0

STATE OF GEORGIA
In re: Abandoned Gravesites on a Certain )
)
Tract of Land Being in the 5th G.M. Land
District, City of Savannah, Chatham County,)
Georgia Containing 0.0.72 Acres, More or )
Less;
)
The Board of Regents of the University
System of Georgia, for and on behalf of
Savannah State University,
Petitioner.

)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. CV16-0255-AB

FINAL ORDER
Having read and considered the Petition for a Permit to Relocate Certain Abandoned
Gravesites filed by the Board of Regents ofthe University System of Georgia ("Board of
Regents"), for and on behalf of its member institution Savannah State University ("Savannah
State"), and upon consideration of the evidence and public comments presented at the April 11,
2016 public hearing, the entire record and the applicable law, the Court finds as follows:
The Board of Regents, represented by the Georgia Attorney General's Office, filed the
petition pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-72-14 for a permit to relocate what the Board ofRegents
identifies as an abandoned nineteenth century cemetery located on a tract of land on the
Savannah State campus. The Board of Regents seeks to relocate any remains that might be
located at the site as part of its plan to develop a science and technology center, which includes a
new Marine Sciences and Technology Lab building, access roads, sidewalks and utilities to
support the site. In support of the petition, the Board of Regents submitted various surveys and
reports prepared by Brockington and Associates, Inc. of Charleston, South Carolina. Those

0
documents include a history ofthe ownership and dimensions of the subject property (including
the title research and survey of the legal boundaries of the site), archaeological information about
the site, a description ofthe proposed science and technology center project, a report on the
efforts to identify any individuals who might have been laid to rest in the cemetery and any
descendants of such individuals, and the proposed plan for disinterring and reinterring any
remains found at the site. 1
The site is part of what was known as Placentia Plantation, a 700 acre rice and cotton
plantation located along the Wilmington River in the 1800's. 2 According to the Brockington and
Associates' documents, a map from 1892 referred to as the "Blanford Map" shows a cemetery
located at or near the project site. 3 At Savannah State's direction, United Consulting conducted a
Ground Penetrating Radar ("GPR") survey at the site. This GPR survey revealed what the
documents describe as "anomalies" in the soil which are believed to be graves. The
documentary evidence as well as the testimony presented at the April 11, 2016 hearing all
support a presumption that a number of graves are located at the project site. Given the serious
and sacred nature of the possibility that human remains are located at the site, the Court proceeds

These documents are filed in the record as exhibits to the petition.

The tract of land changed ownership several times before it was conveyed to the
Trustees of the University of Georgia in the early 1900's. The specific tract that apparently
contains the cemetery was sold to the Trustees in 1918, but the deed does not mention a
cemetery. The complete history of the land ownership is provided in the Brockington and
Associates' reports filed in the record.
3

According to the Brockington and Associates' report, the Blanford Map was created by
the City Engineering department around 1892 and shows "the [Placentia Canal], old rice fields,
the settlements to the east, an African American cemetery ('Cemetery Col'd'), and the electric
trolley line that was installed around 1892." The genealogical report notes that this map is the
only historical reference to the cemetery that was found, and it is unknown whether the cemetery
was in use or abandoned when the map was created.
Page 2 of9

with its consideration of this petition based on the presumption that human remains are located
there. The Court notes, however, that the existence and condition of any such remains will not
be known and confirmed until the soil is excavated at the site. Thus, the best information
available at this time is that three to five graves are potentially located under the site, which now
includes a paved parking lot, and there is a possibility that individuals buried at the site were
enslaved African Americans connected to the Placentia Plantation. The Court also notes that
although the petition refers to the gravesites as "abandoned" there is no information to determine
what circumstances led to this cemetery becoming essentially hidden over time.
O.C.G.A. 36-72-14 (a) provides in pertinent part "when any agency, authority, or
political subdivision of the state seeks to file an application for a permit under this chapter, the
superior court having jurisdiction over the real property wherein the cemetery or burial ground is
located shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the permit application." O.C.G.A. 36-72-14 (a)
further provides that "[t]he superior court shall conduct its investigation and determination of the
permit in accordance with Code Sections 36-72-6 through 36-72-8." O.C.G.A. 36-72-6
provides a process for the identification and notification of descendants. In this instance, the
Board of Regents and its agents have been unable to identify any descendants. Brockington and
Associates, including its historian Charles F. Phillips, conducted genealogical and historical
research in an effort to identify any descendants but Brockington and Associates was unable to
identify any such descendants. According to the genealogical report, no "list of slaves,
freedmen, or tenant farmers who lived or worked on the Placentia Plantation" was located. 4

As detailed in the report, historical records maintained by Chatham County, the City of
Savannah, the Georgia Historical Society, Savannah State University, the W.W. Law Foundation
and the Live Oak Public Library were researched. In addition, contact was made with nearby
churches, individuals specializing in local cemetery studies and several African American
genealogical groups. These efforts are detailed in the genealogical report filed in the record.
Page 3 of9

Although the Board of Regents was unable to identify any descendants to provide direct notice
of the petition, the Board of Regents ran an advertisement in the legal organ of Chatham County
the Savannah Morning News about the proceedings. As of the date of this Order, no descendants
have been identified.
O.C.G.A. 36-72-7(a) provides for a "public hearing at which any interested party or
citizen may appear and be given an opportunity to be heard." The Court held the public hearing
on Aprilll, 2016 at 9:30a.m. At the hearing, the Board of Regents presented the testimony of
Joseph Steffen, the Director of Legal Relations at Savannah State, and Gwendolyn Moore, the
Senior Project Manager at Brockington and Associates. At the conclusion of the Board of
Regents' examination of each witness, the Court permitted members of the attending public to
ask questions of the witness. In addition, members of the public were invited to provide their
own comments after the presentation of the witnesses.
Mr. Steffen testified that Savannah State is developing the science and technology center
in response to increasing student enrollment, particularly in the area of marine sciences. Mr.
Steffen testified that Savannah State cannot rebuild where these disciplines are currently housed
because the old buildings are sitting on a flood plain. Mr. Steffen further testified that there is no
other site on the campus that can accommodate the new center because the campus is adjacent to
a marsh and much of the campus is located in the flood plain. Mr. Steffen noted that it is not
possible to build around the possible gravesites because the entire area would need to be
excavated to accommodate the utilities for the project. After describing the proposed process for
the disinterment and reinterment (including the erection of a marker at the new burial site with a
ceremony to memorialize the deceased), Mr. Steffen concluded his testimony by commenting
that Savannah State feels a sense of stewardship as the oldest public HBCU (collectively known

Page 4 of9

as Historically Black Colleges and Universities) in Georgia and views this plan as an opportunity
to properly recognize the people who worked on Placentia Plantation.
Ms. Moore provided testimony that further explained how the geological survey of the
site was conducted to determine the location of the possible grave sites. She also described the
title search, the search for descendants, and the reburial plan. Her testimony mirrored the
findings of Brockington and Associates' written reports filed in the record. Ms. Moore also
described how certain information obtained at disinterment (for example, the width of hip bones,
the age of teeth, and the types of grave relics found at a site) can be used to determine certain
clues about human remains without having to engage in any invasive techniques.
During the hearing, members of the public inquired about the efforts undertaken to
identify any descendants, including whether DNA evidence might be used in the future to assist
in that process. In addition, there were various comments from the citizens attending the hearing
about the unique intersection of the past with the future that this petition raises - some seeing it
as a positive confluence of circumstances (being able to honor and acknowledge those who lived
on Placentia Plantation while allowing the advancement of an HBCU) and others questioning if
the past will suffer (and even be destroyed) due to the needs of the future. The Court has given
significant consideration to the thoughtful and earnest comments provided by those who took the
time to attend the hearing and to articulate their positions. Regardless of any citizen's stance on
the ultimate issue of whether the Board of Regents should be granted the permit, the consensus
was that the past must be respected. The Court shares that sentiment and has undertaken this
investigation as one guided by the dictates of the Georgia code but with an understanding of the
sacredness and solemnity of this matter.
In making the determination of whether to grant or deny the permit, the Court is required

Page 5 of9

to consider the following: "(I) [t]he presumption in favor of leaving the cemetery or burial
ground undisturbed; (2) [t]he concerns and comments of any descendants of those buried in the
burial ground or cemetery and any other interested parties;(3) [t]he economic and other costs of
mitigation;(4) [t]he adequacy of the applicant's plans for disinterment and proper disposition of
any human remains or burial objects;(5) [t]he balancing of the applicant's interest in disinterment
with the public's and any descendant's interest in the value ofthe undisturbed cultural and natural
environment; and (6) [a]ny other compelling factors which the governing authority deems
relevant." O.C.G.A. 36-72-8.
Under the code, there is a presumption in favor leaving a burial ground undisturbed. The
Court notes, however, that this current site has not been maintained and preserved as an
identifiable cemetery or burial ground. If any human remains exist from a former cemetery,
those remains are likely located under a paved parking lot. Although the circumstances of
history leaves the Court in the position of not being able to hear the concerns and comments of

II

any known descendants, the Court has considered the concerns and comments of the interested
citizens who shared their positions at the public hearing. In balancing the Board of Regents'
interest in disinterment with the public's interest in the "value of undisturbed cultural and natural
environment," the Court notes that the Board of Regents' desire to advance its institutional goals
by building this new science and technology center provides an opportunity to give those who
might be buried at the site with proper recognition. The Board of Regents has been unable to
identify any possible individuals who were previously buried at the site, but the Board of
Regents' plan has and will provide a present day acknowledgement that people once lived, toiled
and died on this site. On the other side of the balancing, the "undisturbed" environment consists

Page 6 of9

of a parking lot and what has been, until now, a forgotten legacy. 5
The Court finds that Savannah State has proposed a respectful and well-considered plan
for the relocation of the gravesites. On the issue of financial considerations, Savannah State
would assume all costs for the proposed disinterment and reburial. In addition, Savannah State
has retained the professional services of Brockington and Associates to facilitate these plans.
Savannah State has presented a disinterment and reinterment plan which will be overseen by
experienced archaeologists and will consist of excavations by hand once a grave shaft is exposed
by mechanical means, the placement of any human remains and associated grave items in
wooden coffins, and the reinterment of the human remains in a grassy area to the north of the
project tract. The reburial site is within the area of the cemetery shown on the Blanford Map.
Savannah State plans to erect a marker at the new burial site and to recognize the reburial with a
memorial ceremony that will be planned by a committee that includes members of Savannah
State's esteemed faculty and staff. 6
Finally, the Court notes that the record shows that the State of Georgia has approved $2.5
million for the development of the new science and technology facilities, and Savannah State has

See, e.g., Hughes v. Cobb Cty., 264 Ga. 128, 130, 441 S.E.2d 406, 409 (1994)
(affirming the trial court's ruling that it was appropriate to relocate a cemetery where there was
"evidence in the record which supports the trial court's conclusion of fact that, due to lack of
maintenance and inappropriate surroundings, relocation would preserve rather than destroy the
'cultural heritage of this county and this cemetery'").
6

Savannah State's President Dr. Cheryl Dozier has appointed a Memorial Committee
comprised of Dr. Peggy Blood, tenured Professor of Art History and Director ofthe Confucius
Center, Dr. Carla Sue Marriott, Assistant Professor of Biology and Forensic Science, Dr.
Deborah Johnson-Simon, Lecturer of Anthropology, Mr. Irvin Ogden, Director of the Physical
Plant, Ms. Sheena Simmons, liaison to Dr. Dozier, and Dr. Cornelius St. Mark, tenured Associate
Professor of Africana Studies and History and founding Director of the International Education
Center. Dr. Kwesi J. DeGraf-Hanson, a landscape architect and preservationist, is a consultant to
the Committee.
Page 7 of9

secured $15.6 million in additional funding for the 2016 fiscal year for construction. Savannah
State has grand plans for the new facilities, including the construction of a new boat dock to
provide access to the local waterways for research purposes for students and faculty in the
marine sciences program. Savannah State has a compelling reason to develop this site, and
Savannah State has coextensively developed a compelling plan to give acknowledgment and a
final, identifiable resting place to those who are possibly buried at the site.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Board of Regents ofthe University System of
Georgia, for and on behalf of its member institution Savannah State University, has met the
requirements set forth in O.C.G.A. 36-72-11, et seq. The Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner's
Application for a Permit to Relocate the Placentia Plantation Colored Cemetery. 7 The Court
further ORDERS that Petitioner's Application is ADOPTED IN WHOLE.
Because no one has standing to appeal this decision other than the Board of Regents
(which has prevailed), the thirty day time period for appeal does not apply in this case. Hence,
the judgment is final for all purposes.
It should not go without reiterating that the responsibility of determining how best to
balance these interests --- those of the persons possibly interred and those ofthe students who

At the public hearing, discussions arose regarding the possibility and feasibility of
utilizing DNA testing to identify possible descendants. The Court requested the Attorney
General's office to solicit comment about this matter from the State Archaeologist for the
Department ofNatural Resources' Historic Preservation Division ("HPD"). Rachel Black the
Deputy State Archaeologist opines that due to the sensitive circumstances of human excavation
and reburial the HPD does not usually recommend DNA testing because it is a destructive
technique. Ms. Black's comments are restated in a letter from Senior Assistant Attorney General
Mary Jo Volkert dated April 20, 2016. As noted by Ms. Volkert in the letter, there is a plan to
make preliminary determinations about the remains based on any skeletal remains and grave
artifacts found at the site. The Court notes that regardless of the feasibility of DNA testing, there
are no known descendants who could possibly provide consent for the destruction of such
remains. Moreover, such DNA testing falls outside of the scope of the statutory scheme that
governs the instant application.
Page 8 of9

I
will go on to great futures --- has been challenging and compelling.
SO ORDERED, this

:J..f "'"day of April, 2016.

~nMA-._ ~
msa Abbot, Judge
Chatham County Superior Court
EJC, State of Georgia

cc:

Mary Jo Volkert, Esq.

In re Abandoned Gravesites, CV 16-0255-AB, Final Order

Page 9 of9

I
r