mallory Chambliss, Brett Davis, Dave Dellenbach, Ellen Giese, Brent Lansdell, Patrick Morgan, James Page, and Carol Poplin, under the direction of Dr. Eric Poplin. Dr. Eric Poplin operated the backhoe during the West Pit excavations and Dave Dellenbach operated the backhoe during the East Pit excavations at 38BU1788. Carol Poplin organized the recovered whole bottles into specific types in the field and prepared all artifacts for transport to our laboratory facilities for further cleaning and analysis. In the Mt. Pleasant laboratory, Emily Jateff and Catherine Runyan conducted the artifact processing and analysis and developed the bottle type collections. Carol Poplin photographed the bottle collection and ceramic types. Special thanks to Catherine for her invaluable contribution to the description of the bottle collection. In the Atlanta laboratory, Meagan Brady and Connie Huddleston conducted the artifact processing and analysis. David Diener photographed many of the artifacts and architectural elements. Special thanks to Meagan for her wonderful contribution to the description of the artifacts from 38BU1804. Alana Lynch conducted the faunal analyses, which further assisted us in understanding the lifestyle of the Wilson family. We would like to thank Meg Moughan for her valuable contributions to the writeup of the Wilson family history. Inna Burns and Carol Poplin prepared the graphics for this report. Jeff Gardner provided editorial assistance, as well as guidance throughout this entire project. Finally, we would like to recognize the HHC-ASSC for their continuing fine work at 38BU1788.

v

Table of Contents Page Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Chapter I.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 38BU1804 Site Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 38BU1788 Site Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Rest of the Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Guiding Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Gilded Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Rebirth of the Southern Plantation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Site 38BU1804 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Site 38BU1788 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chapter II.

Methods of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Archival Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Field Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Field Methods- 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Field Methods- 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Laboratory Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter III.

Natural and Cultural Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Natural Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 A Description of the Project Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Holocene Changes in the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Cultural Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Pre-Contact Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Contact Era - Exploration and Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Post-Contact Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter IV.

The Wilson Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter V.

Results of the 38BU1804 Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Previous Investigations at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Present Data Recovery Investigations at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Wilson House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 A Description of Features at the Wilson Mansion Ruins . . . . . . 96 Structure 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Structure 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Structure 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 vi

Page Structure 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Other Occurrences at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Chapter VI.

Wilson House Construction and Interpretation of Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Interpreting the Internal Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Other Decorative Elements at the House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Chapter VII. Results of the Field Investigations at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Chapter VIII. Analysis of 38BU1788 and 38BU1804 Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 The 38BU1804 Artifact Assemblage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Historic Wilson Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Late Twentieth Century Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Pre-Contact Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 The 38BU1788 Artifact Assemblage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Analysis of the 38BU1788 Ceramic Assemblage and the Minimum Number of Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Analysis of the 38BU177 Whole Bottle Assemblage . . . . . . . . 214 Discussion of the Artifact Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 A Brief History of Formal Dining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Mr. And Mrs. Wilson Give a Musicale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Taking out the Garbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 A Trip to Savannah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Life in the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 A New Method for Estimating Bottle MNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Chapter IX.

Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Chapter X.

Summary and Management Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Palmetto Bluff, LLC and Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E.

Artifact Inventory Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Faunal Assemblage Bottle Type Collection Ceramic MNV Summary of Embossed Product Names

vii

List of Figures Page Figure 1.

The locations of 38BU1804 and 38BU1788 in the Palmetto Bluff Phase I Development Tract (USGS 1971 Pritchardville, SC quadrangle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2.

View of the Wilson House circa 1915-1926 (top) and the mansion ruins today (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 3.

A view of 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 4.

Plan of 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 5.

Views of investigators mapping features at the Wilson House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 6.

A view of the backhoe and backhoe operator mechanically excavating an area (top) and an investigator excavating a unit (bottom) at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 7.

Plan of 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 8.

View of leaf litter removal at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 9.

Views of the West Refuse Pit prior to surface collection (top), and the glass artifacts recovered from it (middle- whole vessels sorted by color and type; bottom- necks and bases ready to be sorted by color) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 10.

Views of the East (top) and West (bottom) Refuse Pits prior to the excavation of the access trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 11.

View of the excavation of the West Refuse Pit access trench . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 12.

The location of Palmetto Bluff (USGS 1978 Beaufort, SC and 1981 Savannah, GA 1:100,000 quadrangles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 13.

The location of antebellum plantations at Palmetto Bluff (Bluffton Historical Preservation Society 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 14.

Richard T. Wilson, Sr., Melissa Wilson, and grandson Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 15.

Two vintage photographs of Louise Wilson at Palmetto Bluff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 16.

A view of the Wilson House from the May River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

viii

Page Figure 17.

Obituary photograph of Richard T. Wilson, Jr (NYT: 30 December 1929: p. 19, col. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 18.

A plan of the architectural elements uncovered at the Wilson House . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure 19.

A view of the east wall of Unit 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 20.

A view of the east wall of Unit 404 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 21.

A view of the east wall of Unit 407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 22.

A view of the east wall of Unit 405 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure 23.

View and south profile of Unit 406 at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 24.

View and south profile of Unit 408 at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 25.

Typical mansion steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 26.

A typical column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 27.

A typical brick wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 28.

A view of tabby foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 29.

A brick foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 30.

A typical brick pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 31.

A section of concrete floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 32.

A portion of concrete curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 33.

Chimney base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 34.

A plan and view of Structure 1 at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 35.

Views of the foundation (top) and the recessed post molds (bottom) . . . . . . . . 104

Figure 36.

A plan and view of Structure 2 at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 37.

A view of the west wall (top) and the northeast corner (bottom) of Structure 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

ix

Page Figure 38.

A view of the base of Unit 401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Figure 39.

A plan and view of Structure 3 at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 40.

A view of the north wall of Unit 402 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 41.

A plan and view of Structure 4 at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 42.

A plan and view of Tower 1 at 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 43.

An early twentieth century view of one of the towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 44.

A hunting dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 45.

I-beam at the base of column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Figure 46.

A view of the north and south tabby foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Figure 47.

A view of a concrete floor (Feature 617 - top) and a view of a brick pier on a concrete (Feature 609 - bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Figure 48.

Views of the curved brick wall foundation (Feature 628 - top) and the west steps (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 49.

A historic view of the back of the Wilson Mansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Figure 50.

View of the northwest steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Figure 51.

A view of the tabby foundation (Feature 626) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 52.

View of the walkway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 53.

A view of the stairs to the cellar and cellar walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Figure 54.

A view of the radiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Figure 55.

View of the concrete slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Figure 56.

A view of the pair of concrete curbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Figure 57.

Mr. Wilson and friends on the southeast steps at the Wilson House . . . . . . . . . 129

Figure 58.

A view of typical column base construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

x

Page Figure 59.

A cross-section showing the construction of a column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figure 60.

A view of the front of the Wilson Mansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Figure 61.

The Wilson House towers over the treeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Figure 62.

The southeast front room on the first floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Figure 63.

Louise Wilson seated in the front room chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure 64.

The dumbwaiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Figure 65.

Two historic views of the ballroom of the Wilson House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure 66.

A view of the plaster medallions and friezes in the ballroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 67.

Ceiling medallion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 68.

Chandelier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure 69.

Library entrance from the ballroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Figure 70.

A view of the Wilson’s library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Figure 71.

Architectural elements recovered from the Wilson Mansion at 38BU1804 . . . 144

Figure 72.

Decorative garden elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Figure 73.

A floor plan of a home designed by Hoppin and Koen of New York . . . . . . . . 148

Figure 74.

Detailed plan of the area of investigation at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Figure 75.

Distribution of surface occurring artifacts at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Figure 76.

Profile of the exterior east wall of Unit 401 at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Figure 77.

View of Unit 401 after excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Figure 78.

Profile of the exterior east wall of Unit 501 at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Figure 79.

Monogrammed gilt sherry glass recovered from Unit 501 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Figure 80.

A view of the three small redware bowls recovered from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . 168

xi

Page Figure 81.

Views of the three burned redware bowls and the two identified maker’s marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Figure 82.

Examples of cutlery recovered from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Figure 83.

Views of electrical hardware recovered from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Figure 84.

Views of window and door hardware from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Figure 85.

The Spirit of ‘76 tile fragment recovered from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Figure 86.

The Galloway Terra Cotta Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Figure 87.

Views of furniture hardware recovered from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Figure 88.

The brass button and glass bead recovered from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Figure 89.

Milk glass jar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Figure 90.

Milk of Magnesia bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Figure 91.

The Owens Co. Bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Figure 92.

Hard rubber pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Figure 93.

An assortment of toys from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Figure 94.

The complete doll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Figure 95.

The Simon and Halbig doll’s head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Figure 96.

A Simon Halbig doll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Figure 97.

The Calvert shot glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Figure 98.

A sample shot gun shells recovered from 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Figure 99.

A sample of Pre-Contact ceramics recovered from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Figure 100.

Examples of Royal Bayreuth porcelain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Figure 101.

A view of the front and back of the Mellor and Co. ironstone plate . . . . . . . . . 193

Figure 102.

A view of the back and front of the Blue Willow plate (MNV 93) . . . . . . . . . . 193 xii

Page Figure 103.

Johnson Bros. Holland egg cup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Figure 104.

A view of the transfer printed whiteware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Figure 105.

Examples of yellowware mixing bowls from 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Figure 106.

Examples of stonewares from 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Figure 107.

A view of the bottles sorted by type in the laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Figure 108.

A view of two bottle necks recovered from the HHC collection . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Figure 109.

Stemware bases from 38BU1788 by size (top-left: cordial to bottom right: water) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Figure 110.

Louise Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Figure 111.

Mr. Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Figure 112.

Typical staff attire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Figure 113.

French cologne bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Figure 114.

Examples of porcelain vessels from 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Figure 115.

An example of a redware vessel from 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Figure 116.

A stoneware crock from 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Figure 117.

A ramekin from 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Figure 118.

A view of the transfer printed patterns (top) and the decaled patterns (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Figure 119.

Examples of food jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Figure 120.

Examples of typical beer bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Figure 121.

The three styles of crown finishes: beveled (left), flared (center) and round (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Figure 122.

Stout bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Figure 123.

Examples of wine bottle types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 xiii

Page Figure 124.

German wine bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Figure 125.

Champagne bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Figure 126.

Bitters bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Figure 127.

Rum bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Figure 128.

Creme de Menthe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Figure 129.

Flask-shaped gin bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Figure 130.

Gordon’s gin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Figure 131.

Examples of Whiskey bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Figure 132.

Soda water bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Figure 133.

1915 Coke bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Figure 134.

Examples of torpedo soda water bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Figure 135.

An example of an olive oil and Worcestershire bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Figure 136.

Condiment bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Figure 137.

Capers bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Figure 138.

Examples of personal bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Figure 139.

Listerine bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Figure 140.

Lipstick bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Figure 141.

Staff awaits the arrival of guests at Sherry’s restaurant in New York . . . . . . . . 232

Figure 142.

A dinner party at the White House in 1899. Note the array of glasses . . . . . . . 234

Figure 143.

Private railcars await their passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Figure 144.

HHC volunteers at work in February 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

xiv

List of Tables Page Table 1.

Ceramic Sequence for the Southern Coast of South Carolina (after Anderson et al. 1982; DePratter 1979; Poplin et al. 1993; Trinkley 1989; Williams and Thompson 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 2.

Nineteenth Century Plantations at Palmetto Bluff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 3.

Beaufort County Farm Ownership, 1880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 4.

Summary of Artifacts by Level from the 50 by 50 cm Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 5.

Artifacts Recovered from the Test Units at the Wilson House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 6.

Wilson House Architectural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 7.

Artifacts Recovered from 50 by 50 cm Units at Structure 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Table 8.

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 9.

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 402 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Table 10.

A Portion of the 1920 Beaufort County Population Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table 11.

Surface Occurring Artifacts Recorded at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Table 12.

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Table 13.

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 501 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Table 14.

Summary of Temporally Sensitive Bottle Attributes from Units 401 and 501 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Table 15.

Artifact Class Frequencies for the Wilson House (after South 1977:95-96) . . . 167

Table 16.

Biological Artifact Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Table 17.

Building Materials by Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Table 18.

Miscellaneous Artifacts by Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Table 19.

A Summary of Pre-Contact Artifacts from 38BU1804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

xv

Page Table 20.

Artifact Class Frequencies for the Bottle Dump (after South 1977:95-96) . . . . 190

Table 21.

Stemware Categories by Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Table 22.

Biological Artifact Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Table 23.

Building Materials by Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Table 24.

Miscellaneous Artifacts by Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Table 25.

A Summary of Vessels by Ceramic Type at 38BU1788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Table 26.

A Summary of the Transfer Print and Decal Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Table 27.

A Summary of the Number of Identified Bottle Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

xvi

Chapter I. Introduction

Brockington and Associates, Inc., conducted archaeological data recovery investigations at 38BU1804 between 26 June and 2 August 2002. Archaeological data recovery investigations were conducted at 38BU1788 on 2-17 December 2002. These investigations were conducted under the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for each site between Palmetto Bluff, LLC, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the SC Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). The investigations were conducted in partial fulfillment of the stipulations of the MOA, under Treatment Plans approved by the SHPO. Acceptance of the Management Summaries for sites 38BU1804 and 38BU1788 by the SHPO on 19 September 2002 and 11 February 2003 permitted initiation of land disturbing activities within the sites. Archaeological site 38BU1804 is located in the “Village Area” of the Palmetto Bluff Phase I Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. The owner of the tract, Palmetto Bluff, LLC, proposes to develop the area as a residential and commercial area. Site 38BU1804 contains Pre-Contact and Post-Contact cultural materials, and was identified during an intensive cultural resources survey of the tract by Poplin (2002a). Testing of the site conducted by Gardner et al. (2003) indicated that the Pre-Contact occupations of the site were extensively disturbed, and do not contribute to its National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. However, the remnants of the early twentieth century Wilson House, located in the northeastern portion of the site, were determined eligible for the NRHP. Land disturbing activities associated with the proposed development of the tract will affect this portion of 38BU1804. Gardner et al. (2003) recommended either preservation of the building ruins and their immediate surroundings or data recovery investigations at the site should preservation not be feasible. Data recovery investigations at 38BU1804 entailed hand excavations and mechanical scraping of areas in the area of the Wilson House and several outlying areas where architectural/cultural features were expected. Site 38BU1788 is located approximately 40 meters west of two brick and concrete gate posts that define the entrance to the Wilson Mansion grounds. The site includes two circular pits filled with refuse from the Wilson occupation at Palmetto Bluff. Gardner et al. (2003) recommended 38BU1788 eligible for the NRHP. Land disturbing activities associated with the proposed development at Palmetto Bluff will affect this site. We undertook data recovery investigations to understand the process of refuse dumping in the pits, to determine definitively whether they were associated with the Wilson Family, and to collect a sample of each type of whole bottle present in the pits. Figure 1 displays the location of the project tract and sites 38BU1804 and 38BU1788.

1

2

Figure 1.

0

0

North

500

2000

1000 Meters

4000 Feet

Quadrangle Location

South Carolina

38BU1804

38BU1788

The location of 38BU1788 and 38BU1804 in the Palmetto Bluff Phase I Development Tract (USGS 1971 Pritchardville, SC quadrangle).

Palmetto Bluff Phase I Development Tract

38BU1804 Site Background Archaeological site 38BU1804 is an extensive (430 by 375 meter) surface and subsurface Pre-Contact and Post-Contact artifact scatter identified during an intensive cultural resources survey of the project tract by Poplin (2002a). The site is located on the eastern edge of the Palmetto Bluff Phase I tract, and is bordered to the east by the May River and to the south by a small lake (see Figure 1). Pre-Contact artifacts recovered from the site date from the Ceramic Late Archaic, Middle to Late Woodland, and Mississippian periods (Poplin 2002a; Gardner et al. 2003). Gardner et al. (2003:87) notes that a cluster of Ceramic Late Archaic artifacts (Thom’s Creek and Stallings sherds) was recovered in the southern portion of the site, and a small cluster of Mississippian artifacts (Savannah sherds) was recovered from the northwestern portion of the site. Woodland period ceramics were found scattered throughout the site. Archaeological testing of site 38BU1804 determined that the Pre-Contact occupations of the site have been extensively disturbed/destroyed, and that they do not contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the site (Gardner et al. 2003). The Post-Contact occupation of site 38BU1804 encompasses the remnants of the Wilson House (Poplin 2002a; Gardner et al. 2003). This three-story, 40-room Neo-Classical mansion was built around 1915 for the Richard T. Wilson, Jr., family. The house burned on March 2, 1926 and was never rebuilt (Poplin 2002a). Figure 2 (top) presents a view of the house as it appeared circa 1915-1926. Figure 2 (bottom) presents a view of the ruins as they appeared at the time of the investigations. Testing investigations at 38BU1804 demonstrated that architectural elements from this structure still exist on the site (Gardner et al. 2003). In addition, a small pet cemetery originally assumed to be associated with the Wilson family’s occupation of 38BU1804 is located on the east edge of the site, on a bluff overlooking the May River. Gardner et al. (2003:112) recommended the Post-Contact component of archaeological site 38BU1804 eligible for the NRHP based upon Criteria A (Important Events), C (Architecture), and D (Research Potential), at the local level of significance. This portion of 38BU1804 was proposed to be the focus of the data recovery investigations.

38BU1788 Site Background Site 38BU1788 is a secondary refuse deposit of Post-Contact artifacts associated with the early twentieth century Wilson ownership and occupation of Palmetto Bluff. Materials at 38BU1788 appear to have been deposited at the site as refuse and debris from the Wilson mansion and associated buildings defined within nearby 38BU1804. Archaeological site 38BU1788 covers an 3

Figure 2.

View of the Wilson Mansion in circa 1915-1926 (top) and the mansion ruins today (bottom). 4

approximately 10 by 30 meter area in the eastern portion of the Palmetto Bluff Phase I Development Tract (see Figure 1). The site lies approximately 30 meters north of Village Road and approximately 40 meters west of two brick and concrete gate posts that define the western limits of the Wilson compound at Palmetto Bluff. The site consists of two circular pits filled with debris surrounded by a diffuse scatter of glass and ceramic artifacts. Most of the materials appear to be kitchen related refuse (bottles and ceramics) that reflect secondary refuse disposal from the Wilson residence and other buildings in nearby 38BU1804. There are a few architectural items (pieces of pipe and a brass andiron) that may represent materials discarded from the Wilson mansion after it burned in 1926. Figure 3 presents a view of the site prior to data recovery excavations.

Figure 3.

A view of 38BU1788.

The Rest of the Story The remainder of Chapter I presents the general thematic framework within which we set our investigations, as well as a discussion of specific research questions pertinent to sites 38BU1804 and 38BU1788. Chapter II details archival, field, and laboratory methods used to collect the data necessary to address the research questions. Chapter III provides a natural and cultural overview of 5

the project area. Chapter IV discusses the history of the Wilson family. Chapter V discusses the results of the field investigations at site 38BU1804. Chapter VI discusses the construction of the Wilson House and provides an interpretation of spaces within the house. Chapter VII presents the results of the field investigations at site 38BU1788. Analysis and interpretation of the artifacts from 38BU1804 and 38BU1788 are presented in Chapter VIII. Chapter IX examines the results of our investigations with regard to our research themes and questions. Chapter X presents a summary of the investigations and management recommendations for 38BU1804 and 38BU1788. Artifact inventories are attached as Appendix A. Appendix B presents the zooarchaeological analysis of the faunal assemblage. Appendix C presents the bottle type collection. Appendix D presents ceramic sherd MNV and Appendix E provides a list of all manufacturers recorded from the bottle collection. The resumes of the authors are presented in Appendix F.

Guiding Themes The late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was a vibrant economic time in the United States. It was the time of the birth of large corporations, the heyday of the famous robber barons, the peak of the “Gilded Age.” But what can this have to do with South Carolina? The Gilded Age is Park Avenue, Newport, Saratoga, the places so elegantly described by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It is not Bluffton, South Carolina. However, aristocratic money did make its way south. By the turn of the century, the south was beginning to recover from the devastations of the war. Industry also came to south in the form of mills and lumber operations. Land was still cheap and there were still many landowners willing to unburden themselves of their debt and their property. Northern’s, particularly the rich and famous, began to buy large pieces land in the South as they sought retreats from the dirty, crowded, and press-filled cities of the North. Richard Wilsons new southern plantation and mansion house at Palmetto Bluff is a reflection of a golden lifestyle that is difficult to imagine today, a lifestyle that went up in flames for the Wilsons in 1926 and that came to a crashing halt for many others in 1929.

The Gilded Age Historians define the Gilded Age as an outwardly ostentatious time in America commencing with the post-Civil War industrialization boom and concluding with the start of World War I in Great Britain and the stock market crash of 1929 in the United States. It was a time characterized by materialism, the pursuit of wealth, and corruption in government and industry. It was a time when it appeared that any man could become the next Carnegie or Vanderbilt. The term “Gilded Age” was 6

actually coined by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley in their 1874 book of the same name that savagely pokes fun at the new American elite and its related corruption and elitism. Twain and Dudley (1874) characterized the period as a time during which America lost its innocence. We know that the Wilson family fortune started with Richard T. Wilson, Sr., a Georgian who moved his family to New York after the Civil War. He made his fortune primarily in the banking industry but had connections in the oil and railroad industries. He became an example of a Gilded Age American success story. Richard T. Wilson, Jr.’s wealth was, in large part, a direct result of his father’s ambitions. The son inherited land, homes, a company, money, stock, and social status from his father. Mr. and Mrs. Richard T. Wilson, Jr. were products of America’s Gilded Age, cosmopolitan New Yorkers with “new” money – railroad money, banking money. Richard T. Wilson, Jr. had roots in Georgia, yet he was raised in post-Civil War New York. Mrs. Wilson had roots in Massachusetts and was of strong Yankee stock. The couple was related to the Vanderbilts and Astors through the marriage of Mr. Wilson’s sisters. The couple’s upbringing in Gilded Age society is reflected in their opulent homes and related functions in New York City, Newport, and at the Wilson House at Palmetto Bluff.

The Rebirth of Southern Plantations During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the ailing and abandoned rice lands of the Lowcountry were revived as hunting preserves and rural estates by northern capitalists. This movement was influenced by several factors. Northern capitalists with large amounts of discretionary wealth sought to escape the overcrowded conditions of the industrial northeast, which, ironically, was the source of their wealth. They began seeking estates away from the cities to provide places beyond the near-constant perusal by the popular press. Improved rail transportation, through an expanded north/south track system and improved Pullman and private cars, made travel to the Deep South not only possible but comfortable. Southern railroads, real estate, and timber interests encouraged this invasion, while former rice planters were happy to recoup their lost capital through the sale of their property. Sporting magazines also became popular in the 1870s and, at the same time, the refinement of the 10 gauge double barrel, breech-loading shotgun popularized bird hunting. The combined desires of the Northern capitalists to escape their public lives, the increased Anglophilia among the wealthy elite of the United States, and the accessibility of cheap land with game animals or habitat in the South created an opportunity for the rebirth of plantations or landed estates throughout the southern states. Of course these new plantations were created for different 7

purposes than their colonial and antebellum antecedents and often on a much larger scale than seen during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This trend began in the 1870s, reached a peak in the 1890s, and continued into the late 1930s. In all, an estimated 159 plantations were purchased by wealthy northerners in South Carolina prior to World War II. The following is a brief overview of the various factors that prompted the rebirth of the Southern plantations with an emphasis on Palmetto Bluff, where possible. By the 1890s, an elite population had developed in the United States centered on the cities of the Northeast, particularly New York. New York had been one of the principal ports of the United States since its inception and was the primary gateway for immigration to the United States during most of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Other cities developed similar elites often based on the families responsible for the founding of the city or colony, such as those who arrived in the Massachusetts Colony on the Mayflower. This elite included families with long ties to New York City and the other cities such as Boston, as well as those who gathered enormous wealth during the second half of the nineteenth century and gravitated to New York, the largest city in the United States. These families became the “aristocracy” of the United States; their names were synonymous with wealth, power, and social status. Their daily lives and social interactions soon were the most important aspects of newspapers and popular periodicals, particularly after the reproduction of photographs in printed matter became viable. In 1870, Richard Wilson, Sr., who would purchase Palmetto Bluff in the early 1900s, arrived in New York, and quickly entered this elite society. A more detailed discussion of Wilson’s rise and acquisition of Palmetto Bluff appears in Chapter IV. The earliest acquisitions of former plantations in South Carolina reflect the creation of hunting estates or clubs. In 1877, Harry Hollins, through the efforts of John Garnett, director of the Central of Georgia Railroad, acquired 13,000 acres of land in what would become Jasper County to create the Pinelands Club. This club, larger than the baronies granted to the Lords Proprietors and their dependents in the early colonial period, soon became known throughout the United States for its exceptional hunting opportunities. Former rice fields lent themselves to duck and quail hunting while deer, turkey, and feral hogs thrived on the "hard" marsh and woodlands (Alsup 1977:27-28). Pinelands lay to the northwest of Palmetto Bluff, with much of its former lands acquired by Marshall Fields of Chelsea Plantation. Chelsea Plantation, on the Okatie River north of Palmetto Bluff, also began as a hunting club. A group of New Yorkers acquired the lands before the turn of the twentieth century. They used the original planter’s house as a club house until its loss by fire in 1934; Fields acquired Chelsea soon thereafter (Alsup 1977:28). In 1894, Garnett created the Okeetee Club on 48,000 acres of land now in eastern Jasper County for himself and selected investors/members. The club originally had 21 members with a 8

provision that no one could sell his share for more than they paid for it. Needless to say, memberships were handed down through the members’ families rather than sold to outsiders. By 1977, only 17 members remained (Alsup 1977:29). The Okeetee Club lies north of Palmetto Bluff, on the west side of SC Route 170, immediately north of Sun City- Hilton Head. The Pinelands Club is an excellent example of the promotion of the “new” Southern plantations by Southern speculators. Obviously, Garnett’s railroad benefitted greatly from the increased traffic created by the presence of a world class hunting preserve along his routes of service. Thus, he gathered together multiple plantations and marketed them to members of the American elite. This marketing continued well into the mid-twentieth century as attested by Willett’s (1927) Game Preserves and Game of Beaufort, Colleton and Jasper Counties, South Carolina, a pamphlet produced and distributed by the Charleston and Western Carolina Railroad. Obviously, the railroad stood to gain many passengers and much revenue from the wealthy visitors to the many game plantations that sprang up throughout the Beaufort area. Kovacik (1994) provides additional insight into the development of the southern hunting plantations. Other wealthy individuals acquired large parcels of land in South Carolina to provide rural homes or vacation spots. Bernard Baruch assembled 17,000 acres of land on Waccamaw Neck in Georgetown County in 1905-1907. A native of South Carolina, Baruch acquired great wealth in stock market investments and speculations during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. He notes (Baruch 1957:267): In this hectic Age of Distraction, all of us need to pause every now and then in what we are doing to examine where the rush of the world and of our own activities is taking us. Even an hour or two spent in such detached contemplation on a park bench will prove rewarding. The importance of such periodic stocktaking was one of the most valuable lessons I learned from my early experiences as a speculator. After every major undertaking . . . I would shake loose from Wall Street and go off to some quiet place where I could review what I had done . . . . Having acquired this habit, I naturally grasped the opportunity that came to me in 1905 to acquire a veritable Shangri-La in my native South Carolina- famed Hobcaw Barony . . . . Baruch (1957:267-268) notes the beauty, isolation, and excellent duck hunting of Hobcaw as the primary reasons for his acquiring these lands. He created his own estate on former rice plantations once owned by some of the wealthiest men in South Carolina and the United States. Baruch would bring many famous visitors to Hobcaw, including Presidents Grover Cleveland and Franklin

9

Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, George C. Marshall, and Omar Bradley (Baruch 1957; Lachicotte 1993:9-17). The need to escape the busy world of the North, and particularly New York City, drew many of the new American “aristocracy” to the South. Here, land was generally undervalued, and as noted above, speculators were trumpeting its beauty and bounty. George Vanderbilt acquired a huge estate in the mountains of North Carolina in the 1890s, and proceeded to construct what has been called the finest example of a European castle in the New World, Biltmore House. Such huge landholdings provided the owners and their guests with a location where they could rest and interact far from the prying eyes of the popular press. Although they certainly delighted in the splash they created, like all celebrities, they also tired of the constant attention afforded their every movement by the popular press. The attraction of the aristocracy to things European or British also helped draw them to acquire large estates. Almost all social activities and behavior followed that of their Victorian and Edwardian counterparts on the opposite side of the Atlantic. Thus, many of the American elite sought to emulate the aristocratic members of British and European society. They sought to follow the British aristocracy’s practice of periodic retirement to country estates, where one participated in various activities common to rural life, like riding, hunting, fishing, and farming. Following the comments of de Tocqueville, many in the American elite felt that land would create and maintain the aristocracy they aspired to be (Gregory 1993:185-187). Thus, many Americans sought lands throughout the South where they could establish themselves as landed gentry, and enjoy rural activities in the company of their families and invited guests, away from the hubbub of their urban lives. Examples of these efforts throughout the South include Andrew Carnegie’s acquisition of Cumberland Island, Georgia, Vanderbilt’s creation of Biltmore, Henry Ford’s acquisition of a collection of rice plantations near Richmond Hill, Georgia, Baruch’s acquisition of Hobcaw Barony near Georgetown, and Isaac Emerson’s acquisition of the 12,000+ acre Arcadia Plantation adjacent to Baruch’s Hobcaw. Emerson was the inventor of Bromo-Seltzer®; his granddaughter would marry George Vanderbilt. Their descendants retain ownership of the central portions of Arcadia today. This overview provides a context for the acquisition of Palmetto Bluff by Richard Wilson, Sr., in 1900. John Holbrook Estill acquired the lands that became Palmetto Bluff during the 1880s and 1890s. Although he used the property to produce timber and turpentine, he obviously recognized the value of the property as an estate for rest and recreation to those who were coming south at the end of the nineteenth century. Estill sold his holdings at Palmetto Bluff to Wilson, who with his son, Richard, Jr., and son-in-law, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., acquired the remaining lands on the May River Neck that had eluded Estill. This became the Palmetto Bluff that forms the setting

10

of the discussions of the Wilson family, their role and that of Palmetto Bluff in the Gilded Age of the early twentieth century, and the archaeological remnants of their life at Palmetto Bluff.

Site 38BU1804 Research Questions Site 38BU1804 contains archaeological deposits associated with a Post-Contact occupation dating to the early twentieth century. As stated above, this occupation is associated with the Richard T. Wilson, Jr., family – a wealthy and influential family that maintained an elite mansion on the property from ca. 1915 to 1926. Given the excellent historical documentation available for the site, the short duration of the occupation, and the relatively good condition of the architectural elements on the site, 38BU1804 has excellent potential to address research questions regarding the family’s settlement and short tenure at Palmetto Bluff. Data recovery investigations at 38BU1804 generated information to address the following research questions: How may we define the lifeways and standard of living of the Wilson family during their residence of site 38BU1804? How does it compare with other ‘elite’ families living in the region during the early twentieth century? Historical documents indicate that the Richard T. Wilson, Jr., family from New York was extremely wealthy and influential, and they utilized the property as a retreat and hunting preserve (Poplin 2002a). How does the archaeological assemblage reflect their status and use of the site? If the historical background was not available and the architectural remains were not present on 38BU1804, would it be possible to determine the elite status of the site occupants? During archaeological testing of 38BU1804, Gardner et al. (2003:109) report that no clothing items, identifiable personal items, or other artifacts immediately identifiable as ‘high status’ were recovered from site 38BU1804. It may be assumed that many personal items were destroyed or salvaged by the Wilson family (and later possibly by artifact collectors) following the destruction of the mansion by fire in March 1926. In this case, it is possible that data recovery investigations may also fail to produce significant amounts of artifacts attributable to an elite occupation of the site. In the absence of artifacts of elite status, would it be possible to determine the use of the site and the status of the site’s occupants? Data recovery investigations at 38BU1804 present an excellent opportunity to test standard methods of historical archaeology (i.e., South Inventory, Mean Ceramic Dating, comparative ceramic analyses) in the context of an early twentieth century elite domestic occupation. How does the construction of the Wilson Mansion compare with other ‘elite’ residences in the Beaufort County region? Historical documentation reviewed by Poplin (2002a) indicates 11

that the Neo-Classical Wilson Mansion was designed and constructed to the specifications of the owner, Richard T. Wilson, Jr. According to historical accounts, the house was constructed by day laborers without the use of a formal architect. Data recovery investigations included additional historical research to confirm or refute this information. In addition, excavation of the preserved architectural elements of the burned mansion provided a detailed plan of the house foundation. This plan provided insight into the construction methods that can be compared and contrasted to known construction practices in Beaufort County in the early twentieth century. How does the concept of a ‘Southern Plantation’ change during the Post-Bellum period and into the twentieth century? During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the ailing and abandoned farmlands of the Lowcountry were revived as hunting preserves by northern capitalists (Poplin 2002a; Willet 1927; Kovacik 1994). In all, an estimated 159 plantations were purchased by wealthy northerners in South Carolina prior to World War II. During this period, the wealthy northern landholders tried to construct their ideals of a “Southern Plantation.” In many cases, this led to dramatic spatial and visual changes to the landscape, as former plantation buildings were razed and large (and often palatial) estates were constructed. Data recovery investigations for the Wilson family estate includes comparisons to other large holdings by wealthy northern industrialists in the early twentieth century, including Okatee Hunt Club and Chelsea Plantation in Beaufort County, Cherokee Plantation in Colleton County, and Liberty Hall Plantation in Charleston County. What information can the Wilson family pet cemetery on site 38BU1804 provide regarding mortuary practices and behavior through time, as well as canine morphology? Data recovery investigations at site 38BU1804 included the excavation of the Richard T. Wilson, Jr., family pet cemetery (ca. 1915 to 1926). This small cemetery appears to contain a minimum of nine dog interments as indicated by two rows of small inscribed tombstones. Dog burials have been recorded throughout the Pre-Contact and Post-Contact periods in North America. Investigation of this pet cemetery was expected to provide comparative information regarding pet mortuary behavior and practices (particularly spatial orientation and funerary inclusions). Population statistics for the cemetery were to be compiled, including skeletal health markers and age at death. It should be noted that at this time it is difficult to differentiate between domesticated canines and wild coyotes in the archaeological record. The excavation of these canine burials from a known domestic context could add to our morphological knowledge of these two canine varieties.

12

Site 38BU1788 Research Questions Site 38BU1788 contains archaeological deposits associated with a Post-Contact occupation dating from the early twentieth century. As stated above, this occupation is associated with the Richard T. Wilson, Jr., family - a wealthy and influential family that maintained an elite mansion at Palmetto Bluff from 1915-1926. Given the excellent historical documentation available for the site, the short duration of the occupation, and the relatively good condition of artifacts at the site, data recovery investigations at 38BU1788 were expected to generate information to address the following research questions: How may we define the lifeways and standard of living of the Wilson family during their residence at Palmetto Bluff? How does it compare with other ‘elite’ families living in the region during the early twentieth century? Historical documents indicate that the Richard T. Wilson, Jr., family from New York was extremely wealthy and influential, and they utilized the property as a retreat and hunting preserve (Gardner et al. 2003; Poplin 2002a). How does the archaeological assemblage reflect their status and use of the site? Is their a higher frequency of foreign or exotic items compared to contemporary sites? The Wilsons were well known in New York for their entertaining; do artifacts from the refuse disposal area at 38BU1788 reflect an increased frequency of such activities compared with more mundane daily activities? The refuse pits at 38BU1788 contain numerous bottles and fragments of vessels. A typology of the glass vessels was developed. The frequency of more exotic items was compared to the frequency of vessels containing every day foodstuffs to determine if these frequencies reflect a higher incidence of entertaining. Are changes in the use of Palmetto Bluff by the Wilson family reflected in the artifacts from 38BU1788? We know that Richard Wilson, Sr. initially built a “hunting lodge” at Palmetto Bluff, apparently atop the Octagon Plantation house and later beneath the Palmetto Bluff Lodge, constructed by the Union-Camp Corporation in the 1950s. In 1915, during the second decade of the Wilson tenure at Palmetto Bluff, Richard Wilson, Jr., constructed his residence at 38BU1804. His brother-in-law, Cornelius Vanderbilt, lived in the “hunting lodge” constructed by Wilson, Sr. Many wealthy northerners acquired vast landholdings in South Carolina around the turn of the twentieth century as hunting preserves and country estates. Did the Wilsons use Palmetto Bluff just as hunting preserve during the early twentieth century? Did this use change or become more genteel after Wilson, Jr., built his house at Palmetto Bluff? Changes in the cost and nature of items in the refuse deposits at the bottom of the pits when compared to those in the upper levels of the pits may indicate such a change in function. 13

Chapter II. Methods of Investigation

Archival Research Background research indicates the Wilson House was constructed in 1915. The three story, 40 room, Neo-Classical mansion is associated with the wealthy and influential Richard T. Wilson, Jr., family. Possibly the grandest dwelling house in South Carolina at the time, the mansion was said to have been built by day labor, with no formal architect (Hill et al. 1994:40). As a result of our research, as well as our archaeological investigations within the ruins of the house, this supposition is not entirely true. The house was destroyed by a catastrophic fire in March 1926 and was never rebuilt (Poplin 2002a). Investigators conducted research at the Bluffton Historical Society, the Beaufort County Library, the Georgia Historical Society (Savannah), the Chatham County Library (Georgia), and the Silas Bronson Library (Waterbury, CT). Following phone and/or e-mail conversations, we gathered research material from the Columbia University Archives and Columbiana Library (New York, NY) and the Newport Historical Society (Newport, RI). We also gathered information pertinent to the Wilson family from the following online repositories: Saratoga County Webpage, “Reminiscences of Saratoga”: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nysarato/durk99.htm (accessed 27 August 2002); US GenNet/Tennessee GenWeb site, 1865 Index to Civil War Pardons: http://www.tngennet.org/civilwar/pow/pardons/wnames.html (accessed 11 June 2002); Genealogy.com, Wilson Family Genealogy Forum: http://genforum.genealogy.com/wilson/messages/17167.html (accessed 23 June 2002); Genealogy.com, Wilson Family Genealogy Forum: http://genforum.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/pageload.cgi?Richard,Thornton::wilson::12341.html (accessed 23 June 2002); Genealogy.com, Wilson Family Genealogy Forum: http://genforum.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/pageload.cgi?Richard,Thornton::wilson::5409.html (accessed 23 June 2002); Holland Society Members Page, Ogden Goulet: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nycoloni/hsdec_og.html (accessed 16 June 2002); A Classification of American Wealth Website, “The Goulet brothers- bankers and realtors”: http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/realtors/goelet2.asp (accessed 12 June 2002);

14

The Mount: Edith Wharton and the American Renaissance, “The Mount”: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/Davis/wharton/home/mount.html (accessed 5 September 2002); Salve Today: Official Page of Salve Regina University, “Ochre Court”: http://www.salve.edu/virtual/001.html (accessed 16 June 2002); Salve Today: Official Page of Salve Regina University, “Did you know . . . that Ochre Court was once a ‘summer cottage’ used only eight weeks out of the year?”: http://www.salve.edu/salvetoday/archives/headlines_01-07-02.cfm (accessed 16 June 2002); Columbia University Webpage, “Cornelius Vanderbilt”: http://www.columbia.edu/~mcf31/higher/trustees/bios/vanderbilt.htm (accessed 16 June 2002); JP Morgan Chase Webpage, “Merger Chronology”: http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/about/history (accessed 28 August 2002); Saratoga Racetrack Webpage, “Saratoga Racetrack”: http://ga.essortment.com/saratogaracetra_rgmj.htm (accessed 27 August 2002); The Great Estates in the Oakdale Environs Webpage, “Vanderbilt’s Second Idle Hour Mansion”: http://www.oakdaleny.com/History/vanderbilts_second_mansion.htm (accessed 27 August 2002); National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame Webpage, “Thomas Healey”: http://hall.racingmuseum.org/trainer.asp?ID=251 (accessed 22 August 2002); The Butler Institute of American Art Webpage, “Childe Hassam”: http://www.butlerart.com/pc_book/pages/childe_hassam_1859.htm (accessed 28 August 2002). Despite our extensive efforts to locate an archival deposit of Wilson family information, especially the architectural plans of the Wilson House, we were unsuccessful. Research libraries that we contacted in an attempt to locate the Wilson House architectural plans include the Redwood Library and Athenaeum (Newport, RI), the Newport Historical Society (Newport, RI), the Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library (New York, NY), and the Columbia University Archives and Columbiana Library (New York, NY).

Field Investigations Field Methods- 38BU1804 We conducted arcaheological data recovery excavations at 38BU1804 between 26 June and 2 August 2002. Investigators reestablished the site grid orientation created during the survey 15

investigations (Poplin 2002a) and also utilized during testing investigations (Gardner et al. 2003). The site grid was established using a laser theodolite and tape; it is aligned to magnetic north. All references to the spatial relationships of excavation units and features encountered in the excavations are made with respect to the site grid. Figure 4 presents a plan of 38BU1804 and shows the limits of the preservation area. Following standard archaeological field methods, data recovery excavations were recorded in metric measurements. However, since the main focus of the data recovery investigations was to expose architectural features associated with the Wilson House, dimensions of structures and architectural features were recorded in English measurements. Investigators initially prepared a map of the visible architectural and landscape features of the Wilson House. The entire interior portion of the house was mounded with large piles of brick and concrete rubble. Investigators removed rubble with a smooth bladed backhoe to expose architectural/cultural features and carefully exposed architectural features with flat shovels, trowels, and brooms. Architectural features were added to the house plan as they were exposed during the removal of rubble with a smooth bladed backhoe. Figure 5 shows mapping in progress. Investigators avoided several areas of the interior to protect large cedar and pine trees. Smaller trees and underbrush were removed by hand. The following discussion summarizes the type and number of excavations completed during data recovery investigations at the Wilson House and other areas of 38BU1804. Mechanical Excavations. Investigators conducted mechanical stripping in several areas of site 38BU1804 to expose architectural/cultural features. A smooth bladed backhoe was used to remove the topsoil horizon. Dr. Eric Poplin operated the backhoe. Dr. Poplin used both the front and back buckets of the backhoe to expose architectural/cultural features. The blade of the back bucket measures approximately 2.3 feet (0.7 meters) wide. The blade of the front bucket measures approximately 6.5 feet (2.0 meters) wide. The field director and archaeological technicians monitored closely all mechanical excavations. Figure 6 (top) presents a view of the backhoe and backhoe operator mechanically excavating an area. Investigators removed soil and rubble from around the exposed architectural features with flat shovels, trowels, and brooms. All mechanical scrapes were backfilled upon completion. Investigators conducted mechanical stripping to expose possible architectural cultural features in the west-northwest and southwest portions of the site. The west-northwest area contained the highest (relative) densities (besides the area in and around the Wilson House) of Post-Contact architectural materials (e.g., nails, window glass, asbestos siding), as well as a low to moderate concentration of Post-Contact ceramics and bottle glass. Investigators mechanically scraped approximately 136 meters2 of the ground surface in the west-northwest portion of the site. 16

North

South Carolina

Quadrangle Location U % U %

U %

0 0

Positive 50x 50 T est Negativ e 50x 50 Test 1x 2 m Test Unit Preserv ation Area Dirt Road Structures.shp Scraped Area 40 80 Meters Causeway.shp Bluffedge.shp 100 200 Feet Marsh.shp Slab.shp

Scrapes 1 -3 Structure 1

Village Road

U % % % U U U U % % U % U %

% U % % U U U % U % % U U % U U % %

Structure 2

% U

U %

Structure

U % % U % % U U U U % % U U % % U % % U U% % U%U U % % U U % U % 3 %U

% U U % U % U % U % U % U % U %

% U U % U % U % U % U % U % U % U % U % % U

U % U U % % U % U U % % U % % U U % % U U U % % U % % U % U U % U % % U U % % U % U % U U % U % U U % % U % % U % U % U U % U % U U % %

U U % % % U % U % U % U U % U % % U U U % % U % U%U U % % % U U% U % U % U % U % U %U %U % U % % U % U U U % % U% U % U%U %U% U % U % U % U % % U U % U % U % U % % U % U U % U % % U U % % U % U % U

Wilson House

U % % U U % % U U % U U % % U % U % % U U % % U

% U U % U % U % U % U %

% U U % U % U % U % U % U % % % U U U % % U U U % %

U % % % U U % U U % U % U % % U % U U % % U % U U % U % U % Pool U % U % U % U % % U

U % % U U % U % U % U % U % U %

% U U % U % U % U % U %

% U U % U % U % U % U % U % % U

U %

Dog Cemetery

Site Boundary

May River

Structure 4 Tower 2 Tower 1

Slab Slab

Scrape 4 Pond

Figure 4. Plan of 38BU1804. 17

Figure 5.

View of investigators mapping features at the Wilson House.

Investigators encountered structural foundations (Structure 1) in this area of the site. The majority of the foundations was visible at the ground surface in a grassy field. Investigators scraped areas totaling approximately 46 meters2 to expose subsurface portions of Structure 1. Investigators scraped three linear areas (Scrapes 1-3) to the east of Structure 1 totaling approximately 90 meters2. The southwest area contained a minor occurrence of architectural artifacts, as well as a low to moderate concentration of Post-Contact ceramics and bottle glass. Investigators mechanically scraped approximately 198 meters2 of the ground surface in the southwest portion of the site (Scrape 4). It was anticipated that 100-300 meters2 would be mechanically excavated in the northnorthwest and southwest areas of site 38BU1804 (Poplin 2002b:10). In fact, investigators mechanically excavated a total of 334 meters2 in these areas of the site. Investigators also mechanically excavated areas within and around the Wilson House, as well as in and around the remnants of two nearby structures (Structures 2 and 3). Investigators mechanically excavated approximately 530 meters2 of the ground surface in the Wilson House, approximately 9.0 meters2 in Structure 2, and approximately 5.5 meters2 in Structure 3. 18

Figure 6.

A view of the backhoe and backhoe operator mechanically excavating an area (top) and an investigator excavating a unit (bottom) at 38BU1804. 19

Hand Excavations. Investigators initially excavated 193, 50 by 50 cm units (48 meters2) at five meter intervals across the preservation area of 38BU1804 (see Figure 4). These units were excavated in natural levels, where possible. Following mechanical excavations in and around the Wilson House, investigators conducted additional hand excavations. Investigators hand excavated 12 meters2 in 1 by 2 meter units (Units 403-408) within the footprint of the Wilson House. Figure 6 (bottom) shows an investigator excavating a unit. These units generally were excavated in 10 cm arbitrary levels. The units were excavated into the soil horizon beneath the Post-Contact artifact/architectural feature producing soil horizons. Investigators recovered Pre-Contact artifacts from soil horizons beneath the Post-Contact deposits, but the excavation of units was terminated at the base of Post-Contact deposits. All soil was screened through ¼ inch mesh hardware cloth. Brick, mortar, tile, unidentifiable metal, and shell artifacts were weighed and discarded in the field, unless the amounts were too small to weigh accurately in the field. In these cases, these materials were bagged with the artifacts from each level of the unit. Plan views of the bottom of the excavation levels in each unit were drawn and photographed if architectural features were present; at least one wall of each unit was drawn and photographed. Investigators excavated 16, 50 by 50 cm units (4.0 meters2) within and immediately adjacent to Structure 1 in the west-northwest portion of the site. These units were excavated in natural levels into culturally sterile subsoil. All soil was screened through ¼ inch mesh hardware cloth. Brick, mortar, and shell artifacts were weighed and discarded in the field, unless the amounts were too small to weigh accurately in the field. In these cases, these materials were bagged with the artifacts from each level of the unit. Investigators drew and photographed representative soil profiles of several 50 by 50 cm units across the area. Investigators excavated one 1 by 2 meter unit (Unit 401--2.0 meters2) in the center of Structure 2, located just west of the preservation area of 38BU1804. This unit was excavated in 10 cm arbitrary levels. The unit was excavated to the base of a soil stain associated with the installation of a water (?) pipe (Feature 604) into the center of Structure 2. All soil was screened through ¼ inch mesh hardware cloth. Brick, mortar, and shell artifacts were weighed and discarded in the field, unless the amounts were too small to weigh accurately in the field. In these cases, these materials were bagged with the artifacts from each level of the unit. Plan views of the bottom of the excavation level in the unit was drawn and photographed; one wall of the unit was drawn and photographed. Investigators excavated one 1 by 2 meter unit (Unit 402--2 meters2) in the center of Structure 3, located to the west of the Wilson House, within the preservation area of 38BU1804. This unit was excavated in 10 cm arbitrary levels. The unit was excavated into sterile subsoil. All soil was 20

screened through ¼ inch mesh hardware cloth. Small amounts of brick, mortar, and shell artifacts were bagged with the artifacts from each level of the unit. One wall of the unit was drawn and photographed.

Field Methods- 38BU1788 We conducted field investigations at 38BU1788 on 2-17 December 2002. Initially, we established a grid over the site area, conforming roughly to the site boundary and preservation area defined by Poplin (2002a). We established the corners of the area of investigation and set appropriate grid points using a laser theodolite and tape. Then, we delineated 5 by 5 meter blocks within the area of investigation using tapes. We marked the corners of these blocks with appropriately labeled pin flags. We mapped the locations and configurations of the two refuse pits using the laser theodolite. Figure 7 displays a plan of 38BU1788 as it appeared in December 2002. We removed all small vegetation and leaf litter from the area of investigation by hand. We cut small trees, bushes, and vines with bush axes and machetes. We removed the leaf litter with an electric blower and rakes, taking care not to displace surface occurring artifacts. Once the leaf litter was cleared from the area of investigation, we collected and recorded surface occurring artifacts within each 5 by 5 meter block within the area of investigation. We examined 28 of these blocks. Figure 8 displays a view of the site during the leaf litter removal. Systematic Surface Collections. An archaeologist spent 10 minutes collecting artifacts within each 5 by 5 meter block except those within the two refuse pits, defined as the East and West Refuse Pits. All visible artifacts were collected and placed in the southwest corner of the block. This corner served as the locational provenience for each collection block. The approved treatment plan called for archaeologists to spend 15 minutes in each block. After we removed the leaf litter, the Principal Investigator determined that 10 minutes would be adequate for all of the blocks given the density of the artifacts visible on the surface of the site. A time limit was necessary to create comparable samples from each collection block. This information then was employed to plot the distribution of artifacts around the features and make inferences concerning the development of the refuse deposits at 38BU1788. We sorted all collected artifacts into categories based on their medium of manufacture. These included ceramic sherds, glass vessels and fragments, and metal artifacts. Most of the metal artifacts are large objects; we left these in place and mapped their location with respect to the site grid. We counted and weighed all ceramic artifacts collected from each block, and then placed them 21

22

Figure 7. Plan of 38BU1788.

Preserv ation Area

Wooded

East Pit

Village Road

Site Boundary

West Pit

Surface Collection Grid

Wooded

Gate Post

%

%

Gate Post

Construction Road

Median

0

%

Wilson House

Treeline Site1.shp 5 10 Meters Preserv ationarea.shp Surface2.shp Surface.shp Gatepost.shp Pits.shp Road.shp

North

Figure 8.

View of leaf litter removal at 38BU1788.

in appropriately labeled archivally stable plastic bags. We retained these materials for further identification and analysis. We sorted the glass vessels and fragments by color and then sorted them into four vessel attribute sub-categories: whole vessels, vessel bases, vessels necks, and sherds. Glass vessel colors include amber, amethyst, light blue, brown, clear, green, light green, dark green, and teal. We then counted and weighed the specimens within each color group and sub-category except whole vessels; we only counted whole vessels. We recorded this information for each collection block. Carol Poplin then collected samples of the whole vessels to provide at least four specimens of each type of vessel (6 inch soda/water bottles, 9 inch soda/water/beer bottles, 9 inch wine/champagne bottles, etc.) for further analysis. The remaining glass artifacts were left in the field. The retained whole vessels were wrapped in paper and packed in 1-1.5 cubic foot storage boxes for transportation to the laboratory. We then collected all artifacts from the surface of the East and West Refuse Pits. These materials were treated in the same manner as those recovered from the surface collection blocks. Figure 9 (top) displays the West Refuse Pit prior to collection. Figure 9 (middle and bottom) displays views of the vessels and vessel fragments collected from the surface of the West Refuse Pit.

23

Surface of West Pit before collection

Bottle necks and bases

Whole Bottles

Figure 9.

Views of the West Pit prior to surface collection (top), and the glass artifacts recovered from it (middle-whole vessels sorted by color and type; bottom- necks and bases ready to be sorted by color). 24

Hand Excavations. Once the surface collections were completed, we excavated an access trench with a backhoe at each of the refuse pits. These trenches extended approximately 1.5 meters below the surrounding ground surface and approximately 1.0 meters below the top of the refuse deposits in each pit. Figure 10 displays views of the East and West Refuse Pits prior to the excavation of the access trenches. These trenches included a portion of the easternmost deposits in each pit. Dr. Poplin operated the backhoe during the West Pit excavations; Dave Dellenbach operated the backhoe during the East Pit excavations. We monitored the backhoe excavations and collected whole vessels and artifacts of interest from the removed fill. Figure 11 displays the excavation of the West Refuse Pit access trench. The access trenches allowed excavators a view of the profile of the refuse deposits in each pit prior to the hand excavation of a 1 by 1 meter unit. This then permitted the excavators to remove the fill in natural/cultural horizons that likely represent depositional episodes. Dr. Poplin cleaned the west wall of each access trench and selected the location for a 1 by 1 meter unit that extended westward into the refuse deposits in each pit. Unit 401 was excavated in the West Refuse Pit; Unit 501 was excavated in the East Refuse Pit. Dr. Poplin delineated and defined the horizons that the excavators employed during the removal of the fill. We then drew and photographed the exposed profiles of the exterior of the eastern wall of each unit. Excavators removed fill from Units 401 and 501 in natural or cultural stratigraphic horizons. The West Refuse Pit (Unit 401) displayed 10 distinct horizons. These include the Ah/A horizon (Level 1), Cultural Horizons I-VIII (Levels 2-9), and the C horizon/subsoil (Horizon IX- Level 10). The East Refuse Pit (Unit 501) displayed five horizons: the Ah/A (Level 1), Cultural Horizons I-III (Levels 2-4), and the C horizon/subsoil (Horizon IX- Level 5). With the exception of the C horizon/Horizon IX, none of the natural or cultural horizons in Units 401 or 501 correspond. When completed, we photographed north and west walls of Units 401 and 501, and drew and photographed a plan of Unit 501. The approved treatment plan called for the excavation of a 1 by 3 meter unit in each pit, with all artifacts recovered from 1.0 m2 retained for further analysis and only whole or diagnostic materials retained from the adjoining 2.0 m2. The original plan assumed that the access trenches would not intrude on the refuse deposits within each pit. Probing of the fill in the pits demonstrated that the pits were saucer shaped, with sloping sides. Thus, to access the thickest portions of the refuse deposits, we needed to extend the access trenches into the pits. The recovery of diagnostic and whole items from the backhoe excavated fill provided a sample comparable to the one that would have been collected from the adjoining 2.0 m2 described in the original plan. Also, collecting material from the backhoe excavations sampled a larger portion of the pit than would have been 25

Figure 10.

Views of the East (top) and West (bottom) Pits prior to the excavation of the access trenches. 26

Figure 11.

View of the excavation of the West Refuse Pit access trench.

accessed under the original design. Dr. Poplin discussed this approach with Valerie Marcil, SCDAH staff archaeologist, prior to implementation. We screened the fill removed from Units 401 and 501 through ¼ inch mesh hardware cloth. All cultural materials recovered from each horizon were retained for further processing and analysis with the exception of bulk materials like coal slag or oyster shell. We attempted to weigh the coal slag and shell in Unit 401 in the upper levels. We abandoned this effort in the interest of time when the bulk of the fill from the lower levels consisted of coal slag; however, we noted the approximate density of this material in these horizons. We placed all retained artifacts in appropriately labeled archivally stable plastic bags. Near the conclusion of the field investigations, Palmetto Bluff, LLC requested that we collect all of the whole glass vessels present on the surface of the site. We collected these vessels, wrapped them in paper, placed them 1.5 cubic foot storage boxes, and transported them to our Mt. Pleasant laboratory facilities. We included these vessels in our minimum vessel analyses and type collections although they lack specific provenience information beyond the surface of 38BU1788.

27

Public Involvement. In February 2003, Palmetto Bluff, LLC and the Hilton Head Chapter of the Archaeological Society of South Carolina implemented a program to continue excavations at 38BU1788, under the direction of archaeologists with Brockington and Associates, Inc. (See Chapter IX for a more detailed discussion of this program). These excavations are designed to recover additional whole specimens from the remaining refuse deposits at 38BU1788 and to provide members of the Hilton Head Chapter exposure to scientific excavation procedures. These excavations occur one day per week, weather and personnel permitting. These excavations focused on the West Pit, opening nine additional 1 by 1 meter units by September 2003. Excavation procedures are the same as those described above, except fill is removed from the excavation units in 15 cm arbitrary levels. Use of arbitrary levels is easier for less experienced excavators and permits the opening of pits away from the exposed face of the access trench. Archaeologists with Brockington and Associates, Inc., collected the materials recovered during these excavations; currently, they are stored in our Mt. Pleasant laboratory. Members of the Hilton Head Chapter will wash and identify these artifacts as a component of the excavation program. This analysis has not begun to date. However, we examined all of the whole glass vessels recovered by the Hilton Head Chapter excavations during the minimum vessel analysis and the creation of a type collection to ensure that we included all vessel types that had been recovered through August 2003.

Laboratory Analyses In the laboratory, our staff washed and sorted the artifacts from both sites by excavation provenience. They assigned provenience numbers to the collection based on our unique proveniencing scheme. Technicians bagged all artifacts by catalog number in labeled polyethylene self-sealing bags within each provenience. They enclosed archivally stable paper tags that duplicate the bag and catalog information in each individual bag. We compiled all provenience and catalog information into a coded database (Microsoft Access 2000) based on South’s (1977) functional group typology. Technicians labeled all diagnostic artifacts and artifacts pulled for photographs using Acryloid B72 (either clear or white) and permanent black ink. Post-Contact artifact analysis was based on observable stylistic and technological attributes. Artifacts were identified by material of manufacture (e.g., ceramic, glass, metal), color, function, and method of manufacture, when possible. Temporally diagnostic artifacts were compared to published analytical sources. Artifact analysts utilized sources typically used for the types of artifacts

28

recovered in the region (Brown 1982; Cushion 1972; DeBolt 1988; Godden 1964; Ketchum 1983; Kovel and Kovel 1953, 1986; Miller 1980; Nelson 1968; Noël Hume 1970; South 1977). We based our Post-Contact ceramic artifact analysis on observable stylistic and technological attributes. For this process, technicians identified artifacts by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g., pearlware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g., molded), production date span (e.g., 1780-1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware), if possible. We used published type descriptions for identification of all diagnostic artifacts (Brown 1982; DeBolt 1988; 1994; Gates and Ormerod 1982; Kovel and Kovel (1953, 1986); Lehner (1988); and South (1977). We calculated modified South Inventories (South 1977) for the total site assemblage. Glass bottles were analyzed according to color, height, use, lip or rim type, body shape, embossing (if applicable) and mold characteristics. Information regarding shapes of bottles and names of various types of lip finishes are based on the Parks Canada Glass Glossary (Jones and Sullivan 1985). Other information regarding uses of various bottles, especially those that were food related, were taken from Ketchup, Pickles, Sauces: 19th Century Food in Glass (Zumwalt 1980). Many of the liquor bottle types were defined using Bottles on the Western Frontier (Wilson 1981). A more detailed discussion of the glass fragment processing and bottle analysis is presented with the results of the field investigations and the artifact analysis, Chapters VII and VIII, respectively. The conservation technician cleaned numerous iron artifacts using electrolytic reduction. This process increases accuracy in analysis of type (i.e., wrought versus cut nails) and manufacturing techniques. Following removal of oxidation, these artifacts were coated with Conquest, a polymeric rust converter, for conservation. We cleaned brass artifacts with soap and water and a soft brush , then coated the artifacts with olive oil. Typological identification as manifested by technological and stylistic attributes also served as the basis for Pre-Contact artifact analysis. Laboratory personnel classified all Pre-Contact ceramic sherds larger than 2 by 2 cm by surface decoration and aplastic content. When recognizable, diagnostic attributes were recorded for residual sherds, i.e., those smaller than 2 by 2 cm. Nondiagnostic residual sherds were tabulated as a group. Sherds and other diagnostic artifacts then were compared to published type descriptions from available sources (Anderson et al. 1982; Blanton et al. 1986; DePratter 1979, 1984; Espenshade and Brockington 1989; South 1976; Trinkley 1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c, 1989, 1990; Williams and Shapiro 1990). Artifacts and research materials associated with this project currently are stored at the Mt. Pleasant office of Brockington and Associates, Inc. Upon acceptance of the final report, 29

Brockington and Associates, Inc., will deliver the curation package to the SCIAA. A formal bottle type collection also will be maintain at Palmetto Bluff as will all of the duplicate bottles collected from 38BU1788.

30

Chapter III. Natural and Cultural Setting

Natural Setting A Description of the Project Tract Palmetto Bluff occupies approximately 22,000 acres, the majority of the May River Neck, a peninsula of land between the May River to the north and northeast, the New River/Great Swamp to the west, and the Cooper River to the southeast (Figure 12). The community of Pritchardville lies to the northwest and the center of the Town of Bluffton lies to the northeast on the opposite bank of the May River. SC Routes 46 and 170 effectively separate Palmetto Bluff from other properties on the May River Neck, although there are a number of smaller parcels along these highways near Pritchardville that are not owned by Palmetto Bluff, LLC. To date, approximately 6,618 acres of uplands within Palmetto Bluff have been surveyed for cultural resources. This includes 1,685 acres within the Phase I Development Tract (Poplin 2002a), 4,624 acres in the Phase II Development Tract (Baluha et al. 2003), 2,139 acres in the Jones/Mainland Tract (O’Neal et al. 2003), 219 acres in a proposed wastewater effluent plant and along a proposed construction road (Reid 2003a), and an additional 90 acres in other portions of the tract (Hill et al. 1994). Two modern paved roads extend from SC Route 46 south into Palmetto Bluff. Palmetto Bluff Road is a county maintained thoroughfare providing access to private lands between Palmetto Bluff and SC Route 46. Palmetto Bluff, LLC, constructed a new primary entrance road to Palmetto Bluff that extends south from SC Route 46, and lies 200-500 feet west of the public road. Inside Palmetto Bluff, Union Camp/International Paper, former owners of Palmetto Bluff, built and maintained an extensive network of roads. Most of these roads have been retained by Palmetto Bluff, LLC, to provide access to the various portions of the tract now under development. Main Road, formerly the primary access road into and through Palmetto Bluff, extends south and east from the entrance paralleling the May River. This road has a broad right-of-way (approximately 100-150 feet) with a two-lane graveled surface. Graded swales, often covered in grass, provide drainage away from the raised roadbed. Main Road follows a route occupied by a road since the eighteenth century. At present, the majority of traffic flows along a series of roads to the south and west of Main Road; all have these roads have raised, gravel roadbeds and graded swales like Main Road within a 60-100 foot right-of-way. Secondary roads, usually covered in sand with graded ditches, provide access to other portions of the tract. All of these roads are 30-60 feet wide. Narrower roads and trails extend from these primary and secondary roads, and provide wheeled access throughout much of Palmetto Bluff, particularly the better drained areas. Most roads have metal or cement 31

North 0

5000

10,000 Feet South Carolina

0

2000

4000 Meters Quadrangle Location

Figure 12.

The location of Palmetto Bluff (USGS 1978 Beaufort and 1981 Savannah 1:100,000 quadrangles). 32

culverts. Low areas have been filled with material taken from borrow pits scattered throughout the tract. Tidal marshes of the May, Cooper, and New Rivers lie within or border the northern, eastern, and southern portions of Palmetto Bluff. As one travels north along the western boundary, these marshes become freshwater swamps associated with the New River or Great Swamp, as it is called at the northwest corner of Palmetto Bluff and farther north. Swamps along the New River/Great Swamp provided rice fields for the antebellum owners of these lands. A steep bluff rises quickly above the May River on the northern and northeastern edges of Palmetto Bluff, giving the tract its name. As one travels south and west, elevations generally decrease. The uplands merge with tidal wetlands along the New River without a noticeable change in elevation. The highest portions of Palmetto Bluff rise 20-30 feet above sea level; the lower areas are 0-5 feet above sea level. The western portion of Palmetto Bluff, formerly a portion of the New River Farms or Jones Tract to the west of the May River headwaters, contains upland ridges that rise 30-40 feet above sea level. The lowest areas, along the New River/Great Swamp, are only 5-10 feet above sea level. Most of the well drained uplands in Palmetto Bluff are covered in mature mixed pine and hardwood forests. Union Camp/International Paper used the eastern portions of Palmetto Bluff as experimental forest lands and a hunting preserve. Wetter areas were planted in pines, using silvicultural practices common on their other lands in the immediate area (e.g., the Buckwalter Tract to the north of SC Route 46). On the well drained areas along the May River, mature forests with scattered stands of planted pines dominate. More extensive stands of planted pines or managed pine forests lie in the southern and western portions of Palmetto Bluff, where soils are more poorly drained. The western portions of the Palmetto Bluff, formerly a portion of the New River Farms or Jones Tract, contained mature mixed pine and hardwood forests up until the mid-1990s. The previous owners sold the timber, resulting in clear cutting of many areas without replanting. Union Camp/International Paper annually burned many forest stands throughout Palmetto Bluff, eliminating dense accumulations of leaf litter and debris as well as thick undergrowth. Wetter areas still can be densely overgrown. Like most extensive wooded areas in coastal South Carolina, Palmetto Bluff contains a variety of game animals, including deer, turkey, quail, dove, and waterfowl. The marshes and swamps at the head of the May River were impounded to create habitat suitable for waterfowl. Smaller ponds were build where larger drainages flow into the May River. Many are stocked with freshwater game fish (e.g., bass, bream, etc.). Palmetto Bluff contains a large population of feral 33

pigs, despite a continuous program to eliminate or reduce the population. Other animals frequently seen at Palmetto Bluff include alligators, fox squirrels, gray squirrels, opossums, raccoons, and a wide variety of reptiles and amphibians. Wild fowl include numerous species of song birds, raptors, and waterfowl.

Climate Palmetto Bluff lies in southwestern Beaufort County. Beaufort County lies in the southernmost portion of South Carolina, and has one of the mildest climates in the state (Stuck 1980). The climate is subtropical, with long, hot summers followed by short mild winters. Rainfall is frequent and well-distributed throughout the year. An abundance of moist, warm, unstable air frequently produces scattered showers and thunderstorms. Average annual rainfall in Beaufort County is approximately 47 inches. The low monthly average occurs in November (1.5 inches), and the high monthly average occurs in July (7.5 inches). The average annual temperature is 65.6 °F. January is the coldest month of the year with an average of 49 °F, and July is the hottest with an average of 80.5 °F. Beaufort County averages 249 frost free days per year. The first freezing temperatures usually occur in November. The tropical storm season runs from June through October. Hurricanes are rare for the area, but tropical storms with winds up to 50 miles per hour occur on average of every two to three years. Tornado season runs from March through October, but April and May are the months of greatest tornado hazard (Stuck 1980).

Holocene Changes in the Environment Regional research in palynology, historic biogeography, and coastal geomorphology allows a general reconstruction of the Holocene changes in the environment. Data from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia indicate that the Late Pleistocene was a time of transition from full glacial to Holocene environmental conditions (Gardner 1974; Watts 1980; Whitehead 1965, 1973). Upper Coastal Plain forests of the Late Pleistocene (as reflected in the White Pond pollen record) were dominated by oak, hickory, beech, and ironwood (Watts 1980). The deciduous forest occurred in a cooler, moister climate than exists in the region today (Barry 1980; Braun 1950).

34

The general warming trend at the onset of the Holocene is reflected in sea level changes. Beginning approximately 17,000 years before present (BP), sea level began to rise from its Late Pleistocene low of approximately 300 feet below modern mean sea level (Brooks et al. 1989; Colquhoun and Brooks 1986; Howard et al. 1980). By 7,000 years BP, sea level had risen dramatically to within 20 feet of present levels. As drier and warmer conditions became prevalent during the Early Holocene, pines and other species suited to more xeric conditions increased. The southern forest at 7,000 years BP was beginning to resemble that of modern times (Watts 1980). The Early Holocene also was a period of extinction for many large Pleistocene mammals. On a regional level, vegetation and climate have remained effectively static since the Early Holocene.

Cultural Setting The cultural history of North America generally is divided into three eras: Pre-Contact, Contact, and Post-Contact. The Pre-Contact era refers to the Native American groups and cultures that were present for at least 10,000-12,000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Contact era refers to the time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent. The Post-Contact era refers to the time after the establishment of European settlements, when Native American populations usually were in rapid decline. Within these eras, finer temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions of particular events and the lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time.

Pre-Contact Era In South Carolina, the Pre-Contact era is divided into four stages (after Willey and Phillips 1958). These include the Lithic, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian. Specific technologies and strategies for procuring resources define each of these stages, with approximate temporal limits also in place. Within each stage, with the exception of the Lithic stage, there are temporal periods that are defined on technological bases as well. A brief description of each stage follows. Readers are directed to Goodyear and Hanson (1989) for more detailed discussions of particular aspects of these stages and periods in South Carolina. Lithic Stage- Paleoindian Period (10000 - 8000 BC). The earliest presence of humans in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina apparently began about 12,000 years ago with the movement into 35

the region of hunter-gatherers. Goodyear et al. (1989) review the evidence for the Paleoindian occupation of South Carolina. Based on the distribution of distinctive fluted spear points diagnostic to the period, they see the major sources of highly workable lithic raw materials as the principal determinant of Paleoindian site location, with a concentration of sites at the Fall Line possibly indicating a subsistence strategy of seasonal relocation between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Based on data from a number of sites excavated over most of North America, Paleoindian groups were generally nomadic, with subsistence focusing on the hunting of large mammals, specifically the now-extinct mammoth, horse, camel, and giant bison. Groups were probably small, kin-based bands of 50 or fewer persons. As the environment changed at the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, Paleoindian groups had to adapt to new forest conditions in the Southeast and throughout the continent. To date, a single Dalton point recovered from 38BU1787 is the only evidence of Paleoindian occupations discovered at Palmetto Bluff (Charles 2002). Archaic Stage (8000-1500 BC). The Archaic stage was a long period of adaptation to modern forest conditions in eastern North America. Caldwell (1958) characterizes the period as movement toward Primary Forest Efficiency, meaning that during this period, human groups continually developed new and more effective subsistence strategies for exploiting the wild resources of the modern oak-hickory forest. Based on extensive work in the North Carolina Piedmont, Coe (1964) subdivides the Archaic stage into a number of sequential periods and phases recognizable by distinctive stone point/knife forms. This sequence has been confirmed over large parts of the Southeast, and is applicable to most parts of South Carolina. Archaic groups probably moved within a regular territory on a seasonal basis; exploitation of wild plant and animal resources was well planned and scheduled. Anderson and Hanson (1988) developed a settlement model for the Early Archaic period (8000-6000 BC) in South Carolina involving movement of relatively small groups (bands) on a seasonal basis within major river drainages. The Beaufort region is located within the range of the Saluda/Broad band. Anderson and Hanson (1988) hypothesize that Early Archaic use of the Lower Coastal Plain was limited to seasonal (spring time) foraging camps and logistic camps. Aggregation camps and winter base camps are suggested to have been near the Fall Line. They also hypothesize that as population increased during the Middle Archaic period (6000-2500 BC), band mobility decreased and territoriality increased. Blanton and Sassaman (1989) recently reviewed the archaeological literature on the Middle Archaic period. They document an increased simplification of lithic technology during this period, with increased use of expedient, situational tools. Furthermore, they argue that the use of local lithic raw materials is characteristic of the Middle and Late Archaic periods. Blanton and Sassaman (1989:68) conclude that “the data at hand suggest that Middle Archaic populations resorted to a pattern of adaptive flexibility as a response to ‘mid-Holocene environmental conditions’ 36

such as variable precipitation, sea level rise, and differential vegetational succession.” These processes resulted in changes in the types of resources available from year to year. To date, only two sites contain evidence of Early or Middle Archaic occupations (Baluha et al. 2003; Poplin 2002a). In general, there is evidence of extensive trade networks covering large areas of North America, and of the establishment of sedentary villages during the Late Archaic period (2500-1500 BC). Some of the best evidence of such sedentary villages occurs along the South Carolina coast in the form of large middens of oyster shell and other faunal remains. These refuse heaps probably indicate substantial, relatively long term habitations. The first evidence of the manufacture and use of ceramics also dates to the Late Archaic. Thirty-nine sites at Palmetto Bluff contain evidence of Ceramic Late Archaic occupations (Baluha et al. 2003; Gardner et al. 2003; Poplin 2002a); data recovery investigations examined a Stallings component at 38BU1800 (Reid 2003b). Woodland Stage (1500 - AD 1000). During the Woodland stage, sedentism increased although scheduled exploitation of wild food resources in a seasonal round continued. The Woodland stage is significant for several technological and social developments: (1) the widespread manufacture and use of ceramics for cooking and storage; (2) the beginnings of agriculture; and (3) the construction of burial mounds and other earthworks. While evidence of burial mounds and agriculture is not extensive at the few South Carolina Woodland sites investigated in detail (Brooks and Canouts 1984; Trinkley 1980, 1990), ceramics are widespread, and have been recovered at numerous small sites throughout the state. The varied manufacturing procedures and decorative styles of these ceramics allow the differentiation of site collections into several periods as well as permit inferences of group movement and influence from adjacent geographic areas. Trinkley (1980) and Anderson et al. (1982) developed classificatory schemes for Woodland groups based on ceramics from a number of sites. Following Anderson et al. (1982), Poplin et al. (1993) developed a classificatory scheme for the central coast. Table 1 summarizes the most recent typologies in use for the ceramics from the southern coast. Early Woodland components occur at 43 sites; Middle Woodland components occur at 68 sites; Late Woodland components occur at 14 sites (Baluha et al. 2003; Gardner et al. 2003; Poplin 2002a). Data recovery investigations examined the Middle to Late Woodland occupations at 38BU1787 (Charles 2002) and 38BU1791 (Mozingo 2002). Mississippian Stage (AD 1000-1550). The final Pre-Contact stage in South Carolina, the Mississippian, begins about AD 1000 and ends with the arrival and colonization of the area by Europeans in the 1500s and 1600s. During the Mississippian stage, agriculture became well established, and sedentary villages and towns became the dominant habitation type (although relatively isolated farmstead also were common– see Brooks and Canouts 1984). Ferguson (1971) proposes a model of Mississippian settlement involving major political centers dominated and 37

Table 1.

Ceramic Sequence for the Southern Coast of South Carolina (after Anderson et al. 1982; DePratter 1979; Poplin et al. 1993; Trinkley 1989; Williams and Thompson 1999). Period/Era Contact

Date AD 1600 - 1750

Ceramic Types Altamaha Burnished Plain Altamaha Check Stamped Altamaha Complicated Stamped Altamaha Incised Altamaha Red Filmed

Mississippian

AD 1400 - 1600

Irene Complicated Stamped Irene Burnished Plain Irene Incised

AD 1000 - 1400

Savannah Complicated Stamped Savannah Burnished Plain Savannah Cord Marked Savannah Check Stamped

Late Woodland

AD 700 - 1000

St. Catherines Cord Marked St Catherines Net Impressed St Catherines Fabric Impressed St. Catherines Plain Wilmington Fabric Impressed Wilmington Cord Marked Wilmington Plain

Middle Woodland

AD 200 - 700

Wilmington Check Stamped Wilmington Cord Marked Wilmington Fabric Impressed Wilmington Plain Deptford Cord Marked Deptford Fabric Impressed Deptford Check Stamped Deptford Linear Check Stamped Deptford Simple Stamped Deptford Plain

Early Woodland

1000 BC - AD 200

Deptford Check Stamped Deptford Linear Check Stamped Deptford Simple Stamped Deptford Plain

1500 - 1000 BC

Refuge Plain Refuge Punctate Refuge Dentate Stamped RefugeSimple Stamped Refuge Incised

2500 - 1000 BC

Thom's Creek Incised Thom's Creek Simple Stamped Thom's Creek Linear Punctate Thom's Creek Drag and Jab Punctate Thom's Creek Plain Stallings Incised Stallings Simple Stamped Stallings Drag and Jab Punctate Stallings Linear Punctate Stallings Plain

Ceramic Late Archaic

38

surrounded by smaller villages and farmsteads. Major centers were spaced about 100 miles apart; hypothesized centers in the project region were located at Town Creek (North Carolina), near Camden, Lake Marion, and Charleston (South Carolina), and near Augusta and Savannah (GeorgiaFerguson 1971). Anderson (1989) and DePratter (1989) identify large political centers on the Wateree River (near Camden), on the Oconee River (in central Georgia), and at Savannah (Georgia). These centers usually contained one or more large mounds upon which temples were built. The Mississippian ceremonial center at the original Charles Towne settlement on Albemarle Point (38CH1) contained no mound structure. Mississippian society appears to have been ranked, without economic classes. Forty sites at Palmetto Bluff contain evidence of Mississippian occupations (Baluha et al. 2003; Poplin 2002a). Data recovery investigations at 38BU1791 examined an intensive Late Mississippian occupation (Mozingo 2002).

Contact Era - Exploration and Settlement European (Spanish) exploration on the South Carolina coast began as early as 1514, and a landing party went ashore in the Port Royal Sound vicinity (now Beaufort County) in 1520 at a spot they named Santa Elena (Hoffman 1983:64; Rowland 1978:1). From that time on, the area was of great interest to both the Spanish and the French. The Spanish did not establish a permanent settlement at that time, however. The first Spaniard to attempt a permanent settlement on the South Carolina coast (in 1526) was San Miguel de Gualdape. The settlement appears to have been in the Winyah Bay area, near Georgetown (Quattlebaum 1955). The French, under Jean Ribault, attempted to establish a settlement in the Port Royal area in 1562. This settlement on Parris Island was called Charlesfort. This French presence on the South Carolina coast drew the Spanish back to protect their original interests. Spanish forces attacked Charlesfort and established their own settlement of Santa Elena in 1566. Recent archaeological evidence indicates that the Spanish built their new settlement of Santa Elena on top of the destroyed French settlement. Local Indians, the Cusabo, were less than friendly, but despite numerous attacks and several burnings, the Spanish settlers did not abandon Santa Elena until 1587 (Lyon 1984; Rowland 1978:25-57). The Spanish maintained their interest in Santa Elena as part of a series of missions on the Sea Islands from St. Augustine, Florida, through Georgia, and into South Carolina; Spanish friars were at “St. Ellens” when the English explorer William Hilton visited the area in 1663 (Covington 1968:8-9; Hilton 1664:2). During its twenty year existence, Santa Elena served the Spanish as the base for the first serious European explorations into the interior of the state.

39

Native American groups encountered by the first European explorers probably were living in a way that was very similar to the Late Mississippian groups identified in archaeological sites throughout the Southeast. Indeed, the highly structured society of Cofitachequi, formerly located in central South Carolina and visited by De Soto in 1540, represents an excellent example of the Mississippian social organizations present throughout southeastern North America during the late Pre-Contact era (Anderson 1985). Initial European forays into the Southeast led to the disintegration and collapse of the aboriginal Mississippian social structures; disease, warfare, and European slave raids contributed to the rapid decline of the regional Native populations during the sixteenth century (Dobyns 1983; Ramenofsky 1982; Smith 1984). By the late seventeenth century, Native American groups in coastal South Carolina apparently lived in small, politically and socially autonomous semisedentary groups (Waddell 1980). By the middle to late eighteenth century, very few Natives Americans remained in the region; all were displaced or annihilated by the rapidly expanding English colonial settlement of the Carolinas (cf. Bull 1770, cited in Anderson and Logan 1981:2425). Groups known to have lived near Palmetto Bluff during the Contact era include the Guale, Cusabo, and later the Yamasee. The Cusabo, a collection of loosely related and /or affiliated groups, occupied the coastal areas of South Carolina from Charleston Harbor to the Savannah River. The Cusabo apparently had poor relations with the Spanish, suffering frequent attacks from the Spanish in Santa Elena during the late sixteenth century and razing that settlement on two ocassions. They remained in the Beaufort area until the early 1700s. The Cusabo received a grant for Polawana Island, east of Beaufort in 1712; in 1738, this land was ceded by the colonial government to a group of Natchez. Whether these Natchez were related to the Cusabo or had derived a claim to Polawana Island from them is unknown (Swanton 1946:128-129). The Guale lived along the Georgia coast from the Savannah River to St. Andrews Sound. They had continuous, albeit at times strained, relations with the Spanish. Many of the Guale converted to Christianity or regularly visited the Franciscan missions established along the coast. In the 1680s, the Guale asked to be removed to Spanish Florida to avoid the near constant harassment from northern Native groups and the English settlers of the expanding Carolina colony (Swanton 1946:135-136). The Yamasee originally occupied lands along the central Georgia coast, centered on the Altamaha River. During the fifteenth and most of the sixteenth century, they moved into settlements created for Native groups near the Spanish missions and settlements of Florida and south Georgia (Swanton 1946:208-209). In 1685, they moved north, severing their ties with the Spanish, and settled in the Beaufort area around the newly established settlement of Stuart’s Town. Following the Spanish destruction of Stuart’s Town, the Yamasee moved farther north, settling between the Ashepoo and Combahee Rivers in what is now Colleton County. In the 1690s, they returned to the Beaufort area, where they remained until

40

1715 (Green 1992:23-28). The Yamasee initiated a war against the English colonists in that year that resulted in their destruction or removal from Carolina by the early 1720s (Swanton 1946:210). To date, we have little archaeological information about these groups except the Yamasee. Excavations at a number of sites throughout Beaufort and Colleton Counties permits the association of a distinct ceramic series, Altamaha, with the Yamasee (Green 1989, 1992; Mozingo 2002). Although we do not know the exact location of all Yamasee settlements, none have been identified to date on Palmetto Bluff.

Post-Contact Era Introduction. As noted above, the low-lying lands surrounding Port Royal Sound were an early focus of European exploration and settlement. The Spanish and the French sought to hold the excellent harbor and the rich swamp lands in the sixteenth century, while Scottish and English settlers first aligned with, and then defeated local Indians in the late seventeenth century. Palmetto Bluff lies southwest of the Town of Bluffton, a resort community founded by planters in the early nineteenth century, and is close to both the May, New, and Okatie Rivers. These rivers provided crucial access to markets for the staple crops of cotton, indigo, and rice grown on the nearby plantations. At the same time, the area around and including Palmetto Bluff produced the more prosaic forest products of lumber and turpentine. The geopolitical situation of the Bluffton area changed several times during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. The Carolina colony consisted of four coastal counties in the seventeenth century: Craven, Berkeley, Colleton, and Granville. The Bluffton/Hilton Head Island area which includes the project tract was not within a county in 1682, but was probably administered first from Colleton County and then from Granville. There were no county seats and all official records were kept in Charleston. Between 1706 and 1767, the coastal portions of South Carolina were divided into parishes, centered around Anglican churches. St. Luke’s Parish, which includes Palmetto Bluff, was created in 1767. The colony of South Carolina was reorganized into circuit court districts in 1769. The project area was then within Beaufort District, the seat of which moved from Beaufort to Coosawhatchie in the late eighteenth century, to Gillisonville in the early nineteenth century, and back to Beaufort later in the nineteenth century after the Civil War. The new state constitution of 1868 redesignated the districts as counties, and Palmetto Bluff has remained within Beaufort County since then.

41

English Colonial Occupation. Settlers in the Carolina Lowcountry were caught up in and were integral parts of wide-ranging disputes and rivalries among the English, Spanish, Native Americans, and African slaves. These disputes and rivalries encompassed nearly all of the Lowcountry, an area that spanned hundreds of miles from Cape Fear, North Carolina south to St. Augustine, Florida. The Spanish had routed the French in East Florida in 1565, and established a settlement at what is now St. Augustine. This Spanish presence was a continual threat to the English settlers, particularly after the 1670s, when Spain learned of the Charles Towne settlement along the Ashley River. King Charles II of England disregarded Spain’s claim to the region. In 1663, King Charles II made a proprietary grant to a group of powerful English courtiers who had supported his return to the throne in 1660, and who sought to profit from the sale of the new lands. These Lords Proprietors, including Sir John Colleton, Sir William Berkeley, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, provided the basic rules of governance for the new colony. They also sought to encourage settlers, many of whom came from the overcrowded island of Barbados in the early years. These Englishmen from Barbados first settled at Albemarle Point on the west bank of the Ashley River in 1670. By 1680, they moved their town down the river to Oyster Point, the present location of Charleston, and called it Charles Towne. These initial settlers, and more who followed them, quickly spread along the central South Carolina coast. By the second decade of the eighteenth century, they had established settlements from Port Royal Harbor in Beaufort County northward to the Santee River in Georgetown County. A group of Barbados planters hired William Hilton to explore the acquisition in 1663. Hilton spent over a month in the waters of both Port Royal and St. Helena, leaving with a high opinion of the area’s potential as a colony (Hilton 1664). Prompted by the account of tall pines and good soils, a small colony set out for Port Royal. Tales of hostile Indians convinced them to move farther north, though, where they founded Charles Towne in 1670 (Holmgren 1959:39). One of the first orders of business for the settlers was to initiate trade with the Indians as a way of ensuring both economic and physical survival (Covington 1968:9). Scottish dissenters established Stuart’s Town on Port Royal Island in 1684. As noted above, the Scots forged ties with the Yamasee Indians, who were seeking to avoid Spanish missionaries in coastal Georgia and Florida. They effectively formed a defensive perimeter of villages on the islands surrounding Port Royal Sound. Stuart’s Town was short-lived, however, suffering destruction by the Spanish in 1686, largely in response to joint Scottish-Yamasee attacks on the Spanish fort at Santa Catalina.

42

A series of large land grants beginning in 1698 signaled a renewed English interest in settling the Port Royal area (Holmgren 1959:42). The Yamasee also returned to the Port Royal area in the 1690s (Green 1992:28). When the town of Beaufort was chartered in 1711, the Yamasee still had ten villages in what are now Beaufort and Jasper Counties. Angered by mistreatment from traders, the Indians attacked, but did not succeed in dislodging the English in the Yamasee War in 1715 (Covington 1968:12). At the time, the war was blamed on Spanish influence from Florida, but a more likely cause was the English traders’ practice of seizing Indian women and children, and holding them as slaves to meet Indian debts. The settlers’ growing need for land for cattle ranching also seems to have been a factor. These early settlements grew slowly, and despite its geographic spread, the Lowcountry of South Carolina contained only around 5,000 European and African-American inhabitants in 1700 (Kovacik and Winberry 1989:77). The Town of Beaufort emerged during these early years, when tensions among the English, French, and Spanish were still strong. The English in the early eighteenth century, like the Spanish in the sixteenth century, discovered that Port Royal Island was a valuable defensive position for the inland waterway between Spanish St. Augustine and English Charles Town. Between 1703 and 1706, a small garrison evolved into a town where military men, cattle traders, planters, merchants, naval stores producers, and Indian traders could gather. The Lords Proprietors agreed, and the town of Beaufort was chartered in 1711. It was made a seaport, subject to the Navigation Acts which regulated British overseas commerce (Rowland et al. 1996:8892). St. Helena Parish, which included all of Granville County, was created in 1712 to center in Beaufort, and St. Helena Parish Church was begun between 1724 and 1726. Initially, the town of Beaufort was little more than an entrepot, a gathering place for merchants and traders that had access to the coastal shipping routes. It took a number of years for it to be established as a port and market town. Settlement in the hinterland waited upon two developments. The end of the Yamasee threat in 1728 and the creation of Georgia in 1732 as a buffer between the English colonies and the Spanish in Florida made movement into the rural areas inland from Beaufort safe, while the emergence of rice and indigo in the region’s economy made it profitable. The early economy centered around naval stores production, cattle ranching, and trade with the Native American populations, particularly in deerskins. While cattle ranching in northern Beaufort County never fully recovered from the attacks suffered during the Yamasee War, it flourished during the middle and later eighteenth century in southern Beaufort County, especially on the sea islands. The barrier islands, especially what is now Hunting Island, were ideal cattle grazing lands in the eighteenth century, and beef and hides from Sea Island cattle plantations along 43

with rice from the new plantations in Prince Williams Parish were the basis of a shipping trade between Beaufort and the West Indies sugar plantations (Rowland et al. 1996:153-154). By the end of the seventeenth century, however, the colonists began to experiment with rice cultivation. The first attempts at growing rice in the Lowcountry were on dry upland soil. By the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries attention turned to the inland swamps. This new technology required the construction of elaborate drainage ditches and canals, and other extensive modifications to the terrain. Rice was complemented by the introduction of indigo as a cash crop in the 1740s. Indigo became one of South Carolina’s principal exports during the eighteenth century. While rice generally did not grow well on the Sea Islands, indigo was successful and provided a strong economic base for the area. It faded quickly as a staple crop, however, after the Revolutionary War. We do not know a great deal about Palmetto Bluff during the colonial period. Most of the deed records begin in the 1770s-1790s, during or immediately following the American Revolution. Undoubtedly, settlers moved onto Palmetto Bluff prior to the War for Independence but we have little documentation of these settlements. Ongoing investigations at Baynard or Montpelier (38BU1789), Pendarvis (38BU1381), Greenleaf (38BU1768), and Rephraim Plantations (38BU1385 and 38BU1803) on Palmetto Bluff may shed light how the tract developed and was used during this period. We do know that the economy of St. Luke's Parish, and that of Palmetto Bluff, grew apace with its demographic development during this period. The local economy evolved from the early days of trading with the Yamasee and other Native Americans into a diversified plantation economy by the mid-eighteenth century. Indigo was cultivated on the Sea Islands, while rice flourished in the fresh water tidal marshes of the mainland. Livestock and provision farming were prevalent, and the region's live oak and long leaf pine forests provided shipbuilding materials and naval stores. Across the Cooper River from Palmetto Bluff, Robert Watts operated a shipyard on Daufuskie Island. There were several other shipyards in the general vicinity. Due to its location, commercial and social ties on the May River Neck tended to be with Savannah rather than Charleston or Beaufort. The Revolution and its Aftermath. The American colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, following several years of increasing tension due to unfair taxation and trade restrictions imposed on them by the British Parliament. South Carolinians were divided during the war, although most citizens ultimately supported the American cause (Rowland 1993). Military activities began the same year, when Britain’s Royal Navy attacked Fort Sullivan (later renamed Fort Moultrie) near Charleston. The British failed to take the fort, and the British defeat bolstered the morale of American revolutionaries throughout the colonies. The British military then turned their

44

attention northward. They returned in 1778, however, besieging and capturing Savannah late in December. Two months later, in February of 1779, British troops from Savannah attacked Port Royal Island. A threatened British invasion led to the American abandonment of Fort Lyttleton on Spanish Point near Beaufort in late January 1779, Beaufort’s only real protection. A small British flotilla then sailed up Skull Creek behind Hilton Head Island, burning plantations. The forces landed at Laurel Bay on the western edge of Port Royal Island in early February, and turned to Beaufort. American forces under General William Moultrie turned the British forces into a retreat, but the loss of Fort Lyttleton left Beaufort and the Sea Islands essentially unprotected. Americans lost to the British under General Augustine Prevost at Coosawhatchie in March 1779, and this put the Americans in a retreat all the way to Charleston. When British forces under Prevost withdrew to Savannah after attempting to take Charleston that same year, the rear guard of his army occupied Beaufort. A major British expeditionary force landed on Seabrook Island during the winter of 1780, and then marched north and east to invade Charleston from its landward approaches (Lumpkin 1981:42-46). The city was captured in May after offering a weak defense. Subsequently, Charleston became a base of operations for British campaigns into the interior of South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina in an attempt to consolidate and draw upon Loyalist support. However, the combined American and French victory over Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1782 effectively destroyed British military activity in the south and forced a negotiated peace (Lumpkin 1981). The thirteen colonies gained full independence, and the English soldiers evacuated Charleston in December 1782. The Port Royal Sound area was hard hit by the armies that passed back and forth. A minister who fled the area during the war described the changes when he returned at the end of the war. “All was desolation,” he noted. “Every field, every plantation, showd [sic] marks of ruin and devastation. Not a person was to be met with in the roads. All was Gloomy [sic]....The people that remain have been peeled, pillaged, and plundered. Poverty, want, and hardship appear in almost every countenance” (quoted in Weir 1983:336). Economic prosperity played the leading role in the events of the American Revolution in St. Luke's Parish. As one scholar of Beaufort County history states: "Indigo, shipbuilding and the overflow from burgeoning Savannah made the 1760s and 1770s the most prosperous period in the eighteenth century for the Beaufort District and most of the local citizens were not anxious to disturb the new prosperity with a political Revolution (Rowland 1978:9).” Riches led to rivalries and sea 45

islanders and mainlanders opposed one another over independence. As a result, the inhabitants of Beaufort were known for their loyalty, while those of St. Luke's tended to support the Revolution. Yet, even these divisions broke down, as Loyalists on Daufuskie Island waged a bloody feud with their patriot neighbors on Hilton Head and the May River Neck. Within Palmetto Bluff, the partisan war was especially violent. Loyalist leader Richard Pendarvis of Stephensville Plantation (at or near 38BU1381) was murdered at his home for committing a similar act the preceding year on a patriot militia man on Bear Island. Pendarvis's neighbor, William Mongin of Walnut Grove (nineteenth century Pettigrew Plantation) was a staunch revolutionary. Thus, the residents of southern St. Luke's Parish were more affected by the internecine nature of the War for Independence in South Carolina than by the British military presence in and around Savannah and Charleston from 1779 to 1782. When the British Army, under General Augustine Prevost advanced from Savannah to the environs of Charleston in 1779, his force passed west and north of Palmetto Bluff, crossing the Savannah River at the Union Causeway and passing through Coosawhatchie. Antebellum Period. The period between the close of the American Revolution and the beginning of the Civil War was characterized in South Carolina, and throughout the South, by plantation agriculture based on slave labor and the production of staple crops such as cotton and rice. It was also a period of increasing sectional tensions, with Southerners emphasizing the political expedience of states’ rights, nullification, and agricultural expansion as means to protect their slavebased society. In the wake of the Revolutionary War, indigo waned quickly as an important crop in Beaufort County, while Sea Island planters were beginning their experiments with long staple cotton. Rice provided a degree of economic continuity for Beaufort County after the War. It had grown quickly during the eighteenth century in its importance to the Lowcountry’s economy, and with the development of new technologies, rice cultivation increased still further. By the late eighteenth century some planters began to experiment with another new technology, which relied on the power of tides to raise river levels; this inundated crops with fresh water that would kill off the weeds. A series of elaborate canals, dikes, and gates kept the salt water out of the fields. In order to do this, the process of radically altering the landscape was expanded as lands along the tidal rivers were drained, canals were built, and fields were surrounded by levies to control their access to the water (Chaplin 1993:227-276) At the same time, this placed a high priority on geography, for only some rivers had tides strong enough to force tidal action up into the fresh water sections of the rivers.

46

Duncan Clinch Heyward (1993:18-20), the fifth generation of his family to plant rice in the Lowcountry, gave a useful description of the process and the difficulties of clearing the swamps in his 1937 memoirs: There were many large white gum, cedar, and cypress trees, and the dark alluvial soil was so soft that one could scarcely walk any distance upon it. To avoid sinking he would have to step from one root to another, or trust his weight to some treacherous tussock. Everywhere his progress was impeded by dense undergrowth, and his clothes and flesh torn by briars . . . . The first step in reclaiming the swamp lands was to build a bank along the edge of the river, with both ends joined to strips of highland where they approached the river’s edge, and through the bank to place trunks, similar to those used in the inland swamps, for the water to pass through. When the bank had been built and the trunks installed, the digging of the canals and ditches in the swamp followed. Then the trees and undergrowth had to be removed, the greatest undertaking of all. The trees were cut down and burned, but their stumps were never completely removed. The result was a distinctive landscape, which maps from the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries capture. Plats of rice plantations from this period show a series of buildings including rice machines, slave cabins, and the planter’s house, that seem minor features in the midst of the pattern of rice canals and dams. With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin on a Savannah River plantation in 1793, cotton superseded rice as the South’s most important cash crop. Although rice remained an important crop along the major fresh water swamps and rivers of the South Carolina Lowcountry, the Sea Islands of Beaufort District were completely devoted to the cultivation of long staple cotton. Originally introduced in the 1790s, Sea Island (or long staple) cotton provided high market returns for planters throughout the antebellum period. The fine, long staple cotton (1.5-2.0 inches compared to 0.75-1.0 inch for upland cotton) was used to weave the finest laces and fabrics. The crop thrived on the soils of the Sea Islands, where farmers fertilized it with marsh mud, eventually even reclaiming salt marshes for cotton fields. The diking and ditching necessary for this reclamation, and also to channel away torrential rains from the fields, created a flood control system nearly as extensive as that for rice. According to Gray (1933:734-735): [I]t was customary to “quarter-drain” the land; that is, divide it into square plots of ¼ acre by cross ditches about 105 feet apart, commonly spoken of as a “task.”

47

The crop was planted on high ridges thrown up at distances of 3 to 6 feet, usually about 4 feet. In the old sea-island region the labor of throwing up the ridges and the entire work of cultivation were generally performed with the hoe until near the close of the period. Many planters maintained permanent ridges, sometimes alternating them with provision crops. Others continued the older practice of hauling down the ridges into the baulks, bedding on the cotton stalks and other manures. In the last two decades of the ante bellum [sic] period the plow was more generally employed. The crop required greater care in production than the shorter stapled upland cotton, and underwent a number of different operations prior to being shipped. These included planting, hoeing, picking, whipping, moting, ginning (initially by hand, then by treadle gins, and by the 1850s the larger and mechanized McCarthy Gin), and packing. Bale weights averaged 300-350 pounds, and actually were large, round sacks of cotton—not the square, higher compression bales used for upland cotton (Gray 1933:735-737). The wealth returned to the planters of St. Helena and St. Luke’s parishes and the other Sea Islands as a result of this crop provided an opulent lifestyle second only to that enjoyed by Lowcountry rice planters. As one northern reporter observed, Beaufort and its environs was "the exclusive home of the most exclusive few of that most exclusive aristocracy" (quoted in Rose 1964:xiv-xv). Palmetto Bluff contained more than 15 nineteenth century plantations. Figure 13 displays the general locations of these plantations at Palmetto Bluff; Table 2 lists the primary plantations. Cotton, rice, corn, and sweet potatoes were the major crops. In addition, most of the planters at Palmetto Bluff owned substantial numbers of livestock. The larger rice plantations in 1850 were those of James T. Theus (Tipperary), Winborn A. Lawton (Oak Island), Miss Catherine Halsey (Octagon), and Robert Corley (Moreland). In 1860, the largest producers were Thomas Fenwick Drayton (Rephraim) and Elizabeth Hamilton (Plantation Numbers 7, 8, and 9). The largest cotton growers were Esther Box, John Stoddard, Elizabeth Hamilton, Thomas Fenwick Drayton, and the Crowell estate (US Census 1850a, 1860a). Both Sea Island and upland varieties of cotton were grown on the May River Neck; Joseph L. Crowell cultivated the former on his May River plantations of Savage Island and Pettigrew, while Elizabeth Hamilton raised the latter on Plantation Number 7 on the New River (J. Crowell 1862; Hamilton 1862). A certain amount of naval stores were produced, in addition to the other agricultural interests. While census information does not link any of the antebellum owners of Palmetto Bluff to sawmills or turpentine distilleries, the timber industry was nonetheless a major business in St. Luke's Parish at this time (US Census 1850b, 1860b). Several of the most powerful Savannah River rice planting families owned plantations on Palmetto Bluff. The Screven family, especially John Screven of Savannah, and his son James Proctor Screven, can be associated with several late eighteenth and nineteenth century plantations 48

Palmetto Bluff

Rephraim Plantation Box Plantation at nt

be

um

t ta an

r be

8

Pl

be r7 lan tat Pl ion an ta t

m

Octagon Plantation

Pettigrew Plantation

Moreland Plantation

Plantation

Theus Plantation

Big House

Oa k

Isla

nd P

Nu m

Nu

n io

The Wilson House

io n

N

r9

n io

a Pl

Greenleaf/Chinquepin Plantation

Montpelier Plantation

North 0

5000

10,000 Feet South Carolina

0

2000

4000 Meters Quadrangle Location

Figure 13.

The location of antebellum plantations at Palmetto Bluff (Bluffton Historical Preservation Society 1987). 49

Table 2.

Nineteenth Century Plantations at Palmetto Bluff.

Plantation

Principal Owner

Rep hraim

Thomas Fenwick Drayton

Box

Caleb W. Box

Greenleaf

Henry J. Hartstene

Chinqu apin Hill

Henry J. Hartstene

Mo ntpelier or Baynard

W.E. Ba ynard

Octagon

Miss Catherine Halsay

Pettigrew

Josep h L. Crowell

Moreland

Robert C. Corley

Theus or T ipperary

James T. Theus

Big H ouse

?

Long Island

Arc hibald Lo ngw orth

Oak Island

Winborn A. Lawton

Num ber 7

James H amilton, Jr.

Num ber 8

John Stodd ard

Num ber 9

John Stodd ard

in the region. John Screven maintained his "Pine Barren Plantation" on the New River, in addition to property in the vicinity of Box, Chinquapin Hill, and Greenleaf Plantations on the May River. His son married the daughter of Richard Proctor, who planted Moreland Plantation, and also held tracts on the New River side of Palmetto Bluff. John Stoddard held immense holdings in St. Peter's Parish, across the New River from his Number 8 and Number 9 plantations on Palmetto Bluff. He lived at Melrose Plantation on Daufuskie Island (Rowland 1985:133-135; Goddard 1797a, 1797b; Jones 1851; Roberts 1798a). General James Hamilton, Jr., veteran of the War of 1812, US congressman, and governor of South Carolina during the nullification crisis in the early 1830s, owned property within Palmetto Bluff. Related by marriage to Nathaniel Heyward, the wealthiest of all South Carolina's rice planters, as well as to Nicholas Cruger, Savannah River financier, Hamilton was a key figure in the development of rice culture in the area, and to the expansion of South Carolina's agricultural, industrial, and economic infrastructure in general. He, and later his wife, planted Plantation Number 7 on Palmetto Bluff (Rowland 1985:133-135; Jenkins 1848). The Civil War. Seven months after the successful Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, the initial military action of the Civil War, Beaufort and the surrounding Sea Islands fell to Union forces. The harbor of Port Royal was attacked by a Federal fleet on 7 November 1861. Union forces made 50

effective use of steamboat technology as their nineteen boats repeatedly steamed past Fort Walker on the northern end of Hilton Head Island in a tight elliptical formation, bombarding as they passed. While they originally stayed out of firing range of the Confederate guns, the Federal ships steamed closer to the coast with each pass. After five hours of bombardment Fort Walker surrendered. When Confederate forces learned of Fort Walker’s surrender, they determined the defense of the harbor impossible and ordered the retreat from Fort Beauregard on Port Royal Sound’s eastern shore (Carse 1961:11; Official Records of the War of Rebellion [OR]:1901:I(6):27-29). Sea Island plantation owners fled to the mainland, leaving behind houses, fields, plantation complexes, and a slave populace convinced they would soon be free (Rose 1964:11-12). The entire Hilton Head area was occupied by Federal troops. Treasury Department operatives and abolitionists (in the form of missionaries, teachers, farm managers, and agents for northern investors) swarmed over the islands within weeks of the military invasion. Congress passed a Direct Tax law in August 1861, and an enforcement provision in June 1862. This placed a levy on all properties held by the Confederates in the Sea Islands. The former owners were given 60 days to pay the taxes, plus penalties, or the property would be sold. Few if any levies were paid by their owners, who had fled at the Union occupation of Port Royal. All of the lands in St. Helena Parish and a portion of those in St. Luke’s were confiscated. The land was advertised for sale in January 1863 (Free South 1863), and in a series of public government auctions 76,775 acres were sold, with 78 percent (60,296 acres) going to the US Government for military, educational, and charitable purposes. Freedmen, military leaders, and abolitionists hotly contested the sales, the conditions of which effectively prevented blacks from buying the lands that they had formerly worked. Nevertheless, the sale and the accompanying surveys of parish land went forward, as the tax commission sought the highest return for the government. This land confiscation and redistribution had significant lasting effects on the parish for over thirty years, leaving a legacy of government regulations, additional sales, and court cases long after the war was over (Rose 1964; Rosengarten 1986). Despite the controversy surrounding property ownership, the area surrounding Port Royal Sound served as the proving ground for Reconstruction policy toward the freedmen. In the early part of the war, many in the North were unconvinced that the liberated slaves would labor without being forced to do so. Policies quickly changed, however, and the US Army, Department of the South, issued General Orders No. 9 in February 1862 which set up districts to oversee plantation work and provided educational and religious instruction to the former slaves (OR 1901:I(6):222-223). The experience in the Port Royal area proved that freedmen could be successful, self-sufficient farmers. It was hoped that this experiment would prepare freedmen for land ownership and stimulate

51

economic independence through agriculture (Rose 1964; Rosengarten 1986). For most freedmen, though, this dream would never materialize. With the occupation of the Sea Islands by Federal troops early in the Civil War, most of the inhabitants fled Palmetto Bluff. The white owners moved farther inland, while most of their African American slaves took refuge with the Union forces headquartered at Hilton Head. Elizabeth Hamilton evacuated her plantation on 7 December 1861; her coachman, butler, and house boy defected to the safety of the Union forces (Hamilton 1862). The area saw limited action in the form of Federal gunboat raids up both the New and the May Rivers, culminating with the two Union excursions against Bluffton in 1862 and 1863, and the engagements at Pocotaligo. Confederate troops encamped above the northern fringe of Palmetto Bluff at a number of locations, from which they guarded the approaches to the Charleston and Savannah Railroad. A Confederate battery was located at Red Bluff across the New River from the Hamilton's Plantation Number 7 and Winborn A. Lawton’s Oak Island Plantation. General Thomas Fenwick Drayton of Rephraim Plantation commanded the Southern troops in the area, though he was apparently not popular with his men (Halliburton 1993:9). The correspondence of William Stokes, a Confederate cavalry officer stationed in St. Luke's Parish from 1861 to 1863, affords an interesting glimpse of Palmetto Bluff and the Bluffton area at this time. During the summer and fall of 1862, he and his men encamped opposite Palmetto Bluff, on the bluffs of the May River, a short distance above Bluffton. From there he moved to Dr. Pritchard's plantation, due north of Palmetto Bluff, and remained there until May 1863. After the war, Pritchard owned Pettigrew Plantation at Palmetto Bluff. While stationed at "Camp Jackson," the encampment on the May River, Stokes highly praised the area. The view was among the finest anywhere; the fishing in the May River was excellent; and, he relished the cool breezes. He met Nathaniel P. Crowell, owner of Savage Island and adjacent Pettigrew plantations, who had remained on his property to prevent its total destruction. Crowell, with the help of his few remaining slaves, supplied the troops with beef, dairy products, and salt (Halliburton 1993:43, 46). On 22 July 1862, Stokes described the prospect: This country is completely deserted, only one old man living here, This camp is about 2 miles above Bluffton. The bank on which my tents are pitched is about 30 or 40 ft. above high water and one of the prettiest places you ever saw. The water here is very salt[y] and here is the place to boil it. My tent is in 20 ft. of the bluff. There is an old man, Mr. Crowell, who lost 60 negroes; in fact, all but three old negroes and with them and one large kettle and a pot, he makes a 12 bushel of salt each day, and boils only in the day. Mr. Crowell is very kind to me and sends me butter milk every day and last night a fine curd. Since I started [writing] I 52

stopped to ride down to Bluffton. It looks like desolation and the once beautiful village is now grown up with weeds. The sand flies are very bad here when the wind is from the inland. Last night they troubled me a great deal, but the night before they did not trouble me at all. Expect to move to New River soon if I can find a good camping place. I may move my camp in a few days as it is too much exposed to the enemy's gun boats here. Still, I will not be far from here then, and all that I would like to move for now is to get my baggage and tents farther from the river (Halliburton 1993:43). Several other Confederate officers visited the camp and thought it "perfectly delightful" (Halliburton 1993:43). However, Nathaniel Crowell and his son Joseph L. Crowell were not as enchanted with the situation on the May River as the Confederate officers were. Joseph L. Crowell had lost 35 bales of Sea Island cotton, weighing 350 pounds per bale and valued at $4,287.50. The cotton and a cotton house had been burned on orders from his neighbor, Gen. Thomas Fenwick Drayton. Another neighbor, Caleb W. Box of the Box Plantation, verified this claim. Nathaniel Crowell had saved half of his cotton crop by "giving half away for the ginning." He had lost 58 out of 61 slaves, while his son claimed 21 of his slaves had deserted to the enemy (J. Crowell 1861, 1862; N. Crowell 1862). As the elder Crowell explained to state authorities: I am staying here on my place to preserve the property as much as possible, Knowing that the moment the place is deserted destruction begins, having bet two or three old Negroes left[.] [D]esolation requires super[vising] here[.] [B]ut my faith in God is unbounded believing He has some great end in view altho' we may be the sufferers, for those who come after us. Let us die in the last ditch Tho" (N. Crowell 1862). The Crowells were particularly exposed to Union operations due to the situation of their Savage Island plantation, and the adjacent Pettigrew Plantation. In March 1862, eight Union steamers penetrated the May River as far as Box's plantation, and shelled Crowell's property. On 30 September 1862, Union troops from Fort Pulaski advanced up the May River on gunboats toward Bluffton, and among other things, destroyed the salt works at Crowell's, and possibly Lawton's, plantations. Union officers noted that these works were extensive, stretching for a quarter of a mile. Crowell's Savage Island Plantation was stripped of livestock and furniture. During the maneuver, the Federal gunboats appear to have stopped at and shelled or burned Baynard's Plantation on Palmetto Bluff opposite the Town of Bluffton (J. Crowell 1861; N. Crowell 1862; Halliburton 1993:54; OR I,VI:105, 107; OR I,XIV: 124, 126, 311, and 313). With the possible exception of the Crowell's property, none of the plantations within Palmetto Bluff were confiscated or involved in federal direct tax cases at the end of the Civil War. Nor was the land subdivided and distributed to freedmen. Most of the plantations did lay fallow, 53

however. Several tracts were abandoned or forfeited due to bankruptcy and back taxes. Livestock grazing and the timber industry became the quickest ways to recoup the loss of economic capital brought on by the war. The absentee owner of Chinquapin Hill and Greenleaf Plantations commented 30 years after the war, that no crop had been raised since 1860; most of the land was in timber and being grazed (Burn Family Papers n.d.). Postbellum Adaptations. Beaufort District became Beaufort County in 1868 under the newly ratified state constitution which redesignated South Carolina’s judicial districts (Stauffer 1994). Ten years later, Hampton County was created from northern and western Beaufort County. Jasper County was then created from southern Hampton County in 1912, thus containing what was, prior to 1878, western Beaufort County. Administrative changes were among the least of the transformations experienced by Beaufort County residents in the aftermath of the Civil War. The overwhelming number of blacks in the county enjoyed more complete political participation, for a longer period of time, than African Americans elsewhere in the state; they were led by a former slave, war hero, and congressman, Robert Smalls. The historian Eric Foner has noted that nearly every southern county with a substantial black population had black local officials; in Beaufort, the mayor, police force, and magistrates were all black (Foner 1988). Most of the county’s officeholders were African Americans well into the 1880s, and the congressional district of which the county was a part elected black representatives until 1896 (Foner 1988; Edgar 1992). By 1870, the population of Beaufort County consisted of 29,050 African American freedmen (84.6 percent) and 5,309 whites (15.4 percent). Beaufort County had a strong majority of African Americans, and this situation continued through the beginning of the early twentieth century; by 1910 over 75 percent of Beaufort County’s population consisted of African Americans. Despite these early and promising political signs, the situation for the County’s freedmen was not promising. The Civil War effectively destroyed the plantation system in South Carolina and the rest of the South. This meant profound changes for the County both economically and socially. The antebellum economic system disintegrated as a result of emancipation and the physical destruction of agricultural property through neglect and (to a lesser extent) military action. A constricted money supply coupled with huge debt made the readjustments worse. The changes were enormous. Land ownership was reshuffled, as outsiders began purchasing plots and former plantations which had been abandoned in the wake of the Civil War. Newly freed slaves often exercised their freedom by moving, making the labor situation even more unsettled.

54

One result of this migration was a variety of labor systems. Reconstruction was a period of experimentation and redefinition in the socio-economic relationships between the freed blacks, landless whites, and white landowners. Although many freedmen owned their own small farms, farm tenancy emerged as a dominant form of agricultural land management toward the end of the nineteenth century. Large tracts of Beaufort Country were purchased by northern investors or regained by their former southern owners. While census statistics for Beaufort County in 1890 and 1900 indicate that the average farm size was approximately 44 acres, a figure deceptively close to the “40 acres and a mule” ideal held by the Freedmen’s Bureau during Reconstruction, very little of the county outside of St. Helena Parish went to the former slaves (US Census 1895, 1902). In fact, only a small portion of the St. Helena property seized and sold by the US Government during and after the war made it to the hands of freedmen (Rose 1964; Rosengarten 1986). As one example, only three lots of 8.1 acres or less each on Salem Plantation of Port Royal Island were apparently sold to free African Americans. These transactions did not occur until 1885 or after, and the property was quickly repurchased by whites (e.g., see Beaufort County Deed Book (BCDB) 18:133, 583, 589, 740, 766). Developers actively encouraged small farmers to immigrate to the area to break the pattern of large landholding, but their efforts were focused on whites (Maul n.d.). Census records for 1880 reveal a wide variety in rates of farm ownership throughout Beaufort County. Table 3 shows the rates of farm ownership for the various census enumeration districts in the County in 1880. The impact of the various efforts to educate the freedmen on St. Helena, Lady’s, and Port Royal Islands seems clear, both in the number of farmers and the high rate of farm ownership, particularly when compared to the rates of ownership in such districts as Sheldon, Coosawhatchie, and especially Hilton Head Island. The farms on the Sea Islands tended to be very small, generally no more than ten acres. Clearly, however, farm ownership was an attainable goal on these islands. The concentration of lands, when the small farmers were either bought or foreclosed off their land, occurred later in the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth. Turpentine and timber led the county’s economy during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Agricultural production included cattle, swine, and the traditional crops of cotton and corn. Vegetable and truck crops were also raised, thriving in the county’s long, warm growing season (Maul n.d.; US Census 1895, 1902). Although cultivated until the third decade of the twentieth century, Sea Island cotton never approached its former status in price, crop yield, or quality (Rose 1964; Rosengarten 1986). In the three years prior to the war, Beaufort County produced 54,904 bales of the staple. A decade later 55

Table 3.

Beaufort County Farm Ownership, 1880.

Enumeration District

Num ber of farmers

Percent owners

Beaufort

886

59.5

Bluffton

443

19.4

Coosaw hatch ie

300

25.3

Hilton Head

182

1.6

Rose Island

1

100

Sheldon

665

24.5

St. Helena

939

77.2

Yem asee

160

76.3

(1870-1873) only 23,307 bales made it to market. By the end of the same decade, over 100,000 acres of formerly cultivated land lay fallow. Some of the decline was due to natural forces, like the unfavorable weather in the years after the war. The altered labor force and lack of capital on the part of former owners who could no longer afford large scale operations, also stymied production. As Rose (1964:381-382) noted, “other land was in disuse because many northern investors had failed at cotton planting.” However, the cotton culture still persisted. The first wilt-free variety of Sea Island cotton was developed by US Department of Agriculture research off the coast of South Carolina in 1899. The hope produced by such advances was dashed with the arrival of the boll weevil in South Carolina in the early twentieth century. Farmers who were members of the Agricultural Society of South Carolina were warned of the arrival of the boll weevil in 1916. By 1919 the pest had spread throughout South Carolina, and it was particularly attracted to Sea Island cotton. Many planters had given up on the crop before the 1918 season (Murray 1949:193-197). Patterns in land use and ownership underwent fundamental changes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Several factors fostered these changes. The development of truck farming, particularly in northern Beaufort County, led to the consolidation of small lots into large farms that could take advantage of the improvements in transportation, allowing perishable crops to get to market. A second factor was the Federal government. The United States government became the major employer and economic force in the Beaufort vicinity between World War I and World War II, with the establishment of the Naval Station and dry dock, later the Parris Island Marine Corps Recruiting Depot. During and particularly after World War II, the Marine Corps Air Station had a powerful impact on the land through developments on the base and through providing an impetus for new housing throughout the County. Two additional factors were particularly important in southern Beaufort County. One was the reconsolidation of former plantation lands in lower Beaufort County into the hands of wealthy 56

outside investors. Foot Point Plantation, on a point of land in a bend of the Colleton River north of Palmetto Bluff, provides a useful example of this process. Henry Seabrook of Edisto Island and Thomas Colcock of Charleston purchased 526 acres of the property in 1864 on behalf of a larger group of investors, all based in Charleston and Columbia. This larger group, which included William Gregg, William Ravenel, James Eason, and William Whaley, was incorporated as the Foot Point Land Company in 1864. By 1868, the Company no longer existed and Eason owned the property. In the late 1860s, however, Eason’s financial difficulties led him to mortgage the plantation, along with a number of other properties, to Charles Lowndes, a Charleston merchant. Eason then sold the property to Lowndes “to avoid the expenses of foreclosure” in 1879. Shortly after, it went into the hands of outside investors. A Bostonian, John Phillips, bought the plantation in 1882; he died in 1885, and his estate turned it over to two Connecticut investors who in turn sold it to the Macon and Atlantic Railway Company in 1891. When this company went bankrupt in the early 1890s, Foot Point along with several other plantations along the Colleton River were sold to the Hunting Island Company; by the 1920s, Henry Cram, a Philadelphia capitalist, had acquired the land (Rust et al. 1997:26-28). A second important factor drew upon the development of investor interest in lands in the Lowcountry, particularly as timber and forest products gained new importance. Plantation owners throughout the Lowcountry maintained forested areas on their lands, and used them for reserves for firewood and building materials. A locally-owned timber and turpentine industry rose in the late nineteenth century, then was taken over by outside investors, principally corporations, in the early twentieth century. The yield of timber from southern forests doubled between 1880 and 1890, and in the first three decades of the twentieth century the South's share of the nation's timber production rose from under one-third to nearly one-half (Simkins and Roland 1972:467). By the 1890s, after a century and more of harvesting timber in the Lowcountry, the great stands of long-leaf yellow pines had been decimated. In 1895, however, the feed planing mill and the steam dry kiln were perfected. Demand for the giant stands of short leaf along the southern coast, loblolly pines that had long ago been written off, rose sharply and several big lumber mill operations emerged throughout the Lowcountry. In 1910 Charleston, for example, only phosphates played a larger role in Charleston’s commercial life than timber (Halsey 1938:209). Lower Beaufort and Jasper Counties, with their vast undeveloped pine forests, came into the hands of timber companies, many of them created by local investors, in the late nineteenth century. Many of these lumber companies remained in business in the area for only a few decades before either going bankrupt or moving on. These investors included John Holbrook Estill, a Savannah publisher, developer, financier, and railroad and utility magnate; Coleman and Williams of Hardeeville, in Jasper County; Varn Turpentine & Cattle Company of Valdosta, Georgia; the 57

Bluffton Turpentine Company; Turpentine and Rosin Factors, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida; the William Hutson Lumber Company; and the Argent Lumber Company, also of Hardeeville (Harvey and Poplin 1998:32; Hill et al. 1994:38-43). Other locally-based landowners in the area included John Meggett, George Shults, and W.B. Ryan. The Savannah River Lumber Company, the New River Lumber Company, and the Pierpont Company, meanwhile, all operated in Jasper County (Harvey and Poplin 1996). During the last quarter of the nineteenth century land ownership of Palmetto Bluff also passed to timber interests. Fred Schlegelmilch and David Mittell of Massachusetts established a lumber operation, complete with store and settlement at Big House Landing on the New River, in the 1870s. John Holbrook Estill became interested in the May River Neck in the late 1880s and 1890s. With his agent and partner Wesley C. Vincent, through business ventures like the Beaufort Land and Investment Company, he slowly leased and then purchased most of Palmetto Bluff and utilized it for extensive lumbering and turpentine operations. Some of the older owners at Palmetto Bluff refused to sell out, and even more adamantly refused to lease their timber to the turpentine barons. Martha Hartstene, the absentee proprietor of Chinquapin Hill and Greenleaf Plantations, was constantly in legal battles with Vincent or the Verdier family of Bluffton over leases to her property. She was reticent to see the timber harvested and flatly stated that bleeding the trees for turpentine destroyed them. In the mid-1890s, her granddaughter, Sylvia Hortense Davis moved to the property and it remained one of the last parcels to be sold to the large land owners of the tract in the early twentieth century (Bluffton Historical Preservation Society [BHPS] n.d.; Spieler 1985; Burn Family Papers n.d.; US Census 1880). Around 1900, Palmetto Bluff experienced yet another round of ownership and land use. New York millionaire Richard Thornton Wilson, Sr., purchased the Estill lands, established a residence there, and began utilizing it as a hunting plantation. This is also when the tract came to be called Palmetto Bluff. Wilson, his son (Richard Thornton Wilson, Jr.), and son-in-law (Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr.) pursued timber operations on Palmetto Bluff, but also promoted the cultivation of cotton and truck crops and the raising of livestock. However, the primary use of Palmetto Bluff had changed. It became one of the many large game or retreat plantations in Beaufort and Jasper Counties, like Pinelands, Okatee, and Chelsea. Realtors and railroads, often owned by the same interests as the large timber companies as in the case of John Holbrook Estill and Palmetto Bluff, promoted the establishment of these game preserves in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They assembled large tracts of undervalued land for resale to wealthy Northerners who were seeking rural lands where they could relax far from the public exposure of their lives in the Northern cities. The proximity of Wilson's Palmetto Bluff to other tracts in the area greatly enhanced their value as sporting grounds (Christensen Family 1928). The rebirth of the Southern 58

plantations, particularly with respect to Wilson’s acquisition and development of Palmetto Bluff, is discussed further in Chapter I. Inglesby (1968:125) provides a description of the Wilsons’ Palmetto Bluff: Something of a principality, the [Palmetto Bluff] estate had 8,000 acres under cultivation, growing cotton as well as produce. There was an electrical plant, water towers, refrigeration house, laundry, a school for employees' children . . . even a post office. And a doctor to look after them all. But all of these facilities surrounded the Wilson mansion, often described as a three story, 40 room, Neo-Classical edifice that Richard Wilson, Jr., erected for his family in 1915. The Wilson House was possibly the grandest dwelling house in South Carolina at that time. After it burned in March 1926, Wilson lost interest in Palmetto Bluff, sold out, and returned to New York, where he died three years later (Union Camp n.d.; Spieler 1985). Timber operations on Wilson’s Palmetto Bluff were probably contracted to the firm of Coleman & Williams of Hardeeville (Spieler 1985; Burns 1992:179). They continued to exercise rights to the property for six months after Wilson sold Palmetto Bluff to J. E. Varn, Jr. J. E. Varn, Jr., was a Georgia timber magnate. He died shortly after purchasing the property, whereupon his heirs transferred the tract to the Varn Turpentine & Cattle Company of Valdosta, Georgia. G. W. Varn succeeded his brother as company president, and apparently tried unsuccessfully to sell the tract early in 1928, claiming that he was "not in position [to] remain here and look after it as it should be . . . ." Actually, the day-to-day management of the tract was the responsibility of G. W. Varn's brother-in-law, J. M. Clements. The tract was maintained as the Palmetto Bluff Turpentine Company, a naval stores manufacturing subsidiary of the Varn Turpentine & Cattle Company, until its purchase by Union Bag and Paper Company in 1937 (BHPS 1926, 1928). The dominant twentieth century landowner in southern Beaufort County entered the scene in the 1930s. The Union Bag and Paper Corporation was based in New York City, and produced bags and other paper products. The company joined the movement southward, and in 1935 began building a pulp and paper plant in Savannah. Union Bag and Paper Company made a significant purchase in 1937, buying the Palmetto Bluff properties of Varn Turpentine and Cattle Company (Spieler 1985). Through the late 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s the company bought vast amounts of timber land that had been acquired in the early twentieth century by individual and smaller corporate investors. 59

Many areas throughout the County were left out of these processes, however. In large parts of the County, the predominantly black population remained isolated, eking a subsistence from their small farms and gardens, hunting, and fishing in the area’s vast woodlands and wetlands until large scale land development began in the region in the 1960s. During this period, Palmetto Bluff remained a large estate used by the principals of the Union Bag and Paper Company as a hunting retreat and experimental forest. Union-Camp, as the company became in the 1950s, built a lodge atop the site of the former Octagon Plantation house soon after acquiring the property. The Octagon house had served Richard Wilson, Sr., and his son-in-law, Cornelius Vanderbilt, but was not adequate for the needs of Union-Camp and its guests. The lodge was damaged or destroyed by fire several times between 1937 and the mid-1950s. Palmetto Bluff, LLC, removed the last Union-Camp lodge during 2002-2003. Union-Camp also constructed a number of ponds throughout the tract that now contain sport fish. The company improved roads throughout Palmetto Bluff, and instituted timber and wildlife management practices designed to enhance the forests and animal populations throughout the tract. In the 1990s, the Union-Camp Corporation realized the value of Palmetto Bluff, as well as most of its nearby timber lands, as potential real estate in the burgeoning resort and residential developments that blossomed throughout St. Luke’s Parish in the 1980s and 1990s. Through the Branigar Organization, they began exploring how to move Palmetto Bluff from a company retreat and managed timber lands to a resort or residential facility. The International Paper Company bought Union-Camp in 1999. International Paper pursued these studies briefly, and then sought a buyer for Palmetto Bluff. In 2001, Palmetto Bluff, LLC, was created to design and to oversee the development of a residential and recreational facility unlike any other in the Hilton Head area. That development continues at Palmetto Bluff today.

60

Chapter IV. The Wilson Family R. T. Wilsons Give a Musicale Mr. and Mrs. Richard T. Wilson gave a musicale yesterday afternoon at their residence, 130 West Fifty-Seventh Street, in honor of Mrs. Henry Tudor of Boston . . . Miss Fellowes Morgan and Frank Pollock sang, in solos and duets from “Carmen” and “Faust.” Henry Leopold played the piano, as did Miss Elsa Maxwell. Among the guests were Lord and Lady Auckland, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Larocque, Mr. and Mrs. James Lowell Putnam, Mr. and Mrs. De Iwolsky, Mrs. William Post, Miss Wise, the Duchess de Richelieu, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Knox Bell, Baron Rosen, Mrs. Herman Duryea and Edson Bradley. (New York Times (NYT), 21 March 1921: p. 13, col. 2) Disastrous Fire at Bluffton The most disastrous fire ever to visit this section totally destroyed the home of R. T. Wilson at Palmetto Bluff, just across May River from Bluffton Tuesday afternoon. The entire residence, which was regarded as the most palatial in the lower part of South Carolina, was destroyed together with practically all the furnishings, [sic] paintings, and furniture, priceless in their value, were lost. The damage is estimated at more than half a million dollars. How much insurance carried has not yet been learned. (Beaufort Gazette (BG), 4 March 1926: p. 1) All that remains of the Wilson home at Palmetto Bluff, South Carolina, are fragments: the columns that once graced the front of the house; a fountain pool; pieces of hand carved cornices. Found among the ruins were few tangible elements of life in Bluffton; including a child’s porcelain tea set, dolls, a toy kitchen set, and fragments of champagne bottles. These fragments tell a story, though. This is a story with roots in the Confederate South and in Gilded Age New York. This is a story whose characters bear names such as Vanderbilt, Goelet, Astor, and Whitney. This is a story whose settings range from a small town in Georgia and the battlefields of the Civil War, to London, England. The story continues in the opulent settings of Fifth Avenue, New York, and Newport, Rhode Island, and moves finally to the wilds of undeveloped Bluffton, South Carolina. This is a story whose scenes occur in booming banks, courtrooms, racing clubs, the Metropolitan Opera, Newport mansions, New York salons, and “…the most palatial [house] in the lower part of South Carolina…” (BG, 4 March 1926: p. 1). This is also story of Gilded Age America success, ambition, and social climbing that took the Wilson family to dizzying heights. 61

Historians define the Gilded Age as an outwardly ostentatious time in America commencing with the post-Civil War industrialization boom and concluding with the start of World War I in England and the stock market crash of 1929 in the United States. As noted above, the term “Gilded Age” was actually coined by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley in their 1874 book of the same name that savagely pokes fun at the new American elite and its related corruption and elitism. The Gilded Age in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany was a time characterized by ostentatious materialism and the conspicuous pursuit of wealth. It saw the birth of the large corporation, the zenith of the industrial revolution, the discovery and development of raw materials, and ultimately the emergence of the United States as the greatest economic and political power. Great social change came with these new economic developments. We see the rise of the great cities, the abandonment of agricultural pursuits, great migrations of impoverished people around the world, and the rise of the middle class. Gregory 1993:10 states: “never had there been a moment so golden with opportunity, and those who seized the day became outrageously rich and powerful.” So, who were the Wilsons of Fifth Avenue, New York and Newport, Rhode Island? We know that the family fortune started with Richard T. Wilson, Sr., and we know that Mr. and Mrs. Richard T. Wilson, Jr. were products of America’s Gilded Age, cosmopolitan New Yorkers with “new” money – railroad money, banking money. Richard T. Wilson, Jr. had roots in Georgia, yet he was raised in post-Civil War New York. His wife, the former Marion Mason, grew up in Boston. The couple had homes in New York City and Newport and traveled often to Europe. We hoped to find from our research what their land and home at Palmetto Bluff, South Carolina meant to them. The story of Richard T. Wilson, Jr., and the Palmetto Bluff estate starts with his father, the first Richard T. Wilson, who amassed a fortune and assured a position on New York’s society rolls for his family. A veteran of the Confederate Army, Richard T. Wilson, Sr., moved his family to New York after the Civil War (Craig 1923). He made his fortune primarily in the banking industry but had connections in the oil and railroad industries. A Gilded Age American success story, Richard Wilson Sr., had much to leave his son. Richard T. Wilson, Jr.’s wealth was, in large part, a direct result of his father’s ambitions. Although he inherited a great deal - land, homes, a business, and a place in society, Richard Jr., followed his fathers diligent work ethic and add greatly to the Wilson fortune. Richard T. Wilson, Sr. was born in 1829 to a family of modest means near Gainesville, Georgia. The son of a tanner, he would experience an extraordinary life. One of seven children, Richard would travel far from this small town. His was a story of self-made wealth tinged with hints of unscrupulous activities. It was claimed that his wealth approximated $40,000,000 at the time of his death (Craig 1923:13). 62

Richard T. Wilson started his adult life as a traveling salesman. It is rumored that he left home with 40 dollars in his pocket (Craig 1923:13). In Loudon, Tennessee, he met wealthy planter Ebenezer Johnston. Apparently, he convinced Johnston to back him in a business venture and to let him marry his daughter Melissa Clementina (1831-1908) in 1849 (Newport Mercury (NM), 3 January 1930). Melissa Wilson was later remembered by her grandson Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. (the fourth) as having “…lost neither her zest for people nor her capacity to be shocked by them. To the end she remained a great lady of irreproachable rectitude, yet with a sweet and lovable character” (Vanderbilt 1956: 173). The couple’s first child, Mary “May” Rita was born in 1854 (died 1929). Their son Marshall Orme was born in 1860 (died in 1926) and daughter Leila Belle (known as Belle) was born in 1864 (died in 1923). Richard T. Wilson, Jr. was born in 1866 in Atlanta. The couple had three other children who died young. The Wilson family remained in Tennessee until around the start of Richard’s service in the Civil War. Richard advanced to the rank of commissary general in the Confederate Army, and was stationed in Atlanta. In 1864, he moved his family to London where he served as a Confederate fiscal agent and did not return until the war’s end (New York Herald Tribune (NYHT), 30 December 1929). After the war the family returned to Atlanta, Georgia but in 1870, Wilson relocated his family to New York City to a home at 812 Fifth Avenue. Their youngest daughter Grace was born in New York later that year (died 1953). Richard arrived in New York a wealthy man. No one there knew where the money had come from, “…but Old New York assumed he’d been selling Confederate supplies to foreign governments while in London. He set about increasing his fortune and was highly successful in banking and southern railroads…” (MacColl and Wallace 1989:41). He had actually begun amassing his fortune in London while working as a fiscal agent through the buying and selling of southern railroad bonds. The “bearer bonds” were shipped at great risk through the Union blockade of the southern coast. Once in London, the bonds were sold at inflated prices on the London market. He also sold cotton abroad; he represented Southern growers who no longer had a market for their crops in America (Fraser 2002:3). Wilson’s Tennessee-based father-in-law financed the speculative ventures. Once settled in New York, Wilson continued to build his fortune by investing in railroads and streetcar lines and by becoming involved in investment banking. He also organized a firm to rebuild the war-ravaged East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway. He became president of this railroad around 1870, and by the late 1870s, his railroad and streetcar involvement greatly increased his worth (Fraser 2002:38). In the 1880s he was one of the founders/builders of the Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad. He went on to own lines in the Midwest and street railways in Detroit, Cleveland, and other cities. Professionally, Wilson was known as a banker. In fact, he founded a

63

successful banking house, R. T. Wilson & Co., with offices at 33 Wall Street and 141 Pearl Street (Biographical Directory of the State of New York 1900). Richard T. Wilson, Sr. was a product of the Gilded Age. While the name “Wilson” may not have the same level of recognition or social prominence as Vanderbilt or Astor, the Wilsons were nevertheless a prominent New York family. Wilson made sure that his family lived well, very well, that they had homes at the right addresses, that they were members of the right clubs, and that they knew the right people. From the family’s first home at 812 Fifth Avenue, Wilson eventually moved his family uptown (and up the social ladder) to 511 Fifth Avenue (ironically, the one-time home of Tammany Hall leader William M. “Boss” Tweed). The family name appeared on The Social Register with its first publication in 1889. From what we know of the man, Richard T. Wilson, Sr. seems to have been larger than life. His grandson, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., had the following to say about him: I remember him best in a spotless white waistcoat and Prince Albert coat with satin lapels, wearing high shoes and dark-gray spats. He was an immensely big man, with a nose which looked as though it might have been flattened at some time, back in the romantic Rhett Butler days in the South, before he became a dignified pillar of finance” (Vanderbilt 1956: 173). Wilson was among some of the earliest members of the New York Metropolitan Opera House Company, an organization characterized, at its start, by new money and class struggle. “At the New York Academy of Music, an exclusive venue for opera from 1854, eighteen private boxes were monopolised by an old elite of Roosevelts, Stuyvesants and others” (The Economist: 2 June 2001). Newer names to the New York elite social scene accepted this and their poor seats. However, William Vanderbilt refused to settle for seats in the stalls, so he bid $30,000 for a box (The Economist: 2 June 2001). When he was refused, Vanderbilt and a group of his compatriots (including Goulds, Whitneys, Rockefellers, Morgans) contributed $10,000 each to incorporate a new opera company boasting 122 private boxes, the Metropolitan Opera House Company. The new company and the new money drove the Academy of Music out of business by 1885 (The Economist: 2 June 2001). Mr. Richard T. Wilson, Sr. bought in early on and his children spent many years enjoying the “Diamond Horseshoe” seats (Fraser 2002:9). The Wilson name and family ultimately emerged into New York society when the children reached marrying age. In 1877, the marriage of Wilson’s daughter May to Ogden Goelet (a member of a prominent real estate-developing family) eased the family into the highest echelons of New York society and opened the doors for the other children to marry well and ensure their own futures on The Social Register. “The Goelets were Old New York denizens, deriving their genteel income 64

from New York real estate. To be sure, Ogden’s income wasn’t immense, but his connections were impeccable. Suddenly, the Wilsons were related by marriage to some of New York’s stuffiest families” (MacColl and Wallace 1989:41). It was Mrs. Wilson who took an active role in marrying the Wilson children into prominent families. In fact, in some circles, Mrs. Wilson was referred to as the “greatest match-maker in America” and her children were even known as the “marrying Wilsons” (Fraser 2002:8). The Wilsons were known in New York as “...the most successful matrimonial schemers in the world outside of the royal House of Denmark” (Vanderbilt 1956: 105). All of the Wilson children went on to marry prominently, thus increasing the family wealth and social cache. Son Marshall Orme Wilson married Caroline Astor in 1884 (Fraser 2002:38). In 1888, daughter Leila Belle married Sir Michael Henry Herbert, a British diplomat and one time British Ambassador to the United States. With the success of their children’s marriages, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson were assured a prominent position in New York society. The youngest child, daughter Grace, married Cornelius Vanderbilt in 1896 after a turbulent courtship against the Vanderbilt family wishes; this was the only marriage Mrs. Wilson did not “arrange” (NYHT, 30 February 1929). Cornelius Vanderbilt, Sr. was especially opposed to his son’s wedding. A terse statement from the Vanderbilt family read simply “The engagement of Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., to Miss Wilson is against his father’s expressed wish” (Vanderbilt 1956: 54). When asked about his thoughts on the possibility of Cornelius Jr. being disinherited by his family, Richard T. Wilson, Sr. snapped “It makes no difference what Mr. Vanderbilt does. I am not concerning myself about his intentions. Whether he cuts his son off without a cent or not, the wedding will take place at the time and place arranged” (Vanderbilt 1956: 56). So wide was the power wielded by the Vanderbilt family in upper crust New York society, Of the hundred and fifty invitations sent out to “the usual list”–meaning the cream of New York society (excluding all Vanderbilts)–only about a third accepted. Many announced hurried departures east, west, south, and abroad, anxious to escape the risk of being permanently cut off the Vanderbilt list, and possibly snubbed by all the Vanderbilt’s influential friends as well (Vanderbilt 1956: 57). Richard T. Wilson, Sr. gave his daughter Grace a trust fund of $500,000 when she married Cornelius Vanderbilt. This trust fund yielded a yearly income of about $25,000, which, according to Grace’s son Cornelius, Jr., was roughly the amount of money that Grace spent yearly on her wardrobe (Vanderbilt 1956: 80). In 1898, Grace Wilson Vanderbilt gave birth to Cornelius, Jr., a child reportedly referred to by the Vanderbilt clan as “...that Wilson baby” (Vanderbilt 1956: 109). The Vanderbilt family continued to ostracize Cornelius and Grace, even after the birth of their grandson. A reporter of the time noted that “...the Vanderbilt family are as noted for their obstinacy

65

as the Wilson family for shrewdness and tact” (Vanderbilt 1956: 109). Figure 14 is a photograph of Richard T. Wilson, Sr., Melissa Wilson, and their grandson, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. By the late 1800s, Richard T. Wilson, Sr. owned homes in New York and Newport, Rhode Island. The family escaped to their Newport Cottage, purchased from William R. Travers in 1885 and located on prestigious Narragansett Avenue, during the hot summer months. During this period, many wealthy northerners also began purchasing large tracts of land in the South to use as hunt clubs and winter homes. In 1902, at the age of 72, Wilson purchased approximately 18,000 acres near Bluffton, South Carolina. The property was situated on “…a neck of land between the May River and the New River, facing toward Calibogue Sound” (Savannah Morning News (SMN), 4 March 1926: p. 16). On the property he named Palmetto Bluff, he built a hunting lodge. More than simply keeping up appearances, Wilson may have had a sentimental reason for purchasing this land near the Georgia border. It may have represented a return to his roots – albeit one that provided ready access (for the time) to New York. Palmetto Bluff’s proximity to Savannah and Charleston allowed access to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad’s North-South Line. Additionally, luxury steamships regularly made the journey between Savannah and New York (Fraser 2002:1-2). Little is known about how regularly Wilson and his family used the Palmetto Bluff lodge in the first years of the 1900s. Wilson had owned the property for only eight years when he died in 1910 (Mrs. Wilson died in 1908), and it is at this time that the property and the Wilson family story shifted to a second generation, and specifically to Richard T. Wilson, Jr. In the distribution of his father’s estate, Richard T. Wilson Jr. received approximately $2,872,840, a sum that served to provide him with a more than comfortable existence (NM, 3 January 1930). Born in Atlanta, Georgia on September 11, 1866, Richard T. Wilson, Jr. moved with his family to New York in 1870. He attended private schools in New York and graduated from Columbia University in 1887. He then entered the banking house of his father, R. T. Wilson & Co. In 1898, he was appointed commissioner of municipal statistics. After his father’s death, Richard T. Wilson, Jr. became head of the family firm (NYHT, 30 December 1929). Judging by correspondence within the Wilson family, it seems there was pressure on Richard T. Wilson, Jr. to get married and start a family. Following her wedding to Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. in 1896, Grace wrote the following to her brother from their honeymoon spot in Saratoga (this was his gift to the couple):

66

Figure 14.

Richard T. Wilson Sr., Melissa Wilson, and grandson Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. 67

I advise you to go and get married at once!...I hope you will see Belle’s (their sister) letter about my getting married–exactly your and my views. Do write and tell me how you are getting along without me to bother you. Neily (Cornelius) and I are delighted with Marriage, etc., and he is even dearer as a husband than he was as a fiancé!! (Vanderbilt 1956: 75-76) Richard T. Wilson, Sr., in a letter written in 1900 to his daughter May, related that “...I haven’t told you a word yet about dear Dick’s life. Well, he has become I fear almost a confirmed old bachelor. He does not seem to take much interest in society or in the young ladies” (Vanderbilt 1956: 147). On March 11, 1902, Richard T. Wilson, Jr. married Marion Steadman Mason, a member of a prominent Boston family and the daughter of Dr. Amos Mason and Louisa Lake Steadman Mason (Newport News (NN), 7 July 1947). Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. describes the collection of guests at a dinner party hosted by his parents, including “...foreign diplomats, admirals (Prince Henry, who would have made a happy English country squire, served instead as an admiral of his brother’s navy), and the upper crust of New York society...” (Vanderbilt 1956: 172). He goes on to say that “...the same group of guests...took off en masse for Boston in their private railway cars to witness the wedding of my bachelor uncle Dick to Marion Mason, daughter of a fashionable Back Bay doctor” (Vanderbilt 1956: 173). The couple had two daughters, Louise (born about 1905) and Marion (born about 1907). Figure 15 presents two photographs of Louise Wilson. Mrs. Wilson was an active New York woman who was very involved in social, charitable, and political activities. She was a founder of the Embassy Club and was prominent in organizing women in support of presidential candidate Calvin Coolidge in 1924 (NYHT, 5 July 1947). It appears that Mrs. Wilson was her husband’s equal in many ways. It also appears that she probably enjoyed the social activities a bit more than her husband. Over the years, she was known (sometimes infamously) for her parties. Marion had her own connections to the South as she was related to several old South Carolina families: the Steadmans, the Blakes, the Serres, and the Jeannerretts. Mr. Wilson’s true passion, apparently shared with Mrs. Wilson, was breeding thoroughbred racehorses. He formed a stable of racing horses and bred thoroughbreds on his farm in Kentucky. He began to take a scientific interest in the subject of thoroughbred breeding and grew interested in improving the breed of the racers and draft and farm animals. He took part in nation-wide propaganda to spread the principles of breeding high grade horse and other livestock (NYHT, 30 December 1929).

68

691

Figure15. 1. Figure

Two vintage photographs of Louise Wilson at Palmetto Bluff.

Miss Louise Wilson at Palmetto Bluff

In February 1909, Richard T. Wilson, Jr. was named president of the Saratoga Racing Association (Durkee n.d.). An important annual social event was the racing season. As president, he took an active role in the revival of Saratoga as both a racing center and a spa. The Saratoga Association for Improving the Breed of Horses, which he also headed, was primarily interested in race horses, but the group developed an active interest in the problem of the farm horse and work horse, whose future was seriously endangered by the automobile and by automatic farm machinery. In 1915, Mr. Wilson campaigned to induce Congress to take action to supervise the exportation of horses for cavalry and draft uses by the Allies. Mr. Wilson advocated restrictions on the exportation of high class brood mares, pointing out that the indiscriminate sale of horses might seriously impair the genetic stock” (NYHT, 30 December 1929). Under the leadership of Richard T. Wilson, Jr., the racing season at Saratoga became one of the brilliant sporting and social events of the country. He was largely responsible for the enlargement and beautification of the racecourse. He also initiated, in August of 1929, the LadyOwners Handicap and presented the first trophy to Mrs. Payne Whitney, owner of the first winner (NYT, 30 December 1929). Mr. Wilson was also active in promoting philanthropic enterprises at Saratoga Springs. In 1924 he aided the trustees of Skidmore College in raising an endowment fund for the school (NYHT, 30 December 1929). He was also a director of the Westchester Racing Association at the Belmont Park track, which at the time of his death was the most costly racing establishment in the New York metropolitan district (NYT, 30 December 1929). Richard T. Wilson, Jr. was also involved in a number of social organizations, including the Columbia Alumni Association, Sons of the Revolution, the Union, Knickerbocker, New York Yacht, Brook Racquet and Tennis, Turf and Field, South Side Sportsmen’s and Jockey Clubs (NYHT, 30 December 1929). Additionally, …Mr. Wilson exerted great influence in Democratic politics, being consulted repeatedly by leaders of his party, both state and national. A man of broad culture and attractive social qualities, he was tender-hearted, modest, and fearless, and bore himself always as a gentleman of fine impulses and high ideals (The National Cyclopedia of American Biography n.d.:360). Mrs. Wilson, in particular, seemed to greatly enjoy all that wealth offered. She was quite an entertainer. In fact, The New York Times reported regularly on her parties. One particularly infamous party received page one press in the newspaper. This party occurred on February 20, 1921, at her studio on 130 West-Fifty Fourth Street. It appears the Mrs. Wilson regularly used the studio located in a co-operatively owned building of budding and established “artistic types” - for salonstyle entertaining with musical performances. This particular party went on for too long and drew 70

the ire of some of her [uninvited] guests who complained to the authorities. Incidentally, this was not the first time that her parties had upset her neighbors. Her neighbors, including one Francis Newton and the artist Childe Hassam, often objected to “…the sound of cello and violin after midnight” (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). The co-op board had already informed Mr. Wilson that his wife was disobeying the co-op regulations and the Wilsons had received several written notifications regarding the complaints. None of this seemed to stop Mrs. Wilson, who felt it her duty to entertain and to entertain well. Besides, how could one persecute a woman who was playing “good” music (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4)? The last straw for neighbors Newton and Hassam came during the February 20 party when they took matters into their own hands. As The New York Times reported: in the midst of a musicale attended by socially prominent persons two policemen knocked on the door and announced that they were from the West Forty-seventh Street police station, and that as the result of a complaint the fervor of the musicians must be restrained. They remained for some time, during which the music was subdued to the suggestion of tragedy, and the guests conversed in carefully modulated tones (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). As a result of this and the culmination of a series of other related complaints, Mrs. Wilson received a court summons for a technical charge of disorderly conduct. The New York Times reported in great detail on her court appearance. To Mrs. Wilson, the summons was little more than an unjustified nuisance. It was expected that a woman of her stature would and should throw such parties. “She said that it appeared to her that some one was a bit peevish, and that it hardly seemed necessary to drag a woman into a police court when effective protest could have been made in some other way” (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). As she told the esteemed newspaper: “There seems to be no personal liberty left in this country. I think I will go to Italy by and by and spend my declining years there. How any one could object to the music I have had here is a mystery to me” (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). The New York Times appeared to take Mrs. Wilson’s side and it listed her guests and stated that, The list of Mrs. Wilson’s guests would not suggest that it was an affair which would call for police intervention. At the dinner which preceded the entertainment were Mrs. Horatio Slater, Mr. And Mrs. Joseph H. Hunt, Mrs. James Lowell Putnam, Albert Morris Bagby, Mrs. Chauncy Olcott, Mrs. James B. Haggin, Mrs. Alfred M. Beadleston, Mrs. Oakleigh Rhinelander, Harris Brown, Chester Allen Arthur, Major F. M. Guardabassi and Robert McKee. Those who arrived after the dinner were Mr. 71

and Mrs. Oliver Harriman, Frank A. Munsey and other friends (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). Continuing, the newspaper discussed Mrs. Wilson’s upcoming court appearance. Mrs. Wilson’s attorney found a large number of persons who said they would gladly appear in court in Mrs. Wilson’s behalf, and the gathering in the West Side Court today promises to be one of the most impressive socially that unimpressive edifice has ever housed. Mr. Bagby, Mr. Munsey and Oliver Harriman said they would be on hand, as did Miss Elsie Lenssen of 30 East Fiftieth Street, who occupied Mrs. Wilson’s apartment last Winter and offended Mr. Hassam by her music (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). During the trial, Mrs. Wilson testified that she believed Mr. Hassam was most bothered by her entertaining and regularly tried to put a damper on her fun. Mr. Hassam protested against music in the daytime, I believe, because he paints then and it disturbed him, but there did not seem to be any reason why there should not be music at night. I have been told that he used to jump up and down on the floor when he was disturbed (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). Mrs. Wilson recalled another occasion during which she employed a “small orchestra” in order to entertain a, distinguished Englishman, and I received a note that the music had caused annoyance to some of those in the house. Since then I have not had an orchestra, and I do not see what objection there could have been to the cello and piano. If it is impossible to have music after midnight there is not much use in giving entertainments nor in having an apartment of this kind. What other use can I put the studio to? (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). Mr. Wilson was present during the proceedings but seemed distracted and bored according to the newspaper. He even dismissed the complaint as petty. Mrs. Wilson, on the other hand, seemed to relish in the attention brought to her. She, held in her hand a little sheaf of notes, containing the names of her guests at the entertainment complained of, and of the other tenants who had offered to appear for her. She frequently interjected corrections of the testimony, and when the stenographer hesitated over a name, announced it for him (NYT, 5 March 1921: p. 28, col. 2).

72

Mr. Newton testified that “The disturbance consisted of dancing, loud conversation and laughter, singing and playing on the piano. It lasted till 3 or 4 o’clock, and occurred once a week at least the greater part of this Winter” (NYT, 5 March 1921: p. 28, col. 2). Mrs. Newton also testified and said she found the music to be intolerable: I can’t close my eyes until after 4 o’clock when these parties occur…I have heard dance music, singing by men and women. The dance music was particularly noisy, and they evidently have someone who pounds on the floor to keep time. Then the furniture is moved about. I don’t know what happens, but it sounds as if they were throwing it around. The opera music is high class, and there is about as much of it as there is of the dance music, but it is just as noisy. As to the conversation, I have heard dinner conversations so plainly I could repeat them (NYT, 5 March 1921: p. 28, col. 2). The artist Childe Hassam testified passionately regarding what he perceived to be cacophonous entertaining: I am annoyed all day by constant piano playing…and at night by more playing. I am kept awake by an absolute riot. You can call it music, but it’s an absolute riot. The parties usually start at 12, at least the noise begins then – it gets bad about then. “What is the character of the music?” “Ragtime,” said Mr. Hassam emphatically. “I should say cacophony.” “Discords,” explained Mr. Hassam. “Yelling, cat-calling” (NYT, 5 March 1921: p. 28, col. 2). Interestingly, the Wilsons were probably in the wrong as they had been verbally warned on several occasions that their entertaining went against house regulations that forbid music after 11 p.m. Despite the fact that Mrs. Wilson received written notification from the house administration, the parties continued. Despite the evidence presented by the Newtons and Hassam, the judge felt it was insufficient to sustain the complaint and dismissed the charges (NYT, 5 March 1921: p. 28, col. 2). This court appearance did not serve to slow Mrs. Wilson at all. A few weeks later, the New York Times again reported on a musicale Mr. and Mrs. Wilson gave at their residence in honor of Mrs. Henry Tudor of Boston, a niece of former Chief Justice James T. Gray of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. “Miss Fellowes Morgan and Frank Pollock sang, in solos and duets from "Carmen" and "Faust." Henry Leopold played the piano, as did Miss Elsa Maxwell. Among the guests were 73

Lord and Lady Auckland, Mr. And Mrs. Joseph Larocque, Mr. And Mrs. James Lowell Putnam, Mr. And Mrs. De Iwolsky, Mrs. William Post, Miss Wise, the Duchess de Richelieu, Mr. And Mrs. Gordon Knox Bell, Baron Rosen, Mrs. Herman Duryea and Edson Bradley.” (NYT, 21 March 1921: p. 13, col. 2). The frivolity and disregard for others at times seemed to extend beyond annoying neighbors and into financial matters. Mr. Wilson, on several occasions, was sued for neglecting to pay seemingly insignificant bills. On June 14, 1923, the New York Times reported that a Portsmouth, Rhode Island, grocer sued them for nonpayment of grocery bills. The grocer, Gideon W. Almy, through his attorney, had writs of attachments served on the property of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. The attachment against Mr. Wilson was placed on his Narragansett Avenue house for $1,000 and that against Mrs. Wilson was for $500 on her Middletown residence. The newspaper account also claimed that similar suits recently entered by other plaintiffs had been settled (NYT, 14 June 1923: p. 19, col. 3). Later that summer, Richard T. Wilson, Jr. was sued for $3,400 for a set of teeth and for other dental work by Hector Griswold, a dentist, who alleged that Mr. Wilson paid him nothing (NYT, 8 August 1923: p. 17, col. 6). In the early 1910s, following the deaths of his parents, and far from the bustle of New York City, Richard T. Wilson, Jr., and Marion planned the construction of a large mansion on their inherited Palmetto Bluff property. Some accounts state that the house was built by day labor, with no formal architect (Hill et al. 1994:40). However, judging by the grandeur and massiveness of the completed mansion, this seems unlikely. Fraser (2002:15) notes that Marion Wilson met with her favorite architects in Italy. The identity of the architects hired by the Wilsons to design their mansion is unclear, but it is possible that the architectural firm of Hoppin and Koen may have been retained. Hoppin and Koen designed a New York City home for the Wilsons at 15 East Fiftyseventh Street in 1903. The construction of the house at Palmetto Bluff was completed around 1915. There are conflicting reports regarding the size of the grand home. One report states that the house had 72 rooms, including 21 bathrooms (Fraser 2002:1). Charlotte Inglesby described it as “…the imposing residence of forty rooms and a ballroom” (in Spieler 1985). Regardless of this discrepancy in the number of rooms, the house was still “…regarded as the most palatial in the lower part of South Carolina…” (BG, 4 March 1926). An exterior photo of the house reveals that it was three to four stories in height (see Figure 2 - top). The house was fronted by four large columns. Several rooms on each level of the front of the house opened onto open air verandas. Several staircases on the ground level led to rooms located around the perimeter of the structure. Interior photographs of the house indicate that there was a large, two story ballroom and a well- appointed 74

library, among a myriad of additional interior spaces. The house was surrounded by lush gardens designed by Harvey Beach. The gardens, known as “Lover’s Lane,” contained copious amounts of foliage and arbors, as well as benches that may have served as meeting spots for young couples attending parties at the house (Fraser 2002:16). Certainly, the house was designed to impress and was placed in a location on Wilson’ estate that would allow it to be seen by passerbys on the May River below. The view certainly impressed James Henry Rice, Jr., who had this to say this about the house in his Glories of the Carolina Coast: Over the May River, towering sheer above forest and marsh and gleaming white in sun or moon, rises the mansion of Col. R. T. Wilson, fitly called “Palmetto Lodge.” Around it extend its lordly acres, twenty-six thousand in all, more than twice the size of old time baronies. In saying that we had nothing to match the structures on the Golden Isles of Georgia, I had overlooked this. Nothing on the Georgia coast exceeds it. The hospitable proprietor built it years ago for his comfort and delight. The same care and taste expended on the mansion and its appointments is displayed on the grounds (Rice 1925: 25). Figure 16 presents a photograph of the Wilson House as seen from the May River, a view similar to the one experienced by James Henry Rice, Jr. and other impressed visitors and boaters. There was more to the Wilson’s Palmetto Bluff estate than just the massive house. According to an unpublished history of Palmetto Bluff by Gerhard Spieler (1985), the estate included “…an electric plant, water towers, refrigeration house, laundry, a school for employees’ children…even a post office. And a doctor to look after them all.” Fraser (2002:15) listed additional structures necessary for the day to day operations of the estate, including an ice plant, a cold storage house, a carpentry and paint shop, and a dairy for the production of milk for the Wilsons and their employees. Fresh food was also available to the inhabitants of the complex by way of chicken yards, pigeon pens, terrapin pens, and a very large vegetable garden (Fraser 2002:15). Presumably, one of the main reasons the Wilsons established their Palmetto Bluff estate was to entertain guests. Guests arrived at the estate by way of a Savannah Line steamship, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, or the Seaboard Airline train (Fraser 2002:15). Guests from New York and other locales would arrive and stay for days, if not weeks, at a time. There is a dearth of reporting of the Wilson’s Palmetto Bluff parties, but judging by accounts of parties they held in their New York homes, we can assume that these social functions may have been raucous and long-lasting as well, with fewer of the limitations imposed by close neighbors.

75

76

Figure 16.

A view of the Wilson House from the May River.

While a major reason the Wilsons constructed their grand Palmetto Bluff estate was to entertain guests, it is likely that Richard T. Wilson, Jr. also viewed the estate as a retreat from the bustle of life in New York City. While it is known that the Wilsons hosted lavish parties at their Palmetto Bluff estate, one gets the impression that these parties may have been a way for Mrs. Wilson to stave off the effects of the isolation of the estate. Mr. Wilson likely enjoyed visits from friends and the parties that ensued, but he may have also valued the tranquility of the estate. Mr. Wilson had inherited the land from his father, Richard T. Wilson, Sr. This land, on which Richard T. Wilson, Jr. constructed his grand estate, likely served as a link to his family’s humble southern roots. Richard T. Wilson, Jr. had a keen interest in horses and other agricultural endeavors, and the spacious grounds and facilities at his Palmetto Bluff estate certainly afforded him the opportunity to pursue these endeavors. It appears that he likely spent more time at the estate than did his wife, Marion. In her 1921 New York City trial testimony, Marion remarked that it was her first winter in New York City in a long time, and that she might spend her declining years in Italy (NYT, 4 March 1921: p. 1, col. 4). Mr. Wilson was often accompanied by Mr. Harlem G. Rubert, his private secretary. According to Mr. Rubert’s wife, Richard T. Wilson, Jr. would often seek refuge in the “Office Building” adjacent to the power plant when he tired of the lavish parties at the house (Fraser 2002: 16). While Richard T. Wilson, Jr.’s day to day affairs are relatively unknown, it is likely that he returned to his beloved Palmetto Bluff estate as often as possible. When his health began to fail, he began to spend yet more time at his Palmetto Bluff estate, and there he and Mrs. Wilson pursued their hobby of horse breeding (NYHT, July 5, 1947). He was at the estate when tragedy struck on the afternoon of March 2, 1926. The following account from the Savannah Morning News (4 March 1926: p.16) summarizes the devastation that occurred to the house, and to Mr. Wilson, on that fateful day: R.T. WILSON HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE Palatial Dwelling is Reported a Total Loss OCCUPANTS ESCAPE Little Insurance Carried on Valuable Property R.T. Wilson’s handsome country home at Palmetto Bluff opposite Bluffton has been completely destroyed by fire, according to reports reaching Savannah yesterday. 77

The fire broke out about 2 o’clock Wednesday afternoon but due to the high wind from the west the smoke did not rise very high and people in Bluffton who saw it thought it was from forest fires. It was only yesterday that Savannah people visiting Bluffton learned that the disaster had occurred. Some of the family were in the house at the time. It was burned to the ground and their personal effects as well as the handsome furnishings and articles of value which have been accumulated during the last fifteen or twenty years were said to be a total loss. Members of the household took refuge in the keeper’s house and as far as could be learned last night were still being cared for there. Mr. Wilson bought Palmetto Bluff from the late J. H. Estill about sixteen or seventeen years ago. He was one of the first Northerners to select a site on the salts near Savannah for his winter home and as a hunting and game preserve, coming here from New York. The property embraces about 18,000 acres. It is situated on a neck of land between May river and New river, facing toward Calibogue Sound. The house, a frame structure four stories high was built on a palatial scale, with forty rooms and a ballroom. It was valued at $200,000 approximately exclusive of the value of the furnishings. Very little insurance was carried. It was currently reported that the loss was estimated at $1,500,000, which is probably an exaggeration. Only the dwelling and its contents were destroyed. The other buildings on the property are understood not to have suffered any damage from the fire. The destruction of the house at Palmetto Bluff, only 12 years after its construction, was understandably devastating to Mr. Wilson. Fraser (2002:17) remarked that Mr. Wilson wept profusely and had to twice be led from the burning structure by his personal secretary, Mr. Rubert. Mr. Wilson made no attempt to reconstruct the house. Less than four months later, on June 21, 1926, Mr. Wilson sold all of his Palmetto Bluff land, as well as all improvements, livestock, and equipment, to Mr. J. E. Varn, Jr. for $550,000. In fact, the only possessions from Palmetto Bluff that Mr. Wilson excluded from the sale were “…certain personal effects salvaged from the main residence recently destroyed by fire” (Spieler 1985). Mr. Richard T. Wilson, Jr. died a little more than three years later, at the age of 63. He died at his home at 300 Park Avenue after a battle with bronchio-pneumonia on December 29, 1929 (NYT, 30 December 1929: p. 19, col. 1). Figure 17 is the Figure 17. photograph of Richard T. Wilson, Jr. that 78

Obituary for R. T. Wilson, Jr. (NYT: 30 December 1929).

accompanied his obituary in The New York Times (30 December 1929: p. 19, col. 1). The following excerpt from The New York Times (1 January 1930: p. 29, col. 3) article detailing Richard T. Wilson, Jr.’s funeral provides an indication of how highly Mr. Wilson was respected by his peers: Funeral services for Richard T. Wilson, banker and sportsman, who died Sunday morning at his home, 300 Park Avenue, in his sixty-third year, were held yesterday afternoon at 2:30 o’clock in St. Bartholomew’s Church, Fifty-first Street and Park Avenue. More than 1,000 persons, including men prominently identified with the American turf, delegations of members of the Turf and Field, Jockey and Brook Clubs, and men and women, representatives of the social life of New York City, attended the funeral. Among those prominent in public life who paid their last tribute to the turf leader were former Governor Alfred E. Smith, former Mayor John F. Hyland and former State Attorney General Albert Ottinger.

Mr. Richard T. Wilson, Jr. was buried in the family mausoleum at Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx, New York (NYT, 30 December 1929, p. 19, col. 1). Mrs. Wilson lived out the later years of her life primarily in Newport. She spent most summers at the Narragansett Avenue estate, Shady Lawn. In the last years of her life, she lived year round at “Indian House,” her Middletown/Portsmouth estate. Mrs. Wilson died in her 72 nd year on July 5, 1947. She was buried at Mt. Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts (NN, 7 July 1947). Daughter Marion Wilson lived in Boston, Long Island, Newport, and New York (Fraser 2002: 17). Daughter Louise Wilson, married three times, died in 1974 in a fire at her home on Sawmill Creek in Beaufort County (Fraser 2002: 18).

79

Chapter V. Results of the 38BU1804 Investigations

Archaeological site 38BU1804 is an extensive (430 by 375 meter) surface and subsurface Pre-Contact and Post-Contact artifact scatter identified during an intensive cultural resources survey of the project tract by Poplin (2002a). The site is located on the eastern edge of the Palmetto Bluff Phase I tract, and is bordered to the east by the May River and to the south by a small lake (see Figure 4). The majority of site 38BU1804 is located in a grassy lawn with large trees; the southern portion of the site is wooded in mixed pines and hardwoods. Several gravel roads pass through the site.

Previous Investigations at 38BU1804 Poplin (2002a) identified the mansion ruins at site 38BU1804 during the intensive cultural resources survey of the project tract. Evidence of a number of other structures also was noted on the surface of the site. During the survey investigations of 38BU1804, investigators (Poplin 2002a) excavated 152, 30 by 30 cm shovel tests at 15 and 30 meter intervals in and around the site. A total of 77 shovel tests and one surface collection (51 percent) produced artifacts. Shovel testing revealed a light brown loamy sand A horizon 0-40 cm bs, underlain by a yellowish brown fine sand B/C horizon 40-60 cm bs, over a yellow sand at 60-70+ cm bs. Soils encountered in shovel tests are consistent with published descriptions of Wando fine sands (Stuck 1980:42). Artifacts were recovered from the A and B/C horizons (0-60 cm bs). Poplin (2002a) recovered a total of 142 Pre-Contact artifacts from 38BU1804. These artifacts include two Thom’s Creek Simple Stamped sherds, 12 Stallings Plain sherds, one Deptford Simple Stamped sherd, eight Deptford Check Stamped sherds, three Deptford Cord Marked sherds, 10 Wilmington Cord Marked sherds, one Wilmington Fabric Impressed sherd, two Savannah Check Stamped sherds, one Savannah Cord Marked sherd, 23 eroded/unidentifiable sherds, 70 residual sherds, one Coastal Plain chert biface fragment, and eight Coastal Plain chert flakes, as well as 1.3 grams of fire cracked rock. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Poplin (2002a) recovered a total of 56 Post-Contact artifacts from 38BU1804. These artifacts include one Chinese undecorated porcelain sherd, one Bristol slipped stoneware sherd, one blue transfer printed ironstone sherd, one brown glass stopper, three amethyst bottle glass fragments, 15 light blue flat glass fragments, five unidentifiable square nails, and one bone handled pocket knife. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. 80

Poplin (2002a) also identified a pet cemetery, reportedly associated with the Wilson family’s occupation of Palmetto Bluff. This cemetery is located in the southeastern portion of the site, near the bluff edge overlooking the May River. Later discussions with an employee at Palmetto Bluff revealed that the dogs buried at the cemetery were not associated with the gravestones and were interred in the mid- to late twentieth century. The markers, although for the Wilson pets, were moved to the site from another unknown location. Poplin (2002a) evaluated site 38BU1804 for NRHP eligibility. Based on the presence of PreContact artifacts and the potential for subsurface artifacts deposits and features associated with these occupations, Poplin (2002a) recommended site 38BU1804 potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Poplin (2002a) also recommended site 38BU1804 potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C, based on the presence of the Wilson House, its association with the early twentieth century history of Palmetto Bluff, and the potential for the house ruins to exhibit distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction. Poplin (2002a) recommended that the site should be avoided during tract development or undergo additional evaluative testing to provide a definitive NRHP eligibility recommendation, particularly regarding Criterion D. Gardner et al. (2003) conducted testing investigations at 38BU1804. Testing investigations of 38BU1804 consisted of supplemental shovel testing, test unit excavation, 50 by 50 cm shortinterval testing, and additional mapping of surface features. Investigators excavated 218 shovel tests, completing a grid of shovel tests at 15 meter intervals across the site area. A total of 61 shovel tests produced artifacts. Therefore, a total of 138 positive shovel tests (37 percent of total excavated) were excavated during survey (Poplin 2002a) and testing (Gardner et al. 2003) investigations at 38BU1804. The excavation of shovel tests during testing investigations at the site resulted in minimal changes to site boundaries, therefore, there were no substantive changes in overall site size from survey results. Diagnostic Pre-Contact sherds from survey and testing shovel tests at 38BU1804 indicated a generalized Early to Middle Woodland occupation with minor Mississippian and Ceramic Late Archaic site use. The majority of the Pre-Contact artifacts recovered from testing shovel tests are residual sherds. Based on survey and testing shovel test data, later Pre-Contact use of 38BU1804 is somewhat more widespread. Early to Middle Woodland ceramics are scattered across the majority of 38BU1804, with minor concentrations in the southwest and east central portions of the site. These sherds consist of Deptford Check Stamped, Deptford Cord Marked, Deptford Simple Stamped, Oemler Check Stamped, and Wilmington Plain. Mississippian sherds were found scattered in the

81

northeastern, northwestern, and southwestern portions of 38BU1804, suggesting slightly broader distribution of this component than seen during survey investigations at the site. Based on survey (Poplin 2002a) and testing (Gardner et al. 2003) shovel test data, PostContact artifacts were relatively evenly distributed across the site, with three areas of concentration apparent. In general, these artifacts reflect predominantly an early to middle twentieth century occupation (e.g., wire nails, asbestos siding, clear flat glass). Earlier (nineteenth century) site use is indicated by the presence of kaolin pipe fragments and cut nails. Gardner et al. (2003) recovered the majority of the twentieth century artifacts and all of the earlier Post-Contact artifacts in the vicinity of the Wilson House ruins. As noted above, the primary area of Post-Contact artifact concentration was the vicinity of the Wilson House ruins. The ruin area and an adjacent area to the west-northwest exhibited the highest (relative) densities of Post-Contact architectural materials (e.g., nails, flat glass, asbestos siding); a minor occurrence of architectural artifacts was also noted in the southwestern portion of the site. This secondary area also shared low to moderate concentrations of Post-Contact ceramics with the Wilson House ruins and bottle glass with the area to the west-northwest (see Appendix A). Post-Contact artifacts around the Wilson House ruins are easily interpretable as remnants of the Wilson tenure (post-1915) and subsequent destruction by fire of their house in 1926. Gardner et al. (2003) believed the nearby (west-northwest) artifact cluster could indicate an area of building debris disposal (after the fire) or a former building location. The lack of Post-Contact ceramics and minimal bottle glass in this area may be indicative of a non-domestic function of this former building, or (again) that this area served as a disposal area for house construction debris. Evidence of fire damage (e.g., burned ceramics, melted glass) was present but no definitive context could be identified. Low to moderate quantities of architectural and kitchen artifacts in the southwestern portion of the site also likely represented a dump area for household debris, but could be evidence of a domestic outbuilding (e.g., servant’s quarters). Gardner et al. (2003) excavated 10, 1 by 2 meter test units (Test Units 201-210) in various locations across site 38BU1804. The focus of these test units was Pre-Contact components found during survey investigations (Poplin 2002a); specifically, the Ceramic Late Archaic deposits in the southwestern portion of the site and the Mississippian cluster in the northwest. Test unit placement was based on shovel testing results; that is, test units were excavated in areas exhibiting potential for relatively high artifact density, intact strata, and/or subsurface features. No large test units were excavated specifically to examine Post-Contact deposits, but analysis included these artifacts, particularly when the units were placed in areas of early twentieth century artifact occurrence. 82

Gardner et al. (2003) excavated a grid of 25, 50 by 50 cm test units at 10 meter intervals across the area encompassing the ruins of the Wilson House. Due to extensive rubble and heavy vegetation, none of these test units were excavated within the footprint of the house ruins. Investigators recovered early twentieth century artifacts from a majority (76 percent) of these test units. These test units provided definite boundaries for delineating intact and disturbed subsurface remnants of the Wilson House. In general, artifacts associated with the Wilson House did not extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the house ruins. Artifacts recovered from the 50 by 50 cm units surrounding the Wilson House ruins consist of a large quantity of architectural (e.g., brick fragments, mortar, flat glass, ceramic insulators, asbestos siding, ceramic tile, and cut and wire nails) and kitchen (e.g., ceramic vessel fragments and bottle glass) objects , typical of an occupation of the period. Investigators also recovered numerous unidentifiable metal, ceramic, and rubber objects. Many of these materials were affected by fire to varying degrees. Interestingly, no identifiable clothing or personal items were recovered from these 50 by 50 cm test units. Artifacts immediately identifiable as “high status” were also absent from the artifact assemblage. Early to Late Woodland period artifacts were also distributed relatively evenly across the area of the Wilson House ruins. While these artifacts could have been redeposited at this location during ground surface modification, it is more likely that they represent in-place deposits of cultural material, given similarities with surrounding cultural deposits. Subsequent house construction and destruction has substantially disturbed Pre-Contact materials in this location. Despite the presence of several cultural components at 38BU1804 and evidence for temporal variability in site area use through time, Pre-Contact contexts across the site are markedly disturbed, components are mixed, and feature potential is poor. In the central and southern portions of the site, soils exhibited evidence of extensive disturbance, including highly irregular soil profiles (Test Units 201, 202, 209), mixed cultural components, and reversed stratigraphy. In Test Unit 209, Gardner et al. (2003) recovered possible Mississippian ceramics in Levels 1, 4, and 5, but also found wire nails in Level 4. In Test Unit 203, Gardner et al. (2003) encountered a dense, shallow (12 to 20 cm bs) midden with heavy shell deposits and organic material; this zone and its extension to approximately 40 cm bs contained mixed diagnostic ceramics encompassing a minimum of 3,000 years (Ceramic Late Archaic through Late Woodland/Mississippian periods). In test units where soil profiles appeared to be relatively undisturbed (Test Units 204, 207, 210), artifacts were nondiagnostic and densities were very low, or components were thoroughly mixed. Gardner et al. (2003) concluded that due to lack of intact stratigraphy, further investigations of Pre-Contact components of 38BU1804 were unlikely to generate data regarding site function, activity areas, or seasonality of occupation. Gardner et al. (2003) concluded that these Pre-Contact components do not contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the site. 83

Based on survey (Poplin 2002a) and testing (Gardner et al. 2003) investigations, the single site component exhibiting the least amount of disturbance at 38BU1804 was the early twentieth century occupation by the Wilson family. During extensive survey and testing investigations across the site, investigators recovered numerous artifacts associated with this short occupation period (1915-1926) and virtually no Post-Contact artifacts that definitively pre-date the Wilson’s tenure. In addition to the artifact assemblage, substantial remnants of the Wilson House are present in apparently good context following the fire that destroyed the structure. The area of 38BU1804 encompassing the Wilson House ruins exhibits excellent potential for addressing research questions regarding the family’s settlement and short tenure at Palmetto Bluff. This research encompasses local house construction methods and socioeconomic status of the Wilson family. In general, this area of the site exhibited archaeological deposits and structural ruins with potential to address elite early twentieth century settlement at Palmetto Bluff. There were two additional areas within the site (southwest and west-northwest portions of the site) where early twentieth century artifacts were expected to represent outbuildings associated with the Wilson House. Therefore, Gardner et al. (2003) recommended 38BU1804 eligible for the NRHP, under Criteria A (important events), C (structural elements preserved), and D (archaeological research potential), at the local level of importance.

Present Data Recovery Investigations at 38BU1804 A Treatment Plan outlining the prosed excavations at 38BU1804 was submitted to the SHPO and approved prior to the initiation of the data recovery investigations. The data recovery investigations at 38BU1804 entailed hand excavations and mechanical scraping of areas associated with the Wilson House and several outlying areas where architectural/cultural features were expected. Investigators reestablished the site grid orientation which was established during the survey investigations (Poplin 2002a) and also utilized during testing investigations (Gardner et al. 2003). The site grid was established using a laser theodolite and tape. The site grid was aligned to magnetic north. All references to the spatial relationships of excavation units and features encountered in the excavations are made with respect to the site grid. The following discussion summarizes the type and number of excavations completed in each structure or outlying area of the site during data recovery investigations at 38BU1804. Figure 18 present a plan of the Wilson house.

84

85 Figure 18.

South Steps

633

634

Fallen Column

Column 1

404

0

15 feet

House Foundation Rubble Tabby Concrete Marble Fragment Excavation Unit

621

619

615

623

617

Column 4

611

(Radiator)

610

612

408

605

614

Floor

609

643

Northeast Steps

Northwest Steps

Sidewalk

606

607

608

618

613

616

622

Front Porch Wall

Column 3

Fallen Column

620

Front Steps

Column 2

632

407

630

38BU1804, Wilson Mansion

North

Southeast Steps

635

636

637

638

East House Wall

North Tabby

631

405

629

628

406

Depression

Cellar

Plan of the architectural elements uncovered at the Wilson House.

South Tabby

South Wing

639

640

West Steps

627

626

624

625

Cellar Steps

North House Wall

403

North Wing

642

641

North Steps

Wilson House 50 by 50 cm Units. Investigators initially excavated 193, 50 by 50 cm units (48 meters2) at five meter intervals across the preservation area of 38BU1804 (see Figure 4). A total of 113 units (59 percent) produced artifacts. These units were excavated in natural levels, where possible. We had expected that the distributions of artifacts and ecofacts recovered from these exploratory units could be used to determine the limits of the Wilson House foundation for mechanical stripping of the topsoil, as well as help to determine the location of larger excavation units. However, based on the limits of the rubble associated with the collapse of the house, the limits of the Wilson House foundation were quite apparent. Also, the distributions of artifacts and ecofacts did not provide us with a great amount of insight as to where we should locate the larger excavation units. However, the excavation of the 50 by 50 cm units did provide us with valuable soil/rubble stratigraphy information. The various soil stratigraphies will be discussed below during the discussion of larger excavation units. A total of 1,402 artifacts was recovered from the 113 positive 50 by 50 cm units excavated across the preservation area of 38BU1804. These include 1,254 Wilson related artifacts and 148 PreContact artifacts. The Pre-Contact materials are associated with a number of cultural periods including the Ceramic Late Archaic and the Woodland. These artifact were distributed randomly across the site and were present in all excavation levels. No features associated with any of the artifacts were identified. Table 4 presents a summary of the artifacts in each of the levels excavated in the 50 by 50 cm units excavated across the preservation area. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. The majority of the Wilson artifacts are related to architectural elements of the house, indoor heating, plumbing and electrification, and debris from the destruction of the house. Level 1 produced the majority of the artifacts (n=954). Nails, window glass, and burned glass account for most of these (n=617). Relatively few artifacts related to domestic activities were recovered. These include ceramics, bottle glass, and table glass. 1 by 2 Meter Units. Investigators hand excavated a total of 12 meters2 in six 1 by 2 meter units (Units 403-408) within the Wilson House (see Figure 18). The majority of the units were excavated through areas of dense brick and mortar rubble. It is likely that many of the artifacts and architectural rubble were pushed around the area during cleanup/salvage activities following the destruction of the house. A discussion of the units is presented below.

86

Table 4.

Summary of Artifact by Level from the 50 by 50 cm Units.

Artifact Type Nails Misc. hardware (screws, spike)

Lev el 1

Lev el 2

348

161

64

4

Lev el 3

Lev el 4

Lev el 6

11

Total 520 68

Electrical fittings

1

1

Plumbing fittings

7

2

9

Plumbing hardware (spigot, porcelain)

1

4

5

Metal pipe fittings

25

3

Wire

14

10

Misc. metal ob jects

4

1

5

Misc. hardw are

2

1

3

70

5

2

1

133

40

Bottle glass

40

8

48

Table glass

8

1

9

3

1

4

209

21

1

231

2

19

Marble, terra co tta, tile Ceramic Insulator Flat glass

Milk glass Burn ed glass Ceramics

28 3

27

3

78

2

175

3

10

7

Latch, drawer pull, lock plate, hinge, finial

3

3

6

Glass lamp part

5

1

6

1

1

Sho t gun shell Skeet frgament Pre-C ontact artifacts Total

8

8

47

91

6

3

1

148

954

277

23

3

1

1402

Units 403. Unit 403 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the northern portion (in the ‘north wing’) of the Wilson House (see Figure 18). Soils consisted of a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam root mat at 0-7 cm bs over a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam with mortar rubble at 7-10 cm bs, over a 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sand at 10-25 cm bs, over a 10YR7/6 yellow fine sand 25-55 cm bs. A small pocket of a 10YR7/6 yellow sand was present in the northern portion of the unit at 10-15 cm bs and an area of a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand was present in the southern portion of the unit at 32-46 cm bs. Figure 19 displays a view of the east wall of Unit 403. A total of 175 artifacts was recovered from Unit 403. The majority of these are burned glass (n=48), bottle glass (n=45) and wire nails (n=24). Notable artifacts include one iron electrical box, seven industrial porcelain fragments which may represent pieces of a sink or toilet, and one ceramic spigot which may have been part of a bathroom sink. Besides the expected large amounts of brick (13 kg) and mortar (59.2 kg) recovered from the unit, investigators also recovered a large amount 87

Figure 19.

A view of the east wall of Unit 403.

of ceramic tile (15 kg). The industrial porcelain fragments, ceramic spigot, and ceramic tile suggest that a bathroom may have been located somewhere in or near the north wing of the house. Table 5 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 403. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Unit 404. Unit 404 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the southeast portion of the Wilson House (see Figure 18). Soils consisted of a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam root mat at 0-7 cm bs over a 10YR7/6 yellow sand at 7-20 cm bs. A pocket of a 2.5Y7/1 light gray sandy loam at 7-9 cm bs and a 2.5YR6/6 light red sand at 9-12 cm bs was present above/adjacent to the 10YR7/6 yellow sand. These three soil horizons appear to have been altered by heat, almost certainly a result of the high temperatures produced in the fire that consumed the Wilson House. This amalgam of burned soil was underlain by a 7.5YR2.5/1 black sand (also affected by heat?) at 20-40 cm bs over a 10YR4/3 brown sand at 40-47 cm bs. Investigators halted the excavation of Unit 404 at this depth (the base of Level 5). Investigators encountered a tabby foundation wall (Feature 632) approximately 5.0 cm bs in the northern portion of Unit 404. Figure 20 displays a view of the east wall of Unit 404.

88

Table 5.

Artifacts Recovered from the Test Units at the Wilson House.

Artifact Type Nails

Unit 403 Unit 404 Unit 405 Unit 406 Unit 407 Unit 408 Total 25

42

Misc. hardware (screws, spike)

1

2

Electrical fittings

1

81

8

Metal pipe fittings Wire

1

15

2

1

7

1

12

1

4

Sheet metal

4

218

2

1

2 39

4

9

6

29

31

2

2

48

1

4

10

2

1

16

6

2

13

6 4

5

Sewer pipe

4

1

Ceramic Insulator

908 18

15

5

Misc. hardw are

Flat glass

11 1

Plumbing hardware (spigot, porcelain)

Marble, terra co tta, tile

114

1

Plumbing fittings

Misc. metal ob jects

428

1

11

3

9

6

1

6

2

2

7

1

30 18

Bottle glass

45

47

13

Burn ed glass

48

15

28

60

32 1

1

6

1

2

63

1

73

7

1

Bottle cap Ceramics latch, drawer pull, lock plate, hinge, finial Glass lamp part

1

Iron pulley

105 80

4

3

12 4

2

Window weight

263

2 3

3

Kitch en utensil

1

1

Personal items (key

1

1

Clothing items (bu ttons, bead s)

1

1

2

Toys

36

Slag, conglom erate Pre-C ontact artifacts Total

11

36 11

24

26

18

1

10

2

81

175

117

169

696

219

356

1732

A total of 117 artifacts was recovered from Unit 404. The majority of these are unidentifiable nails (n=22), unidentifiable square nails (n=10), burned glass (n=15), ceramic insulator fragments (n=11), and pieces of coated wire (n=11). There are no artifacts that provide helpful information about the types of rooms in this area of the house. Table 5 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 404. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A.

89

Figure 20.

A view of the east wall of Unit 404.

Unit 407. Unit 407 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the southeast portion of the Wilson House (see Figure 18). Investigators excavated this unit to the north of Unit 404 to expose the northern portion of a tabby foundation (Feature 632). The upper layer of soil was a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam root mat at 0-7 cm bs. This was underlain by a 2.5Y7/1 light gray sandy loam at 7-9 cm bs, over a 2.5YR6/6 light red sand at 9-11 cm bs, over a 10YR7/6 yellow sand at 11-20 cm bs. As in adjacent Unit 404, these three soil horizons appear to have been altered by heat, almost certainly a result of the high temperatures produced in the fire that consumed the Wilson House. This amalgam of burned soil was underlain by a 7.5YR2.5/1 black sand (also affected by heat?) at 20-41 cm bs over a 10YR4/3 brown sand at 41-50 cm bs. Investigators encountered the northern portion of a tabby foundation wall (Feature 632) approximately 4.0 cm bs in the southern portion of Unit 407. Investigators halted the excavation of Unit 407 at this depth (the base of Level 5). Figure 21 displays a view of the east wall of Unit 407.

90

Figure 21.

A view of the east wall of Unit 407.

A total of 219 artifacts was recovered from Unit 407. The majority of these are wire nails (n=97), cut nails (n=15), burned glass (n=32), and bottle glass (n=13). There are not many artifacts that indicate the function of spaces in this area of the house, though three window weights and one window latch suggest that there was a window near this area. Table 5 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 407. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Unit 405. Unit 405 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the southwest portion of the Wilson House (see Figure 18). Soils consisted of a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam root mat at 0-4 cm bs, over a 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sandy loam, over a 10YR7/3 very pale brown sand at 10-20 cm bs. A pocket of a 5YR5/8 yellowish red sand at 12-20 cm bs was present within the 10YR7/3 very pale brown sand horizon. These soils also appear to have been altered by heat. This amalgam of burned soils was underlain by a 10YR3/1 very dark gray sand at 20-27 cm bs, over a 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown sand at 27-50 cm bs. Investigators halted the excavation of Unit 405 at this depth (the base of Level 5). Investigators encountered a portion of a brick pier (Feature 631) approximately 4.0 cm bs in the southern portion of Unit 405. Figure 22 displays a view of the east wall of Unit 405.

91

Figure 22.

A view of the east wall of Unit 405.

A total of 169 artifacts was recovered from Unit 405. The majority of these are wire nails (n=75) and burned glass (n=28). Investigators also recovered seven industrial porcelain fragments which may be pieces of a sink or toilet, indicating that a bathroom may have been located in this area of the house. Table 5 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 405. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Unit 406. Unit 406 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the western portion of the Wilson House (see Figure 18). This area of the Wilson House is heavily mounded with rubble. The ground surface in this area of the house slopes down from west to east. Soils consisted of a 10YR3/3 dark brown sandy loam root mat at 0-8 cm bs over a 10YR7/2 light gray sand with dense mortar rubble at 8-41 cm bs. This is underlain by a 5YR6/8 reddish yellow fine sand at 41-45 cm bs. This soil horizon appears to have been altered by heat, almost certainly a result of the high temperatures produced in the fire that consumed the Wilson House. This burned soil was underlain by a 10YR2/2 very dark brown sand (also affected by heat?) at 52-60 cm bs. Investigators encountered a brick pier resting on a tabby footer/foundation in the northern portion of Unit 406. Investigators also encountered four iron pipes passing through Unit 406. Finally, investigators encountered a portion of a burnt timber to the north of the brick pier of Feature 622. The burnt timber is likely the 92

remnants of a floor joist. Investigators halted the excavation of Unit 406 at the base of Level 5. At this point, the tabby foundation portion of Feature 622 took up the majority of the unit and we had reached the base of the burned deposits. Figure 23 displays a view and profile of the south wall of Unit 406. A total of 696 artifacts was recovered from Unit 406. This was the largest amount of artifacts recovered from any unit excavated within the Wilson House. The majority of the artifacts were wire nails (n=393), cut nails (n=29), pieces of metal wire (n=31), burned ceramic sherds (n=63), porcelain sherds (n=15), pieces of burned glass (n=60), and bottle glass fragments (n=47). Other notable artifacts include nine screws, two iron pulleys, one hinge, one key, four unidentifiable iron architectural hardware elements, four miscellaneous hardware elements, two latches, one lock plate, one drawer pull, one utensil, and two utensil handles. Investigators also recovered a relatively large amount (0.8 kg) of melted glass/metal conglomerate. We believe that the large amount of nails (possibly used in the construction of cabinets), burned sherds and ceramics, the variety of hinges, hardware elements, latches, lock plates, latches, and drawer pulls, as well as the utensil and utensil handles, indicate that the kitchen/pantry was located in this area of the house. The large amount of melted glass/metal conglomerate could be the remnants of serving glasses stored in this area. Further supporting the evidence recovered from Unit 406, investigators also recovered a cache of flatware utensils near the unit. Table 5 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 406. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Unit 408. Unit 408 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the northern portion of the Wilson House (see Figure 18). This area of the Wilson House is heavily mounded with rubble. The ground surface in this area of the house slopes down from west to east. Soils consisted of a 10YR3/2 dark grayish brown sandy loam root mat at 0-19 cm bs over a 10YR2/2 very pale gray sand with dense mortar rubble at 19-53 cm bs. This is underlain by a 2.5YR6/6 light red compact clay at 53-66 cm bs over a 10YR7/6 yellow sand at 66-74 cm bs. As in previous units, these soil horizons appear to have been altered by high temperatures produced in the fire that consumed the Wilson House. These burned soils were underlain by a 7.5YR2.5/1 black sand (also affected by heat?) at 74-95 cm bs over a 10YR7/6 yellow sand at 95-106 cm bs. Investigators encountered a portion of a brick wall resting on a tabby footer/foundation approximately 54 cm bs in the western portion of Unit 408 (Feature 643). Investigators also encountered two iron beams at approximately 20 cm bs (at top of mortar rubble horizon) protruding from the south wall of Unit 408. The iron beams likely are metal floor joists used to span the width of a room. Figure 24 displays a view and profile of the south wall of Unit 408.

93

Ground Surface

10YR3/3 dark brown sandy loam root mat

10YR7/2 light gray sand with dense mortar rubble

5YR6/8 reddish yellow fine sand

10YR2/2 very dark brown sand

Metal Pipe

38BU1804 Unit 406, South Profile 0

20 cm

Figure 23. View and south profile of Unit 406 at 38BU1804. 94

Ground Surface

10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam Iron

Iron 10YR8/2 very pale brown sand w/ dense mortar rubble

2.5 YR6/6 light red compact clay (burned) 10YR7/6 yellow sand

7.5 YR2.5/1 black sand

Tabby Footer Feature 643

10YR7/6 yellow sand

38BU1804 Unit 408, South Profile 0

50 cm

Figure 24. View and south profile of Unit 408 at 38BU1804. 95

A total of 356 artifacts was recovered from Unit 408. The majority were wire nails (n=218), burned glass (n=80), porcelain doll fragments (n=23), and porcelain tea set fragments (n=13). Investigators also recovered a very large amount (189 kg) of unidentifiable metal slag. Certainly, the most notable artifacts recovered from this unit are the porcelain doll and tea set fragments. These artifacts were remarkably well preserved in a pocket of dense brick and mortar rubble. These porcelain fragments were recovered from the upper portion of the rubble within the unit, suggesting that the rooms that housed these items were located on the second or third levels of the house. We believe that the bedroom or playroom of one or both of the Wilson’s daughters was located in this northern portion of the house. Table 5 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 408. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Mechanical Excavations. Prior to the data recovery investigations at the house, visible intact architectural elements included portions of the four large front columns, the front steps, five additional sets of steps, and portions of the front porch wall. Visible landscape features included portions of concrete curbs in the lawn and a circular pool to the east of the house (front lawn). Investigators conducted mechanical stripping to expose architectural/cultural features within and adjacent to the Wilson House. The soil was removed by a smooth bladed backhoe. The field director monitored closely all mechanical excavations. Approximately 530 meters2 was mechanically scraped with the backhoe. Investigators exposed the exterior foundation walls of the house, as well as 35 interior architectural features (see Figure 18). Large walls and steps generally were named according to their location in the house. Smaller interior architectural elements were assigned feature numbers. Each architectural feature was cleaned using flat shovels, trowels, and brooms, was drawn on the plan of the foundations of the house, and was photographed. All features were cleaned by hand, drawn, photographed, and mapped on a larger site plan using a transit.

A Description of Features at the Wilson Mansion Ruins The footprint of the Wilson House measures approximately 140 feet north/south by 164 feet east/west (43 by 50 meters). The locations of several spaces/rooms within the house, including a series of porches and a cellar, are apparent. The following discussion describes the various types of features that make up the structural components of the house. This is presented to provide the reader with a definition of terms used in the discussion of the layout of the house. A discussion of the construction of the Wilson House and an interpretation of spaces within the house is presented in Chapter VI.

96

We identified a total of 56 features that make up the ruins of the Wilson mansion. These include steps, columns, walls, tabby foundations, brick foundations, piers, floors, curbs, a chimney base, and various unidentifiable elements. The locations of some of these architectural elements allowed us to determine different spaces in and around the Wilson House and provided the basis for the discussion presented in Chapter VI. Table 6 summarizes all of the architectural features encountered in the Wilson House. We describe some of the general classes of features below. Steps. We identified eight sets of steps at the Wilson House (see Figure 18). These steps include the front steps (east), the northeast steps, the north steps, the northwest steps, the west steps, the south steps, the southeast steps (this was the former location of these steps; only the foundations remain), and the steps leading down to the cellar. The side walls of the steps are constructed of brick and mortar. The top landing of each set of steps was constructed of a shell concrete slab. This shell Typical mansion steps. concrete, an updated version of tabby concrete Figure 25. (discussed further in Chapter VI), contains largely whole oyster shells as an aggregate. Hollow iron pipes are set within this shell concrete slab. These pipes provide reinforcement for the span of the landing. This rough shell concrete slab is covered with a veneer of smooth concrete. The brick steps and the brick side walls of the steps are faced with this same veneer of smooth concrete. Figure 25 presents a typical view of a set of steps at the Wilson House. Columns. Four large, three story tall columns supported the roof over the front porch of the house (see Figure 18). We designated these Columns 1-4. Column 1, the southernmost column, consisted of the column support base only. Columns 2-4 contained portions of the column, with Column 3 being the tallest of all. A view of the base of Column 3 is presented in Figure 26. Each column was constructed on a support base of brick, mortar, and shell concrete. The masons that constructed the columns laid increments of cut Figure 26. rectangular brick (rather than radial brick), forming 97

A typical column.

Table 6. Feature # / Name Front steps Northeast steps North steps Northwest steps Cellar steps West steps South steps Southeast steps Columns 1-4 North wing North wall North tabby foundation South tabby foundation Pool 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643

Wilson House Architectural Features.

Type Steps Steps Steps Steps Steps Steps Steps Step foundation Front columns Wing/room North wall of house Foundation Foundation

Material Brick and concrete Brick and concrete Brick and concrete Brick and concrete Concrete Brick and concrete Brick and concrete Brick brick, tabby, concrete Brick Brick over tabby Tabby Tabby

Size (feet–N/SxE/W) 18 x 11 9.0 x 8.0 11 x 10 8.0 x 12 4.0 x *90 10 x 8.0 5.0 x 10 9.0 x 10 Base 4.0 x 4.0/ Col. 3.0 12.5 x 1.2 and 1.2 x 26.5 1.0 x *54 1.5 x 42 1.5 x 42.5

Pier Pier Pier Pier Pier Wall Wall Wall Wall corner Wall Wall corner Wall Floor Heater/furnace Wall/pier(?) Pier Wall corner Pier Sidewalk(?) Cellar wall Floor Room(?) Room(?) Curved wall Wall/pier Pier Wall corner/pier Wall(?) Pier Pier Pier Pier ? Pier Chimney Base Slab/floor Inner curb Outer curb Wall

Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick (over tabby?) Brick Brick Brick Brick Concrete Metal Brick Brick Brick Brick over tabby Concrete Brick Concrete Tabby Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Tabby Brick Brick Brick over tabby Brick Brick and mortar? Tabby Brick Concrete Concrete Concrete Brick over tabby

1.5 x 1.3 1.5 x 1.3 1.5 x 1.3 1.5 x 1.3 2.6 x 2.4 *2.5 x 1.2 *3.5 x 1.2 *11.5 x 1.0 *8.5 x 1.0 and 1.3 x *6.3 *3.0 x 1.3 2.5 x 1 and 1 x 2 *8.5 x 1.3 *10 x *12 2.8 x 3.0 *3.0 x 0.8 4.0 x 1.6 and 1.6 x 4.0 9.5 x 1.0 and 0.8 x 5.0 0.7 x 2.1 and *2.4 x *6.5 2.5 x *27.5 29 x 1.2 and *75 x 1.2 12 x 7.5 5.0 x 1.2 and 1.2 x 9.0 5.0 x 1.0 and 1.0 x 7.5 12 x 0.8 0.8 x *3.0 2.2 x *5.0 *1.8 x 1.1 and 0.9 x *2.3 2.4 x *3.3 1.5x*3.5 2.8x1.5 1.3 x 2.0 and 2.8 x 3.2 1.2 x 2.0 4.6 x 9.5 2.1 x 6.5 9.1 x 3.8 2.7 x 3 0.5 x *62 0.5 x *114 *1.4 x *3.3 and *1.9 x *3.3

Remarks 6 (visible) steps plus top platform 7 (visible) steps plus top platform 4 (visible) steps plus top platform 4 (visible) steps plus top platform 9 (visible) steps 3 (visible) steps plus top platform 4 (visible) steps; steps are not intact Only foundation is present all columns are in ruins Accessed by north steps

Originally had statue; fountain(?)

98

Pier base on NW corner “porch”

Likely joins with Feature 613 Likely joins with Feature 612

Likely joins with Feature 614 May join NW porch floor Some attached ceramic tiles + shaped pier near center of house Brick pier resting on large tabby footer Cellar wall is continuous Concrete pad–possibly porch floor Extension to south of south cellar wall Extension to south of south cellar wall Wall may continue south of west steps

May be foundation like tabby found. Features 633-638 possibly continuous

West end of n/s tabby foundation extension from SW corner of house landscaping curb Brick wall on large tabby footer

a circular shape. The center of each column was filled with rough shell concrete containing an aggregate of dense, large oyster shells. A hollow steel pipe ran up through the center of each column, providing vertical stability. Bricks were laid across the top of each column to provide a stable supportive surface for the capital and porch roof above. Each column was finished in smooth plaster. The columns were topped with ornate fine grained cement Corinthian capitals. Wall. There are twelve wall segments within the Wilson House ruins. We classified walls as relatively long brick and mortar constructions which defined spaces within the house. These wall segments had mortar present along the top course of brick, indicating that additional courses were once present above. It is likely that these wall segments, generally three to four brick courses wide, were load bearing walls. Several of the walls are set on shell concrete footers. These footers were generally slightly larger than the brick Figure 27. support. Figure 27 presents a view of a brick wall.

A typical brick wall.

Tabby Foundation. We identified three tabby, or shell concrete, foundations within the mansion. These are unusual features in that the majority of the architectural features within the Wilson House were constructed of brick. Possibly the most curious and perplexing set of architectural features encountered within the house is the pair of long, parallel “north and south tabby” foundations. We encountered nothing else like them during our excavations within the house. Feature 632, a Figure 28. A view of tabby foundation. portion of which was encountered in the vicinity of the north and south tabby foundations, also may have been a similar type of long foundation, but we were unable to fully expose it because of the presence of large trees in the area. We also encountered a box shaped tabby foundation (Feature 626) protruding from the southern edge of the west wing of the house. It was the same shape and size as the brick Feature 627, located along this same wing. The function of this tabby foundation is discussed further in Chapter VI. Figure 28 presents a view of a tabby foundation. 99

Brick Foundation. We identified one brick foundation (Feature 627) in the Wilson House. Unlike the segments of brick wall mentioned above, this brick foundation fully defined a space. The segments of this brick foundation are two brick courses wide. The brick foundation is related to the tabby foundation (Feature 626) mentioned above. The function of this brick foundation is discussed further in Chapter VI. Figure 29 presents a view of this brick foundation. Figure 29.

A brick foundation.

Pier. We identified 13 piers within the Wilson House. We defined piers as relatively small (smaller than brick walls or foundations) constructions of brick and mortar. These piers likely were evenly spaced across the footprint of the massive house, providing support of the structural elements above. Floor joists would have spanned the spaces between the piers. Figure 30 presents a view of a pier. Figure 30.

A typical brick pier.

Floor. We identified portions of three smooth concrete floors within the Wilson House. Two segments of floor (the floor in the northwest portion of the house and Feature 617) were likely part of a servant’s entrance to the house. There was no indication that these floors were covered in tile. The function of the third concrete floor (Feature 625), located outside the footprint of the house, along the western edge of the west wing, is less clear. Figure 31 presents a view of a concrete floor. Figure 31.

100

A section of concrete floor.

Curbs. We identified a set of two parallel concrete curbs (Features 641 and 642) around the Wilson House. We encountered traces of crushed oyster shell (likely a walkway) between the two curbs. The inner curb (Feature 641) touches the piers at the base of the north and northeast steps leading to the house, and likely did so at all of the other steps along the perimeter of the house, as well. The areas between the inner curb of the walkway and the outer walls of the house were likely planted in shrubbery. Curbed walkways may Figure 32. have also led into garden areas surrounding the house. Figure 32 presents a view of one of these concrete curbs.

A portion of concrete curb.

Chimney Base. We encountered the remnants of one chimney base (Feature 639) within the ruins of the Wilson House. This chimney base is located at the end of the pair of north and south tabby foundations in the southern portion of the house. From historic photos, we know that several chimneys were located within the house, but due to the destruction of the house, we were able to locate the base of just one of these. Figure 33 presents a view of the chimney base. Figure 33.

Chimney base.

Structure 1 Investigators identified Structure 1 in the north-northwest portion of 38BU1804 (see Figure 4). The majority of the foundation wall was visible at the ground surface in a grassy field. Investigators mechanically excavated areas totaling approximately 493 feet2 (46 m2) to expose subsurface portions of the Feature 1 foundation wall. Figure 34 presents a plan and view of Structure 1. Structure 1 is U-shaped, measuring approximately 42 feet north/south by 63 feet east/west (12.8 by 19.2 meters). The foundation walls are constructed of fairly smooth concrete with oyster shell inclusions over a rougher shell concrete footer, a construction technique also employed 101

Backhoe Excavation

298

302

297

287

288

289

294

282

290

300

Post Mold

299

301

Concrete and Oyster Shell Foundation 295

293

291

North

Backhoe Excavation 296

38BU1804, Structure 1 50 x 50 cm Unit 0

Figure 34. A plan and view of Structure 1 at 38BU1804. 102

10 feet

at the Wilson House. The foundation walls range from 1-2 feet (0.3-0.61 meters) in thickness and measure approximately 1.4 feet (0.43 meters) from top to bottom. There are two openings in the southern foundation wall, possibly entrances into the structure. Recessed post molds are spaced approximately 10 feet (3.05 meters) apart along the tops of the east and west walls. Recessed post molds are spaced approximately 5.0 feet (1.52 meters) apart along the shorter north/south and eastwest wall that makes up the “U” in the north-central portion of Structure 1. Views of the foundation and the recessed post molds are presented in Figure 35. Investigators recovered small amounts of brick and mortar rubble from 50 by 50 cm units excavated across Structure 1, suggesting that other portions of the structure were constructed in brick. Given the presence of the postmolds along the tops of the foundation walls, Structure 1 appears to have been a wood frame structure. Domestic artifact counts are very low, suggesting that this structure was not a residence. We believe that Structure 1 is the remnant of an agricultural outbuilding associated with the Wilson House. 50 by 50 cm Units. Investigators excavated 16, 50 by 50 cm units across the area of Structure 1; all units produced artifacts. Soils encountered through the excavation of 50 by 50 cm units across Structure 1 were generally the same, consisting of a 10YR3/3 dark brown sandy loam (Level 1; 0-20 cm bs) over a 10YR5/4 yellowish brown sand (Level 2; 20-60 cm bs) over a 10YR7/6 yellow sand (Level 3; 60-70+ cm bs). Artifacts were recovered from 0-60 cm bs. A total of 542 artifacts was recovered from the 50 by 50 cm units. The majority of these are wire nails (n=335), flat glass fragments (n=81), bottle glass fragments (n=47), and lamp chimney glass fragments (n=10). Investigators also recovered a relatively large amount of oyster shell from the units. The majority of the oyster shell was recovered from Unit 296 (see Figure 34). This appears to be the location of an oyster shell-paved drive just south of Structure 1. The majority of the architectural material was recovered from Unit 301 (see Figure 34). This appears to have been a dumping area for architectural materials. Table 7 presents a summary of the artifacts recovered from the 50 by 50 cm test units excavated across Structure 1. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A.

Structure 2 Investigators identified Structure 2 in the north-central portion of 38BU1804, to the west of the preservation area (see Figure 4). The top of the foundation wall was visible at the ground surface in a grassy area adjacent to a gravel road. Investigators mechanically excavated areas totaling approximately 54 feet2 (8.93 m2) to expose subsurface exterior portions of the foundation wall of Structure 2. Investigators hand excavated areas totaling approximately 6.25 feet2 (0.58 m2) to expose 103

Figure 35. Views of the foundation (top) and the recessed post molds (bottom). 104

Table 7.

Artifacts Recovered from 50 by 50 cm Units at Structure 1. Artifact Type

Pre-Contact artifacts Undecorated pearlware

Total 39 1

Bottle glass

47

Table glass

1

Jar lid

1

Iron kettle fragment

4

Flat glass

81

Melted glass

1

Nails

335

Window weight

1

Furniture pull

1

.22 cartridge

1

Brass button

1

Glass marble

1

Jingle bell

1

Chimney lamp glass

10

Lighting appliance glass

2

Ceramic insulator

1

Glass electrical fuse

1

Magnet

1

Screw

1

Spike

1

Fence staple

1

Tin/zinc strap/band

1

Iron wire

5

Modern plastic

2

Total

542

Brick (kg) Mortar (kg) Iron fragments (g) Lead fragments (g) Metal slag (g) Faunal (g) Oyster shell (kg)

37.09 23.06 38.9 3.5 169.5 7.0 28.89

subsurface interior portions of the foundation wall of Structure 2. Figure 36 presents a plan and view of Structure 2. Structure 2 is square, measuring approximately 16.2 by 16.2 feet (4.94 by 4.94 105

Backhoe Excavation

Brick/Concrete Foundation

Hand Excavation

Unit 401

Hand Excavation

North Backhoe Excavation

38BU1804, Structure 2 0

Backhoe Excavation

Figure 36. A plan and view of Structure 2 at 38BU1804. 106

5 feet

meters). The continuous foundation wall is constructed of brick and measures approximately 2.15 feet (0.66 meters) from top to bottom. The foundation wall is 2.6 feet (0.79 meters) wide at the top, but varies in width at the base of each side. For instance, the wall is much thicker at the base of the northern wall than the other three walls. Reasons for this irregularity are unclear. Mortar is present along the top of the upper course of bricks, suggesting that additional courses of brick were once present. Figure 37 presents a view of the west wall and northeast corner of the structure. Investigators encountered a capped iron water (?) pipe (Feature 404) extending from the center of Unit 401 to the south, exiting the structure beneath the southern wall. This feature suggests that water was necessary for activities within this structure. The massiveness of the brick foundation wall of this relatively small structure is puzzling. The foundation was apparently constructed to support a great deal of weight. We believe that Structure 2 is the remnant of an outbuilding associated with the Wilson House, possibly an ice plant or cold storage house. These types of structures are listed in at least one account (Fraser 2002:15) of the outbuildings associated with the Wilson House. Unit 401. Unit 401 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the center of Structure 2 (see Figure 36). Soils consisted of 10YR4/3 brown loamy sand at 0-20 cm bs, over a mottled 10YR4/3 brown loamy sand and 10YR6/6 brownish yellow sand at 20-49 cm bs, over a 10YR6/6 brownish yellow sand at 49-67 cm bs. Investigators encountered a capped water pipe (Feature 604) approximately 59 cm bs in the southern portion of Unit 401. Investigators halted the excavation of the majority of Unit 401 at 67 cm bs (the base of Level 7). Investigators excavated the 10YR4/3 brown sand soil stain associated with the installation of the pipe to the base of Level 10. Figure 38 displays a view of the base of Unit 401, showing the location of the capped water pipe. A total of 199 artifacts was recovered from Unit 401. The majority of these are wire nails (n=44), cut nails (n=12), and window glass fragments (n=75). Domestic artifact counts are very low, supporting the supposition that this structure was not a residence. Table 8 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 401. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A.

Structure 3 Investigators identified Structure 3 in the north-central portion of 38BU1804, in the western portion of the preservation area (see Figure 4). The top of the foundation wall was visible at the ground surface in a grassy area. Investigators mechanically scraped areas totaling approximately 60 feet2 (5.56 m2) to expose subsurface portions of Structure 3. Structure 3 is U-shaped and measures approximately 10.5 feet north/south by 11 feet east/west (3.2 by 3.35 meters). Figure 39 107

Figure 37. A view of the west wall (top) and the northeast corner (bottom) of Structure 2. 108

Figure 38.

A view of the base of Unit 401.

Table 8.

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 401.

Artifact Type

Total

Pre-Contact sherds Whiteware Flat glass Nails Screw Skeet fragment Shotgun shell Iron clothing fastener Clothes pin spring Ceramic insulator Sheet metal Unidentifiable metal object Total Brick (kg) Mortar (g) Concrete (g) Coal (g) Faunal (g) Oyster (kg) Other shell (g)

51 1 75 56 2 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 199 5.1 118.5 106.5 46.5 74.4 4.1 52.6

109

Concrete Block Foundation

Unit 402

North

38BU1804, Structure 3 0

Figure 39.

Backhoe Excavation

2 feet

A plan and view of Structure 3 at 38BU1804. 110

presents a plan and view of Structure 3. The foundation wall is constructed of one course of large L-shaped concrete blocks joined by mortar. The side of the blocks facing the exterior of the structure are rusticated. The foundation wall measures approximately 0.75 feet (0.23 meters) from top to bottom. Investigators recovered very small amounts of brick and mortar rubble from the 1 by 2 meter unit (Unit 402) excavated in the interior of Structure 3, suggesting that the structure was likely constructed not of brick, but of wood. A small portion of a separate structure to the south of the back wing is visible in the historic photo taken from the back of the Wilson House (see Chapter 6 - Figure 49). Though it is difficult to judge the distance of this structure to the house, it is likely Structure 3. Domestic artifact counts are very low, suggesting that this structure was not a residence. We believe that Structure 3 is the remnant of an outbuilding associated with the Wilson House, possibly a small shed. Unit 402. Unit 402 was a 1 by 2 meter unit located in the interior of Structure 3 (see Figure 39). Soils consisted of a 10YR4/3 brown loamy sand at 0-30 cm bs over a 10YR7/6 yellow fine sand at 30-55 cm bs. Figure 40 displays a view of the north wall of Unit 402.

Figure 40.

A view of the north wall of Unit 402.

111

A total of 93 artifacts was recovered from Unit 402. The majority of these are wire nails (n=16), cut nails (n=9), and window glass fragments (n=19). Domestic artifact counts are very low, supporting the supposition that this structure was not a residence. Table 9 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 402. For a complete artifact inventory, see Appendix A. Table 9.

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 402.

Artifact Type

Total

Pre-Contact sherds Bottle glass Flat glass Burned glass Nails Terra cotta Staple Glass lamp part Total

29 7 19 1 29 1 4 3 93

Brick (g) Mortar (g) Building stone (g) Coal (g) Other shell (g)

2.9 161.9 82.9 68.2 95.5

Structure 4 Investigators identified Structure 4 in a heavily wooded area in the southern portion of 38BU1804 (see Figure 4). Structure 4 is square, measuring approximately 13 feet north/south by 13 feet east/west (3.96 by 3.96 meters). The continuous foundation wall is constructed of brick. A section of the southern wall has been destroyed. The foundation wall is at least 1.38 feet (0.42 meters) tall, the height visible from the top of the foundation wall to the current ground surface. The foundation wall is 1.1 feet (0.34 meters) wide at the top, but is apparently thicker at the base since the two lowest courses of brick visible above the ground surface step out. Mortar is present along the top of the upper course of bricks, suggesting that additional courses of brick were once present. Figure 41 presents a plan and view of Structure 4. Though not quite as large as Structure 2, the construction technique and massive quality of the foundation wall is similar. Like Structure 2, this foundation was likely constructed to support a great deal of weight from above. Structure 4 is located immediately to the north of Tower 1, the supports for a suspected water tower that are 112

Brick and Mortar Foundation

North

38BU1804, Structure 4 0

3 Courses

1 Course Lowest Course

Figure 41. A plan and view of Structure 4 at 38BU1804. 113

2 feet

discussed below. Tower 2, the supports for a second suspected water tower, is located nearby to the west. A second-generation personal communication source (Mike Rahn, July 2002) said that a power/ice plant was located at the base of the towers (assumedly, Tower 1). At least one account (Fraser 2002:15) lists a large wood-fired steam plant and an ice plant among the structures associated with the Wilson House. We believe that Structure 4 is the remnants of an outbuilding associated with the Wilson House, possibly a power and/or ice plant. Tower 1. Investigators identified Tower 1 in a heavily wooded area in the southern portion of 38BU1804 (see Figure 4). Tower 1 is composed of four square concrete with oyster shell inclusion supports. Each support measures approximately 3.05 by 3.05 feet (0.93 by 0.93 meters) at the top and approximately 3.6 by 3.6 feet (1.1 by 1.1 meters) at the current ground surface. The supports are spaced approximately 11 feet (3.35 meters) apart, making the dimensions of the tower base approximately 18.5 by 18.5 feet (5.6 by 5.6 meters) on center. Figure 42 presents a plan and view of Tower 1. Unlike the other structures associated with the Wilson House, Tower 1 is not aligned along a true north-south axis (it is aligned at 344°). A square metal plate with a raised Lshaped area to insert a post is attached to the top of each support. A second-generation personal communication source (Mike Rahn, July 2002) said that Towers 1 and 2 (discussed below) were water towers. At least one account (Fraser 2002:15) lists “...two high wood water tanks to provide pressure for water to the top floors of the four-story mansion...” among the structures associated with the Wilson House. Figure 43 presents a view of the tower from the early twentieth century. We believe that Tower 1 is the remnants of one of the two “high wood water tanks” associated with the Wilson House. Tower 2. Investigators identified Tower 2 in a heavily wooded area in the southern portion of 38BU1804, approximately 53 feet (16.2 meters) to the west of Tower 1 (see Figure 4). Tower 2 is composed of four square concrete with oyster shell inclusion supports. Each support measures approximately 3.05 by 3.05 feet (0.93 by 0.93 meters) at the top and approximately 3.25 by 3.25 feet (0.99 by 0.99 meters) at the current ground surface (considerably more of the supports of Tower 2 are covered by soil/debris than at Tower 1). The supports are spaced approximately 11 feet (3.35 meters) apart, making the dimensions of the tower base approximately 17.5 by 17.5 feet (5.34 by 5.34 meters), though the true dimensions of the tower base, when not obstructed by soil/debris, are likely identical to those of Tower 1. Unlike the other structures associated with the Wilson House, Tower 2 is not aligned along a true north-south axis (it is aligned at 304°). A square metal plate with a raised L-shaped area to insert a post is attached to the top of each support. Tower 2 is the second of the two “high wood water tanks” associated with the Wilson House.

114

Structure 4

North

38BU1804, Tower 1 0

Concrete Support

Metal Plate w/ metal Post Support

Figure 42. A plan and view of Tower 1 at 38BU1804. 115

4 feet

Figure 43.

An early twentieth century view of one of the towers.

Other Occurrences at 38BU1804 Slab 1. Investigators identified Slab 1 in a grassy area in the southeastern portion of 38BU1804 (see Figure 4). The slab is visible at the ground surface. Slab 1 is constructed of a flat pad of roughly finished concrete (with no shell inclusions), measuring approximately 10 feet north/south by 10 feet east/west (3.05 by 3.05 meters). The eastern portion of the slab is partially destroyed. There is no indication that any walls or posts rested upon this slab. Charles Bayles, the grounds manager of Palmetto Bluff since 1980 (personal communication, July 2002) said that he believed Union Camp may have constructed the concrete slabs (discussion of Slab 2 below) in the 1950s as the floor for turkey pens and later, in the mid-1980s, placed trailers on or adjacent to the slabs. However, a closer inspection of Slab 1 revealed an inscription reading “NICHOLE 7-30-87" along the northern edge of the slab. Thus, it does not seem likely that Slab 1 was used as the floor of a turkey pen, but could very well have been a foundation or “porch” area for a trailer in the 1980s. Slab 1 is obviously not associated with the Wilson House. Slab 2. Investigators identified Slab 2 in a grassy area in the southeastern portion of 38BU1804, approximately 52 feet (15.8 meters) to the north of Slab 1 (see Figure 4). The slab is 116

visible at the ground surface. Slab 2 is constructed of a flat pad of roughly finished concrete (with no shell inclusions), measuring approximately 9.8 feet north/south by 12.1 feet east/west (2.98 by 3.69 meters). There is no indication that any walls or posts rested upon this slab. Although there is no inscribed date on Slab 2, we assume that it was likely constructed at the same time as Slab 1 (circa 1987). Slab 2 also was likely used as a foundation or “porch” area for a trailer in the 1980s. Slab 2 is obviously not associated with the Wilson House. Dog Cemetery. A small dog cemetery reportedly associated with the Wilson family’s occupation of 38BU1804 is located on the east edge of the site, on a bluff overlooking the May River. This small cemetery is marked by nine small inscribed tombstones. The inscriptions on the markers are presented below. A vintage photograph of an unnamed Palmetto Bluff hunting dog is presented in Figure 44. Figure 44. A hunting dog. TOMMY. Died December 3, 1912 Aged 13 years A fine terrier and much loved companion WINCHESTER. Died March 14,1913 Aged 13 years A fine pointer BESS. Pointer. Died June 10, 1912 A Good Old Dog NIP. Dear hound. Died July 8, 1912 Snake Bitten A Worthy Hunter LEO. Hound Died Sept. 14, 1913 Age 6 years A Fine Deer Hunter LUKE. Died Jan. ‘08 A Grand Old Dog LADY. Died April 4, 1912 PIXIE. Died March 6th, 1912 SAM. Died June 4, 1910

117

Later discussions with an employee at Palmetto Bluff revealed that the dogs buried at the cemetery are not associated with the gravestones and were interred in the mid- to late twentieth century. The markers, although for the Wilson pets, were moved to the site from another unknown location by employees of Union Camp.

118

Chapter VI. Wilson House Construction and Interpretation of Spaces

The following discussion of the construction methods used at the Wilson House provides interpretations of the possible locations of rooms within the house. These interpretations are based largely on the architectural features located during excavations at the house, historic photographs of the house, and ideas set forth by Mr. Colin Brooker during his visit to the house (personal communication, July 24, 2002). Mr. Brookers’ knowledge of the architecture and construction methods employed throughout the history of Beaufort County and the surrounding areas, as well as his expertise in the use of tabby, proved to be invaluable in interpreting the remnants of a once mighty structure. The house was supported by a series of brick piers and continuous brick foundations walls. These piers and walls were laid upon shell concrete footers, which were generally slightly larger than the brick support. The term “shell concrete” will be used, for the most part, in place of the word “tabby.” Colin Brooker defines shell concrete as portland cement with shell used as the aggregate, whereas tabby is an earlier Lowcountry variation, being composed of shell and lime. The shell concrete footers have no structural advantage over traditional brick pier and wall footers. Rather, the shell concrete was likely used because it is much cheaper than brick, and even though Mr. Wilson could certainly afford brick, there was no aesthetic need for the brick since it would be beneath the house and beneath the ground surface. Also, the people who constructed portions of the house, including the foundations, likely were from the local area and were accustomed to working with shell concrete. The outer walls and wings/terraces of the house rested upon substantial continuous brick foundation walls. The interior spaces of the house rested upon a series of brick piers. Steel I-beams protrude from the back (west side) of the four large column bases. These steel beams likely spanned at least the depth of the front porch, and similar beams likely extended across the series of brick piers. These steel beams serves as sills upon which the floors and interior load bearing walls rested. Figure 45.

I-beam at the base of column.

119

Possibly the most curious and perplexing set of architectural features encountered within the house is the pair of long, parallel shell concrete footers or wall foundations. These features (named North Tabby and South Tabby) are present in the southern portion of the house. Figure 46 presents a view of these foundations. Much discussion was bandied about as to what these features may have supported. One possibility is that they formed a long continuous base for a series of chimneys along the southern portion of the house, though it is unclear from the exterior photos of the house if there was such an alignment of chimneys in this area. We did encounter what appears to be a brick chimney base (Feature 639) at the western end of the shell concrete features (see Figure 33). A second explanation for the parallel shell concrete features is that they supported a series of switchback stairs. These stairs may have been used primarily by the servants of the house. They may have used this more utilitarian set of steps isolated at one end of the house to access the floors above. The set of stairs used by the Wilsons and their guests was likely grander and more centrally located within the house.

Figure 46.

A view of the north and south tabby foundations.

The house was ringed by a series of terraces, or wings. Some of these terraces connected to one another, beginning with the large colonnade and porch with a high roof that stretched across the central portion of the front of the house. The front porch appears to have been connected to terraces 120

to the north and south. One could have also accessed these flanking terraces along the front of the house by means of the southeast or northeast steps. Neither of these terraces was roofed. What we are calling the north (and likely the south, though not as much of it remains, so it is difficult to discern) wing was at a lower level than the floor level of the first floor of the house. Judging by the photograph taken from the front of the house (see Figure 2), the north wing was enclosed by walls and was roofed. A second level was present on the north wing and it was roofed, but had no walls. A railed balustrade ran along the perimeter of the second level of the north wing. This may have been used from time to time as a “sleeping porch.” Because of the angle that the photograph was taken of the front of the house, we do not know the height of the south wing and whether or not any portion of it was roofed. What is believed to be an open terrace was present in the northwest corner of the main body of the house. This finished concrete floor (Feature 617) does not appear to have been tiled like the remainder of the porches and terraces (Figure 47 - top). This may have been a utilitarian area in the rear of the house, adjacent to the kitchen and servant areas. This area would have not been seen by the Wilson’s visitors. Massive square brick piers were toppled in this area of the house. A fragment of one (Feature 609) remained in place on the concrete floor (Figure 47 - bottom). All of the now toppled piers may have once stood on or around this concrete floor, possibly supporting a roof overhead. The piers were constructed of laid brick surrounding an interior fill of rough tabby concrete. We encountered a curved brick wall foundation (Feature 628) to the south of the junction of the back wing and the main body of the house (Figure 48 - top). Centered along this feature is a set of steps (west steps) (Figure 48 - bottom). This is the only curved brick foundation wall we encountered at the Wilson House. Judging from a historic photo taken of the back of the house and shown here in Figure 49, there is no curved wall visible in this portion of the house. The curved wall likely supported a semi-circular porch/terrace at this west step entrance into the house. Double doors are visible in the photo, and the terrace does not appear to be covered with a roof. The architect’s choice to place a curved terrace at this entrance, whereas the remainder of the terraces spaced around the perimeter of the house were apparently square, is puzzling. The floors of the front porch, as well as the top landing of the front steps, north steps, south steps, northwest steps, and west steps, were composed of a shell concrete slab. The steps were also made of this shell concrete. The low walls that are present on either side of the steps, as well as the piers at the base of the steps, were made of brick covered in plaster or stucco. The floor of the porch, the top landing of the front steps, and the top landing of the north steps were covered in square

121

Figure 47. A view of a concrete floor (Feature 617 - top) and a view of a brick pier on a concrete floor (Feature 609 - bottom). 122

Figure 48.

Views of the curved brick wall foundation (Feature 628 - top) and the west steps (bottom). 123

marble tiles. We suspect that the top landings of all of the other exterior steps were also tiled in a similar fashion. The floor of the upper level of the north wing may have been similarly tiled, as well. A long structure projected from the back (western) portion of the house (see Figure 49). The photograph shows this portion of the house has two floors, with a third, possibly partial floor with dormer windows extending up to the roof. We encountered a cache of flatware in the area where this wing meets the main body of the house. It seems logical to assume that the kitchen and service areas were located in this rear portion of the house. The ground level floor of this wing was presumably the kitchen Figure 49. and pantry area of the house.

Figure 50.

View of the northwest steps.

A historic view of the back of the Wilson Mansion.

The rear wing could be accessed by at least three entrances. We encountered a set of steps, shown in Figure 50, where the wing meets the main body of the house (northwest steps). We found no evidence of a formal terrace at this entrance, though the steps may have led to the same level as the finished concrete floor (Feature 617) believed to be an open service-related area. So, this entrance at the northwest steps would have been the most “hidden”entrance, likely unseen by the guests of the Wilsons.

In the field, we puzzled over the functions of two rectangular box-shaped foundations (Features 626 and 627) protruding off of the south wall (Feature 624) of the rear wing. A close inspection of the old photograph of the rear wing of the house reveals that these foundations were

124

two covered entrances into this wing. Figure 51 presents a view of one of these foundations (Feature 626). See Figure 29 for a view of the other foundation (Feature 627).

Figure 51.

A view of the tabby foundation (Feature 626).

Judging from the photo, the northern portion of the ground floor of this wing appears to be an open breezeway. We encountered a finished concrete walkway (Feature 623) on the northern edge of the wing. This likely was a walkway along the edge of the open breezeway. This sidewalk may have led from the northwest steps to the set of cellar steps at the western end of the wing. Figure 52 presents a view of the walkway. View of the walkway. The cellar was located beneath the rear Figure 52. wing of the house. We excavated the westernmost portion of this cellar. It is unclear if the cellar extended beneath the entire rear wing of the house. Steps lead down from the ground level of the western end of the rear wing down into this space. Figure 53 presents a view of the cellar after our excavations. This cellar may have housed the “electrical room,” which was typical of large houses in the early twentieth century. The cellar also probably contained the boiler room for the house. This large house would have required a similarly 125

Figure 53.

A view of the stairs to the cellar and the cellar walls.

large furnace to properly heat all of the rooms within the building. This furnace would have fed into large radiators similar to the one encountered in the eastern portion of the house (Feature 618). These radiators were likely located in rooms throughout the house, supplementing the heat provided by fireplaces. Figure 54 presents a view of the radiator. Like many areas we excavated across the house ruins, the cellar was filled with brick and other construction material rubble which likely were deposited there during the collapse of the Figure 54. house and during subsequent rubble moving activities.

A view of the radiator.

The second floor of the rear wing may have contained living quarters for family servants. While the number of servants working for the family likely varied from year to year, we can get an idea of the number and identity of people employed by the Wilsons while they resided in South 126

Carolina from a 1920 population census of Beaufort County. Apparently the Wilsons were in residence at Palmetto Bluff when the enumerators visited in early March 1920. Table 10 presents the census information for the people associated with the Wilson family. Table 10. Name Richard T. Wilson Marion S. Wilson Louise Wilson Marion J. Wilson William A. White Margaret White Maria Carlson Margaret Brown Anna Cromin Peter O’Neill Charles Priester

A Portion of the 1920 Beaufort County Population Census. Relationship Head Wife Daughter Daughter Servant Servant Servant Servant Servant Servant Servant

Age 52 44 15 13 62 45 50 50 45 52 25

Race W W W W W W W W W W W

Marital Status Married Married Single Single Married Married Single Married Single Single Single

Occupation Farmer None None None Cabinet Maker House Maid Laundress Parlor Maid Ladies Maid Butler Chauffeur

Place of Birth Georgia Massachusetts New York New York England England Sweden Ireland Ireland Ireland New Jersey

It is unknown if some or all of the servants lived at the Wilson’s Palmetto Bluff house year round, or if they traveled with the Wilsons to their other properties, as well. The dormer windows present on the third, possibly partial floor of the rear wing suggest that more living or storage spaces were present on this level (see Figure 49). These dormer windows echo the pattern of the dormer windows present in the upper portion of the main body of the house. From the historic photo of the rear of the house, we know that one chimney was present in the southwest corner of the rear wing (see Figure 49). We did not encounter any trace of this chimney, which presumably was brick. We did encounter a finished concrete slab (Feature 625) shown in Figure 55 in this area, to the west of the exterior of the back wing wall foundation (Feature 624), though the relationship of this slab to the chimney is unclear. Figure 55.

View of the concrete slab.

Each of the terraces/wings could have been accessed by the walkway that passed around the perimeter of the house. The walkway was defined by a pair of parallel concrete curbs (Features 641 and 642). We encountered traces of crushed oyster shell between the two curbs. This shell was likely the surface of the walkway that passed around 127

the house. The curbing trails off to the west on the north side of the house and apparently connected to the access driveway to the east of the house. Presumably, a similar paired curbing was once present along the southern perimeter of the house, but this curbing may have been destroyed by land clearing/rubble removal activities following the destruction of the house by fire. Figure 56 presents a view of the pair of curbs. The inner curb (Feature 641) touches the piers at the base of the north and northeast steps, and likely did so at all of the other steps along the perimeter of the house, as well. The areas between the inner curb of the walkway and the outer walls of the house were likely planted in shrubbery. Curbed walkways may have also led into garden areas surrounding the house. We encountered a portion of one curb leading to the south lawn of the house.

Figure 56.

A view of the pair of concrete curbs.

The house was surrounded by lush gardens designed by Harvey Beach. The gardens, known as “Lover’s Lane,” contained copious amounts of foliage and arbors, as well as benches that may have served as meeting spots for young couples attending parties at the house (Fraser 2002:16). A portion of these gardens is visible in the historic photo taken from the front of the house (see Figure 2). A low, circular pool was centered, or nearly centered, in the front lawn of the house. A small statue on a column pedestal was located in the center of the pool. Judging from the historic photograph taken from behind the fountain looking towards the front of the house, and also by our attempts to recreate this photograph, it appears that the pool was not placed directly centered on the front of the house. This seems to have been an unintentional, and undesirable, mistake on the part of the people who placed and constructed the pool. 128

Visible in the historic photograph of the front of the house, planters with small conical trees are present at the top and bottom of each set of steps leading up to the house (see Figure 2). The planters at the top and bottom of the central front steps contain larger plants. A closer view of similar planters, as well as other details of exterior of the house, is available in an undated photograph (shown in Figure 57) of Mr. Wilson and friends gathered on the southeast steps of mansion. Mr. Wilson is the standing gentleman wearing the hat. The identities of the remainder of the individuals is unknown, though we suspect that one of the two other men visible in the photo may be Mr. Harlem G. Rubert, who was Mr. Wilson’s private secretary, a man who rarely left his boss’s side. We believe that the photograph was taken of the group on the southeast steps, which led up to a terrace in front of the southernmost entrance along the front of the Wilson House. Visible in the extreme right of the photograph is Column 1, which is the southernmost column along the front of the Wilson House. Unlike the photo of the front of the house, there are no plants in the planters at the time this photo was taken. Shrubbery is planted in the areas between the exterior walkway and the front of the porch. A slatted wooden bench is located to the left of the base of the steps and white wooden chairs are on this side porch.

Figure 57.

Mr. Wilson and friends on the southeast steps at the Wilson House.

129

Four large, three story tall columns supported the roof over the front porch of the house (see Figure 2). Figure 58 presents a view of Column 2 which exhibits a representative view of the column base construction. Each column rested on a thick base of shell concrete. This shell concrete was fairly smooth, using finer bits of shell than was evidenced elsewhere in the column construction. The concrete appears to have been cast with one foot wide form boards. The base was A view of typical column cased in brick along the back (which faced the Figure 58. base construction. interior of the space beneath the porch floor) and along the front (which was the front wall of the porch platform). Atop this brick encased support was the very rough shell concrete porch floor. The surface of the porch floor would have a smoother finish so that it could be tiled, but the cross section of the porch floor construction visible at Column 3 reveals that dense, large oyster shells were used as the concrete aggregate (see Figure 26). A steel I-beam floor support protruded from the back edge of this floor section of each column (see Figure 45). This I-beam would have spanned at least the depth of the porch and provided support for the floor. It is unclear if this same system of steel Ibeams was used throughout the remainder of the house. Atop the porch floor was the finished portion of the column base that would have been visible to people on the porch. This square base was made of laid brick and finished in plaster.

Figure 59.

A cross-section showing the construction of a column.

A fine grained cement ring encircled the base of each circular column, just above the finished square base. The craftsman likely cast the ring in place and affixed it to the column by roughing up the surface of the column in this area of attachment. The columns themselves were robust in construction. Figure 59 presents a view of the cross-section of a broken column. A hollow steel pipe ran up through the center of each column. Steel pipe was not present in the section of the column displayed in Figure 59, but was present in several other column sections located near the area of the front porch.

130

This steel pipe likely extends down into the sub-floor portion of the column support base. The masons that constructed the columns laid increments of brick, forming a circular shape. Unlike the column construction methods that were conventional at the time, the bricks were not radial bricks. Rather, the bricks were cut into small sections which were then laid in the circular shape of the column. After several courses of brick were laid, rough tabby concrete composed of dense, large oyster shells was poured into the space. This process was continued up the entire height of the column, with the column tapering slightly as it reached the top. At some point near the top of the column, whole bricks were laid across the breadth of the column opening, perhaps to provide a more stable supportive surface for the capital and porch roof above. Each column was finished in smooth plaster. The columns were topped with ornate Corinthian capitals. Each capital was made of fine cement, likely pre-cast elsewhere and then attached to the top of the column. The four columns supported the roof of the porch. The porch roof was ringed by a wooden balustrade. People in the house may have been able to access the front porch roof by means of three central dormers. Judging from the two historic photos of the exterior of the Wilson House, the entire house appears to have been plastered and painted white. Again the front of the house is shown in Figure 60. Rather deep and protruding belt courses visually separate the three full floors of the house. Numerous windows and doors pierce the exterior walls. The windows are six rectangular panes over six rectangular panes. Double doors opened onto balconies on the second and third floors of the house beneath the porch roof. Large support brackets are visible beneath the two upper balconies, but curiously, no balustrade and railing is visible along the balconies in the view of front of the house. The photograph may have been taken while some finish work was still being completed. Surely, for the sake of safety, a railed balustrade was eventually constructed along the perimeter of the balconies.

Figure 60.

A view of the front of the Wilson mansion.

131

Five double-windowed dormers top the front of the house. It is unclear if there were actually rooms associated with these dormers, or if they are just a design effect and/or attic space. The dormer windows create a striking rhythm above the treeline (Figure 61). The house was surely a stunning sight when approached from the river. Given the numerous wings and dormers present across the large structure, the task of designing the roof system of the house must have been a difficult one. Basically, the different areas Figure 61. The Wilson House towers of the house were roofed with hipped roofs with a over the treeline. moderate pitch. The dormers were roofed with a simple front-gable with a steeper pitch. Given the absence of slate or metal roofing products in the rubble of the house, it is likely that the roof surfaces were composed of wood shingles.

Interpreting the Internal Layout We can make reasonable assumptions about the functions of some of the areas and rooms of the house based on foundations we viewed in the field matched with historic photos of the exterior of the house; however, the locations of the remaining rooms throughout the house is less clear. The following discussion is based largely on historic photos taken of the interior of the house. Details visible in each photo provide us with an idea of the grandeur of the house. The functions of many of the spaces present throughout the first floor of the house have been discussed above. One could enter the house by way of at least seven entrances, marked by what we have termed the front steps, the northeast steps, the north steps, the northwest steps, the west steps, the south steps, and the southeast steps. Figure 62 shows a narrow, well-lit room. By the arrangement of the doors and windows, we know that this is the room in the southeast portion of the first floor of the house. This room/space may have extended across the entire width of the front of the house, a reception area for guests entering the house. This space likely could have been entered by the main front doors, as well as by the entrances at the top of the southeast and northeast steps. The southeast entrance visible in the interior photo was a door flanked by windows on each side. The door appears to be solid wood with no windows. The door and sidelight windows were topped

132

Figure 62.

The southeast front room on the first floor.

by a wide semicircular fanlight. Intricately carved fluted pilasters extended up the spaces between and surrounding the door and sidelights. Three large windows that begin at the floor and reach nearly to the ceiling are visible in the photo. Two of these are along the front (east) wall of the room and are also visible in the photo taken from the front of the house. The third was present along the end (south) wall of the room. Each of the windows appears to have been treated with gauzy, lacy white curtains. The room appears to have a hardwood floor. One small rug lies in front of the entrance into the room. The lower third of the walls of the room are paneled in wood wainscot with a small ledge at the top. The panels display a recessed motif of a square over a rectangle. The upper portion of the wall appears to be either painted or covered in wallpaper. The walls themselves likely were wood framed, covered in a metal mesh, and then plastered. We encountered fragments of this metal mesh, some still covered in chunks of plaster, throughout the house. A frieze, fashioned either from wood or plaster, is present along the perimeter of the top of the wall, beneath a heavy course of molding. The frieze pattern consists of vertical fluting interspersed with circles. The thick course of molding appears to protrude several inches out from the surface of the wall and onto the ceiling of the room. 133

The room had a smooth plaster ceiling. Two lighting fixtures are visible, hanging from the ceiling. Each light fixture, likely made out of brass, contained four light bulbs, each covered by a small conical shade. The narrow room was filled with furniture. Visible in the photo are three high-backed wooden chairs pushed against the walls. Two of the chairs are simpler in design and are present to either side of the door sidelights. The third chair, located along the long west wall of the room, is more ornate and a bit taller, with intricately carved arms and a high carved wooden headrest. The chair appears to be upholstered in a floral patterned fabric. Figure 63 presents a view of Louise Wilson, the oldest daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, sitting in this chair. The frame above the chair and the large bureau next to the chair are visible in this photo. The chair appears to have a motif of old men carved into it. A somewhat abstracted bearded man is carved into the headrest and men’s faces are carved into the armrests. Two tables are present in the room, each in front Figure 63. Louise Wilson seat in of a window. The heavy, carved table present in front of the front room chair. the end (south) wall of the room is the most visible of the two in the photo. A rectangular box planter filled with plants rests on the table. A shallow bowl is also present on the table. Mr. Wilson was known to be an outdoorsman, and he has displayed some of his bagged game in this entry room. Two stuffed birds, a wild turkey and what appears to be either a hawk or an eagle, are present on the table at the end of the room. A bald eagle, its wings spread in frozen flight, is located on top of the large bureau. Finally, several framed objects are present on the walls of the room. Two oval mirrors framed in ornately carved frames are present along the front (east) wall of the room, one to each side of the entrance. One rectangular frame is visible on the west wall of the room, above the fanciest of the three chairs (see Figures 62 and 63). Strangely, in the photo where this frame is visible, it does not appear that any mirror or image is located within the frame. The three frames are not affixed to the wall by hook and nail, rather, they hang on cords attached to the base of the frieze above.

134

A portion of a fluted pilaster with a large overhanging pediment is visible in the extreme right foreground of the photo, along the west wall of the room. The terminus of a semicircular shape is located above the pediment, likely the framing for a fanlight. This construction is likely a doorway that leads into the next interior space of the house. Almost certainly, there was an identical doorway present in the northern end of this front entry room, as well. Given the importance of the main entrance into a house such as this, it seems likely that there was a grander entrance area in the center of the house than those described above. In contemporary grand homes, Architects sought drama in the monumental entrance hall, for it was here that the tycoon first imposed his wealth and position on his guests. Other rooms could deviate from the chosen style of the house, but the entrance hall was an integral part of the architectural statement, closely married to the great dwelling’s exterior design. Grand staircases ran up several stories, while sculptured reliefs, stained-glass windows, tapestries, and marble walls as wells as floors set off large ferns and palms potted in great Chinese vases (Gregory 1993: 110).

It is difficult to assign the locations of the remainder of the rooms spread across the first floor of the house. As discussed earlier, the kitchen was likely located on the first floor of the rear wing of the house. Servants would have prepared the meals in the kitchen, away from the occupants of the house, and then brought the food to other areas of the house. Food and other necessities were distributed to upper floors of the house by means of a dumbwaiter. In grand houses of the time, “...food Figure 64. The dumbwaiter. was carried up the stairs on heavy silver platters or occasionally sent up on a dumbwaiter” (Gregory 1993: 110). Figure 64 presents a view of what remains of the dumbwaiter frame we found atop the rubble in the southwest portion of the house. It is unknown where this device was located while the house was still standing. The meals were likely served in dining areas on the first floor. There were probably at least two dining rooms. One of these would have been a large, formal dining room where the Wilsons dined with their guests. In contemporary grand homes, “The dining room was designed for 135

extremely formal occasions and generally had to be long enough to accommodate up to a hundred guests at one table, broad enough to allow an extremely elaborate display of silver or porcelain…” (Gregory 1993: 109). The second dining room was probably smaller, a more intimate and relaxed setting for the Wilsons when no guests were present. Various other rooms were likely present on the first floor, including bathrooms and closets. Somewhere in the central portion of the first floor there would have been a formal set of stairs that led to the upper floors of the house. The bottom landing of these stairs may have been centered in this central space, visible when one entered the house through the front entrance and passed into the main body of the house. These stairs, like the remainder of the house, were assuredly very ornate. The Wilsons and their guests would have walked up these stairs to the bedrooms and other rooms on the upper floors. The servants likely used these stairs, as well, but perhaps carried supplies for the upper floors up another set of service stairs, possibly the set of narrow switchback stairs believed to have been located in the southern portion of the house. Bedrooms were likely located along the perimeter of the second, and possibly third floors. The bedrooms were probably accessed by means of hallways passing down the length (north-south) of the interior. We assume that the Wilsons had the largest bedroom(s), though the guest quarters were likely well-appointed, as well. Judging by the arrangement of windows visible in the photo of the exterior of the house, each bedroom had one, and possibly two or more windows (see Figure 60). As with the other interior spaces within the house, the doorways leading into each room were likely topped with a fanlight. We can only guess at the locations of these bedrooms, though we did encounter several clues during our excavations in the northern portion of the house. We recovered a surprising number of largely intact children’s porcelain toy fragments beneath the layers of rubble of upper floors in the northern portion of the house. These pieces included porcelain doll heads, legs, arms, and torsos, as well as miniature plates, saucers, teacups, and muffin pans. Unlike much of the rubble that has been pushed around during various past attempts to clean up the ruins of the house, the dense layers of rubble in this area (specifically, in the areas of Unit 408 and the concrete floor in the northwest portion of the house) appeared to be relatively intact. The children’s toys must have come from the rooms directly above these areas, though we were unable to determine if they were from rooms on the second floor or on the third floor. When the house burned and collapsed in 1926, daughters Louise and Marion would have been 21 and 19 years old, respectively. One would think that they may have been a bit old to still be playing with dolls and toy serving sets. However, when the house was constructed in 1915, Louise and Marion would have been 10 and eight years old, respectively. The girls likely did not travel with these toys. Rather, Louise and Marion kept the toys in their 136

rooms at the Wilson House for them to play with when they visited the area with their parents. The toys may have remained in the house as mementos of their childhood. So, we can safely assume that the children’s bedrooms were located on the second or third floors in the northern end of the house. Guest activities at Palmetto Bluff would have followed a well defined schedule. The majority of the following schedule of events was learned from a tour of Hyde Park. Hyde Park is the massive, 50-room summer house in Hyde Park, New York, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Frederick William Vanderbilt in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Following a formal dinner, which in the Wilson House would have been served in the dining room downstairs, the men and women would have dispersed into separate rooms. The women, led by Mrs. Wilson, would have shared fashionable cocktails and conversation in a room whose furnishings would have been influenced by Mrs. Wilson’s tastes. It may have been a room such as a salon, “...which today would be called drawing or living rooms, they were generally decorated in the French manner and filled with what the society decorator Elsie de Wolfe called “FFF”–the “Fine French Furniture” of the Louis XV and Louis XVI periods” (Gregory 1993: 109). The men, led by Mr. Wilson, would have done likewise in a darker, perhaps more ruggedly appointed room, likely filled with leather upholstered furniture and more hunting trophies bagged by Mr. Wilson. Following the consumption of several adult beverages, the women and men would have reconvened in the ballroom for music, singing, dancing, and mixed conversation. Ballrooms were a necessity for houses of the elite of the era. The most massive interior space within the Wilson House likely was the ballroom. In grand contemporary homes, “The ballroom…was the largest, most elaborate, and least used of the great reception rooms…” (Gregory 1993: 109). Two photos exist of the ballroom at the Wilson House; they are shown in Figure 65. The ballroom had a vaulted ceiling along the center of the room, bringing the height of the room to one and one half floors. We assume that the ballroom was located in a long space on the second or third floors. The extra height of the ballroom would have dictated the placement of rooms in the space above. If the ballroom was located on the second floor, then there would essentially have been an unusable space over the vaulted ceiling in the floor above. Rooms, presumably bedrooms and bath rooms, would have to be spaced along the perimeter of this area, though this brings into question how one would move from one room to the next without space for a hallway. If the ballroom was located on the third floor, then the vaulted ceiling would have extended into the upper portion of the house where the dormer windows were located. A closer inspection of the ballroom photos shows light streaming in across the floor. This light would be entering the room by means of windows along the exterior wall of the house. These windows were the front windows of the house.

137

Figure 65. Two historic views of the ballroom of the Wilson House. 138

The vaulted ceiling was supported by a row of fluted columns along each long axis (northsouth) of the ballroom. Each column was topped with a Corinthian capital. Long, linear spaces are located parallel to each side of the vaulted central portion of the ballroom. Seating is present in these areas. One of the interior photos gives the indication that these linear spaces adjacent to the larger central space may have had vaulted ceilings, as well. The ballroom had a light colored hardwood floor. A very large solid-colored rug is spread across the portion of the floor beneath the central vaulted space. There is a chair rail visible along the bottom third of the wall, but it is unclear if the area between this chair rail and the floor is paneled in wood. The entire wall appears to be finished in smooth plaster. Elaborate plaster medallions and friezes are visible across the surface of every wall. Some of these appear to have an abstracted urn motif. Even the underside of the beam that rests on the columns is decorated with plaster medallions. Yet more plaster medallions are present along the flat segment of the wall above the columns in the two linear spaces running parallel to the central vaulted space.

Figure 66.

A view of the plaster medallions and friezes in the ballroom.

Perhaps the most impressive attribute of the room is the barrel vaulted ceiling over the central portion of the ballroom. The ceiling was covered in highly intricate plaster moldings, dividing the space into three linear panels. The two panels of the ceiling nearest the columns on each edge of the vaulted space displayed a pattern of alternating octagons and rectangles. What appear to be human figures and floral patterns are visible in some of the moldings. The central panel, which runs along the 139

Figure 67. Ceiling medallion.

long axis of the highest point of the vaulted ceiling, contained a line of circles, also molded out of plaster. The intricate design within each circle appears to be a rosette motif. A large chandelier, which appears to be constructed of brass and either glass or crystal, hungs from the center of one of the circles. A large fireplace was located at the end (south) of the ballroom. The Wilsons and their guests likely gathered for conversation in front of the fireplace during chilly nighttime festivities in the room. The fire would have been tended by servants. According to an account of contemporary spaces “…the little furniture it contained generally kept under sheets, except on those few occasions when the family received friends for an evening of dancing. Stuccowork, large crystal chandeliers, marqueterie floors, an abundance of gilded columns and mirrors…set the tone for the most ambitious social occasions” (Gregory 1993: 109). Couches were located to each side of the fireplace. Large oval mirrors hang on the wall above each couch. The mirrors are set within yet more plaster carvings on the wall. A number of upholstered armchairs are located around the ballroom, around the perimeter, as well as in the central area of the room. No doubt, the chairs on the central carpeted area of the ballroom would have been pushed out to the edges of the room when couples began to dance. Another very large oval mirror hung on one of the longer walls (west) of the ballroom. Tall floor lamps were also located in this area. Figure 68. Chan delier.

What appears to be a landing for a set of stairs was located along one of the longer walls (west) of the ballroom. A balustrade was present along this raised platform. A white upright piano is visible in the corner (southwest) of the room, to the right of the fireplace. Based on accounts of their life in New York City, the Wilsons, and especially Mrs. Wilson, were known to enjoy music played on the piano. One of their guests may have played for them, or they may have even brought in a pianist to perform for them and their guests during their extended stays at the Palmetto Bluff. During their dances in their ballroom, the Wilsons likely employed additional musicians. Unlike the situation in their New York residences, where neighbors would complain about the noise at their late night musicales, there were no such restraints in their isolated Beaufort County home. No doubt, their dances and parties lasted deep into the night.

140

Visible in the two ballroom photos, in the area near the piano in the corner of the room, was a door into another room. An enlargement of the entrance is presented in Figure 69. One entered this room by walking up three steps. Shelves of books are visible and we know from another interior photo that this was likely the library of the house. A view of the library is presented in Figure 70. Again, the floor was hardwood with a large Persian rug spread across it. Bookshelves extended two-thirds of the way up the walls of the room. Carved wooden pilasters framed the bookshelves. The walls above the shelves appear to be smooth plaster. Circular plaster medallions with what Figure 69. Library entrance from the appear to be human figures carved into them were ballroom. evenly spaced across the plaster walls. A broad frieze, fashioned out of either wood or plaster, ran along the top of the wall, just beneath a large molding. A garland motif was sculpted onto the frieze. The molding above the frieze was thick and projected several inches out onto the smooth plaster ceiling. A large brass and crystal chandelier, similar or identical to the one in the ballroom, hung from the center of a circular medallion on the ceiling. The circular medallion has a spider web motif. A fireplace was located along the center of the wall that is the focus of the photograph. A large rectangular mirror rested on the mantle. Visible in the mirror are bookshelves on the opposite wall. Two small urns and a pair of candlesticks also rested on the mantle of the fireplace. Bookshelves lined the walls to either side of the fireplace. Two small circular tables were located to the left of the fireplace and one was located to the right. A lamp and a vase of flowers were located atop each of the tables. A large rectangular table or desk was in the center of the room. It appears that the surface of this wooden table is covered in glass. Resting on the top of the table were a framed photograph, a vase of flowers, and what appears to be a small statue of either a horse or an elephant. Given Mrs. Wilson’s involvement in the Democratic Party, it is doubtful that she would tolerate a statue of an elephant in the house. A leather upholstered high back chair, as well a larger chair upholstered in a velvet-like material, was located next to the table. There also appears to be a large fabric upholstered couch between the table and the fireplace. A fabric upholstered rocking chair was located on the left side of the room, in front of a set of double doors that appear to lead to a space outside of the house.

141

Figure 70.

A view of the Wilson’s library.

The set of double doors on the left side of the room is largely glass, with a glass fanlight atop the doors. Given the amount of light streaming through the windows, the library must have been located on an end of the house. Given its spatial relationship to the adjacent ballroom, we believe that the library was located somewhere in the southwest portion of the house on either the second or third floor. The glass double doors must have led to an exterior balcony on the southern end of the house. It may have been a somewhat small balcony, not covered like the one visible in the photo on the northern end of the house. Two additional doorways are visible in the library. One of the doorways, located to the right of the fireplace, appears to have either no door, or perhaps a deeply recessed or darkly colored wooden door. The doorway had a semicircular arch above the opening, mimicking the semicircular fanlights above other doors in the house. This same semicircular arch was present above one of the bookcases, which mirrored the location of the doorway along the wall. There appears to be a painted scene on the wall within each of the semicircular arches. The fourth doorway in the room was a set of double doors, largely composed of glass, and topped by a semicircular glass fanlight. This 142

doorway appears to be in the same position along the wall opposite of the set of double doors that leads to the exterior balcony. This second set of double doors would have opened into a room or hallway in the interior portion of the house, towards the northern or central portion of the house. It is likely that many of the interior rooms were connected by this type of glass double doors, again with the semicircular glass fanlight topping the passageway.

Other Decorative Elements at the House We recovered fragments of an array of decorative elements within the ruins of the Wilson House, fragments that provide us with glimpses into the grandeur of the home. We rarely recovered more than one example of a certain type, which suggests that the decorative scheme was quite varied. For the purposes of this discussion, we will discuss these elements as decorative architectural elements and decorative garden elements. With the nearly complete destruction of the house and the displacement of much of the building materials and artifacts, it is difficult to assign architectural elements to either the exterior or the interior of the house. For example, we recovered fragments of capitals that could have been located atop columns either inside or outside of the house. Nonetheless, the array of materials and forms is impressive. Figure 71 presents a view of various decorative architectural elements recovered from the ruins of the Wilson House. Element A is a marble floor tile approximately eight inches square. This type of tile was rather plentiful in the ruins, suggesting that the floors of at least several rooms were tiled. Element B is a stone column base approximately 1.2 feet square. This column base would have rested on the floor, likely in the interior of the house. A hollow circular column with a diameter of approximately five inches would have been placed on top of the column base. Because the column was hollow, it could not have supported any great load and likely was decorative, perhaps one of a series of ornamental columns in a room. Elements C and D are fragments of Doric capitals. The Doric capital type is of the oldest and simplest of the three orders of classical Greek architecture (Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian). Doric capitals have simple, saucer-shaped forms. Both Doric capital fragments are made of a fine cement. Elements E and F are fragments of Ionic capitals. The Ionic capital is characterized by two opposed volutes. Both of the Ionic capital fragments are made of white marble. We know from the historic photograph of the front of the Wilson House that the front porch roof was supported by a series of columns capped with Corinthian capitals. It is unclear if the Doric and Ionic capitals also topped exterior columns or if they were used in the interior of the house.

143

A (Tile)

E (Ionic capital)

B (Column base)

C (Doric capital)

F (Ionic capital)

G (Newel top)

I (Pilaster)

J (Frieze)

D (Doric capital)

H (Newel top)

K (Statuary)

Figure 71. Architectural elements recovered from the Wilson Mansion at 38BU1804. 144

Elements G and H are the tops of newels. A newel is a vertical post that supports a handrail at a landing or bottom of a staircase. Usually, newels are made of wood, but as we have learned the Wilsons could certainly afford to construct their home of the most expensive materials. The stone (granite or marble) newel tops are circular and mimic the form of a Doric capital. Element I is the top of a stone pilaster. A pilaster is a flat and rectangular column attached to a wall as an ornamental motif. Pilasters are purely decorative and support no weight. They often are fluted to mimic the form of a column, though the pictured example appears to be quite plain. Intricately carved fluted pilasters extended up the spaces between and surrounding the door and windows in the southeast front room of the Wilson House (see Figure 62). The fragment of pilaster pictured as Element I likely framed a door or window in the interior of the Wilson House. Element J is a fragment of a carved marble frieze. A frieze is a horizontal part of an entablature between the architrave (lower portion) and the cornice (upper portion). The pictured frieze fragment likely was affixed at the top of an interior wall, part of an elaborate molding. The frieze fragment displays a beautiful stylized wave motif. Element K is one of the most intriguing artifacts recovered from the ruins of the Wilson House. The function of this marble element is unclear, but it likely is a statuary fragment. The surface of the marble is carved to represent the feathers of a bird, possibly a regal bird such as an eagle. We know that Mr. Wilson was quite fond of shooting birds, as evidenced by the taxidermy in the southeast front room of the house (see Figure 62). Perhaps this statue was also in the front room, or maybe in his office. Figure 72 presents a view of various decorative garden elements recovered from the ruins of the Wilson House. They are all made of fine cement and likely are fragments of planters. Most of these planters would have been located outside the house. Element A is the circular base of a planter. Element B is the base of a planter bowl. It would have rested on a base similar to the one pictured as Element A. It was photographed with its bottom up; the hole in the center of it would have rested on the base. Excess water from inside the planter would have drained out of this hole. The planter bowl is decorated with an acanthus leaf motif, a fairly common planter design. A closer inspection of the planter pictured in the upper right corner of Figure 57 reveals that it too had a similar design. We believe that the base of the planter bowl pictured as Element B was part of a planter once located on an exterior terrace of the Wilson House. Element C is a planter rim from a very small planter or pot, with a round opening of approximately three inches. The rim is finely decorated in a twisted rope motif. Elements D and E are also planter rims. They are both elegantly decorated with an egg and dart motif.

145

B (Planter bowl base)

A (Planter base)

C (Planter rim)

D (Planter rim)

E (Planter rim)

Figure 72.

Decorative garden elements. 146

Summary and Discussion Given the amount of detail present throughout the house, coupled with the massiveness of the structure, an architect must have designed the house at Palmetto Bluff. Mr. Wilson surely would not have set upon constructing his prized southern retreat, the largest residence in the entire state, without hiring a professional architect. While he and Mrs. Wilson likely expressed their tastes and desires for the appearance of the house and rooms they would require within the house, the architect would have been necessary to express their input into a structurally sound design. We were not able to discover the identity of the architect responsible for the design of the Wilson House. Fraser (2002:15) notes that Marion Wilson met with her favorite architects in Italy, presumably to help plan the design for the house in Beaufort County. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., in his book about his mother Grace Wilson Vanderbilt (sister of Richard T. Wilson, Jr.), reported the following excerpt of a letter written by his Aunt Belle (also Richard T. Wilson, Jr.’s sister), who lived in London, to his mother, who lived in New York City and was looking for an architect to design a grand new house for her and her family in the city: It is a perfect waste of time for me to see architects alone. I would gladly do so if I could settle anything, but if you are to build a big and beautiful and costly house and have it planned, you must come over and see and study houses where they know how to build them, or else have it built at home under your own instructions. I know getting a man to work hard on designs without consulting you would be nonsense...(Vanderbilt 1956: 230-231). Given this mind set of similarly wealthy members of the Wilson family regarding the design and construction of a proper house, it is likely that Marion Wilson followed the lead of her sisters-in-law. The identity of the architects hired by the Wilsons to design their mansion is unclear, but it is possible that the architectural firm of Hoppin and Koen may have been retained. Hoppin and Koen designed a New York City home for the Wilsons at 15 East Fifty-seventh Street in 1903. Figure 73 presents a floor plan of a home designed by Hoppin and Koen. This home contains design elements similar to those seen at Palmetto Bluff. The house is fairly symmetrical, with the main entrance in the center of the front of the house. One walked through the front entrance into a long rectangular hall, similar to the room we believe fronted the first floor of the Wilson House. The library and dining room are located in the center of the first floor. While we believe that the library of the house at Palmetto Bluff was located on an upper floor, we do feel that the dining room was located on the first floor. On the plan, the kitchen and pantry are located in the top right portion of the first floor, towards the rear of the house. A dumbwaiter is also visible in the plans of the kitchen. We believe that the kitchen and pantry of the Wilson House were also located toward the back of the house, on 147

Figure 73.

A floor plan of a home designed by Hoppin and Koen of New York.

the rear (west) wing. Hoppin and Koen placed a servant’s porch with a cement floor on the far right of the floor plan, adjacent to the kitchen and pantry. There is a similar finished concrete floor in the northwest portion of the Wilson House, also in the area of the kitchen and pantry, an area we believe was used primarily by servants. Finally, the floor plan of the house designed by Hoppin and Koen displays a series of verandas and terraces around the exterior of the house. They are higher than ground level and accessible by sets of steps. A similar system of terraces is present at the Wilson House. Traditional accounts describing the house as being constructed using only day laborers and without the use of a formal architect appear to be at least partially false. Colin Brooker, a Beaufort architect specializing in architectural restoration, is very familiar with building techniques in the South Carolina and Georgia Lowcountry. Mr. Brooker visited the Wilson house at Palmetto Bluff during data recovery investigations and immediately dismissed the notion that no formal architect was involved in the planning of the massive house (Colin Brooker, personal communication, July 2002). Mr. Brooker felt that the design of the Wilson House was reminiscent of large houses designed by architects of that era in Atlanta, Georgia and Saratoga Springs, New York. The Wilson family had ties to both of those cities. There is at least one account (Fraser 2002:15) that Richard 148

T. Wilson, Jr.’s wife, Marion, spent a month in Italy consulting with her favorite architects on the design of the house. We hope to recover the original plans for the house during our ongoing research, which should answer questions concerning house design, as well as provide information concerning the arrangement of the house interior. It appears that local day laborers were employed to construct at least portions of the Wilson House. There is extensive use of a more modern variety of tabby, used primarily as footers for the foundation walls and piers, as well as fill material for the large front columns and step construction. Colin Brooker (personal communication, July 2002) stated that the use of this updated version of tabby, which he calls shell concrete, indicates the employment of local labor for the construction of the house. He was less sure if this local labor was involved in the construction of the entire house. The Wilson House, to some extent, revived the tradition of Lowcountry building techniques. Though all visible portions of the house were brick, plaster, and wood, much of the supports of the house, the slab floors of the house, and the interior of the massive front columns were composed of an updated version of tabby, known as shell concrete. While the longstanding rumors of the house being constructed completely by local day laborers without the use of a trained architect have been disproved, it is evident that local talent was involved in the construction of this grand house.

149

Chapter VII. Results of the Field Investigations at 38BU1788

Investigation of the refuse pits and associated artifact scatters at 38BU1788 recovered or documented a large sample of artifacts associated with the Wilson occupation at Palmetto Bluff. We collected and documented surface occurring artifacts from 24 of 28, 5 by 5 meter squares that cover the area of investigation and the interior surface of the two refuse pits. We plotted the locations of large metal artifacts with respect to the site grid and left these items in the field. Figure 74 displays a plan of the site, showing the location of the surface collection units, the East and West refuse pits, the access trenches, and the large metal artifacts. A summary of all artifacts recovered from each surface provenience appears in Appendix A. The raw distributions of the surface occurring artifacts suggest that most materials occur between the pits or to the south and west of the West Pit. In general, as one moves away from the pits, particularly the West Pit, the frequency of surface occurring artifacts decreases. Figure 75 displays the distributions of surface occurring artifacts within 38BU1788. We employed ArcView® 3.3 to plot the distribution of all artifacts, all whole glass bottles, all bottle necks, all bottle bases, and all glass sherds. Table 11 summarizes the frequencies of these materials in the surface collection units. These frequencies do not include artifacts from within the refuse pits nor the large metal artifacts shown in Figure 74. There are a few collection blocks that contain higher frequencies of artifacts than most of the others. These include Proveniences 102, 108, and 113 (see Figures 74 and 75). At the time of the field investigations, we assumed that these artifacts could reflect single episodes of refuse disposal. Later, we encountered a number of people who worked at Palmetto Bluff during the 1980s and 1990s, prior to its acquisition by Palmetto Bluff, LLC, who related episodes of bottle collecting from the site. Thus, the scatters of artifacts around the pits more likely reflect post-depositional relocation of artifacts rather than refuse disposal by the residents of the Wilson mansion and associated buildings to the east. Proveniences 120, 125, 126, and 127 contained no artifacts (see Table 11). After we completed the surface collection, we excavated the access trenches into the eastern portions of the two refuse pits with the backhoe. As noted in Chapter II, we collected whole vessels and interesting specimens from the fill removed by the backhoe. Once the access trenches were excavated, Dr. Poplin cleaned and inspected the exposed profiles to define the excavation layers within each pit.

150

Figure 74.

Detailed plan of the area of investigation at 38BU1788.

151

Excavation Unit Metal Artifact (Surface) Westbackhoe.shp 5 Meters Site1.shp Preservationarea.shp Surface2.shp Surface.shp Pits.shp

Preservation Area

0

Ú Ê

North

101

1

Ú Ê

102

103

104

Ú 2Ê 3

Ú Ê

108

107

Ú Ê

4

106

105

West Pit

109

110

401

Ú7 Ê

5

Ú Ê Ú6 111Ê

112

Site Boundary

116

115

Access Trench 400

114

113

12

Ú Ê

117

118

8

Ú Ê

119

120

Surface Collection Grid

East Pit

501

124

9 Ú 10 ÚÊ Ê Ú 11 Ê 123

Access Trench 500

122

121

125

126

127

128

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

crimped steel automobile bumper? cast iron kettle (8-10 quart) steel pipe (~1 inch by 4 ft)-ruptured flat steel-automobile part? steel pipe(~3 inch by 3 ft) steel pipe (~1.5 inch by 5 ft) galvanized bucket (2 quart) steel wheel/brake drum steel mower? blade fragment steel plow foot steel cultivator foot steel pipe (3/4 inch by 5 ft)

Metal Artifacts (Ê Ú)

Figure 75.

Distributions of surface occurring artifacts at 38BU1788.

152

Necks (5---Interval)

Whole (5----Interval)

All Artifacts (25---Interval)

Sherds (10----Interval)

Bases (5---Interval)

Surface Occurring Artifacts Recorded at 38BU1788.

Table 11. Glass Un it Bottles Necks

Bases

Sherds

Milk

Ceram ics Metal Can Architectural Faunal

Total

101

7

6

10

32

102

15

5

29

84

55

103

3

1

1

5

10

104

2

1

7

10

4

137

105

3

2

4

106

10

13

27

39

107 108

21 25

10 19

24 42

28 65

109

10

8

18

54

1

91

110

27

9

12

26

2

76

111

12

8

20

29

4

112

1

3

8

1

113

1

2

10

29

2

14

29

5

10

24

9

13

72

8

12

74

8

16

99

2

5

21

114 115

7

116 117 118

15

119

9 1

83 151

73 1

14 42

1

46 46

4 2

1

99

5

5

104

4

2

146

2

30

120

0

121

1

122 123

90

3

1

124

1

1

3

11

4

51

1

1

3 18

7

62

125

0

126

0

127

0

128 Total

162

116

277

792

2

36

1

9

1

1

2

1,397

Excavation of the West Refuse Pit revealed two natural horizons and eight cultural horizons. Figure 76 displays the profile of the exterior of the east wall of Unit 401 prior to excavation. A black loamy sand Ah/A horizon (Excavation Level 1) extends 5-15 cm below the present ground surface (bs) within the West Refuse Pit. A few crushed artifacts and 6.0 kilograms of oyster shell occurred in this horizon. Cultural Horizons I-VIII extend 5-85 cm bs. These horizons are mottled fine sand fills containing numerous artifacts and oyster shell (2-16.5 kilograms of shell per level). They vary in color from black to light gray, with reddish brown sands present in Horizons VI and VIII. Coal slag first appears in Horizon III (Excavation Level 4) and occurs most frequently in Horizons V and 153

10

Ground Surface

Ah/A 10YR2/1 black fine loamy sand

I 2.5Y3/2 very dark grayish brown fine sand

II 2.5Y7/1 light gray fine sand mottled w/ 2.5Y6/1 gray fine sand

IV 2.5Y2.5/1 black fine sand

III 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown fine sand

VI 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown fine sand V 2.5Y3/1 very dark gray fine sand

VII 2.5YR2.5/1 black fine sand

VIII 2.5Y7/1 light gray fine sand mottled w/ 2.5Y3/1 very dark gray fine sand and 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown fine sand IX 2.5Y2.5/1 black compact fine sand mottled w/2.5YR2.5/2 very dusky red compact fine sand

38BU1788 Unit 401, Exterior East Wall Profile 0

20 cm

Figure 76. Profile of the exterior east wall of Unit 401 at 38BU1788. 154

VI (Excavation Levels 6 and 7). With the exception of Horizon I, these horizons overlap each other, suggesting distinct episodes of refuse disposal or redeposition after looting. A compact fine sand C horizon (Horizon IX / Excavation Level 10) underlies the refuse deposits in the West Pit. This subsoil occurs in bands within the area of investigation as revealed in the access trenches outside the refuse pits. Benny Jones (Palmetto Bluff construction manager- personal communication, December 2002), noted similar bands of compact sands in large excavations in other portions of the Palmetto Bluff Phase I Development Tract. Usually, the water table lies in fine sands on top of the compact sand. Fortunately, the present excavations did not encounter the water table, although excavations by the Hilton Head Chapter of the Archaeological Society of South Carolina were hampered by high water during April-September 2003. Figure 77 displays a view of Unit 401 after excavation. Artifacts occur throughout the Ah/A horizon and all of the cultural horizons (Excavation Levels 1-9) in Unit 401. We even recovered a few items, primarily whole bottles, from the underlying C horizon. The artifacts in the C horizon appear to have been forced into the C horizon either when deposited in the pit or from the weight of other materials above them after their deposition. All of the cultural horizons contain multiple artifacts; all appear to date from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Table 12 summarizes the artifacts recovered from the excavation levels in Unit 401. The numbers of artifacts vary widely from level to level. This is not surprising given that the levels are natural/cultural horizons and not arbitrary. Thus, each level has a different volume depending on the its thickness and configuration. Level 2 (Cultural Horizon I) Figure 77. View of Unit 401 after excavation. produced the most artifacts- 1,464 items; this horizon contains the greatest volume of fill and is the only cultural zone that extends across the entire unit (see Figure 77). Level 4 (Cultural 155

Table 12. Artifact Class Beverage bottles (whole) Bottle glass fragments Glass stoppers Bottle caps Bottle corks Stem ware fragments Table glass fragments Milk glass fragments Ceramics Tin can fragments Miscellaneous kitchen items Window glass fragments Architectural hardware Electrical wire Lead pipe Clothing/Shoe parts Personal bottles (whole) Personal items Porcelain doll fragments Barbed wire Battery parts Chain Padlock Miscellaneous hardware Unidentified iron/steel/metal Total

Surface 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

L1- A 21 340 0 0 0 0 0 2 58 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 435

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 401. L2- I 74 1,140 1 0 2 2 9 12 194 0 0 5 9 0 0 1 10 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1,464

L3- II L4- III L5- IV 9 27 0 157 936 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 7 0 0 33 0 30 99 2 0 15 6 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 54 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 3 0 218 1,213 39

L6- V L7- VI L8- VII L9- VIII L10- IX 10 19 10 7 9 637 488 157 302 3 3 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 6 0 14 7 0 6 0 69 41 5 36 0 70 105 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 10 0 21 12 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 49 29 0 839 720 233 409 13

Total 194 4,190 10 3 2 24 24 74 534 196 2 23 110 5 1 5 28 19 4 37 4 1 1 2 101 5,594

Horizon III) contains the next highest frequency of artifacts- 1,213 items. The volume of Level 4 is comparable to that of Level 3 (Cultural Horizon II) although the latter zone produced only 218 artifacts. Level 3 lies above and to the north of Level 4 (see Figure 77). Levels 6 and 7 (Cultural Horizons V [839 items] and VI [720 items]) produced the next highest frequencies, followed by Levels 9, 8, 3, and 5, respectively (see Table 12). The frequencies of most artifact types follow these trends. That is, Level 2 contains more ceramics than the other levels, more whole bottles than the other levels, etc. An interesting departure from this trend is the relative frequency of whole bottles in Levels 3 and 8 (Cultural Horizon VII). Although both produced fewer artifacts, they contained may whole bottles, 4.1 and 4.3 percent of all artifacts, respectively. Only Levels 1 and 2 had higher relative frequencies of whole bottles (4.8 and 5.1 percent, respectively). Excavation of the East Refuse Pit revealed three cultural horizons and two natural horizons. Figure 78 displays the profile of the exterior of the east wall of Unit 501. A fine sand Ah/A horizon (Excavation Level 1) extends approximately 25-30 cm bs. This horizon contained almost no artifacts until near its interface with the underlying Cultural Horizon I. Cultural Horizons I-III (Levels 2-4), very dark gray sands or dark grayish brown loamy fine sands, extend approximately 25-90 cm bs. 156

10

Ground Surface

A/Ah 5Y4/1 dark gray loamy fine sand

I 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown loamy fine sand

II 10YR4/3 dark grayish brown loamy fine sand mottled w/ 10YR4/1 dark gray loamy fine sand and 5YR4/6 yellowish red loamy fine sand

Metal Objects

III 2.5Y3/1 very dark gray sand

IX 2.5Y2.5/1 black compact fine sand mottled w/ 2.5YR2.5/2 very dusky red compact fine sand

38BU1788 Unit 501, Exterior East Wall Profile 0

20 cm

Figure 78. Profile of the exterior east wall of Unit 501 at 38BU1788. 157

The same compact sand C encountered at the base of Unit 401 (Horizon IX) underlies Cultural Horizon III in Unit 501. The cultural horizons in Unit 501 display no lensing like the cultural horizons encountered in Unit 401. They appear to extend in continuous deposits across the East Refuse Pit. This may indicate that the East Pit received large quantities of refuse in a few distinct episodes rather than in multiple episodes as suggested by the multiple horizons encountered in Unit 401 in the West Refuse Pit. Or, the East Pit may not have experienced the same degree of postdepositional disturbance from bottle collectors as the West Pit. We observed fragments of construction debris similar to materials present in the Wilson mansion at 38BU1804 in the access trench fill removed from the East Refuse Pit. This may indicate that the East Refuse Pit received materials during or after the construction of that house. The deep nearly sterile Ah/A horizon covering the East Refuse Pit also indicates that this pit was filled and covered after the depositional activities that created Cultural Horizon I. The West Refuse Pit displayed no such covering horizon. Unit 501 in the East Refuse Pit in general contained fewer artifacts than Unit 401 in the West Refuse Pit. This could reflect a shorter time that the East Pit received refuse. The covering fill and the more continuous lenses of fill in the East Pit also may support this interpretation. During the excavations, there appeared to be a higher percentage of jars and other comestibles container fragments as opposed to the high frequency of beverage containers present in the West Pit. We also encountered many fragments of deteriorated cans in Unit 501. Most could not be collected due to their poor state of preservation. A few sturdier fragments were recovered. The most interesting metal artifacts exposed in Unit 501 are elements of a grading blade. This steel implement had large “arms” with steel spoked wheels on the free end (see Figure 78). Smaller solid steel guide wheels are attached to the blade as well. These elements appear to be resting on a rectangular steel tank, possibly a vehicle fuel tank. These large metal artifacts effectively separate Cultural Horizons II and III in Unit 501. These artifacts could not be removed without disrupting most of the fill in the East Refuse Pit beyond Unit 501. As noted above, artifacts occur throughout the Ah/A horizon and the three cultural horizons in Unit 501. These artifacts are similar to those recovered from Unit 401 with the generalizations noted above. Table 13 summarizes the artifacts recovered from Unit 501. As noted above, the Ah/A horizon (Excavation Level 1) produced the lowest number of artifacts (47 of the 1,131 artifacts recovered from Unit 501). This number is much lower than the numbers of artifacts in the underlying cultural horizons or the number of artifacts recovered from Ah/A in Unit 401, particularly given the total thickness of the Ah/A horizon in Unit 501 (see Figure 78). Cultural Horizon II

158

Table 13. Artifact Class Beverage bottles (whole) Bottle glass fragments Glass bowl fragments Stem ware fragments Table glass fragments Milk glass fragments Ceramics Tin can fragments Window glass fragments Architectural hardware Personal bottles (whole) Porcelain doll fragments Shotgun shell primer Chain Miscellaneous hardware Unidentified iron/steel/metal Total

Artifacts Recovered from Unit 501. Lev 1- A 0 34 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 47

Lev 2- I 5 146 1 0 3 0 11 0 13 35 0 0 0 0 0 7 221

Lev 3- II Lev 4- III 22 6 536 95 1 0 6 2 3 0 3 1 73 13 31 0 0 1 30 9 16 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 730 133

Total 33 811 2 8 7 4 103 31 16 78 20 2 1 1 1 13 1,131

(Excavation Level 3) produced the most artifacts, containing 730 of the1,131 items recovered from Unit 501. This also is interesting since Cultural Horizon II is not the thickest of the cultural horizons. The majority of the artifacts from Horizon II, as well as Unit 501, are glass fragments; most of these are fragments of beverage bottles. Interestingly, Cultural Horizon I (Excavation Level 2) contains all of the window glass fragments and more of the other architectural artifacts than the underlying levels (see Table 13). This supports the interpretation that the East Pit received material during or after the construction of the Wilson mansion, and then stopped receiving material or received many fewer items than the West Pit. Although all of the artifacts recovered from Units 401 and 501 are roughly contemporary with the Wilson tenure at Palmetto Bluff, excavations in Unit 501 recovered an artifact definitively associated with the Wilson family. The bowl portion of fine gilt sherry glass embossed with a gilt “W” lay in Cultural Horizon III beneath one of the spoked steel wheels of the grading blade. We assume that “W” is the Wilson monogram. Figure 79 displays a view of this artifact. While we assumed that the pits at 38BU1788 contained refuse from the Wilson mansion or other buildings used by the Wilsons and their retainers during the first quarter of the twentieth century, we had no specific archival or archaeological indicator connecting 38BU1788 to these buildings. This sherry glass provides a positive association between the two sites.

159

Figure 79.

Monogrammed gilt sherry glass recovered from Unit 501.

The nature of the cultural horizons in the East and West Refuse Pits indicate differences in the processes that created the refuse deposits in each pit. The East Pit contains three cultural horizons that appear to extend across most of the pit. This suggests a few episodes of deposition during which large volumes of material arrived in the pit in relatively short periods of time. One would expect to see greater variation in the soils within these horizons if they reflected multiple depositional events over a long period of time. The West Pit contains eight cultural horizons that occur in lenses. This suggests more depositional episodes, possibly reflecting distinct events that occurred at the Wilson mansion or other facilities at 38BU1804. Examples of these events include refuse disposal after a visit by the Wilson family to Palmetto Bluff, refuse disposal after a large party given by the Wilsons, or periodic removal of refuse deposited closer to the primary living areas. Also, the presence of the large machine and the distribution of architectural artifacts in the East Pit suggest that this disposal area may have been abandoned after the construction of the Wilson mansion in 1915. We examined some of the more temporally sensitive aspects of the artifacts recovered from the East and West Pits and the spatial relationships between 38BU1788 and other elements of the Wilson buildings and facilities at Palmetto Bluff to determine if we could reconstruct the use history

160

of these disposal areas in more detail. We developed five suppositions that describe the temporal relationships and formations of the two refuse pits. 1.

The East Pit was opened initially and filled with refuse until the completion of the Wilson mansion in 1915. It was then abandoned and sealed. The West Pit was opened at that time, and received refuse until the end of the Wilson tenure at Palmetto Bluff in 1926.

2.

The West Pit was opened initially and the East Pit was opened and filled during or immediately after the construction of the Wilson mansion (19131915). The West Pit continued to receive refuse until 1926.

3.

Both pits were opened as construction began on the Wilson Mansion (1913). The East Pit received refuse, including construction debris, until the house was complete (1915). It was abandoned and sealed while refuse disposal continued in the West Pit until 1926.

4.

Both pits were opened soon after Wilson, Sr., acquired Palmetto Bluff. They both received refuse until the completion of the Wilson mansion in 1915, when the East Pit was abandoned and sealed, with refuse disposal continuing in the West Pit until 1926.

5.

Both pits were opened in 1926 and received debris from the burned Wilson mansion.

If Supposition 1 is correct, we would expect to see earlier artifacts in the East Pit than the West Pit. If Supposition 2 is correct, w would expect to see earlier artifacts in the West Pit. If Supposition 3 is correct, we would expect contemporary artifacts in both pits with none earlier than 1913, with no items in the East Pit from the 1920s. If Supposition 4 is correct we would expect to see earlier artifacts (pre-1915) in the lower portions of both pits, with no artifacts from the 1920s in the East Pit. If Supposition 5 is correct, we would expect to see many deformed and degraded artifacts and other debris from the Wilson mansion. We dismissed Supposition 5 rather quickly after we began the excavations of the two refuse pits. Very few of the artifacts recovered from the East or West Pits display the extreme deformation and degradation of the majority of the artifacts recovered from the burned Wilson mansion in 38BU1804. This argues strongly for the use of these pits for refuse disposal during the Wilson tenure at Palmetto Bluff rather than at the end or immediately after the Wilson tenure. However, there are or were several large metal artifacts in and around the West Pit that could be from the Wilson mansion, and that may reflect debris disposal rather than household refuse disposal. These artifacts include a section of galvanized steel pipe that had ruptured, possibly from the expansion of 161

heated or super-heated water (Metal Artifact 3 in Figure 74); automobile parts (Metal Artifacts 1, 4, and 8 in Figure 74)- portions of an automobile were recovered from the rear or cellar portion of the mansion; and a brass and steel andiron observed by Poplin (2002) at the time of the discovery of the site. The andiron was not present at the site when we returned in December 2001 to undertake the data recovery investigations. Other fragments of steel pipe (Metal Artifacts 5, 6, and 12) also could be debris from the burned house but they could be unused construction debris as well. Interestingly, five of these seven artifacts possibly from the Wilson house occur in or west of the West Pit; two occur between the two pits. The missing andiron lay within the West Pit. If these metal artifacts are debris from the burned mansion, they must have been deposited at 38BU1788 in 1926 or later. The presence of at least one of these artifacts (the now missing andiron) in the West Pit indicates that this pit was open after the house burned. While these artifacts do not support the supposition that the pits were opened after 1926 given the preponderance of unaltered artifacts from both pits, they may assist in assessing the validity of the other suppositions. They indicate that the West Pit remained open and in use at least until 1926. The lack of these artifacts or thermally altered artifacts in the East Pit argues strongly for its abandonment before the loss of the Wilson mansion. Supposition 4 suffers from the location of the pits in association with other features of the Wilson complex at Palmetto Bluff. We know that Wilson, Sr., and later his daughter and son-in-law lived in the refurbished Octagon Plantation house, formerly located to the south of 38BU1804, below the pond constructed by Union-Camp during the early years of their tenure at Palmetto Bluff. The excavations at 38BU1804 revealed a series of buildings that extended west from the May River bluff and the former mansion. Historical informants indicate that these buildings provided needed services to the Wilson mansion (water towers, wind mills, generator houses, etc.) or served the farm that the Wilsons operated at Palmetto Bluff. We believe that Structure 1, represented by the concrete foundation in the western portion of 38BU1804, was one of the farm buildings. Site 38BU1788 lies immediately west of the brick gate posts that appear to define the residential or farm complex associated with the estate of Richard Wilson, Jr. (see Figure 7). These brick and stuccoed pillars stand on either side of Village Road, which also served as the primary terrestrial approach to the Wilson mansion in the early twentieth century. Two similar posts stand to the south, flanking a road that formerly extended west along the slough (now a pond) that defines a portion of the southern boundary of 38BU1804. These posts form a roughly symmetrical enclosure with respect to the Wilson mansion. Two other gate posts stood near the north edge of the site, between the mansion and Structure 1. The presence of the refuse disposal pits at 38BU1788 immediately beyond the gate posts suggests that they served the buildings and facilities that centered on Richard Wilson, Jr.’s mansion rather than the Octagon Plantation residence occupied by Wilson, Sr., and his daughter’s family after 162

his death. The distance from the former Octagon Plantation also argues strongly for a association with the closer Wilson mansion. Thus, it seems unlikely that these refuse pits were opened at the beginning of the Wilson occupation of Palmetto Bluff. However, they did come into use by the time of the construction of Richard Wilson, Jr.’s mansion (1913-1915). We examined the distributions of temporally sensitive artifacts in the excavation levels of the East and West Pits to assess the other three suppositions in more detail. We looked primarily at the nature of bottle closures. During the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century, bottle machines and glass formulas, in combination with similar advances in other industries, permitted the manufacture of new kinds of closures for bottles. Table 14 summarizes the data we employed for this interpretation. Table 14.

Summary of Temporally Sensitive Bottle Attributes from Units 401 and 501.

Bottle Finish

Lv 1- A

Lv 2- I

Crown Cap

7

5

Champagne

2

Applied Finish

2

Summary of Bottle Finishes from Unit 401

Threaded Finish Flanged Lip Lightening Cap

3 1

Lv 6- V

Lv 7- VI Lv 8-VII Lv 9-VIII

1

8

8

6

3

1

1

2

6

2

3

1

3

9

4

1

1

1

1

3 3

Flared

1

Down-tooled One-piece Finish Two-piece Finish Three-piece finish Applied String Blob

1 4 2 2 2

Straight Finish

Lv 3- II Lv 4- III Lv 5- IV

Lv 10- IX

1

2

1

2

1

1 2

2

1 3

2 2

2

3 2

4

2

3

1 1

2

1

Bottle Finish

1

1

Summary of Bottle Finishes from Unit 501 Lv 1- A Lv 2- I Lv 3- II

Crown Champagne Applied Down-tooled One-part finish Blob Proprietary Med. Threaded Straight

1 4

9 3 1 2 1 1

2 2

1

163

1 5

Lv 4- III 1 2

1 4

1

Crimped metal caps that fit on crown finish bottles were patented in 1892; by 1912, this closure became the universal closure for beverage containers, particularly those holding carbonated liquids (Berge 1980). We recovered beverage bottles with crown finishes as well as crimped metal bottle caps from the refuse pits at 38BU1788. Review of Table 14 shows that bottles with crown finishes occurred throughout all of the excavation levels in Unit 401 in the West Pit except Cultural Horizon IV (Level 5). They occur most frequently in the A horizon and Cultural Horizons I, III, V, and IV (Levels 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7). They occur in the lowermost levels of the West Pit albeit in smaller frequencies. In the East Pit, crown finish bottles occur most frequently in Cultural Horizon II (Excavation Level 3), with single specimens recovered from the cultural horizons above and below. No bottles were present in the A horizon. We recovered identifiable bottle caps from the West Pit only. Examples occurred in Cultural Horizons VI and VIII (Excavations Levels 7 and 9). This indicates that the East and West Pits received crown finish bottles and crimped metal caps throughout their period of use. Since these kinds of bottles and closures occur most commonly after 1912, this implies that the pits began receiving refuse no later than this date. Interestingly, this coincides very well with the beginning of the construction of Wilson, Jr.’s house at 38BU1804 (1913-1915) This indicates that the pits likely were not opened during the earliest years of the Wilson tenure at Palmetto Bluff, providing additional argument against Supposition 4 above. The presence of small but similar frequencies of contemporary bottles in the lowermost levels of both pits argues strongly for their initial opening at approximately the same time, circa 1912. This provides strong support for Supposition 3. We also looked at the distribution of threaded closures on the whole bottles recovered from Units 401 and 501 in the West and East Refuse Pits, respectively. Screw closures appear and become common between 1900 and 1920 (Berge 1980). As shown in Table 14, only a few of the vessels displayed this closure. In Unit 401 in the West Pit, one bottle with a threaded finish occurs in each of the two uppermost cultural horizons (I and II- Excavation Levels 2 and 3). We recovered one bottle with a threaded finish from Cultural Horizon II (Excavation Levels 3) in Unit 501. Threaded closures would be expected to occur most frequently in refuse from the second and later decades of the twentieth century (1910+) rather than the first decade. This complements and supports the temporal interpretation derived from the crown finish bottles, that the pits were opened circa 1912. The presence of only one threaded in bottle in Unit 501 also supports the interpretation that the East Pit was closed prior to the end of the Wilson tenure at Palmetto Bluff in 1926. Otherwise, one would expect to see more examples of this increasingly popular type of closure in the upper levels of the East Pit. The lack of artifacts in the A horizon and the lack of these closures argues strongly for the closure of the East Pit prior to 1920.

164

In summary, the East and West Refuse Pits at 38BU1788 contain contemporary artifacts from their basal levels to the uppermost artifact bearing deposits in the pits. This indicates that they likely were opened at approximately the same time. The presence of crown finish bottles and crimped metal caps throughout the excavation horizons argues strongly for an opening of the pits circa 1912. The lack of threaded bottles in the uppermost cultural horizon of the East Pit and the paucity of artifacts in the overlying A horizon indicates that it likely was sealed prior to 1920. Thus, Supposition 3 is the most likely interpretation for the opening and use of the refuse pits at 38BU1788. That is, both pits were opened at approximately the same time, very near the beginning of the construction of the Wilson mansion at 38BU1804. The East Pit was closed some time prior to 1920, while the West Pit continued to receive refuse, including some demolition debris from the burned mansion, until the final departure of the Wilsons from Palmetto Bluff in 1926.

165

Chapter VIII. Analysis of 38BU1788 and 38BU1804 Artifacts

The following discussion presents an analysis of the artifacts recovered from 38BU1788 and 38BU1804. The discussion begins with a description of each artifact assemblage. South inventories are presented and discussed to help characterize the assemblages. More detailed analyses of the ceramics and bottles recovered from the two sites also are presented. Since the two artifact assemblages represent the same occupation, the artifact data are combined to present an analysis of the lifestyle of the Wilsons and to characterize their tastes and the fashions at the turn of the century.

The 38BU1804 Artifact Assemblage Archaeologists recovered 4,597 artifacts from 38BU1804 during Phase III excavations. The laboratory staff attributes 4,227 artifacts (92%) to the historic Wilson occupation. An additional 18 artifacts are associated with middle to late twentieth century activities at Palmetto Bluff. Finally, we recovered 352 Pre-Contact era artifacts.

Historic Wilson Artifacts We recovered 4,227 artifacts associated with the former residence of Richard T. Wilson Jr., and his family. We separated 3,276 of these artifacts into the broad functional groups defined by South (1977). The remaining 951 historic artifacts include miscellaneous iron, brass, glass, slag, and conglomerates for which form and function could not be determined. Although South (1977) developed these artifact groups to examine and analyze colonial and antebellum artifact assemblages, they still provide an efficient means to characterize the kinds of materials recovered from any domestic occupation. Table 15 summarizes the artifacts recovered from 38BU1804. At 38BU1804, we recovered artifacts from all of the South’s (1977) groups except Arms. The Architecture Group has the highest frequency/percentage of artifacts (n=(2,489 or 75.9%). The majority of these artifacts are nails. The Kitchen Group includes 441 artifacts (13.5%), making it the second largest artifact group. Interestingly, the Activities Group contains nearly as many artifacts (n=320 or 9.7%). This is followed by the Furniture Group (n=14 or 0.4 %), the Personal Group (n=6 or 0.2 %), the Clothing Group (n=5 or 0.2 %), and the Tobacco Group (n=1 or