A total of 74 gravesites with no known grave markers that were discovered at a King Street construction site earlier this summer will soon be relocated to the historic Bethany Cemetery, officials said.
Charleston City Council on Oct. 28 adopted a resolution required by state law that authorized a move of the remains from a climate-controlled facility where they are currently stored to a final resting place at Bethany.
Workers discovered the remains in May during the second phase of construction at Courier Square at 635 King St., previously owned by Evening Post Industries, the former parent company of The Post and Courier. The discovery, which appeared to have been kept quiet in local media, is said to have followed a warning by local historical advocacy groups that the site was once home to the St. James Methodist Church, founded in the late 1700s, and a likely cemetery.
According to the city’s Oct. 28 meeting agenda, project leaders conducted an archaeological study, including ground penetrating radar, a scrape of the site and historical research, but found no evidence of remains on the site until construction began.
Earlier this year, the College of Charleston came under fire for having bought land a few blocks away on Coming Street to build a new dormitory on a site that had been home to a centuries-old burial ground for poor and enslaved people. Radar scans were reportedly inconclusive on whether human remains were under the 106 Coming St. site, according to a Sept. 18 story in the Charleston City Paper.
“This situation [on King Street] is instructive for future projects,” Anna-Catherine Alexander of the Preservation Society of Charleston said at an Oct. 28 public hearing on the Courier Square remains. “Clearly our technology for sub-surface investigation is not sufficient to provide a clear view of what’s there.”
Charleston County Coroner Bobbi Jo O’Neal said she was notified shortly after the discovery during construction so she could determine whether the remains were of forensic interest. Two deputy coroners responded and evaluated the site, she said. They found the remains were archaeological in nature and released jurisdiction to the city of Charleston, which did not provide details to the public at the time.
The process is driven by state code, O’Neal said, adding that this situation has been typical of downtown Charleston projects.
“If we had determined that they were current and had concerns about the circumstances, we would take jurisdiction and take the remains into our custody,” she said. “It can be difficult to know how best to handle the remains, especially if it is not possible to identify the descendents, their family members and determine their wishes.
“The involved stakeholders must make the best decision they can based on the circumstances.”
Since no relatives of the deceased are known, city officials found it necessary for the remains to be removed and stored in a climate-controlled facility for preservation until a permanent resting place could be determined, according to the Oct. 28 meeting agenda.
Alexander added that she thought the city and project leaders had done the “necessary due diligence” when determining Bethany as the remains’ final resting place. Project leaders received letters in support of the reinterment from the St. James Methodist Church, Bethany Cemetery, and historic preservation groups.
The outcome is in stark contrast to the College of Charleston’s dormitory in September. After facing stiff opposition to the construction, college President Andrew Hsu told the public that the timeline for the project would be “reset,” according to a Sept. 26 report.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.