Combahee Ferry: Exploring the Role of Taverns in the Colonial and Antebellum Lowcountry Eric C. Poplin, Brockington and Associates, Inc. Sponsored by the South Carolina Department of Transportation Inaugural Southeastern Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology 24-25 August 2012 Many have argued that taverns were the birthplace of the American Revolution as well as many other social movements during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And this may well be the case for these public meeting places in urban settings. But in rural areas, they are more focused on providing travelers the opportunity to break their journey, with either a meal or a night’s rest (or both). Recent excavations at Combahee Ferry, where US Highway 17 today crosses the Combahee River, permit an examination of a rural tavern/ferry keeper’s residence in the greater social setting of the immediate area and the region. Comparisons to taverns in other portions of the eastern United States and in urban Charleston present differences that undoubtedly reflect less broad functions of a rural tavern compared to a similar enterprise in an urban setting. Taverns were integral parts of the colonial and social landscape of North America, particularly as

populations expanded and roads became the principal routes of travel for most people. Taverns

traditionally succor travelers newly arrived in towns or at key points along roads in rural areas.

They provide food, lodging, and entertainment for those visitors who lack other accommodations

in urban settings or for those who wish to break their journeys for a meal or an evening. Such is

the case of the tavern at Combahee Ferry. The point where US Highway 17 today crosses the

Combahee River, separating Beaufort County from Colleton County, was an important node in

the transportation network of South Carolina from the earliest days of the colony. Today’s

highway follows the most direct passable overland route along the coast between Charleston

Harbor and Port Royal Island, the inland gateway to St. Helena Sound and the Broad River. Port

Royal was the desired location of the initial Carolina settlement but its proximity to Spanish

Florida prompted the colonists of 1670 to land farther north. Efforts to settle “St. Helen’s”

continued during the early years of the colony, and proved successful by the early eighteenth

century with the official establishment of Beaufort in 1711. That same year, the colonial

assembly authorized the construction of a road from the south side of the Edisto River (from Pon

Pon and later Jacksonboro) to Port Royal and St. Helena islands by the most direct route, with

the establishment of ferries and other infrastructure necessary to support travel along this road.

The road would permit the rapid deployment of military forces and the expansion of commerce

within the colony. US Highway 17 today roughly follows the original Charleston to Port Royal

Road.

We do not know if the Combahee Ferry was first launched because of this road project or

had operated earlier. But in 1715, Joseph Bryan, owner of 550 acres on the Beaufort County side

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 2

of the Combahee since 1705, was

authorized by the Assembly to raise his

ferry rates over the Combahee to fund the

maintenance of the causeway that crossed

the river marshes and provided access to

the Colleton County bank of the river. At

that time, the causeway terminated

approximately 0.4 miles upstream of

today’s US Highway 17 crossing, and

became known as Jackson’s Causeway, after John Jackson who acquired the uplands at the head

of the causeway in 1706 (see Poplin et al. 2012 for details concerning the historic development

of the Combahee Ferry). There is no record if Bryan provided any services to travelers beyond

the ferry ride across the river.

In 1733, the colonial Assembly authorized the relocation of the Combahee Ferry from

Jackson’s Bluff on the Colleton side (now owned by William Bruggins, Jackson’s son-in-law) to

Robert Steele’s bluff on the Beaufort side of the river. Steele acquired 365 acres of uplands along

the Combahee in 1706 and sold them to William Bull in 1733. Relocation of the ferry required

the construction of a new causeway, completed in 1735. The previous year, William Bull and his

son Stephen received a charter for the proposed town of Radnor, to be laid out on Steel’s Bluff,

which then became known as Radnor Bluff. The Charleston to Port Royal Road now crossed the

Combahee atop the new causeway. Today US Highway 17 travels over the Combahee River

marshes on the same route, with the

northbound lanes lying atop the 1735

causeway.

Also in 1735, John Mullryne received a

charter for a combination store, lodging house

and public house at Radnor Bluff, housed in a

two-story frame building with a covered terrace

near the new ferry landing (Rowland et al.

1996:116). Mullryne had purchased 2,047 acres

north of the ferry from Joseph Bryan that same

Figure 1. 1733 plat showing Joseph Bryan's 1705 grant.

Figure 2. 1811 plat of Joseph Bryan's 1733 marsh grant.

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 3

year, and received the rights to operate the

ferry along with his land. Mullryne would

sell his Combahee lands in 1746 but

continued to own the store/tavern until

1764. Operation of the ferry passed to

other landowners on the Combahee.

Mullryne’s establishment of a

tavern at Combahee Ferry obviously was

intended to serve travelers along the Charleston to Port Royal Road but also would have served

the Town of Radnor, had that community ever developed. There was little interest in buying lots

and building houses within the proposed town. The colonial Assembly did authorize a market at

Radnor Common, which apparently operated throughout the colonial period. Interestingly, the

tavern was called the Haymarket by one of its later proprietors, perhaps reflecting the association

of the establishment with the most prominent economic activity that occurred in Radnor. A

tavern or store would continue to operate at Combahee Ferry until the relocation of the

Charleston to Port Royal Road to the present alignment of US Highway 17 before 1927, when

the newly constructed swing bridge opened for traffic. This also marks the end of the operation

of the Combahee Ferry.

Figure 4. 1795 plat of Middleton's Ferry Tract.

Figure 3. Plan of the proposed Town of Radnor.

Figure 5. Confederate map of Combahee Ferry defenses.

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 4

Here, the Combahee Ferry and the former tavern/store would lie until the widening of US

Highway 17 and the replacement of the 1956 Combahee River bridge in 2006. By this time,

Beaufort County owned approximately 1.2 acres immediately upstream of the highway and

operated the Steel Bridge Boat Landing from this parcel, and the surrounding lands beyond the

highway right-of-way were owned by Nemours Plantation Wildlife Foundation. Intensive

surveys of the Combahee River and the highway corridor (Shuler et al. 2007; Watts 2006)

identified 18 archaeological sites, historic structures, historic landscape features, and natural

features that became the Combahee Ferry Historic District, which was determined eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places by the Keeper of the Register in January 2012.

Combahee Ferry Historic Districts Elements

Ferry Site (38BU1216) Submerged Scatter (38CN256)

Battery (38BU1217) Fortification (38CN257)

Cemetery (38BU1218) Cypress Rice Fields (551 0441)

Rifle Trench (38BU1884) Causeway (551 1475)

Rifle Trench (38BU1885) Newport Rice Fields (5012)

Submerged Scatter (38BU2137)* Water control structure (5012.1)

Submerged Scatter (38BU2138) CHS to Pt Royal Rd (5011)

Submerged Scatter (38CN19) 1956 Bridge (551 0287)*

Sunken Vessel (38CN255) C o m b a h e e R i v e r *non-contributing element

Figure 7. 1913 postcard - view of Combahee Ferry. Figure 6. Cheves' 1925 sketch map.

Figure 8. The Combahee Ferry Historic District.

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 5

The proposed replacement of the US Highway 17 bridge and later widening of the

highway could not be redesigned to eliminate completely adverse effects to the District.

Therefore, the SC Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the

SC State Historic Preservation Office entered a memorandum of agreement defining six

activities to mitigate the adverse effects. These included:

• Archival Research Concerning the District’s Key Themes and Events

• Archaeological Investigation of 38BU1216 (the ferry site)

• Documentation of a sunken vessel in the Combahee River

• Investigation of Intertidal Areas of the Combahee River

• Mapping of the District’s Landscape Features

• Public Presentation of the District’s Key Historic Themes

The information discussed below is derived from the archaeological investigation of

38BU1216 (Poplin et al. 2012). These investigations began in March 2006, and were completed

in June of the same year. Archaeologists recovered samples of artifacts from five areas within the

site, defined on the basis of artifact and feature distributions identified during earlier test

excavations. Areas A-D lay downstream of US Highway 17 and Area E lay upstream of the

roadway. Areas B and E lay primarily in the expanded right-of-way of the new roadway. Areas

A-C lay on lands owned by the

Nemours Plantation Wildlife

Foundation, who granted permission

for excavations on their lands

outside the new right-of-way to

obtain as complete a picture of the

archaeological deposits around the

former ferry crossing as possible. In

total, archaeologists excavated 122

square meters by hand and 562

square meters with a smooth bladed

backhoe. These excavations exposed 40 cultural features (1 privy, 18 posts, 9 refuse pits and 3

Figure 9. Plan of excavation areas at 38BU1216.

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 6

demolitions, and 9 ditches) and recovered 22,244 artifacts, 34 kg of faunal remains, and 686 kg

of miscellaneous materials; 21,499 artifacts related to the eighteenth-twentieth century

occupation of the site.

Figure10. Features exposed in Area E.

Most of the recovered artifacts related to the eighteenth and nineteenth century

occupations of 38BU1216 appear to be related to the central building- the store/tavern at

Combahee Ferry. This interpretation is based on the lack of other buildings in this part of the site

(as indicated on plats and maps from 1780s through 1920s) and the absence of intact structural

features that could define a building in the excavated areas. The excavations in Area E exposed

large refuse pits and a privy (a large, deep pit surrounded by postholds), close to the location of

the central building identified as a store on the 1920s maps. Demolition pits upstream and

downstream from US Highway 17 also indicate that several episodes of construction likely

occurred in this portion of the site, with at least one demolition occurring during the mid-

nineteenth century (possibly an artifact of the June 1-2, 1863, Combahee River Raid led by

Harriet Tubman that freed over 700 people in one night). The Area E refuse pits and privy all

date from the late 1820s to the 1840s, and are assumed to be associated with the tavern and/or

the ferry keeper’s house (which may be the same building). Artifacts from across the site reflect

all periods of occupation from the 1730s through the 1920s, although most of the material likely

was in use and discarded prior to the Civil War.

Numerous historical studies of colonial taverns and public houses tout the role of these

establishments in the creation of a dynamic social atmosphere during the colonial period (Conroy

1995; Salinger 2002). Many place the birth of the American Revolution within the taverns of

northern cities and towns, where aggrieved North Americans first began to discuss their possible

recourse to the oppression of the home government. In urban areas, people often gathered at

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 7

taverns and spent time discussing issues of the

day with their neighbors and out-of-town visitors who were staying at the tavern. Rural taverns

offer less opportunity for daily discourse but certainly presented the opportunity for news and

information to be exchanged between locals and travelers. Many taverns also served as public

meeting places (some had special large rooms set aside for such events), and even served as

polling stations prior to the widespread construction of public buildings.

But how do taverns differ from other public or residential spaces, especially when viewed

through their archaeological signatures? Based on the kinds of behaviors that we know occurred

in taverns, a number of researchers developed hypotheses about how the artifact assemblage

associated with a tavern might appear, and by the early 1980s, archaeological signatures derived

from the artifacts found at seventeenth and eighteenth century taverns along the Eastern

Seaboard were created. Namely, taverns should display (after Bragdon 1981):

• large numbers of vessels

• large percentage of drinking vessels

• large percentage of ceramic types most frequently associated with drinking vessels

• large numbers of wine glasses

• specialized glassware

• large numbers of tobacco pipe fragments

Others (Rothman and Rothschild 1984) noted that there was a difference between the

assemblages from taverns in urban settings and those from taverns in rural settings. Presumably,

this reflects the increased role of urban taverns as a place of entertainment and social gatherings.

Figure 11. Refuse pit in Area E. Figure 12. Privy in Area E.

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 8

Others (Burrow et al. 2003) noted that there appeared to be little difference between the artifacts

associated with late eighteenth and early nineteenth century rural taverns and those from nearby

residential sites, except for the food remains.

Based on this background, we selected a series of variables drawn from the artifacts

recovered from 38BU1216 to compare with similar information from known tavern sites. The

comparable sites include:

Site Location Setting Date Reference

Lovelace New York City Urban 1670-1706 Rothman and Rothschild 1984

Jamestown Virginia Urban 1670s-1730s Rothman and Rothschild 1984

Shields (early) Williamsburg Urban 1708-1738 Brown et al. 1990

Shields (late) Williamsburg Urban 1738-1751 Brown et al. 1990

McCrady’s Tavern Charleston Urban 1770s-1884 Zierden et al. 1982

McCrady’s Longroom Charleston Urban 1780s-1884 Zierden et al. 1982

Earthy’s Maine Rural 1670s-1700 Rothman and Rothschild 1984

Wellfleet Massachusetts Rural 1670s-1730 Rothman and Rothschild 1984

Tweed’s Delaware Rural 1790s-1831 Burrow et al. 2003

Combahee Ferry Radnor Rural 1735-1860s Poplin et al. 2012

The variables include:

• Percentage of pipe fragments

• Percentage of kitchen related ceramics

• Percentage of bottles/drinking glasses

• Ratio of pipe fragments to ceramic fragments (based on the above percentages)

• Percentages of ceramic vessel functional forms

• Percentages of major animal groups

• Percentage of wild and domesticated animals

• Percentages of major domesticated species

Unfortunately, not all of the site reports or articles provide all of the information for all of the

variables listed above. Thus, not all of the sites are employed in all of the comparisons.

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 9

First, we review the basic

relative frequencies of pipe

fragments, kitchen related

ceramics, and bottle glass/

drinking glasses utilized by

Bragdon (1981) and Rothman

and Rothschild (1984) in their

nascent characterizations of

colonial taverns. The relative

frequency of kitchen related

ceramics in an assemblage illustrates the urban-rural dichotomy first noted by Rothman and

Rothschild (1984). Most of the urban sites (Lovelace, Jamestown and Shields taverns) all display

ceramic frequencies less than 50 per cent; all of the rural sites (Earthy’s, Wellfleet, Tweed’s, and

Combahee Ferry) all display ceramic frequencies greater than 60 percent. Interestingly, the two

Charleston urban sites (McCrady’s Tavern and Long Room) display frequencies more similar to

the rural sites. Most researchers feel the rural-urban dichotomy expressed in the percentage of

ceramics reflects the increased use of rural taverns as a source of food and lodging and the

increased use of urban taverns as social gathering places, where communal consumption of

alcohol and tobacco were frequent.

The frequency of tobacco

pipe fragments creates more

ambiguous groupings. Most

notable, the South Carolina sites

display lower frequencies of

tobacco related artifacts than all of

the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern

sites (with the exception of Tweed’s

Tavern). If we remove the southern

sites, there is a difference between

the rural and urban northern sites,

with tobacco pipe fragments representing 35-66 per cent of the urban assemblages and 0-37 per

Ceramic Frequencies

Tobacco Pipe Frequencies

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 10

cent of the rural ones. Burrow et al. (2003) suggested that cigars and chewing tobacco may have

replaced pipes as the primary means of consuming tobacco in the portion of Delaware where

Tweed’s Tavern stood. Similarly, among the southern sites, the rural Combahee Ferry tavern

does display a lower frequency of pipe fragments than the two urban Charleston sites (10 per

cent vs. 13 or 17 per cent). Perhaps the overall lower frequencies in the southern sites reflect the

proximity of the northern sites to the primary sources of tobacco in colonial North America, and

an increased use of tobacco in the northern taverns.

Following Brown et al. (1990), we calculated a ratio of the tobacco artifacts to the

ceramics artifacts for each of the sites. These ratios again reflect the urban-rural dichotomy

among the sample, with the urban sites displaying the highest ratios (from 1:1 to 11:1) and the

rural sites displaying lower ratios (1:2 to 0:84). Again, the Charleston urban sites display ratios

more similar to the rural sites due to their reduced frequencies of tobacco related artifacts.

Site Setting Pipes : Ceramics

Lovelace Urban 11 : 1

Jamestown Urban 3 : 2

Shields (early) Urban 3 : 2

Shields (late) Urban 1 : 1

McCrady’s Tavern Urban 1 : 5

McCrady’s Longroom Urban 1 : 3

Earthy’s Rural 1 : 2

Wellfleet Rural 1 : 3

Tweed’s Rural 0 : 84

Combahee Ferry Rural 1 : 6

Similarly, the relative frequencies of bottles and drinking glass fragments demonstrate the

rural and urban dichotomy, although the overall frequencies vary widely. Urban sites display

frequencies of 17-38 per cent while the rural sites display frequencies of 1-30 per cent.

Interestingly, the Combahee Ferry tavern displays the second highest relative frequency of these

artifacts. Several researchers noted that early colonial taverns likely employed ceramic and metal

drinking vessels as frequently or more frequently than glass ones; thus, drinking glasses may be

under-represented at seventeenth century sites. The very high frequency of glass fragments at the

Combahee Ferry tavern may reflect its longer use-life (at least into the 1860s), when the

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 11

industrialization of glass vessel manufacture blossomed and more of these artifacts were

manufactured and in use.

A quick review of ceramic vessel forms, among five functional categories (drinking,

teawares, serving/consuming, preparation/storage, and toiletry) indicates that the urban sites

display higher frequencies of drinking vessels, preparation and storage vessels, and toiletry

vessels; rural sites have higher frequencies of service/consuming vessels. Teawares vary widely

over the small sample. This again likely reflects the increased importance of meal service to

travelers in rural taverns compared to the increased consumption of beverages during social

gatherings in the urban sites. The increased frequency of toiletry vessels in urban sites may

reflect a larger number of bedrooms or an increased volume of lodgers; most of the rural taverns

in the sample are quite

small and likely could

accommodate only a few

overnight guests at one

time. Also, the use of

privys rather than night

jars may have been easier

in rural settings.

We now will

examine the nature of the

Bottle/Drinking Vessel Frequencies

Ceramic Vessel Functions

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 12

faunal assemblages associated with the examined taverns. All of the variables employed in these

comparisons use the relative frequency of expected biomass reflected in the faunal remains from

each site (see Sichler 2012). The contributions by major animal groups display little variation

that can be ascribed to rural or urban differences. These variations appear to reflect dietary

preferences or expanding menus more than differences related to setting in a town or in the

country. This is not unexpected since tavern rates were highly regulated to ensure that travelers

could plan what their expenses might be during their journey and to prevent price gouging by

innkeepers. Thus, tavern fare may have been very similar in town or abroad. An example, beef is

the most frequent source of meat in all of the samples. Interestingly, all of the northern sites

display much higher frequencies of pork than the southern sites. We assume that this reflects the

dietary preferences of the regions, at least during the time reflected in the sample of taverns.

Interestingly, the frequencies of wild species are higher in most of the urban sites. This

seems contradictory since one could assume that the rural sites lie closer to home ranges of wild

species than the urban sites. However, the rural tavern keeper likely could not store wild species

in anticipation of a traveler’s wants, and could

not easily rush out and bag a deer when

someone ordered venison. Thus, urban tavern

keepers likely had better access to wild

species through the food markets that operated

daily in most towns than their rural

counterparts, and thus provided a greater

variety of fare.

Faunal Groups Domestic Groups

Wild vs. Domestic

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 13

Having compared the information from the Combahee Ferry tavern with that from other

tavern sites, would an assemblage from a residential site in the Lowcountry appear any different?

A sample of plantation sites where comparable data can be extracted is compared with the

Combahee Ferry assemblage. The sample of plantation sites includes:

Site Function Date Pipe : Ceramic Reference

B.B. Sams (38BU581) planter’s house 1760-1870 1 : 13 Poplin and Brooker 1994

B.B. Sams (38BU581) overseer’s house 1826-1870 1 : 31 Poplin and Brooker 1994

B.B. Sams (38BU581) slave houses 1826-1870 1 : 21 Poplin and Brooker 1994

Stoney Creek (38BU1289) planter’s house 1770-1800 1 : 3 Kennedy and Roberts 1992

Combahee Ferry (38BU1216) tavern 1735-1860s 1 : 6 Poplin et al. 2012

The differences are readily apparent. Using the same variables we employed to compare

rural and urban taverns, residential sites clearly display substantially lower frequencies of

tobacco related artifacts (0.8-7.2 per cent vs. 9.7 per cent), kitchen-related ceramics (10-38 per

cent vs. 61 per cent), and bottles/drinking glasses (13-26 per cent vs. 30 per cent). Thus, the

materials recovered from the Combahee Ferry site reflect the tavern that operated here more than

a domestic occupation.

All of these analyses provide a

limited view of the operation of the

tavern and its role in the social

landscape of the region. Given that

most of the “locals” were enslaved

African Americans, it is unlikely that

the tavern witnessed regular social

gatherings of large numbers of people,

with the exception of market days in

Radnor. Most of the planters likely

visited each other at their plantation residences rather than gather at the local “pub” for an

evening of conversation. Thus, the focus of the Combahee Ferry tavern was travel

accommodations, providing meals and lodging for travelers. It appears to have offered simple

fare, providing primarily beef, fish, and turtles for guests. The consumption of alcohol and

Plantation vs. Tavern

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 14

tobacco occurred in higher frequencies than in most residences in the region. The tavern did

provide an opportunity for information to be exchanged between travelers and locals, with the

tavern keeper or the ferryman serving as the conduit for this information. The tavern also

provided an opportunity for the locals to provide information concerning their own setting to any

visitors. As an example, fragments of two plates commemorating the third visit of the Marquis

de LaFayette to the United States were recovered from refuse pits at the site. These

Figure 13. LaFayette commerative plate from 38BU1216.

commemorative wares were very popular following the 1828 visit. LaFayette was a hero of the

American Revolution, and renowned throughout the country. Also, several skirmishes occurred

near the Combahee Ferry and John Laurens, a young Patriot officer, was killed in one of these

engagements on the Colleton side of the river. Were these plates keepsakes of one of the

tavern/ferry keepers? Or were they expressions of the patriotism of their owner and the

connection of the Combahee Ferry to events of the Revolution that were routinely displayed to

demonstrate this and enhance the owner’s standing among the patrons of the tavern? In this

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 15

fashion, the Combahee tavern did provide some of the services beyond food and rest evident in

its counterparts in other regions during the colonial and antebellum periods.

Thanks to the SCDOT, the FHWA, Nemours Plantation Wildlife Foundation for their

permission to use this information, and to all those who have worked on this project since we

began in 2005. Within the year, the report of the archaeological investigations will be final, and

the elements of the interpretive program (an on-site information kiosk and historical marker, a

traveling museum exhibit, and a dedicated website) will be in place for modern-day visitors and

travelers to learn more about the Combahee Ferry.

References Cited Bragdon, Kathleen J. 1981 Occupation Differences Reflected in Material Culture. Northeast Historical Archaeology 10:227-39. Brown, G. J., T. F. Higgins, D. F. Muraca, S. K. Pepper and R. H. Polk 1990 Archaeological Investigations of the Shields Tavern Site, Williamsburg, Virginia. Department of

Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia. Burrow, I., W. Liebknecht, D. Tvaryanas, D. Scott, N. Sergejeff and R. White 2003 John Tweed’s Log Tavern: The Archaeology, History and Architecture of the Guthrie-Giacomelli House

(Tweed’s Tavern), CRS-#N-1101 and Tweed’s Tavern Archaeological Site, 7NC-A-18, Mill Creek Hundred, New Castle County, Delaware. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeological Series 167. Dover.

Conroy, David W. 1995 In Public Houses- Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts. University of North

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Kennedy, Linda and Marian Roberts 1993 Archaeological Data Recovery at 38BU1289, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared for J.F. Cleckley

and Company, and the South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia. Poplin, E., G. Watts, E. Salo, K. Shuler, D. Baluha, E. Jateff, N. Isenbarger and C. Philips 2012 Crossing the Combahee: Mitigation of the Combahee Ferry Historic District, Beaufort and Colleton

Counties, South Carolina. Prepared for TRC Solutions, Inc. and the South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia.

Rowland, Lawrence S., Alexander Moore and George C. Rogers, Jr. 1996 The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina: Volume 1, 1514-1861. University of South Carolina

Press, Columbia. Salinger, Sharon V. 2002 Taverns and Drinking in Early America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Poplin SECHSA 2012 - 16

Shuler, K., E. Poplin, E. Salo, S. Johnson, J. Ellerbee, E. Sipes and E. Jateff 2007 Intensive Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Testing of 38BU1216, US Highway 17 Widening

Project- Gardens Corner to Jacksonboro, Beaufort and Colleton Counties, South Carolina. Prepared for Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc., TRC Solutions, Inc., and the South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia.

Sichler, Judith A. 2012 Appendix A: Combahee Ferry (38BU1216) Faunal Analysis, Beaufort County, South Carolina. In Crossing

the Combahee: Mitigation of the Combahee Ferry Historic District, Beaufort and Colleton Counties, South Carolina, by E. Poplin, G. Watts, E. Salo, K. Shuler, D. Baluha, E. Jateff, N. Isenbarger, and C. Philips. Prepared for TRC Solutions, Inc. and the SC Department of Transportation, Columbia.

Watts, Gordon 2006 Underwater Archaeological Remote Sensing Survey, Proposed US 17 Bridge Widening and Replacement

Corridor, Beaufort and Colleton Counties, South Carolina. Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc., Washington, North Carolina.

Zierden, Martha, Elizabeth Reitz, Michael Trinkley and Elizabeth Paysinger 1982 Archaeological Excavations at McCrady’s Longroom. The Charleston Museum Archaeological

Contributions 3. Charleston, South Carolina.