EXHIBIT-G-Turbeville-Fire-Station-2-CRIS-Draft-Report.pdf

Turbeville Fire Station 2 Cultural Resource Identification Survey

CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION SURVEY

OF THE PROPOSED THREE ACRE

TURBEVILLE FIRE STATION 2

CLARENDON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Draft Report

July 2023

CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION SURVEY OF THE

PROPOSED THREE ACRE TURBEVILLE FIRE STATION 2,

CLARENDON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

DRAFT SUMMARY REPORT

Submitted to:

SUSAN R. MACRAE,

ALLIANCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.

POST OFFICE BOX 8147

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29202-8147

Submitted by:

TRC ENVIRONMENTAL INC.

621 CHATHAM AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29205

Sean Norris, Principal Investigator. M.A., RPA

Joseph A. DeAngelis, M.A., Author

July 2023

INTRODUCTION

On June 26, 2023, TRC Environmental Inc. (TRC) conducted a cultural resources identification survey (CRIS) of a three-acre (ac) parcel for the proposed Turbeville Fire Station 2 (Project) in Clarendon County, South Carolina (Figure 1). This work was done on behalf of Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Alliance), for the South Carolina Department of Commerce (DOC) Industrial Site Certification Program.

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) consists of the three ac tract adjacent to U.S. Route 321 (W.

Turbeville Highway) approximately 0.2-miles (mi) (0.29 kilometers [km]) east of the corporate limits of the Town of Turbeville. The APE is bounded by U.S. Route 321 to the north and private property is all other directions.

Clarendon County is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province of South Carolina (Kovacik and Winberry 1989). The closest permanent water source to the project tract is an unnamed tributary of Horse Creek 115 meters (m) (375 feet [ft]) to the southwest. Elevations is the project area relatively flat ranging from approximately 110 to 120 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL).

According to the USDA Web Soil Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS] 2023) there are two soil types in the APE (Table 1; Figure 2). The predominant soil type in the APE consists of is Lynchburg loamy sand, which is a somewhat poorly drained soils found in depressions, marine terraces, and flats. Vegetation in most of the project tract consists of mostly of manicured lawn and a mixed hardwoods a pine forest (Figure 3).

Background research shows that no archaeological sites or historic resources have been identified with the APE. Three historic structures and two historic areas have been identified within a 0.5-mi (0.8 km) search radius of the Project tract. One cultural resource (CR) survey was previously conducted nearby the APE.

A CRIS was conducted within the project tracts to evaluate the likelihood of intact, significant cultural resources. Based on topography, vegetation, and the nature of the undertaking, the APE for archaeology is considered the footprint of the project area. Additionally, an historic structure reconnaissance survey was carried out to photograph structures over 40 years old within or adjacent to the tract to assess potential effects.

As a result of the survey, no new archaeological sites were identified in the Project tract and one previously recorded historic structure was revisited near the APE. Historic resource 522-0239 was previously recommended not eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP) and has been demolished or relocated. No additional work is recommended for the Project.

Figure 1. Topographic map showing project area, historic resources, and the previous CR survey.

Figure 2. Soil types identified within the project area.

Table 1. Soil Types identified in the project tract.

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Drainage Acres in

APE

APE

FuB Fuquay fine sand, 0-6 % slopes Well drained 0.7 0.23

Ly Lynchburg loamy sand, 0-2% slopes Somewhat poorly drained 2.3 0.77 Totals 3 1

Figure 3. Typical vegetation throughout the Project tract.

CONTEXT

No archaeological sites were identified during the survey. One historic structure dating to the mid-twentieth century were identified immediately south of the project tract. As such, a brief overview of the late nineteenth and twentieth century occupation of Clarendon County is presented below.

HISTORY OF CLARENDON COUNTY

Early Settlement in Clarendon County

The first colonial settlement of the Pocotaligo River basin was in the 1730s. During the colonial period, Charleston served as the administrative center for most governmental functions in South Carolina, although nominal counties were laid out to serve as election districts. The Anglican Church established parishes in 1706 that functioned as local political districts until 1769.

Clarendon County was originally in St. Frederick’s Parish, but when significant numbers of settlers began to arrive in the 1750s, a more convenient parish church was needed to serve them. In 1757, St. Mark’s Parish was created to serve the backcountry between the Lynches and Santee rivers.

This parish became Camden Judicial District in 1769. After the Revolutionary War, the judicial districts were divided into smaller counties, with Clarendon created in 1785 from the Camden District. However, the county system failed to take hold at that time, and in 1800 Clarendon County was absorbed into the Sumter District, along with Claremont and Salem counties. Clarendon County was revived again in 1855 with its original boundaries (Stauffer 1994).

With the advent of Crown rule in 1730, the colonial government instituted a plan to encourage backcountry settlement and provide a buffer between the prosperous rice and indigo plantations of the coastal region and the still restless Native American groups of the interior. Townships were established and land grants issued based on family size. The grants were usually less than 500 acres and located adjacent to a water source. Farmsteads were typically dispersed on the grants and operated by family members. Dwellings were small and crudely constructed, and a subsistence strategy of agriculture was practiced. Gradually, settlers constructed dams on the Wateree and Santee rivers and pursued the rice and indigo culture. The products were transported to Charleston over the Catawba Path, which was designated the “King’s Highway” in 1753 (Cliff et al. 1999:48– 49).

Cattle and hogs were also an important part of the backcountry economy during the colonial period.

With settlement sparse, livestock was free to roam in the swamps and woods, grazing on grasses or rooting for acorns. The stock could then be driven on the hoof to Charleston for sale. As the agricultural regime of the region became more established and some farmers began to produce profits from their operations, more wealthy planters from the coastal region began to invest in the interior. Prominent families began to take over the politics of the area, many of them French Huguenots, such as the DuBose, Gaillard, Des Champs, Richbourg, Lesesne, Guerry, Millette, and Mouzon families. The sons of two local families, the Richardsons and Mannings, accounted for five governors of South Carolina in the nineteenth century (Cliff et al.1999:49; Clarendon County Archives and History Center [CCAHC] 2018).

A map of the region in 1775 (Mouzon 1775) shows that, settlement was concentrated along the major rivers, which served as supply lines for transporting goods to market and getting manufactured goods to the inhabitants. A road paralleled the east side of the Santee-Wateree River and residences were spaced along this road at regular intervals. There was also a concentration of dwellings along the Black River in the eastern part of Clarendon County; however, the center of the county, near Manning and the Pocotaligo River, was sparsely settled. St. Mark’s Parish remained largely outside of the political and social structure of colonial South Carolina prior to the Revolutionary War. Communication was slow along the roads and rivers of the backcountry, and the formerly persecuted dissenters from the Church of England and other government-sanctioned churches were content to remain outside of the fold. Membership in the Church of England was required to hold public office, so representatives from the parish were not sent to the Colonial Assembly. Residents of the district generally stated their willingness to defend the colony from outside attacks, as they were expected to do in exchange for their land grants (Boddie 1980:91–92).

Although Clarendon County was not the site of any major battles during the Revolutionary War, it is well-known as the site where Francis Marion was given the nickname of “Swamp Fox” by British Colonel Tarleton, when Marion slipped into Ox Swamp, near the current town of Manning.

The British passed through Clarendon County frequently on the Catawba Path, a vital transportation link between Charleston and the interior. The British used the road to reach its post at Camden, which it maintained for most of the war. Marion made surprise raids on the British troops and supply trains on this road, and eluded capture by expeditions sent against him (CCAHC 2018).

Slavery and the Rise of the Plantation Economy

After the Revolutionary War, indigo ceased to be a significant crop due to the loss of market protections provided to the colonies under British rule. However, cotton soon rose to take its place, boosted by the invention of the cotton gin, which made the separation of the seeds from the fiber much easier. The cultivation of cotton spread rapidly after 1790, with the short-staple, upland variety proving well-suited to the soils and climate of the Sumter District. The slave population of Sumter District increased during the antebellum period, as cheap labor was needed to plant, cultivate, and harvest the cotton crop. Between 1790 and 1800, the percentage of families in the area owning slaves doubled from 25 percent to 50 percent. The percentage of slaves in the total population also increased steadily, and by 1820, slaves outnumbered whites in Sumter District (Cliff et al. 1999:53). The dominance of cotton is reflected in the lack of towns or industries in the area. The lack of significant towns was also due in part to the lack of dependable transportation.

Roads in the low-lying areas were prone to flooding and became rutted from years of use. Planters generally used flatboats and later steamboats to transport their cotton to Charleston to be sold.

Settlement thus tended to be linear along the navigable waterways. However, in the three decades preceding the Civil War, railroads were constructed throughout the state, eventually supplanting the steamboat for shipping cotton to market and leading to the rise of small towns along their routes. The Wilmington and Manchester Railroad reached Sumter County in 1852, but it was not until after the Civil War that the Central of South Carolina Railroad was constructed through Clarendon County (Cliff et al. 1999:52).

In 1855, residents of the southern portion of Sumter District petitioned to split from the district and form Clarendon District with the same boundaries as the Clarendon County of 1785. This was accomplished and a site was chosen near the center of the district for the courthouse. This was the nucleus of the town of Manning, which has served as the county seat since that time. An 1855 map of the newly created district shows the communities of Fulton’s, Packsville, Plowden’s Mills, Bethlehem, Shady Grove, Brewington, and Ft. Friendship (Colton 1855). Of these, only Packsville (now Paxville) is shown on modern road maps. The two largest towns other than Manning are Summerton (originally a summer retreat for Santee River planters) and Turbeville. Other communities that have emerged, primarily after the Civil War, include Davis Station, Wilson, Foreston, Jordan, and Bloomville (Decker 2016).

The Civil War and Its Aftermath

The Civil War officially began on April 12, 1861 when U.S. troops occupying Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor refused to evacuate and Confederate batteries on the shore opened fire on the fort. The resultant struggle for control of the South Carolina coast took a terrific toll on Clarendon District. Although the plantations were organized in such a way as to provide most of their own food and other needs, the lack of manpower, and shortage of commodities, left most of the plantations decimated. Confederate forces, too, took their toll on the district, appropriating provisions for their men. Houses, fields, and fences were further damaged or destroyed in 1865 when Sherman’s March to the Sea turned from Savannah into South Carolina. Sherman was reportedly much more destructive in South Carolina, the crucible of the Secessionist movement, than he had been in his more infamous march through Georgia.

After the war, farmers in South Carolina were faced with a variety of economic, social, and political problems. Owing to the large number of former slaves who owned no property and the efforts of the white landowners to prevent the blacks from acquiring their former plantations, a tenant system based on small family-operated plots came to dominate the agricultural economy of the state and most of the former Confederate States. Slave owners were divested of a large portion of their wealth and had to develop an entirely new labor system. The newly freed African Americans faced uncertain circumstances as they negotiated labor contracts or rental agreements with their former owners and other white landowners. The large number of deaths and dismemberments in the Civil War created a serious labor shortage, and capital for investments to replace lost buildings, equipment, and stock was difficult to come by. In addition, unscrupulous men took advantage of the disrupted political system to acquire money and power.

After a short period in which gang labor was used to employ African Americans on the farms of South Carolina, a system of sharecropping and renting emerged as the most satisfactory for blacks and whites. This system allowed blacks to have some amount of autonomy over their situation and established the family unit as the core of the labor arrangement. For white landowners, it reduced their involvement in day-to-day operations and created an opportunity for them to make additional money by providing food and other necessities to their tenants on credit.

Most tenancy arrangements were possible based on the amount of equipment, seed, and fertilizer provided by the tenant. If the tenant provided all the necessary items for producing the crop, he could pay a fixed rent, in either crops or cash, to the landlord, who provided only the land and house. In this arrangement, the tenant was the owner of the crop and was responsible for paying the rent from the proceeds. If the landlord provided some amount of the seed, equipment, or fertilizer, he maintained ownership of the crop, and paid the tenant with the proceeds in proportion to their contribution to the supplies. Often, the tenants found that the amount owed to the landlord for “furnishings” ––personal items such as food, clothing, and fuel––exceeded the value of their share of the crop, and they saw no proceeds from their share, forcing them to become indebted again to the landlord for the following season’s crop (Orser 1988:57).

The sharecropping system proved fundamentally detrimental to both tenants and landlords because of the opportunity for abuse by the landlords in the distribution of the proceeds and the lack of incentives for the tenant to make improvements to the land. As lands became exhausted, tenants sought new arrangements, moving from farm to farm, but seeing no improvement in their situation.

Periodically high cotton prices, particularly in the early twentieth century, and the familiarity with the production and marketing of the crop perpetuated a single crop regimen.

High prices led to over production, which in turn drove prices down. Many white farmers eventually found themselves as tenants, as well (Cabak and Inkrot 1997:41–42). Census records show a steady increase in tenancy and a decline in farm size for both black and white farmers in Clarendon County from 1880 to 1930. Unlike many areas of the South where a share system was employed, Clarendon County (as it was designated in 1868) had a large number of tenants (82 percent in 1880) who paid a fixed rent for their farms. Statistics from 1880 indicate that the farm economy was still lagging behind the antebellum period. The percentage of land under cultivation increased only 3 percent between 1860 and 1880 (28 percent), and the value of all farms fell by more than half, from nearly $2.3 million to just over $1 million (Kennedy 1864; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1883).

After 1880, however, farm production began to rise, surpassing pre-war levels. Cotton and corn continued to dominate the agricultural regime of Clarendon County, with over 40,000 acres of each planted in the county in 1900. No other crop came close in terms of acreage devoted, although tobacco was an increasingly popular crop. In 1900 Clarendon County ranked fifth in the state in the production of tobacco, which was planted on 1,836 acres. Cowpeas, used as a soil nutrient, forage, and food, were grown on 4,238 acres. About 3,700 acres were devoted to oats, and about 1,200 acres to sweet potatoes. There was no significant industry in the county (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1883, 1902).

A worldwide agricultural depression and the arrival of the boll weevil during the 1920s began a transformation of the established agricultural regime of the region, as farms were foreclosed and tenants were left with no source of credit. Between 1920 and 1930 the number of farms in Clarendon County decreased by 16 percent, as tenants left farming for other employment (U.S.

Bureau of the Census 1932).

In 1930, farmers in Clarendon County planted considerably less cotton than they did in 1920. The number of acres devoted to cotton decreased from 62,758 to 36,957. The agricultural depression of the 1920s was followed by the nationwide bank depression of the 1930s, further eroding farm markets and stalling economic growth. Clarendon County farmers had the advantage of being able to produce much of what they needed on the farm, but the period was characterized by stifling poverty for many, particularly black residents.

The population of Clarendon County increased significantly during the period of growth in the cotton economy from 1870 to 1920, despite the decline of farm ownership and shrinking farm size.

From 1870 to 1900, the number of residents doubled, from 14,038 to 28,184. The growth continued more slowly during the next two decades, peaking at 34,878 in 1920. The growth was reflected among both blacks and whites, although the percentage of African Americans in the population increased somewhat from about 67 percent to about 72 percent.

Clarendon County’s population since 1920 has remained nearly steady, dropping slightly each decade until 1970 when it bottomed at 25,604, then increasing again until 2000 when it nearly reached the high mark of the twentieth century. Between 1990 and 2000, the population jumped 14 percent, the largest 10-year increase in over 100 years.

In the early 1950s a suit was brought against the Clarendon County schools district, alleging that its policy of racial segregation was inherently unconstitutional. The case, Briggs v. Elliott, was one of several cases that were brought to the U.S. Supreme Court and led to its ruling in Brown v.

Board of Education abolishing segregation in 1954.

Large portions of Clarendon County remain rural, but most of its population no longer works in agricultural production. The largest employment sectors are now government, manufacturing, and wholesale and retail trade, which together account for about three-quarters of the employment in the county.

METHODS

Literature Review

Prior to fieldwork, TRC conducted background research at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH) in Columbia, and at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) in Columbia. The records examined at SCDAH included a review of ArchSite the GIS-based Cultural Resource Information System for sites listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and a review of the SCDAH Finding Aid for previous architectural surveys near the project area. The records examined at SCIAA include the master archaeological site maps, state archaeological site files, and any associated archaeological reports.

Field Survey

The archaeological survey followed the methods outlined in the South Carolina Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations (SHPO revised 2015). In addition to the survey standards for South Carolina TRC also utilized the predictive model for cultural resources in the Piedmont developed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) has developed a model to guide the survey methodology (Bates 1991). This model identifies ridge tops, ridge noses, toe slopes, saddles, knolls, and low slope areas adjacent to water sources or lithic raw material sources as areas that are most likely to contain prehistoric sites. Historic house sites are generally found in the same areas as well as adjacent to old roadbeds. Historic house sites are generally found in the same areas as well as adjacent to old roadbeds. TRC utilized this predictive model to identify the most likely areas likely to contain cultural resources.

According to DOC standards a minimum of one shovel test per five acres is required. Shovel tests pits (STPs) were excavated at 30-m intervals across selected areas of well drained soils, areas within 100 meters of a water source and in selected high probability and low probability areas. All STPs were approximately 30 centimeters (cm) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil. Soil was screened through 0.25-inch hardware mesh, and artifacts, if encountered, were bagged according to provenience. Notes were kept in a field journal and on standard TRC site forms.

When an artifact was recovered from a STPs, that test was considered "positive". For each positive additional shovel tests were excavated in cardinal directions on a 10-m interval to delineate the site. Shovel testing was continued until two negative STPs were excavated in each direction; the first negative test in each direction was determined as the site boundary. An archaeological site was identified by the recovery of three or more historic or prehistoric artifacts within a 30-m diameter. Field notes were maintained for transects and STPs, documenting soil profiles, cultural remains, and any other pertinent information.

For each site a map was drawn depicting the location of all shovel tests, site boundaries, and prominent natural and cultural features. UTM coordinates for each site were recorded with a hand-held GPS receiver. All artifacts recovered were bagged and labeled according to shovel test and depth below surface. Photographs were taken at each site to document vegetation and the general site conditions.

In addition to the archaeological survey, TRC conducted a windshield reconnaissance survey to locate historic architectural resources on or adjacent to the project area. The historic architecture survey was limited to the project area and the immediately adjacent properties.

RESULTS

Literature Review Background research at the SCIAA and on ArchSite indicates that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites or historic resources within the Project tract. There are five historic resources in the search radius of the APE; three historic structures and two historic areas (see Figure 1; Table 2). All the resources were recorded as part of CR survey for U.S. Route 378 (Harvey 2001). The East Clarendon Middle School (522-0237) was recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

Historic maps were also consulted to determine if any structures were present in the Project tract.

Mills Atlas dated to 1825 show the vicinity of the Project tract as rural with not roads or landowners nearby (Figure 4). A USDA soil survey map dated 1910 shows that the Town of Turbeville has been established with multiple roads and numerous structures in the area (Figure 5). USGS topographic maps from 1921 and 1945 both depict a structure in the Project tract (Figures 6 and 7).

Table 2. Previously recorded historic resources in the 0.5-mi search radius.

Resource # Date of Resource Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

522-0235 c. 1937; c. 1960 Pine Grove United Methodist Church Not Eligible

522-0236 1917; 1962 First Baptist Church Not Eligible

522-0237 c. 1935; c. 1970 East Clarendon Middle School Eligible

522-0238 c. 1905; c. 1985 Sunnyside School Not Eligible

522-0239 c. 1935; c. 1970 . Not Eligible

Figure 4. Mills Atlas depicting general location of the project area.

Figure 5. 1910 USDA soil survey map showing the approximate location of the project area.

N

Approximate location of the project tract.

Figure 6. 1920 Mayesville 15’ topographic quadrangle showing the approximate location of the project area.

Figure 7. 1945 Mayesville 30’ topographic quadrangle showing the approximate location of the project area

Archaeological Field Survey

On June 26, 2023, a CRIS was conducted on the three-ac project tract. A total of five STPs were excavated along four transects throughout the project area (Tables 3 and 4; Figure 8). This is equivalent to one STP every 0.6 ac, exceeded the DOC standards.

The typical soil profile consists of 30 cmbs (cm below surface) plow zone of dark gray (10YR 4/1) sand, overlying 25 cm (30-55 cmbs) of brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) and terminating with 10 cm (55-65 cmbs) of very yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy clay loam subsoil (Figure 9). As a result of the survey, no new archaeological sites were identified. The structure depicted on historic topographic maps (see Figures 6 and 7) and based on the recent topographic map (Figure 8) appears to be outside of the Project tract to the west.

Table 3. Summary of STPs excavated within the Project tract.

Transect Description Landform # of STPs

1 30-m intervals Hilltop 2

2 30-m intervals Hilltop 2

3 Judgmental Hilltop 1

Total # of STPs 5

Table 4. STPs excavated within the project tract.

STP # Stratum Depth (cmbs) Munsell Color(s) Soil Color(s) Soil Texture Reason for

Termination

1-1 0 to 20 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray Sand

Hydric 20 to 35 2.5Y 6/6 with 7.5YR 5.6 Olive yellow with strong brown Sand

1-2

0 to 20 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray Sand

Hydric 20 to 30 10YR 4/2 Dark Grayish Brown Sand

30 to 50 5Y 6/2 Light Olive Gray Coarse Sand

2-1

0 to 30 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray Sand

Sterile Subsoil 30 to 40 10YR 6/8 Brownish Yellow Sand

40 to 50 10YR 4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Loam

2-2

0 to 30 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray Sand

Sterile Subsoil 30 to 55 10YR 6/8 Brownish Yellow Sand

55 to 65 10YR 4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Loam

3-1

0 to 20 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray Sandy Loam

Sterile Subsoil 20 to 40 10YR 5/8 Yellowish Brown Sandy Loam

40 to 50 10YR 4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Loam

Figure 8. Project area showing location of STPs.

Figure 9. Typical soil profile throughout the APE.

Architectural Survey

A windshield historic architectural reconnaissance survey was also conducted. No new historic resources over 40 years old were identified within or directly adjacent to the APE. Structure 522- 0239 was previously identified to the northwest of the Project Tract on the northern side of U.S.

Route 378. The house was no longer in the documented location (Figure 10). Aerial maps from the Clarendon County tax assessor depict a standing structure on the 2016 aerial that is gone by the 2020 aerial map.

Based on current project plans, it is the opinion of TRC that the proposed undertaking will have no effect to historic architectural resources located within the APE. TRC recommends no additional investigation of above-ground resources in connection with the proposed project.

Figure 10. Approximate location of Resource 522-0239.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On behalf of Alliance, TRC has completed a CRIS of the three-ac proposed Turbeville Fire Station 2 in Clarendon County, South Carolina. This survey was completed for the South Carolina DOC Industrial Site Certification Program. As a result of the survey, no archaeological sites were identified, and one historic resource was revisited. Historic resource 522-0239 has either been demolished or relocated and is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

If, during development, human burials, or deposits of precontact artifacts are unearthed then work in that area should halt and proper authorities such as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or the State Archaeologist should be notified. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 803-933-9991 or via e-mail at snorris@trcsolutions.com.

REFERENCES CITED

Bates, James, F.

1991 A Cultural Resource Survey of Compartment 250, Long Cane Ranger District, Sumter National Forest. Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Cultural Resources Management Report 85-63.

Boddie, William Willis 1980 History of Williamsburg: Something about the People of Williamsburg County, South Carolina from the First Settlement by Europeans about 1705 until 1923. Reprinted.

The Reprint Company, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Originally published in 1923 by the author.

Cabak, Melanie A. and Mary M. Inkrot

1997 Old Farm, New Farm: An Archaeology of Rural Modernization in the Aiken Plateau, 1875–1950. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 9. Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Clarendon County Archives and History Center

2018 History of Clarendon County. Electronic Document.

https://www.clarendoncountyarchives.com/education. Accessed July 19, 2023.

Cliff, Maynard B., John S. Cable, and Gary A. Hebler

1999 Shaw Air Force Base: Test Excavations at 20 Archaeological Sites on the Poinsett Electronic Combat Range, Sumter County, South Carolina. Geo-Marine, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas.

Colton, Joseph Hutchins

1855 Colton’s South Carolina. G. W. and C. B. Colton, New York.

Decker, Lauren Coflin

2016 Clarendon County. Electronic Document. Updated July 20, 2022.

https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/clarendon-county/. Accessed July 19, 2023.

Edgar, Walter

1998 South Carolina: A History. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Harvey, Bruce 2001 Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of US Route 378 Improvements Corridor, Clarendon County, Florence County, and Williamsburg County, South Carolina.

Brockington and Associates, Charleston.

Kennedy, Joseph C. G.

1864 Agriculture of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Kovacik, Charles F., and John J. Winberry

1989 South Carolina: The Making of a Landscape. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Mills, Robert

1980 Atlas of the State of South Carolina. Baltimore: F. Lucas, Jr., 1825. Reprint, Southern Historical Press, Inc., Greenville, South Carolina.

Orser, Charles E., Jr.

1988 The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Parker, Cynthia Ridgeway

1997 A Brief History of Clarendon County. Published online, http://www.rootsweb.com/~scclaren/clarhis.html. Accessed 15 June 2005.

Stauffer, Michael E.

1994 The Formation of Counties in South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Public Programs Division, Columbia, SC.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1883 Report of the Productions of Agriculture as Returned at the Tenth Census (June 1, 1880). Government Printing Office, Washington.

1902 Twelfth Census of the United States, Taken in the Year 1900, Volume V, Part I, Agriculture Farms, Livestock, and Animal Products. U.S. Census Office, Washington D.C.

1932 Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930: Agriculture, vol. II, part 2 – The

Southern States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey 1920 Mayesville, South Carolina quadrangle map, 15-minute series. USGS, Washington, D.C.

1945 Mayesville, South Carolina quadrangle map, 30-minute series. USGS, Washington, D.C.