Swamp, Salt Marsh, Old Cemetery
Cemetery, Charleston, Historical, Landscape, OM System, What I Saw

Swamp, Salt Marsh, Old Cemetery

7 Comments

Look close and you will see a swamp on the left, salt marsh on the right. Straight down the center is an old southern cemetery.

Absolutely beautiful.

Best viewed large.

Swamp, Salt Marsh, Old Cemetery
Swamp, Salt Marsh, Old Cemetery

7 thoughts on “Swamp, Salt Marsh, Old Cemetery”

  1. I noticed a stone, and after zooming in I could read the name Mary G Roach, dated 1230 to 1305, that’s 75 years, which feels quite remarkable for that time, or am I mistaken, because that does sound old, really old

    Reply

    1. There’s contradictions with that. Many people did live to that ancient age (I’m 77). Most did not. Also it went in waves. We had many pandemics, mostly yellow fever or small pox. Half of the children didn’t live past 5 either. Wealthy families lived long lives.

    2. Yes, that’s a logical explanation, but something still doesn’t quite add up for me. The stone says “died in 1305,” yet Christopher Columbus’ first voyage didn’t happen until 1492, so how does that grave end up there?

      It seems the only real possibility is that it was brought over from Europe at a later date, unless I’m overlooking something obvious.

    3. I’m thinking a newer stone (families can still bury here if they own the ‘land) and bad angle on the shot. Maybe poor carving worn away by age. I will try to remember to get a look next time I’m down in that spot.

    4. I’m still looking at the photo LOL. New thoughts, the cemetery itself opened in 1850. Filled in this spot in about 50/60 years. Until then all burials were in a church yard. So maybe we should be trying to fit 1305, to 1905. Too blurry to tell. Bringing stones from the EU, not likely. We are a ‘new’ country. Most all our ancestors were poor and running away from something. Charleston is a town of ‘religious outcasts’, and we as a town and country have nothing old. I have shot cemeteries in Basil that had dates of 1100. This was jungle at that date. LOL.

    5. 1830 to 1905 is indeed the most logical explanation… or Columbus wasn’t the first 🙂 – Your photo is nice and sharp, but I think my brain, and my poor eyesight, are playing tricks on me.

Leave a Reply