Search USGS⌕ Search

place

South Carolina

South Carolina: explore 6 source-linked works published from 2022 to 2025, with original documents and citations.

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-20. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Haunted Summerville: Ghostly lights or earthquake lights?

Among the colorful local lore in the Charleston, South Carolina, area, are a number of ghost stories, shared not only over campfires but also in published books. Among the most well-known of the stories is the tale of the Summerville Light. Local lore holds that a strange light sometimes seen in a remote area is a lantern carried by the ghost of a local woman who once waited hours for her husband, who turned out to have been decapitated earlier that day in a train accident (DePoppe, 2023). Extant sources suggest the ghost stories began to circulate in the 1950s to 1960s. So pervasive was the lore that (Old) Sheep Island Road became known among local residents as Light Road, with a local stretch of road known today as Old Light Road. Reviewing the location where the lights appear as well as the nature of accounts, I suggest that many if not all of the anecdotal observations can be most readily attributed to natural phenomena, including earthquake lights from earthquakes that were too small to be felt. Accounts of lights near Summerville cluster in proximity to the generally accepted epicenter of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, where foreshocks to the 1886 mainshock were apparently concentrated, and within a few kilometers of three M3.5 – 4.4 earthquakes in 1959 and 1960.

South Carolina↗

Reply to, “Comment on ‘The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake: Relic railroad offset reveals rupture,’ by Roger Bilham and Susan E. Hough”

We welcome this opportunity to respond to Pratt et al. (2024) (hereinafter P24). Bilham and Hough (2023) proposed a “first-cut” elastic deformation model for the 1886 earthquake, a quantitative source model constrained by identified coseismic constraints. A key observation was the measurement of a lateral offset of a railroad line south of Summerville, leading to a model with predominately dextral slip and minor convergence, from which we concluded that active faulting had raised the Penholoway Marine Terrace >6 m since ∼770 ka. P24 questioned these constraints and proposed an alternative rupture model with predominantly reverse slip. This alternative model is neither consistent with coseismic constraints nor with other geophysical data. In a revised model presented here, we recognize that uplift of the Penholoway Terrace is confined to the eastern edge of the terrace, which we conclude results from active folding and tectonic transpression centered on the dextral fault that offset the railroad in 1886.

South Carolina↗

Static and dynamic strain in the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

During the 1886 Mw 7.3 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, three railroads emanating from the city were exposed to severe shaking. Expansion joints in segmented railroad tracks are designed to allow railroad infrastructure to withstand a few parts in 10,000 of thermoelastic strain. We show that, in 1886, transient contractions exceeding this limiting value buckled rails, and transient extensions pulled rails apart. Calculated values for dynamic strain in the meizoseismal region are in reasonable agreement with those anticipated from the relation between strain and moment magnitude proposed by Barbour et al. (2021) and exceed estimated tectonic strain released by the earthquake by an order of magnitude. Almost all of the documented disturbances of railroad lines, including evidence for shortening of the rails, can thus be ascribed to the effects of dynamic strain changes, not static strain. Little or no damage to railroads was reported outside the estimated 10 −4 dynamic strain contour. The correspondence between 10 −3 and 2×10 −4 contours of dynamic strain and Mercalli intensity 9 and 8, anticipated from the dependence of each quantity on peak ground velocity, suggests it may be possible to use railroad damage to quantitatively estimate shaking intensity. At one location, near Rantowles, ≈20 km west of Charleston, a photograph of buckled track taken one day after the earthquake has been cited as evidence for shallow dextral slip and has long focused a search for a causal fault in this region. Photogrammetric analysis reveals that the buckle was caused by transient contraction of <10 cm with no dextral offset. Our results further weaken the evidence for faulting in the swamps and forests south of the Ashley River in 1886, hitherto motivated by the photograph and limited macroseismic evidence for high‐intensity shaking.

South Carolina↗

On the provenance of field reports of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake: A seismo-historical whodunnit

Much of what is known about the effects of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake throughout the epicentral region can be attributed to meticulous field investigations by an individual with training in geology and engineering, Earle Sloan ( Clendenin, 1926 ). In a recent study, Bilham and Hough (2024) undertook a detailed analysis of the effects of the earthquake on railroads in the Charleston region, drawing heavily from Sloan’s reports. This exercise identified several inconsistencies in Sloan’s field reports, including understandable measurement imprecision, inferred data entry mistakes, and transcription errors. The study also begged the question, where was Sloan at the time of the mainshock and over the following week? And to what extent did he draw from secondhand information in compiling his reports? On this question Sloan’s reports were sometimes enigmatic, lending themselves to misinterpretation in contemporaneous as well as modern interpretations. Beyond the details that were germane for, and briefly summarized by, the studies of Bilham and Hough (2023 , 2024) , in this report we don our historical seismologist caps to chronicle Sloan’s activities following the earthquake. We summarize our inferences here for the benefit of future scholars who might attempt to retrace either Sloan’s footsteps or our own. This study also serves to highlight Sloan’s singular contributions to earthquake science, which were never published separately.

South Carolina↗

South Carolina and Landsat

South Carolina, the eighth State admitted to the union, transcends its size with its deep, rich history; striking beauty; vast natural resources; and extensive cultural diversity. Home to part of the Blue Ridge Mountains of the Central Appalachians, the Upstate is graced with more than 100 waterfalls, while the Lowcountry borders the Atlantic Ocean with 187 miles of coastline and 35 barrier islands. Forests cover two-thirds of the State, and forestry and agriculture together, as agribusiness, make up South Carolina’s leading industry. Two historic crops—cotton and tobacco—still rank in the top 10 commodities, though corn and soybeans now rank higher. Poultry, cattle, peanuts, and flowers also make the list. South Carolina’s population totals more than five million. Other residents include a variety of wildlife, bird, reptile, and fish species, including Ursus americanus (black bears), Alligator mississippiensis (American alligators), and Tursiops truncatus (bottlenose dolphins). More than 100 tree species also reside in South Carolina, which pays homage to one with its “The Palmetto State” nickname. South Carolina’s subtropical climate, long coastline, and lower elevations make it highly susceptible to tornado and hurricane activity and coastal flooding. Projected sea-level rise is a growing concern. A view from space can help monitor and manage natural resources on the land and in rivers, marshes, and the coast. Landsat reveals not just what an area looks like now, but also insights from decades ago.

South Carolina↗
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.