Cultural Resources Survey and Testing of the Weber Research Tract

Summary

"Brockington and Associates, Inc., conducted a cultural resources survey of selected portions

of the 325-hectare Weber Research Tract in Charleston County, South Carolina. The project tract

is located west of Interstate 26, east of Ladson Road, and south of US Highway 78 between North

Charleston and Summerville. This work was done in compliance with state and federal regulations

concerning the management of cultural resources affected through development activities in the

Coastal Zone of South Carolina. The cultural resources inventory resulted in the identification of

12 archeological sites (38CH2054-38CH2063, 38CH2068, and 38CH20), 13 isolated finds, and a

revisit to two previously recorded sites (38CH1674 and 38CH1675). We conducted evaluative

testing at 38CH1674, 38CH1675, and 38CH2054. ..."

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• Charleston County

Keywords

Temporal Coverage

Calendar Date: 1716 to 1716 (John Parker, the grantee, conveyed Ingleside Plantation, then known as Hayes Plantation, to his son John)

Calendar Date: 1900 to 1900 (Ingleside Mining owners form Woodstock Hardwood and Spool Manufacturing Company)

Calendar Date: 1904 to 1904 (First land plat showing Woodstock and Ingleside plantations being one tract of land)

Calendar Date: 1830 to 1886 (Woodstock was one of the first stopping points for the South Carolina Railroad along with the Main House being a hotel)

Calendar Date: 1886 to 1886 (Charleston Earthquake that destroyed Woodstock Plantation home)

Calendar Date: 1688 to 1690 (Woodstock Plantation Land granted to Jean Francois de Gignillat)

Calendar Date: 1690 to 1692 (Woodstock owned by John Moore)

Calendar Date: 1692 to 1694 (Woodstock owned by Edward Rawlins)

Calendar Date: 1694 to 1812 (Woodstock owned by the Bulline family - Patrilineal)

Calendar Date: 1812 to 1834 (Woodstock owned by the Bee family )

Calendar Date: 1834 to 1838 (Woodstock owned by I.E. Holmes et. al after foreclosure)

Calendar Date: 1838 to 1841 (Woodstock owned by John Cessford Kerr)

Calendar Date: 1841 to 1842 (Woodstock owned by James W. Gray)

Calendar Date: 1842 to 1845 (Woodstock owned by John Bickley)

Calendar Date: 1845 to 1845 (Woodstock owned by Charles L. Desel)

Calendar Date: 1845 to 1867 (Woodstock owned by John C. and Mary Bickley)

Calendar Date: 1867 to 1869 (Woodstock owned by James Copes)

Calendar Date: 1869 to 1869 (Woodstock owned by James M. Hanckel Jr.)

Calendar Date: 1871 to 1900 (Hayes Plantation owned by Professor Francis S. Holmes and is renamed Ingleside Plantation)

Calendar Date: 1716 to 1871 (Hayes Plantation owned by the Parker family)

Spatial Coverage

Individual & Institutional Roles

Contributor(s): Charles F. Phillips Jr.

Field Director(s): Brent Lansdell

Principal Investigator(s): Ralph Bailey

Sponsor(s): Weber USA Corporation

Prepared By(s): Brockington and Associates, Inc.

Notes

General Note: "We recommend sites 38CH1674, 38CH1675, and 38CH2054 individually eligible for the NRHP. In addition, we recommend that these resources contribute to a proposed Woodstock Plantation Historic District. Development within the proposed Historic District may have an adverse effect on the district and the individual resources. We recommend the developer work closely with the SHPO to design the project in such a way that the significant portions of these sites are avoided so that there will be no effect or no adverse effect to these resources. We recommend site 38CH2068 not eligible for the NRHP individually; however, we recommend this site eligible as a contributing element of the proposed Historic District. The site’s location in a wetland will preserve it in place. The site includes a causeway that has been altered to provide vehicular access across the swamp. Continued use of the causeway for this purpose will not affect the site. Site 38CH1674 is the remains of the Woodstock Plantation main house, associated outbuildings, and the Bee and Bulline cemetery. We recommend site 38CH1674 eligible for the NRHP. Proposed land disturbing activities on the project tract may affect this historic property. We recommend site 38CH1674 be preserved in place. If this site cannot be avoided, we recommend archaeological data recovery in Areas 1 and 2 of 38CH1674 to mitigate the site’s development. Site 38CH1675 contains the retention ponds for inland rice production, the Woodstock Rail Station, and the Woodstock Hardwood and Spool Manufacturing factory. We recommend site 38CH1675 eligible for the NRHP. Proposed land disturbing activities on the project tract may affect this historic property. We recommend site 38CH1675 be preserved in place. If this site cannot be avoided, we recommend archaeological data recovery at 38CH1675 to mitigate the site’s development. 93 Site 38CH2054 contains artifacts associated with Woodland occupation and an eighteenth century slave occupation. We recommend site 38CH2054 eligible for the NRHP. Proposed land disturbing activities on the project tract may affect this historic property. We recommend site 38CH2054 be preserved in place. If this site cannot be avoided, we recommend archaeological data recovery in Area 1 of 38CH2054 to mitigate the site’s development. Site 38CH2068 is the remnants of inland rice fields associated with the Woodstock Plantation. We recommend site 38CH2068 not eligible for the NRHP individually. However, we recommend the site eligible as a contributing element of the proposed Woodstock Historic District. The location of the former rice fields in a delineated wetland insures that no land disturbing activities will occur at the site. Site 38CH2068 will be preserved in place. The site includes a causeway that has been altered to provide vehicular access across the swamp. Continued use of the causeway for this purpose will not affect the site. Development within the boundaries of the proposed Historic District may have an adverse effect on the district. The significance of the proposed district lies in the archaeological integrity of all or portions of the individual sites that contribute to the district as well as the physical relationship of the sites to one another. We recommend that the Historic District be preserved in place. If development cannot be designed to avoid the Historic District, we recommend the owners/developers work closely with the SHPO in an effort to design the project so that there will be no adverse effect to the Historic District or, if the affects will be adverse, so that those effects can be properly mitigated. We recommend the Historic District and associated sites be managed through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the owner/developer, the SHPO, and interested regulatory agencies as appropriate under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, or the Coastal Zone Management Act. The remaining sites (38CH2055, 38CH2056, 38CH2057, 38CH2058, 38CH2059, 38CH2060, 38CH2061, 38CH2062, 38CH2063, and 38CH2075) and 13 isolates (1-13) are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. These sites warrant no further management."

File Information

	Name	Size	Creation Date	Date Uploaded	Access
	weber-tract-final-report.pdf	59.41mb		May 24, 2013 10:04:32 AM	Confidential
	redacted-weber-tract-final-report.pdf	19.84mb		May 24, 2013 2:35:06 PM	Public