Construction uproots history

In South Carolina and throughout the U.S., state and federal laws exist to ensure that historically significant places, such as cemeteries, are protected.

But archaeologist Michael Trinkley, director of the Chicora Foundation, thinks there have been cases in South Carolina where the law wasn’t followed diligently enough.

Trinkley said the area where the Vista Commons apartments reside was once part of one of the first public cemeteries in Columbia. Located at the foot of Elmwood Avenue, bordered by the canal to the west and the Greenville and Laurens railroad line to the east, the alleged “Potter’s Field” was used as a public burial ground until the 1850s.

“Older residents may remember remnants of the cemetery,” said Bobby Donaldson, associate professor of history and African American studies at USC.

Though the graves were not attended to and would not have been obvious, Donaldson said the developer should have known it was a cemetery and could have moved it. There is a legal process for moving graves, which is described in Title 27 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.

Other historic cemeteries in Columbia were described in the Free Times last March. According to the article, several of these “forgotten cemeteries” have been developed despite their potential historic value. For example, part of the Slighs Avenue cemetery, which contains the graves of African-American patients from the State Asylum, was developed into a driving range in 2000.

The Chicora Foundation objected to this development, and Title 16 of the South Carolina Code of Laws makes it a felony to “wilfully and knowingly”  destroy, damage or remove parts from burial grounds without legal authority. Upon investigation, the State Law Enforcement Division said they could not determine “who knew what and when,” Trinkley said.

“In reality, it’s somewhat of a pointless law,” Trinkley said. “It’s not capable of being enforced.”

Another law that is in place to protect historically significant lands is the National Historic Preservation Act, which applied to the Vista Commons project.

“In essence, Section 106 of the Act requires any project (building, expansion, streets, etc.) connected to federal money or federal regulation to include a cultural resource evaluation,” said an anonymous source from USC’s anthropology department.

So how did the Vista Commons, federally funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, come to be built on a historic cemetery? Trinkley addresses this question by looking at the process of how the project was approved.

As is required for all federal undertakings, the Vista Commons project was reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office.

“Our job is to consult with federal agencies about the potential to affect historic properties,” said Elizabeth Johnson, deputy officer for the SHPO.

Though the SHPO does not technically approve projects, it offers recommendations to federal agencies in order to comply with Section 106.

When it reviewed the Vista Commons project, the SHPO said it was consistent with their “goals and objectives,” the Free Times reported. According to Trinkley, this is because no one took the time to adequately research the land. The SHPO could have pulled a city map and would have seen Potter’s Field, Trinkley said.

The cemetery had been purchased by a railroad company after its use was discontinued in the 1800s. However, Trinkley doubts that the company took the correct efforts to move or protect the graves there.  Because of this, he thinks the land should not have been developed without investigating the land.

“It was sloppy, from beginning to end,” he said.

In a response to the Free Times article, the SHPO’s Department of Archives and History stated that information of a “potter’s field”  was not provided to them until two years after the construction of Vista Commons. A geotechnical survey indicated that no graves were found, but in hindsight the SHPO said it might have recommended HUD to do further research given the project’s historic location.

“The ultimate responsibility lies with the federal agencies,” Johnson said. “They are supposed to make reasonable efforts to identify historic properties.”

The SHPO reviews about 1,600 to 1,800 projects per year, and its recommendations depend on what information the federal agencies provide, Johnson said.

Jonathan Leader, state archaeologist for the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, acknowledged that the SHPO has a small staff and limited funding for the amount of projects it reviews each year.

“I think they do a remarkably good job given their situation and limitations,” Leader said.
The problem, in Leader’s opinion, is just that the state is developing. It is difficult to keep track of building and land use, and people often rush to meet deadlines and keep progressing.

“Most developers try to do the right thing,” Leader said, adding that problems often come up after the fact.

Regardless of who is to blame, Trinkley said construction destroys graves and the knowledge they might have provided.

“The amount of information that can be gathered is astonishing,” Trinkley said. “Burial grounds provide an incredible storehouse.”

One example Trinkley referenced is the African Burial Ground in New York City. This was discovered 19 years ago during a field test for a $276 million federal building project, according to the U.S. General Services Administration.

The excavation uncovered skeletal remains of the state’s enslaved population, contributing significant knowledge to this chapter of history. First used during the 1640s, the lower-Manhattan burial ground provided a new understanding of the life and hardships of slaves, the GSA’s Web site said.

“[Archaeologists] can dig and tell you a different perspective based on what is buried there,” Donaldson said.

In Donaldson’s opinion, however, people are so focused on the future and development that they often overlook the past. In specific, he thinks the histories of poor people are undervalued.

His research proves that this extends beyond cemeteries, as parts of USC’s expansions were built on the poor, African American community referred to as Ward One.

When the University purchased this land and expanded in the 1960s, houses were bulldozed and people were displaced. For example, Donaldson said the garage at Blossom and Main Streets used to be an African American church.

Donaldson led a class examining this community, and their findings are displayed in the South Caroliniana Library in an exhibit titled “And, Lest We Forget: Remembering Ward One.”

While this study referred to houses and buildings, Trinkley said the cemeteries that are most often destroyed are also those “of the poor and of the blacks.”

Reflecting on this trend, Trinkley asked one final question: “When does it stop being a coincidence?”