Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2007 The Affinities and Disparities within: Community and Status of the African American Slave Population at Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina Amy C. Kowal
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
THE AFFINITIES AND DISPARITIES WITHIN: COMMUNITY AND STATUS
OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SLAVE POPULATION AT CHARLES PINCKNEY
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
By
AMY C. KOWAL
A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2007
Copyright © 2007 Amy C. Kowal All Rights Reserved The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Amy C. Kowal defended on
December 14, 2006.
______Glen H. Doran Professor Directing Dissertation
______Dennis Moore Outside Committee Member
______Joseph Hellweg Committee Member
______Bennie C. Keel Committee Member
Approved:
______Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology
______Joseph Travis, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii This dissertation is dedicated to
Bill Kowal
for all his love and support.
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the significant influence and exemplar of several people. My advisor through both my masters and doctorate education is Glen H. Doran. His advice and encouragement throughout my graduate education has been invaluable. I am thankful for his offers of assistance and collaboration on his projects. His intellectual and emotional support is much appreciated. I wish to thank Bennie C. Keel whose support, time, and knowledge greatly assisted me with this dissertation. He serves as an exemplary role model, counselor, teacher, and colleague. I am grateful for his continuing guidance and assistance in my career. I am indebted to Dennis Moore as one of my mentors. His teaching of slave narratives proved an inspiration to my outlook and approach of slavery and archaeology. I cherish his enthusiasm and attitude. I attempt to model myself after him with similar passion. I also wish to thank Joseph Hellweg for serving as a committee member and for his comments on the dissertation. I am appreciative of the late J. Kathryn Josserand for her professional and personal guidance and encouragement over the years and wish she could have provided her opinion and comments on the manuscript. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the Southeast Archeological Center for their support and advice. This research was supported through my employment with the Center. I am thankful for the support of the Department of Anthropology, Florida State University as well. My parents, Ronald and the late Caroline Sobierajski, I am ever so thankful to them for instilling in me the independence and confidence that made this achievement possible. They bestowed the values and spirit in me I find indispensable in my life. There are no words to properly thank my husband, Bill Kowal, for his vital support of my professional career and personal fulfillment. I am forever grateful that he is there for me.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... ix Abstract ...... xi
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1. SNEE FARM: ITS SETTING AND HISTORY ...... 11
Introduction ...... 11 Natural Setting ...... 11 The Colonial Era ...... 13 The Pinckney Era ...... 14 The Post-Pinckney Era ...... 20
2. SLAVE NARRATIVES AS A SITE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN AUTONOMY ...... 23
Slave Narratives and Cultural Patterns ...... 23 Slave Naming Practices ...... 24 The Slave Family ...... 27 Marriage in the Slave Community ...... 28 The Slave Community of Snee Farm ...... 32 Summary ...... 35
3. THE COMMUNITY PHENOMENON ...... 37
The Slave Community and Identity ...... 37 The Ethnic Group and Identity ...... 38 Community and Agency ...... 40 Consumption Theory and the Community...... 46
4. A MODEL OF SLAVE LIFE ...... 50
Self-Identification ...... 51 The Task System ...... 53 History of African American Studies ...... 55 Model of Slave Life ...... 66 Methodology ...... 68
5. THE SNEE FARM COMMUNITY ...... 72 The Slaves of Snee Farm ...... 73 Archaeological History of Snee Farm...... 75 Ceramic Studies ...... 99
v The Community and Neighboring Sites ...... 110
CONCLUSION...... 113
APPENDIX A...... 119
APPENDIX B ...... 162
REFERENCES ...... 173
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 184
vi LIST OF TABLES
1. Individual slaves and their families from Charles Pinckney II’s 1787 estate ...... 34
2. Individual slaves named in Charles Pinckney III’s 1818 will ...... 34
3. Names used by the Pinckney Family ...... 35
4. Community and consumption methodology ...... 48
5. Model of a slave community methodology ...... 69
6. Slave occupations from 1787 estate and 1818 will...... 74
7. Snee Farm structures and their mean ceramic dates ...... 82
8. Area B, Structure 1 artifacts...... 85
9. Area B, Structure 2 artifacts...... 86
10. Area B, Structure 3 artifacts...... 87
11. Area B, Structure 4 artifacts...... 89
12. Structure 16 mean ceramic dates ...... 91
13. Structure 14 mean ceramic dates ...... 93
14. Structure 13 mean ceramic dates ...... 94
15. Structure 13 functional groups ...... 95
16. Structure 17 mean ceramic dates ...... 98
17. Porcelain assemblage ...... 104
18. Refined earthenware assemblage ...... 106
19. Utilitarian wares assemblage ...... 107
20. Colonoware assemblage ...... 108
21. Individual structure assemblages ...... 109
vii 22. Community ceramic assemblages ...... 111
23. Model of a slave community methodology ...... 115
24. Area B artifact assemblage ...... 120
25. Structure 16 artifact assemblage ...... 122
26. Structure 14 artifact assemblage ...... 125
27. Structure 13 artifact assemblage ...... 137
28. Structure 17 artifact assemblage ...... 149
29. Area B, slave village ceramic assemblage ...... 163
30. Structure 16, domestic slave ceramic assemblage ...... 165
31. Structure 14, overseer’s ceramic assemblage ...... 167
32. Structure 13, kitchen ceramic assemblage ...... 169
33. Structure 17, Pinckney house ceramic assemblage ...... 171
viii LIST OF FIGURES
1. Charles Pinckney National Historic Site ...... 2
2. Map depicting the location of Snee Farm ...... 12
3. The Snee Farm Pinckney family’s genealogy through the fifth generation ...... 15
4. Governor Charles Pinckney III ...... 16
5. 1818 plat of Snee Farm and surrounding properties ...... 21
6. 1818 plat of Snee Farm ...... 76
7. 1844 plat of Snee Farm showing the slave village in the lower center ...... 76
8. Archaeological features of Charles Pinckney National Historic Site ...... 78
9. Area B, the slave quarters area, excavations ...... 79
10. Silver demitasse spoon with the initials ‘CFP,’ Charles and Francis Pinckney ...... 81
11. Area B, Structure 1, a field slave quarter ...... 84
12. Area B, Structure 2, a field slave quarter ...... 85
13. Area B, Structure 3, a field slave quarter ...... 87
14. Area B, Structure 4, a field slave quarter ...... 88
15. Site map depicting eastern and southern structures and excavations ...... 89
16. Photograph of Structure 16 ...... 90
17. Photograph of Structure 16 ...... 91
18. Photograph of Structure 14 ...... 92
19. Structure 14 south extension brick pier ...... 92
20. The kitchen, structure 13, in the forefront, and structure 14, the overseer’s house, as seen from the main house ...... 94
21. Structure 17 located underneath the existing residence ...... 96
ix 22. 1998 field crew in hazardous materials gear ...... 96
x ABSTRACT
The dissertation investigates how patterns of consumption reflect internal patterns of social hierarchy among the enslaved plantation community and what were the degrees of resistance and accommodation of those enslaved and their structure in relation to white plantation owners. Family, community, customs and practices, religion, and settlement patterns are the factors used to interpret the African American presence at Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina and to perform a regional comparison with similar plantations of the period. This study utilizes ethnological, archaeological, historical, and physical resources to determine status differences within this slave community. Its strength is the use of a holistic and interdisciplinary approach along with the integration of anthropological and archaeological agency and consumer theories. To determine how enslaved Africans defined their community and daily lives utilizing a comprehensive, multidisciplinary method is necessary. Analysis of consumption patterns through archaeological evidence reveals interactions between slaves and other peoples defining the ranges and boundaries of the enslaved community and its elements of resistance. Agency and consumer theories provide an explanation of how individuals possess the ownership of choice and the ability of anthropologists to characterize populations in terms of their own community through the factors deemed most important by the members’ own standards in the face of outside pressures. This research provides the ability to compare this community with others in the United States aiding in the development of a theory of modern African American ethnicity formation. Ultimately, this study will contribute to African Diaspora research as more investigations are undertaken with Atlantic populations and large cultural patterns of the African Diaspora are described.
xi INTRODUCTION
Anthropologists are constantly searching for the reasons behind human actions and choices. Their objective is to understand cultural meanings behind social patterns, economic choices, ideological thoughts, and political decisions of a people or person. This proves more difficult in archaeology as the people studied are not there to observe. In historic times archaeologists have the benefit of documentary evidence and historical accounts to assist them in hypothesizing about the ways of life of past peoples. This benefit is also a detriment as historical documents are as biased as archaeologists are themselves. In addition to these writings, archaeologists identify patterns of artifacts and features to test their ideas based on writings, other archaeological findings, and ethnographic accounts. These patterns are then used to develop theories on human culture and its elements.
Problem Orientation
This is an investigation of the patterns of consumption that reflect internal designs of social hierarchy among the enslaved plantation community and the hierarchical structure in relation to the white plantation owners. Also examined are the degrees of resistance and accommodation those enslaved exhibited. Family, community, customs and practices, religion, and settlement patterns are the factors used to characterize the African American presence at Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina of the National Park Service (NPS) [Figure 1] and perform a regional comparison with similar plantations of the period. This study utilizes ethnographic, archaeological, historical, literary, and physical resources to determine status differences within this slave community. Its strength is the use of a holistic and interdisciplinary approach along with the integration of anthropological and archaeological
1 FIGURE 1. Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (Photo by J. Jones; courtesy of NPS). theories of agency and consumption. To determine how enslaved Africans lived within their community and daily lives utilizing a comprehensive, multidisciplinary study is necessary. Analysis of consumption patterns through archaeological evidence reveals interactions between slaves and other peoples delineating the ranges and boundaries of the enslaved community and its elements of resistance and accommodation. Agency and consumer theory explain how individuals possess the ownership of choice and the ability of a population to define its own community through the factors deemed most important by its own standards in the face of outside pressures. The immediate result of this research is a depiction of the African American community determined from its own perspective and not of the dominant white planters. This study provides the ability to compare this community with others in the eastern United States aiding in the development of a theory of modern African American ethnicity formation. Ultimately, this study
2 will contribute to African Diaspora research as more investigations are undertaken with Atlantic populations and large cultural patterns of the African Diaspora are defined.
Research Questions
These questions were determined from current studies of African American archaeology and the observation that previous studies were often dominated from the viewpoint of the white- dominated hegemony that existed in the 18th and 19th centuries on southern plantations. Most recently in the profession, archaeologists have strived to define African American sites from their own point-of-view and not simply describing the sites and their remains (Otto 1980; Schuyler 1980; Singleton 1985, 1999; Ferguson 1992; Heath 2001; Orser 2001). The most promising ideas of self-determination come from studies of resistance and consumer theories (Singleton 1985; Spencer-Wood 1987; Gibb 1996; Smith 1996). Few studies take the approach of defining the slave community and the values that are important to the members of the community (Friedlander 1985; Thomas 1998; Young 2000). Many are simply descriptions of the evidentiary remains as early studies were and not what these remains tell us about the community. Another significant absence is in the evidence itself. While these theories are dominated by archaeological and primary and secondary historical evidence, I propose to supplement these with slave narratives. Slave narratives provide a primary source of information of the values, beliefs, and customs important to individuals within slave society and are overlooked in archaeological studies. There are five distinct research questions investigated in this dissertation. 1) What are the chief elements of the African American community at Snee Farm as defined by the slaves themselves? 2) What is the status of African Americans in this community and did African Americans impose their own social hierarchy in their community? 3) Were African American slaves at Snee Farm consumers in their community? 4) Is there evidence of autonomy behavior in the slave community at Snee Farm? 5) Do other African Americans from plantations in the area demonstrate similar community definitions to Snee Farm community? In order to determine what are the chief elements of the African American community at Snee Farm and how these people constructed their own community in the face of the oppression
3 of slavery, first ‘community’ must be defined. Anthropology has always looked for the meaning behind actions, thoughts, and materials according to the people of the culture being studied. Archaeology should do the same and interpret the past from the individuals present in that community at that time. For an investigation focused on a community level it is important to concentrate on a small area and keep in mind the interaction that occurred at the time of occupation. Using white hegemonic values to define a slave society is an incorrect approach traditionally found in historical studies and early anthropological studies of southern American plantations. This research design requires an interpretation of the site(s) from values important to slaves and not the dominant white values. For example, previous research states that status differences existed between slaves from historical accounts and material culture. It is possible that this interpretation is simply a reflection of the dominant planter class (Thomas 1998). To establish the validity of this idea a determination of the elements that are important to the enslaved members of the community should lead researchers to the existence of status levels. What values then are important to the African Americans at Snee Farm? Using historical, archaeological, and literary sources will establish essential beliefs of slaves at that time and those that can be found archaeologically at Snee Farm and a model of the slave community can be developed. A comparison can then be conducted between the slaves and the white planters to define which values were most important to African Americans of that time and place. Previous studies have found elements of differing settlement patterns, culinary practices, and material culture as shared practices found in African American sites (Joyner 1977; Lewis 1985; Moore 1985; Ferguson 1992; Singleton 1995; Scott 1998, Thomas 1998). Determining these elements on a community scale instead of a single site should result in a discovery that individuals are not identical but share the same beliefs and ideology. Status is an area of study that has been investigated in African American archaeology previously (Otto 1977; Moore 1985; Singleton 1995, 1996; Andrews and Fenton 2001). What is the status of African Americans in this community and are all slaves a part of same social class? The use of the comparative method to find differences and similarities in the material culture of the planters, domestic slaves, and field slaves at Snee Farm should determine if a hierarchy was present at this site. Further evaluation of similar plantations in the area should define regional status differences. Considerations regarding hierarchy must be acknowledged. The existence of social and economic differences was apparent to planters as is evident in historical accounts from
4 the period; whether or not these class differences existed within the slave community is actually unknown. As previously stated, the white hegemony imposed a hierarchy on slaves with domestic servants exhibiting a higher status than field slaves while overseers and planters were dominant over both, and few archaeological studies have investigated whether or not African Americans imposed their own social hierarchy in their community (Thomas 1998). Methodologically status differences can be found in studying the housing and ceramic evidence. Traditional research used ceramics as an indicator of status for both whites and blacks. An examination of the ceramic assemblage of all site areas will be conducted for differences and similarities in percentages of types and for types found in slave quarters that normally are not. Additionally other artifacts found in the slave quarters such as beads, coins, arms, utensils, and furnishings will be employed to assess social status. Settlement patterns and architectural evidence also demonstrate differences in status among community members. An analysis of Snee Farm’s field quarters' and domestic quarters' construction and comparison to other plantation buildings will establish the structures’ designers and builders and if hierarchy existed and was imposed at the plantation. Disparities would indicate the presence of classes, and similarities to the main house and each other would signify a lack of hierarchy or possibly that the planter chose to exhibit his own high social status. In archaeology a major portion of evidence of human behavior is material culture. Slavery is an institution that would deny the possession of material culture except necessities of food, shelter, and clothing to those it embraced. Archaeologists have found both similarities and differences in the material culture of African American slaves and even their dominant Euroamerican oppressors. Clarifying how slaves acquired their material possessions is a difficult task as historical inventories of slave material culture are absent. Previous research indicates that the white masters provided their slaves with the necessities. What then accounts for unique items found on slave sites and the presence of the same materials as located on planter sites? Is it possible that African American slaves were consumers in their community? Disparities between the material culture of slaves and planters may demonstrate personal preferences of consumers, physical manifestations of social and/or economic status, or resistance to the white hegemony imposed upon them (Miller 1991; Crass and Brooks 1995; Gibb 1996; Leone and Potter 1999; Mullins 1999a, 1999b). Paul Mullins demonstrates this theory in the free black community of Annapolis, Maryland. He found artifacts unique to the African American
5 community and also personal preferences for specific brand name products. A free black American obviously had the ability to purchase and choose their possessions, but was this possible for slaves as well? Earlier studies provide accounts of slaves who hired out their labor, sold products they crafted, and sold food goods they grew, raised, or hunted on their free time; therefore, it is certainly possible that the African Americans at Snee Farm were consumers as well as producers at the plantation (Wood 1975; Joyner 1977; Otto 1977; Carney 2001). A regional comparison will also be conducted to determine if unique artifacts are anomalies and likely are purchased products. Is there evidence of resistance behavior and autonomy in the slave community at Snee Farm? Resistance can be defined as action or inaction against the status quo by an individual, group, or community. Archaeologists look for artifacts and patterns that defy the dominant ideology present at the site. In African American archaeology, resistance can be determined from the presence of similarities to planters in slave areas that may show equality to higher social class. Differences reinforce the social hierarchy. Artifacts typically associated with African American resistance include glass beads, ammunition, charms, buttons, faunal material, and colonoware (Ferguson 1992; Singleton 1995; Stine et.al. 1996). Features indicating manipulation of the slave landscape include storage pits, yards, and gardens (Lewis, K.E. 1985), and practices include culinary techniques (Ferguson 1992; Scott 1998). In this study, ceramics, including colonoware, present at Snee Farm will be reviewed to determine the existence of resistant behavior or accommodation within this particular community. Do other African Americans from plantations in the area demonstrate similar community definitions, social hierarchy, and resistance as compared to the slaves of Snee Farm? An assessment of community values would be incomplete without investigating if similar evidence exists at other archaeological sites and rice plantations located in the coastal area of South Carolina. Theoretically if values of family, social relations, consumerism, and resistance are present within one community, similar values should be evident at other sites of analogous contexts. There is a wealth of archaeological and historical data available for study from this area that will be used as comparative data to assess African American communities in Low Country South Carolina.
6 Dissertation Approach
Multiple types of evidence are used in this study to determine the construction of the slave community at Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm. The focus of the research will be limited to the era of the Pinckney family occupation of Snee Farm, 1754-1818. There is little documentary and archaeological evidence of the site prior to this period, and sometime after Governor Charles Pinckney sold the farm in 1818, many of the structures were razed thus providing a terminus ante quem for many of the plantation structures. Evidence investigated will include archaeological remains from the site, historical documents regarding the Pinckney family and the site, secondary sources regarding slave life during the 18th and 19th centuries, literary sources including slave narratives to identify important cultural elements and values of African Americans, and other archaeological studies of African American sites and plantations from similar contexts. A description of the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site and its physical setting at the time of site occupation compose Chapter 1. A history of the land, the Pinckney family, and their slaves at Snee Farm is included. In order to accurately assess cultural patterns and site elements, it is necessary to present basic information regarding the farm and the general area, their roles in Low Country economics and politics, and their association with the port city of Charleston, South Carolina. Chapter 2 investigates the use of slave narratives to define African American cultural patterns, including naming practices, marriage, and kinship relations, from the former slaves’ point-of-view. Documentary evidence of the Pinckney family is analyzed to derive views about their slaves. It proposes that anthropologists use this evidence in conjunction with archaeological remains to discover the power and resistance that slave communities exhibited despite the oppression they endured. In conjunction with historical literature and the slave narrative evidence from Chapter 2, an idea of the daily struggles slaves endured can be formulated. A complete picture of slave life is not possible from these sources alone; there are many biases in this literature, and it is not known if they accurately represent slave life. To complete the model, an overview of a few anthropological theories is presented in Chapter 3. Specifically addressed are community theory and identity, agency and individualism, and consumption theory.
7 In Chapter 4 a model of slave life will be developed from two types of sources, historical and literary accounts of slavery as well as anthropological research. The primary objective of this chapter is to describe the slave community through its own interpretation. These sources are used to determine the cultural values most important to the slaves themselves. In the domain of history there has been a wealth of research on the daily lives of slaves (Genovese 1974; Wood 1975; Blassingame 1979). Within this discussion is a presentation of the economics of southern plantations during the mid-18th through the early 19th century in coastal South Carolina. As Snee Farm was a working rice plantation during this time, a brief presentation of rice cultivation, water and road transportation, and their importance to the farm’s economy and social structure will also be included. The plantation economy was centered on the enslaved labor force, specifically on the task system. Slaves’ daily lives revolved around the demands of their masters and the needs of the farm; however, Africans within the task system did not work from dawn to dusk. There was time after daily chores were completed to engage in other activities, including social, religious, political, and economic. Also included in this chapter is an investigation of hierarchy incorporating agency, social, and economic status theories from African American archaeological studies. There is no question that a social hierarchy existed on southern plantations. It is not known if from the slave’s point of view a social hierarchy was present within their own community. Historical data leads to the belief that there was a status difference between the domestic slave and the field laborer, but few have investigated this archaeologically (Otto 1980; Friedlander 1985). Previous research of the status of slaves from archaeological, historical, and ethnographic data will be used to determine the existence of intercommunity hierarchy at Snee Farm and elsewhere in the following chapter. Material culture is one of the primary data sources in archaeological investigations as its deposition is the result of consumption and disposal of materials in the past. Within this chapter archaeological consumer theory is applied to slave communities despite the known restrictions placed upon their members. Slaves possessed the ability to purchase and consume products and manipulate their environment despite the oppression they endured. The use of the task system of labor provided slaves the ability to hire their skills out for payment in cash and commodities. Free time gained from this labor system also allowed slaves to hunt, fish, garden, raise livestock, and craft items all for sale. Examples from archaeology, history, and ethnography will
8 demonstrate that consumer theory is relevant to African American slaves and analytical results will show that consumerism transpired at Snee Farm in Chapter 5. Resistance and accommodation theory in African American archaeology applies consumer theory in its study. This chapter discusses specifically what evidence there is for resistance on African American archaeological sites, in literature, and historical data. At the conclusion of Chapter 4 after the presentation of historical, literary, and anthropological evidence, a model of slave life will be presented that can be archaeologically tested to determine if the predictors on slave hierarchy, consumption, and resistance existed. Chapter 5 is a presentation of the archaeological data from the Charles Pinckney site pertaining to Pinckney’s slaves. As this site was excavated periodically from 1987-2000, a summary of the archaeological investigations, their goals and results will initiate this chapter. A discussion of the settlement pattern and areas of the site that this dissertation will focus on, the field slave quarters, the domestic slave quarters, the kitchen, the overseer’s house, and the planter’s main house. The material culture data for each area of the site to be discussed are kitchen items including historic ceramics and glassware, personal artifacts such as clothing items, accessories, and tobacco pipes, architectural material, and subsistence data from fauna and flora. Each of these groups will be analyzed for items only found in certain areas and items shared found in multiple locations. A comparison will be conducted to assess the similarities and differences between field slaves, domestic slaves, the overseer, and the white planters. Patterns discovered here from settlement and material culture data will be used to test the ideas developed from the model of slave life outlined in the previous chapter. The second half of the chapter will compare data from surrounding plantations in the Charleston area to the data from Snee Farm. Once again the model of slave life will be tested to determine if archaeological evidence from slave sites coincides with historical and literary information that formulated the model. In conclusion the final chapter of the dissertation will summarize the results from the archaeological testing of the slave life model based on historical data and community, hierarchy, consumer, and resistance theories to determine if this approach is a relevant method to discuss and predict slave lifeways. Ongoing professional discussions appeal for future archaeological studies to incorporate African American viewpoints in their research design and outcomes. Public archaeology implores research to include the descendants in the development of projects
9 (Epperson 1999). In this case, the archaeology has been completed at Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm; however, this does not mean that the interpretation of the results cannot incorporate public desires and an African American point-of-view.
Significance and Contribution of Study
African American archaeology has a short history in anthropology, and it is proving to be a significant subject of historical archaeology. The future of this topic lies in interpreting sites from the African American point-of-view. Stereotypes and assumptions must be challenged including consumption, production, cultural processes, creativity, and social relations (Wilkie 2004). Through discovering the elements important to individuals enslaved in this system and using these elements to interpret archaeological remains, an accurate depiction of slave life and community can be identified. This study seeks to accomplish such an interpretation and determine African American values and influence on others within the community as well. A community study allows for comparisons to be made on similar levels elsewhere. Individual site comparisons do not provide as complete a picture of slave life. People did not live on a single site; even as slaves, they visited other farms, visited nearby cities and markets, and hired their skills out for payment. The interactions of slaves included many more people than simply those that lived on the same farm, but were with all members within their community. Historical, archaeological, and literary evidence provide the means to define the boundaries of the slave community and the interactions they participated in. Once African American slave communities, elements, and values are delineated, comparison can lead to future research regarding ethnicity formation processes as well as African Diaspora studies. Large community studies of different areas of early America will compose data for regional analysis and contribute to the African Diaspora. As many cultures compose the African American ethnic group, a community based study can provide the benefit of isolating elements that are shared among different locations according to the ports and origins of the individuals in the slave trade. Due to the number of cultures involved, some elements will be shared, many should differ, and interpreting them in terms of their context will be a challenge to anthropologists in the future.
10 CHAPTER 1
SNEE FARM: ITS SETTING AND HISTORY
Introduction
The hot and humid coastal setting of the rural lowcountry of South Carolina provided the ideal venue for rice plantations, and a perfect haven from the city for Charleston residents in the eighteenth century. Just fifteen miles outside the former state capital is Snee Farm; the Pinckneys “country seat” was purchased by Col. Charles Pinckney in 1754. Here slaves cultivated rice and raised livestock on the original 715 acres largely without the supervision of their masters, as Col. Charles Pinckney and then his son Gov. Charles Pinckney were often absent from the farm due to occupational, military, and political service. With the assistance of an overseer, the farm prospered early in its history, then fell into disrepair and was sold in 1817 to settle Gov. Pinckney’s debts. Snee Farm was declared the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site in 1991, and is currently administered by the National Park Service (NPS). The park’s mission includes preserving and educating the public about Gov. Pinckney and his life as well as enlightening visitors about all occupants of Snee Farm, including the slaves that lived, farmed, and built the plantation at the time (National Park Service [NPS] N.D.b:2).
Natural Setting
Snee Farm is situated in Christ Church Parish, which is part of the Wando Neck region of the lowcountry, bordered by the Wando River to the north, the Cooper River to the west, the Awendaw Creek to the East and the Atlantic Ocean to the south (Figure 2). This is the tidewater area of coastal South Carolina that is quite suitable for farming rice. The parish is in the Atlantic Coastal Plain with an elevation range of sea level to 70 feet above in its undulations of beach ridge plains. During the Pleistocene the area was a coniferous forest primarily of oak
11 FIGURE 2. Map depicting the location of Snee Farm (Courtesy of NPS and ESRI). and hickory. A Maritime Forest was established 3,000 years ago of oak, palmetto, and pine. The environment began to change at the beginning of the Holocene with the climate becoming warmer, temperate forest disappearing, and the extinction of the megafauna. Now the area floras consist of grassy plains with a forest of pine, oak, and mixed hardwoods. The region is traditionally inhabited by small mammals including white-tailed deer, panther, bobcat, wolf, and black bear. Other fauna present at the time of European settlement were raccoons, squirrel, skunk, opossum, muskrat, mink, beaver, alligator, Eastern box turtle, and numerous birds, shellfish, and fish. The land of Snee Farm is relatively flat with a fourteen foot slope from its eastern boundary to its western boundary. The region’s soils are typically sandy to loamy and poorly drained, however at the farm are found Charleston Loamy Fine Sand, Scranton Loamy Find Sand, and Yonges Loamy Fine Sand all well drained soils. The low slopes and well drained soils of the tidewater areas on the farm are an ideal setting for rice cultivation while the drier land above was used for planting indigo. The lowcountry climate is quite warm with high relative humidity rates, and winter daily temperatures averaging 54º F and summer highs averaging 76º F. Snow is rare in the winter season. Natural disasters do occur, namely hurricanes, on a regular basis that can destroy homes
12 and property, trees and smaller flora, and fauna including marine resources. During the colonial and revolutionary periods, Charleston experienced nine major hurricanes with devastating affects in the area (Matthews 2004:54-55).
The Colonial Era
Colonial life in the South Carolina lowcountry centered on the bustling city of Charles Town (now Charleston). The city was the center of importing trade goods, shipbuilding, and exporting the colony’s agricultural products from 1730 to 1820 (Rogers 1980:3). The city was founded in 1670, but moved to its present location 10 years later. Early on the deerskin trade between the colonists and Native Americans of the local and backcountry propelled the colony’s economy. Rice overcame the Indian trade in the 1730s remaining a profitable commodity until replaced by Sea Island cotton and backcountry cotton at the turn of the century. At the time rice was established in the tidewater region, Great Britain established the royal government in Charles Town. It was also during this period that the importation of slaves grew rapidly as the success of rice cultivation required mass amounts of labor to fuel the profit motives of the white planter class. Social ties became the basis of the new colony for all people and in all avenues of society. Marriage and family of course were of chief importance to solidify the social organization of the new settlers. For slaves marriage provided a socially sanctioned method of establishing a family and receiving recognition from slaveholders of their humanity, cooperation, and commitment. The importance of marriage and kinship among Africans is further discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Religion was an institution based on social ties, establishing alliances, and creating marriage and social ties. Social ties did not escape the realms of economics and politics. Business alliances and political support were heavily influenced by social relations. Similarities held through marriage, family, economics, and political ideals influenced all action and interaction in the colony. Whether slaves’ beliefs were analogous or contrary to whites’, their social ties affected slaves’ decisions. Slavery and the trading of human lives was a primary economic force during the colonial period of the lowcountry. Their labor was necessary to the plantation economy of the south, especially the rice cultivators including the Pinckneys. The city of Charleston served as the chief
13 southern port of the slave trade for the English colonies. From here slaves were sold in the markets and shipped throughout America. The majority arrived via the Caribbean; some slaves were from the Caribbean islands, but most came from West African ports. Their origins are for the most part unknown, especially those of individuals, but the African slaves were members of many cultures of Africa, west, central, north, east, and south. They had lives, families, cultures, traditions, and beliefs. White Americans made their fortunes on the sale, knowledge, and labor of these enslaved peoples. Although the importation of slaves halted in 1808, the practice remained until emancipation in 1861. Forever the institution will shape the lives of African Americans, and remain a part of the history of this country. The parish and religion played an important role during the colonial area of the lowcountry. Great Britain established the Church of England as the official Church of South Carolina 1706 (Gregorie 1961:5). The state was divided into parishes whose churches served as public centers, government buildings, and meeting houses. Public notices were posted at the church, which also served as a voting center. Christ Church Parish is a little area outside Charleston and was the locale of Snee Farm. The local residents were small farmers and mechanics who had free-ranging livestock, hunted wild game, sold skins and hides, made lime and mortar from shells, and produced turpentine, tar, and lumber to supplement their incomes. Most parishioners were not wealthy people. There was never a large population in the parish as many lived in the city of Charleston and had rural farms in the neighboring parishes including Christ Church. In 1721 the parish population consisted of 107 families with 400 people and 637 slaves (Gregorie 1961:25). Over time the parish membership declined. In the mid-eighteenth century there were only 53 families in the parish, and by 1821 only 52 people were members, 12 whites and 40 blacks.
The Pinckney Era
The Pinckneys first arrived in the American colonies in 1692, when Thomas came from Bishop Auckland, England via Jamaica. (The following information is from Williams' A Founding Family: The Pinckneys of South Carolina unless otherwise cited.) He purchased land in Charles Town and established himself as a merchant. His second wife, Mary Cotesworth,
14 Thomas Mary Pinckney I Cotesworth
Thomas Eliza Lucas Charles Elizabeth William Ruth Pinckney II Pinckney I Lamb Pinckney Brewton
Charles Cotesworth Thomas Thomas Col. Charles Frances Pinckney Pinckney IV Pinckney III Pinckney II Brewton
Thomas Rebecca Gov. Charles Mary Eleanor Miles Brewton Pinckney V Pinckney Pinckney III Laurens Pinckney
Frances Henrietta Mary Eleanor Henry Laurens Pinckney Pinckney Pinckney
FIGURE 3. The Snee Farm Pinckney family’s genealogy through the fifth generation (after Williams 1978). bore three sons, Thomas (II), Charles (I), and William. Each son chose a different career: Thomas was a ship captain, Charles a lawyer and a public servant, and William a merchant. As the family grew so did their influence, property, and wealth in Charles Town and the surrounding parishes. Charles, as a public servant, served as a member of the House of Commons in South Carolina’s General Assembly and as Attorney General, setting the foundation for the future Pinckney males’ political involvement. The family’s wealth, influence, and social ties gained them entry into Charles Town’s aristocracy. Charles later became Speaker of the House and commander of the city, also establishing military service in the family. His wife, Eliza Lucas Pinckney was an intelligent woman who managed three plantations, was a teacher to slave children, and was the founder of the indigo industry in the state of South Carolina. The husband and wife were very successful and had two children, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Thomas Pinckney (IV). Eliza managed all their plantations and affairs after Charles’ (I) death in 1758. William, Charles’ brother, had married Ruth Brewton and had two children of their own Thomas
15 FIGURE 4. Governor Charles Pinckney III (Courtesy of NPS).
(III) and Charles (II). William, a merchant and major, was not as successful as his older brother and sent his son Charles (II) to live with his uncle Charles (I) and his aunt Eliza to educate and raise. Charles (II) received his education in England as was the custom in the colonies, and embarked on a law career like his uncle and mentor. Later he became a colonel in the colonial militia and is henceforth referred to as Col. Charles Pinckney. Col. Pinckney married Frances Brewton and the couple has four children: Thomas (V), Rebecca, Charles (III), and Miles Brewton. Charles (III), born on October 26, 1757, continued in the footsteps of his father Col. Charles Pinckney and his great uncle Charles (II) and became a lawyer, member of the military, and held numerous public offices including governor (Williams 1978:15). He henceforth will be referred to as Gov. Charles Pinckney (Figure 4). Col. Pinckney also became a widely respected lawyer and politician in the state of South Carolina from the general public as leader of the General Assembly’s lower house. Here the revolutionary seeds were sown in the state as the colonists protested royal control over the area’s land and economy. The Revolutionary Period proved a tumultuous time for the colonists of South Carolina. All did not desire independence as most settlers shared the same religion, the state established Church of England. Some French Huguenots, other Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Jews did live in Charles Town, but were free to practice in their own establishments. The motive for revolution in this state lay in the political and economic domains (Rogers 1980:40). The House
16 of Commons and its constituents resented the royal governor and other crown officials. The House based itself on the English House of Commons and received power and recognition from the crown. It became a force affecting the power of the royal governor and council led by Col. Charles Pinckney. Although the House itself had limited colonial power, the organization of the people in this form provided a sanctioned avenue to express opposition to royal taxes, decrees, and policies. The threats of taxes and limited political power and representation drove the colonists to join the American Revolution. As the revolution began, the state of South Carolina needed to develop a plan of government and leaders to maintain state order. Both Col. Pinckney and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney assisted in drafting the state government plan. Col. Pinckney was appointed a state Privy Council, elected to the Legislative Council, and later becomes state senator and senate president. Along with the two senior Pinckney gentlemen, Charles Pinckney III who at this time was 18 years old, joined the Charles Town militia with his father and uncle and fought for independence. These troops saw much action as the port of Charles Town was closed to merchant traffic by royal embargos and then attacked by sea by the British navy. As a young man, Charles (III) follows his father in the political realm and is elected as a state representative for Christ Church Parish by him and his overseer as the only voters on a stormy election day (Rogers 1980:123). Just as in the Civil War years later, the trek to independence split families apart, and the Pinckneys were no different. Control of Charles Town falls to the British and the colonists are left with choices to make. Col. Pinckney desired to protect his family and property and sought protection from the British. He publicly denounces the American rebellion and is allowed to keep his property and stay in his Charles Town home at 2 Orange Street (Matthews 2004:22-23); however, Snee Farm is taken by the British as a prison camp. At the same time his son along with General Moultrie are imprisoned on a ship anchored in Charles Town harbor. Here Charles (III) establishes his rebellious roots as he drafts a letter denouncing the conditions the American officers are subjected to by the British on the prison ship. It is at the moment a split is wedged between father and son and the future economic problems of this Pinckney family begin. In the year 1782 Col. Pinckney dies after he faced the consequences of his denouncement of the revolution. Once the state of South Carolina regained control all those who sought British protection were subjected to financial penalties. Col. Pinckney was forced to pay a 12%
17 amercement of his property value of £53,000 to the state (Matthews 2004:24). Charles (III) was left to pay the fines after his father’s death. Documents from the colonel’s will allow us a glimpse into the lives of the Pinckney family. In the will Col. Pinckney directed that the debts would be settled by selling land and 60 of his “worst” slaves (Matthews 2004:24), while the prominent mansion on Queen Street was given to Charles (III) along with other city lots. The remainder of his estate was divided amongst his wife and children. In this will is the first historical evidence of the Pinckney slaves. Difficulties are encountered here because the slaves listed are some of those owned by Col. Pinckney and it is not certain which of them resided on Snee Farm. Details of these slaves are discussed in depth in Chapter 2. After the Revolution, Charles Pinckney III began his road to political success. At 29 years of age he was one of the youngest members of the Constitutional Convention, and penned his own draught of the Constitution (Matthews 2004:39). A copy of this original draft of the US Constitution was never saved at the time, and Pinckney rewrote it years later upon request from federal archivists. Within this draft Pinckney became a proponent for the general public recognizing equality amongst most people and opposing establishment of recognized classes of aristocracy and commoners as in British law. Those not recognized as having equal civil rights were women, non-whites, and those who did not own property. In his own state of South Carolina he continued to fight for commoners’ rights and support the backcountry, yeoman farmers, and industrious populations while holding many public offices. Charles (III) was a true “southern gentleman” and thoroughly defended the institution of slavery. In the Constitutional debates, Pinckney based his argument citing historical examples from Greece and Rome. Although he was knowledgeable of the role African Americans played in the American Revolution, Pinckney did not support the discontinuation of slavery or bestowing civil rights to non-whites or African Americans. The Constitution was ratified in South Carolina due to the support of the lowcountry, an area dominated by the wealthy, elite voting men. Charles (III) did not marry until 1788, when he wed a much younger Mary Eleanor (Polly) Laurens daughter of Henry Laurens a prominent merchant and slave trader. The couple had three children Frances Henrietta, Mary Eleanor, and Henry Laurens. Polly died in 1793 a month after the birth of their youngest son. The family’s primary residence was the Queen Street mansion while in Charleston, and Greenwich plantation outside Columbia, the new state capital as Charles was elected governor in 1789 (Matthews 2004:66). Snee Farm was used as a small
18 place to relax and get away, but was not regularly occupied by the family. In 1791 President George Washington was touring the southern states and visited Snee Farm on his way to meeting Gov. Pinckney in Charleston. In correspondence to Washington Pinckney states: “I must apologize for asking you to call at a place so indifferently furnished where your fare will be entirely that of a farm. It is a place I seldom go to, or things would be in better order” (Matthews 2004:73). President Washington did not stay after all, and breakfasted at Snee Farm prior to an ostentatious weekend prepared by Gov. Pinckney in Charleston. Gov. Pinckney not only remained a devoted politician throughout his life, he also owned many plantations in the lowcountry and a few in the interior. The backcountry plantations grew cotton and tobacco while in the lowcountry rice, lumber, corn, and indigo were grown. The indigo industry bottomed out after 1792 and cost the Pinckneys dearly. Pinckney was a better politician than farmer and his lands and property suffered from his lack of attention and expertise. Serving as Governor four times, United States Senator, and Ambassador to Spain, Pinckney had little time to devote to his agricultural pursuits and gradually his financial misfortunes grew. Just a year after his wife’s death, Gov. Pinckney’s mother also passed on and he inherited her extensive debts further plunging him in the red. Pinckney needed success from his agricultural interests to pay his debts and maintain his style of life. In order to operate his farms and plantations, Pinckney hired overseers to manage the farms and supervise the several slaves he owned, likely 200-300 at one time (Matthews 2004:79). Pinckney’s slaves likely enjoyed a large degree of autonomy due to his absence. In the lowcountry slaves worked within the task system at his rice plantations. In this system the overseer or driver assigns each slave a task everyday, and once the work is completed, the slave is no longer obligated to do more work. Most often if the task is finished early the slave would help others with their tasks. Slaves utilized this free time to tend to their house and family, work private gardens, hunt, fish, and manufacture items needed for the house or to sell. This relative freedom led to a close-knit community amongst the slave families. Free time would also enable slaves to visit neighboring plantations or communities if permitted by the overseer. The slave community had the freedom and ability to develop their own distinct culture in the lowcountry more than anywhere else. In opposition to the freedom enjoyed by lowcountry slaves, inland cotton was the primary crop. The gang system implemented here demanded much slave labor and time as each slave worked long hours alongside each other doing all tasks necessary until they were completed.
19 From sunup to sundown the field laborers worked with little time to enjoy the freedoms their lowcountry counterparts took pleasure in. As a Southern plantation owner, Gov. Pinckney was a fierce proponent of slavery. The increasing labor demands of the cotton industry further demanded perpetual slavery. The lure of profit and the culture of the southern elite blinded the politician from the atrocities and inhumanities the institution bestowed on Africans. Runaway slaves were always a nuisance for their masters whose losses for every runaway included the value of the slave as property, his/her labor and production, and the spirit of freedom and hope that invigorated those slaves left behind. Fueled by the French Revolution, a successful slave uprising occurred in Haiti and South Carolina received many of the white refugees that were forced to flee the island (Matthews 2004:77-78). Gov. Pinckney could not send state aid but only request federal assistance on their behalf. The refugees told their stories of bloodshed and fear of all blacks amplified, and Pinckney increased his resolve to enforce a state’s right to determine if the institution continues. Financial problems persisted for Pinckney as US Minister to Spain at the turn of the century. Absent and overseas, his attorney managed his interests in South Carolina at this time. Many creditors sued Pinckney when he was leaving for Spain, and his attorney inadequately managed his finances resulting in further debt upon his return (Matthews 2004:106). During his fourth and final term as Governor, 1806-1809, the economics of South Carolina saw several changes. Cotton became the dominant crop and the backcountry’s power grew proportionately while the lowcountry rice plantations suffered. Pinckney owned several small properties that could not profit, and he ignored his financial problems for years while serving as a public servant. After retiring from political life he could not recover from his fiscal turmoil. Ultimately he relinquished control of his estate to three trustees and was obligated to sell property and slaves to pay creditors.
The Post-Pinckney Era
The trustees advertised Snee Farm for sale in Charleston’s City Gazette and Daily Advertiser as a property of approximately 800 acres with the necessary buildings, 60 head of
20 FIGURE 5. 1818 plat of Snee Farm and surrounding properties (Courtesy of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History). cattle, and the ability to supply Charleston markets (Edgar 1991:6). They sold Snee Farm in 1817 to Francis G. Deliesseline to help satisfy Pinckney’s debts (Figure 5) [Meyer 1998:34]. He in turn sold it in 1828 to a William Gibbes who failed to meet the mortgage; the same year it was sold to William Mathews whose family owned the plantation for many years thereafter. There is little evidence of the farm’s activity during the brief period of Deliesseline’s ownership. Mathews was the first to alter the landscape of the farm, beginning with Pinckney’s main house and some dilapidated outbuildings. These were razed sometime in the late 1820s or 1830s and replaced with the structure that stands there today. Over the years 13 other owners managed the farm until the Friends of Snee Farm, a local group interested in preserving the last intact property of Gov. Charles Pinckney, signed it over to the National Park Service (Lavoie 1991: 4-6). Archaeological evidence gathered by Bennie C. Keel and the National Park Service revealed that the Pinckney era house remains lie directly underneath this existing structure.
21 The South Carolina lowcountry’s economy changed drastically following the state’s Pinckney era. Cotton had become the predominant cash crop in the state with the backcountry serving as the major producer. Charleston never became the port leader for cotton, and its success declined as railroads spread over the landscape and replaced sea travel as the venue for transporting goods. The lowcountry never dominated the economy or politics as it did during the colonial and revolutionary eras as the interior grabbed the reins. Gov. Charles Pinckney died on October 24, 1824 of edema from heart or kidney disease. He left a legacy of a powerful state and influential federal politician. His political achievements included contributing to the U.S. Constitution, creating the Jeffersonian league in South Carolina, serving as Ambassador to Spain, as South Carolina’s Governor four times, as a U.S. Senator, and as a local state representative. Pinckney’s career reflects his “southern gentleman” character as a proponent for state rights, the institution of slavery, and restriction of civil rights to white men. He also advocated for the rights of those men of the backcountry to vote, hold office, and own property just as the elites in the lowcountry. His support of this yeomen class served as the primary reason for his political success in the state. Of course, these civil rights were not extended to other races or genders; Pinckney found women and blacks inferior to white men. He believed women certainly possessed abilities, skills, and intelligence, just not equal to their male counterparts. Although women provided much influence in home business and family affairs, he believed these were the appropriate domains for women to remain, not extending their rights to the political realm or higher business positions. To Africans he would never grant such esteem; although he benefited from their labor and skills, he was incapable of acknowledging their humanity. Gov. Pinckney’s ambition resulted in the severe neglect of his personal affairs. Very few items remain of the Pinckney family era. The Charleston home was torn down; Greenwich plantation in Columbia is in ruins; but Snee Farm has been preserved as a National Historic Site thanks to the Friends of Snee Farm. Although the standing house is not Pinckney’s but one built by a subsequent owner in the 1830s, the archaeological remains and secondary documents from this farm have survived to be studied and tell the story of the Pinckneys and the slaves of their farm.
22 CHAPTER 2
SLAVE NARRATIVES AS A SITE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN AUTONOMY
Slave Narratives and Cultural Patterns
Marriage and family are ideals for American families in general, and African Americans are no different. However, in the history of African American literature, the attainment of marriage and family for a variety of reasons has been difficult to achieve (Stack 1974; Browne 1997). Americans define themselves through family ties of one’s parents or spouse; this is the primary method to determine one’s identity. African Americans have the same desire as well. Slave narratives demonstrate that despite the adversities they faced as slaves, African Americans were able to choose, establish, and define their own kinship relations. Formulation of their kinship organization on their own terms is a social manifestation of the power and autonomy that slaves had in their own communities. Slaves did not achieve power and resistance solely through violence, as historians would lead us to believe (Rushdy 1999:38). Slaves, despite the oppression imposed on them, created their own culture, their own way of life that was not defined by any authority although subject to legal and social restraints. The primary objective for anthropologists studying African Americans is to demonstrate that this group of people had their own ideals, beliefs, and practices unknown to the dominating white class. The search for their evidence and meaning is to be conducted through archaeological, historical, physical, linguistic, ethnographic, and literary evidence. For example, Eugene Genovese uses archaeological evidence to supplement the vast amount of information generations of scholars collected from slave narratives to depict slave home life (1972:524-527). Historical archaeologists have an advantage of studying historic documents to supplement the material culture that they excavate. Archaeological investigations
23 of African American culture must include a study of slave narratives as well as the white historian’s accounts in order to achieve the proper perspective of each of these groups. Therefore, scholars have established a new historiography of African American culture centered on the analysis of slave narratives and newly available primary sources that demonstrate this self-defined history of Black identity and community (Rushdy 1999:39). One can depict cultural resistance using various African American practices regarding family and marriage, including the ceremony, naming practices, the decision on whom to marry, sexual relations, the practice of raising children, and the identification of kin. Slave narratives and oral histories all address these cultural attributes as does the new historiography that Rushdy previously identified. Slave narratives do not simply include the autobiographical accounts of former slaves; oral histories told by slaves and/or their descendants are examples of slave narratives as well, even if others recorded the accounts (Andrews 1997:667). The number of slave narratives available for study is limited, but still too vast to investigate completely. A primary resource that I examined is the Federal Writers’ Project oral history collection of slave narratives (Rawick 1972; USWPA 1998a). I compared these to Harriet A. Jacobs’ own narrative Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself. Also I investigated historical records from the Pinckney family, owners of Snee Farm, now the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, located in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina outside Charleston. Documents I examined include the 1787 will of Charles Pinckney II and 1818 will of Charles Pinckney III.
Slave Naming Practices
The practice of selecting surnames, sometimes even the first names of slaves, historians consider the domain of the white master. Although not accessible through archaeology, naming practices are identified from analysis of historical documents including wills and censuses. Most often masters would bestow their own surname on their slaves (Escott 1979:50). For example, Jackie Davis of Marion, South Carolina owned a slave named William Henry Davis who shared his surname (USWPA 1998b:308). Another slave, Granny Cain divulged that her maiden name was Gillum after her father Joseph Gillum’s owner John Gillum (USWPA 1998b:166). However, slaves also had the opportunity to name themselves and would not choose their
24 master’s surname; although this freedom is assumed and relegated to second generation slaves (Inscoe 1983:529). Recalling as much of their family history as possible, slaves would select a surname that would link generations of families together, most often from the father’s side of the family (Genovese 1974:446). Their purpose was to establish their own identity and their own history through the paternal line. The oral histories from the Federal Writers’ Project in South Carolina support this pattern. John Brown, an orphan, chose to adopt his father’s surname after discovering that he was the son of Sheton Brown, the plantation carriage driver (USWPA 1998b:127). Later upon getting married, John chose to change his name to John Clowney Brown adding Clowney after his wife’s master, Bob Clowney. After the Civil War, former slaves would adopt new surnames, changing the names their former owners had given to them based on their new attitude, such as Freedman, Justice, Lincoln, or Grant (Genovese 1974:447). Also they would adopt a name based on a skill including Smith, Taylor, Mason, or Carpenter. When it came to the practice of naming children, slave parents most often named their children themselves; even keeping with African traditions such as selecting the African name of the day or month the child was born on, or after a personality trait (Genovese 1974:448). This was a significant practice of power in the slave community. White owners initially controlled the selection of first names of the early generations of servants and changed their names to those accepted in Anglo-American society. The masters’ desire was to uniquely identify each slave and easily assign tasks and duties (Cody 1987:572). These first slaves sometimes were allowed to or were able to keep their own African names and use their own naming practices for their children. Besides Anglo names, African-derived names comprised 15-20% of slave names (Inscoe 1983:532). African naming practices included location or cultural names, day-names, and birth order names. Day-names refer to names meaning the specific days of the week believing that people inherited certain personality traits based on the time of their birth. Eventually this practice also incorporated the English words for months, holidays, weather, and environmental surroundings. Documents reveal that over time these names likely lost their initial cultural meaning as it was found that a slave named for a certain day of the week was not actually born on that day (Inscoe 1983:538). Rather the continued practice reinforced the familiarity of the names and the linkage to earlier familial generations.
25 Harriet Jacobs continued her family identity when naming her children. Her son “Benny” was named after her uncle “Benjamin” with her father’s surname “Brent” (Jacobs 2000:78). In real life the name that the pair shared was Joseph and her father’s name of Jacobs (Jacobs 2000:294). Harriet could not name her children after their own father as is customary in African American naming practices, because of the unrecognized interracial relationship that they shared (Jacobs 2000:62):
It was a sad thought that I had no name to give my child. His father caressed him and treated him kindly, whenever he had a chance to see him. He was not unwilling that he should bear his name; but he had no legal claim to it; and if I had bestowed it upon him, my master would have regarded it as a new crime, a new piece of insolence, and would, perhaps, revenge it on the boy. Therefore, she chose her own father’s surname to bequeath to her children, giving them an identity of their own. Never would she have considered giving them her master’s surname of Flint, for it would further demonstrate his ownership of them and relinquish a power that she possessed. Master and slave exhibit popular naming practices including the use of biblical first names such as John, James, Eve, and Rachel. Among slave communities assigning biblical names increases over time (Jacobs 2000:544). The mother or both parents chose a particular biblical name sometimes based on its association with the biblical character and his or her story (545). One former slave from Winnsboro, South Carolina relates the following about his name (Jacobs 2000:229): Who is I? I goes by de name of C. C. All de colored peopled speaks of me in dat way. C. C. dis and C. C. dat. Idon’t ‘ject but my real name is Caleb Craig. Named after one of de three spies dat de Bible tell ‘bout. Him give de favorite report and, ‘cause him did, God feed him and clothe him all de balance of him life and take him into de land of Canaan, where him and Joshua have a long happy life. This reflection of characters from biblical stories clearly demonstrates that slaves were familiar with the Bible, and it influenced their own social organization (Cody 1987:588).
26 The Slave Family
Anthropologists have traditionally defined the family as the nuclear family composed of the mother, father, and their children at times extending it to those kin members in the entire household. This is not always the case. Carol Stack in her study of 1960s black family life (1974) among the urban poor through participant observation helped define the wealth and range of social networks that compose black families. Black households are fluid with parents, children both parents’ own and others’, extended kin, and friends as members over time. Households are based on the principle of reciprocity and are established through existing social networks of biological kin and friends that often become fictive kin. The social network is created from biological ties and non-biological ties. Financial obligations often precipitate a reliance on others to assist a family and can create ties in the social network. Friends and extended kin may be asked to contribute to a household when needed. Aid may be given in money, goods, food, or a place to live. This wide set of connections is constantly draw on by all members when there is a need for it. Stack defined family as (1974:31): the smallest, organized, durable network of kin and non-kin who interact daily, providing domestic needs of children and assuring their survival. The family network is diffused over several kin-based households, and fluctuations in household composition do not significantly affect cooperative familial arrangements. Family is then based on children and the support of them by all their kin and friends composing fictive kin. Reciprocity is the mechanism that controls the social network as those asking for help eventually are expected to and do reciprocate the aid in one form or another to those who have given help. Households and residence obviously change with a system reliance on extended family and friends in place. Adult females – mothers, aunts, grandmothers – provide the leadership in households most often (Stack 1974:103-105). These women are supported by male and female siblings that may remain in the household or return to it at various times. Males are not nonexistent in the household; rather male relatives, friends, and boyfriends are always present and provide male role models for the youngest household members. Extending this example to slave society, one would expect a similar model of extended social networks of both kin and non-kin family members revolving around a group of kin-related
27 households. Mothers and their female kin provide the stable foundation while supporting males impart a continuous presence and assistance over time.
Marriage in the Slave Community
Slaves held high the actual institution of marriage; it was a form of stability in their lives and a social institution that they, not their masters could control (Genovese 1974:472). Involuntary marriages forced upon slaves by their masters did occur; however, slaves did not recognize these conjugal relations, a further demonstration of their power in their own community. After the master’s death or at freedom, these socially unsanctioned marriages most often dissolved (Escott 1979:138). Family was the center of slavery, providing the slaves with strength to combat everyday abuse and destruction (Escott 1979:47-48). Although slaves had no legal rights including marriage, their ceremonies held ritual value and significance, treating marriage as an institution. The fact that African slaves performed ceremonies is evidence of autonomy. Slaves viewed marriage as a life-long commitment although the American legal system did not permit them to use the words “’til death do us part”. Since slave marriages were illegal, all slave children were born out of wedlock. However, legality had no power in the slave community; social recognition was the method of sanctifying slave marriages and the subsequent children. One must understand slave marriage in terms of African American culture, not in terms of the dominating culture (Rawick 1972:89). The tradition of marriage was ‘holy’ and ‘solemn’ for slaves. The slave community institutionalized an explicit process for members to marry in their culture (Rawick 1972:49). There was a period of courting before a couple was married, and the community recognized the conjoining through a ceremony. There were two types of marriage, home and abroad (Rawick 1972:51-52). Marriage at home or within the same plantation was less common, for slaves had little advantage in this arrangement. The enslaved wielded more power and autonomy with distant marriages. Abroad marriages enabled slaves to keep their family life separate from their master’s supervision. Children did not see abuse their father suffered as they lived with their mother. Masters feared losing their property if their slaves ran away, and feared losing the potential capital of slave children from women on their plantation as a result (Genovese
28 1974:473). However, masters did not have much of a choice regarding abroad marriages, as most slaves lived on small farms and would not marry cousins (Escott 1979:51). Also, marriage abroad provided variety and choice for slaves, as well as a chance to get away, visit, and socialize with a larger community, and have a change of pace (Genovese 1974:473); all were powers that slaves had over their masters and would not relinquish. “A man dat had a wife off de place, see little peace or happiness. He could see de wife once a week, on a pass, and jealousy kep’ him ‘stracted de balance of de week, if he love her very much.” As a former slave, Caleb Craig, said of marriage abroad (USWPA 1998b:231). A common misconception is that there is a complete absence of a father figure or male role model in the slave community. Granted the absence of the father from many households due to abroad marriages presents the family with the daily absence of a father. However, these fathers visited their wives and children on weekends or even more often. Ties remained strong and many slaves knew who their fathers were and knew their family even generations preceding their parents (Rawick 1972:90). For those who did not have fathers or whose master was their father, male role models in the community helped. Elderly males, brothers and other kin would take the responsibility to teach children what they needed. The process of marriage in the slave community not only entailed individual choice of partners, but also required the sanctioning of parents and the community for social acceptance, and for the newlyweds to reap the benefits of marriage. African American children sought parental approval when they decided to marry as they were culturally obligated. This practice carried on after slavery as demonstrated in the biography of Henrietta Elizabeth Sellers, a descendant of a slave (USWPA 1998a):
I took a lota pains with J.W. to raise him right, and one day about eighteen years ago he came to me and said - 'Mama, I'se cotin' [Tammie?], and we'se goin' to get married.' I looked over my big boy, up and down, and I says - "No, you ain't, J.W., you ain't goin' to do no such thing. If my boy gets married, I'd like to seem him get a good wife, and [Tammie?] is that triflin' she won’t make any kind of a wife for nobody, much less you. She's selfish and no 'count. Now, you just let you old mammy pick you a wife. There's Anna Hill,' I says. Anna Hill was my friend, a few years older than J.W., but good and kind, industrious and faithful. J.W. had never thought of her as a wife, but he dropped [Tammie?], and started goin' with Anna, and in a short time they were married. She has proved herself to be as good as I said. She has made J.W. a fine wife, and they have a nice son, fourteen years old. Tammie? Well, she turned out like I said. She married someone else right away, but couldn't get along with her husband, and she's been
29 married and divorced twice since. She just can't get along with nobody. Yes, sir, I sure saved J.W. a lot of married misery.
The Wedding Ceremony
There were various rituals that slaves performed to get married, the most common being jumping over the broomstick, although its origins are unknown (Rawick 1972:86). Another form was ‘capture’ or when after agreeing to be married, the male went over to the female’s house, puts her on his saddle, and tells her she is his wife. At other times the man would simply ask the woman to marry him, and she would then move in with him, or he with her. A former slave says regarding slave marriages: “an unmarried young man was call’ a half-han’. W’en he wans to marry he jus’ went to master an’ day there’s a gal he would like to have for wife. Master would say yes an’ that night more chicken would be fry an’ everything eatable would be prepare’ so master’ expense. The couple went home afta the supper, without any reading’ of matrimony, man an’ wife.” (USWPA 1998b:124). Genovese and most of the oral histories I encountered described parties or ‘frolics’ at the marriage ceremony (1974:476). The slave community often did not control the ceremony itself. The wedding most often took place over the Christmas holiday or on weekends, when the master would lose the least amount of work from his laborers. At times the masters themselves or white preachers would oversee the ceremony, once again controlling the lives of their human property (Genovese 1974:475-476). Some masters often took a great interest in slave weddings, making invites and planning the party themselves. Granny Cain speaks of her wedding “I married Walter Cain at Mr. Walter Spearman’s house, a good white man, and the white folks give us a good supper after the wedding.” (USWPA 1998b:167). When slaves controlled the wedding, they preferred black preachers perform the ceremony, keeping the ritual within the slave community, and giving it value and significance (Genovese 1974:476). Often the master(s) sanctioned marriages before the ceremony could take place (Genovese 1974:475). This was a form of social control over the slaves; however, the slaves themselves chose their partners and so needing permission was a formality in their community. Peter Clifton a former slave in Winneboro, S.C. relates his problems trying to marry his wife Christina: “I had to ask her old folks for her befo’ she consent. Dis took ‘bout six months.
30 Everything had to be regular. At last I got de preacher, Rev. Ray Shelby to go down dere and marry us. Her have been a blessin’ to me every day since.” (USWPA 1998b:208). Other slaves did not experience difficulties seeking the master’s permission to marry: “When dey [Harvey Pratt and Mary Fair] married dey had a big wedding. Marse didn’t make slave women marry men if dey didn’t want to. Befor’ my mammy and daddy married, somebody give a note to take to Mrs. Fair, her mistress. Mistress wouldn’t tell what was in it, but daddy run every step of de way, he was so glad dey would let ‘em marry.” (USWPA 1998b:326). African Americans experienced many difficulties even after emancipation. First and foremost, none of the slaves were legally married. Isabela Dorroh explains (Note this WPA interview contains language directly transcribed from Isabela Dorrah’s own words and is not edited here. It is not intended to be offensive, but reflective of the problem with slave marriage in her own words.): “My mother married at Thomas Pope’s place, and he had old man Ned Pearson, a nigger who could read and write, to marry ‘em. He married lots of niggers den. Atter de war many niggers married over agin, ‘cause dey didn’t know if de first marriage was good or not.” (USWPA 1998b:327).
Interracial Relationships and the Slave Community
Interracial relationships were the most difficult for slaves to manage. White men would often visit the slave quarters at night to sleep with slave women (Rawick 1972:86). Such a woman would be subject to gossip and taunts. After she became pregnant and had the baby of her master, he most often sold the child, as he did not regard the baby as his own blood. Most slave narratives do not address these illegitimate children, avoiding the subject (Escott 1979:52). Harriet Jacobs was part of an interracial relationship, and her narrative depicts wonderfully how slave culture existed despite the domination of white society. Unlike many sexual relationships between whites and slaves, Harriet exhibited agency and chose her partner in response to the desires and advances of her master. As I have demonstrated, slave culture is exhibited through a strong belief in marriage and family, and Harriet held those beliefs as well. There was nothing she did not want but to legitimize her children, but she knew it was impossible. Having no father to care for them, one would think escape was out of the question for Harriet without her children.
31 In the slave community family ties were strong, and the extended family was always present to care for children when one of the parents was not there. Harriet’s grandmother, Aunt Marthy or Molly Hornblow, took the responsibility for caring for Harriet’s two children while their mother escaped and hid herself away. Jacobs’ narrative is the first published female slave narrative and demonstrates the capacity of the slave community to care for their own. It also acutely relates the difficulties that a slave woman faced when attacked by her master’s sexual advances. Most often women did not have a choice but to submit, then face the cruelty of their mistress. Harriet found another way to survive, with the aid of her family and fled and hid from her master, although she never was able to get free of her mistress’ wrath, until she found freedom with her children.
The Slave Community of Snee Farm
This evidence from slave narratives has practical applications in an archaeological investigation of a slave community such as the Charles Pinckney Snee Farm, a National Historic Site managed by the National Park Service. There is no evidence of slaves’ surnames in the 1787 will of Charles Pinckney II (Table 1) [Edgar 1991:5]. In Charles Pinckney III’s 1818 will, there is a lone exception of one Henrietta Stansbury, a free Black woman included in the will of Pinckney III; it is not known how her surname was adopted for the family records were unfortunately destroyed in a fire (Table 2). There is evidence of the naming practices used in assigning children’s first names in the slave community of Snee Farm. The 1787 will lists five slave families inherited by Pinckney’s son. In one family, the mother Inba shares her father’s first name. No other names are shared among the family members in this community. Conversely, two men not listed in the same family share the name Shanney; their relationship is unidentified. Three individuals appear named Jack, also not members of the same family. Two of the Jacks possess nicknames, Mulatto Jack and Snee Jack. Assigning descriptive nicknames was a common practice among slaves. These nicknames were often personality traits, or as in this case, names based on physical appearance or place names. It is not known if these two men were addressed by only the Pinckney family with their nicknames or also by members of their own community, as wills are historical documents written by and for the owners. A
32 consideration that slaves may have possessed different names with different company is not unlikely. The Snee slaves and the Pinckney family both used biblical names when naming their children (Tables 1, 2 and 3). The Pinckneys used biblical names almost exclusively in their family, while only 22.2% of slave names that could be assigned categories had biblical origins. The slave community used a wide variety of names; in addition to biblical, African, Anglo, birth order, classical, day-specific, and place names were selected. African names used included Bina, a version of Sabina (Cody 1987:585), Inba, and Quomina, and the day-names of Cudjoe (Monday) and Cuffy (Friday). By far the greatest percentage of names used was Anglo names (36.1%). It is not known how these names were assigned to slaves whether by their masters or by personal choice; it is likely for both to be the case as some Anglo names appear in the 1818 list. Another common type of names is classical ones such as Caesar or Pompey. The Snee Farm slave community chose classical names including Cyrus, Primus, Flora, and varieties of Diana. This practice is exemplified in popular African American nineteenth century literature such as Madison Washington’s “The Heroic Slave” (Douglass 1998). Slaves would often change these names after emancipation; however, if the names provided them with history they would choose to keep them (Genovese 1974:447-8). This is a demonstration of African American agency in social relations. From the will of Charles Pinckney II one can infer something of marriage practices in this community as well as naming practices. The slaves’ community was composed of multiple extended families, two nuclear families, and twelve individuals whose kinship relations are unidentified. The extended families all consist of a husband, wife, their children, their children’s spouses, and grandchildren. Two of the extended families include a daughter’s husband, indicating this community was matrilocal. It appears from this evidence that children remained with their mothers until marriage when some sons would move into their wife’s home. One of these families also incorporates the wife’s sister. The third extended family consists of the wife’s father in addition to the husband, wife, and children. There are two nuclear families, one complete with husband, wife, and children, and the second containing the mother and her four children. Overall the Snee Farm slave community marriage and kinship patterns revealed from the Pinckney wills demonstrate that the values important to the black social community here are consistent with those in slave narratives. These include the practice of marriage and the
33 TABLE 1 INDIVIDUAL SLAVES AND THEIR FAMILIES FROM CHARLES PINCKNEY II’S 1787 ESTATE
Name Name 1 Cudjoe 23 Quomina 2,3 Inba and child Phyllis 24 Dye, his wife 4 Their son 25 Clarinda, their daughter 5 Theirson,Joe 26 Elsy, her sister 6 Theirson,Tom 27 Prissy, her child 7 Theirson,Shanney 28 Lena her daughter 8 Theirson,Roger 29 Moses, Quomina's son 9 Inba,herFather 30 Isaac, Clarinda's husband 10 Affy 31 Mulatto Jack 11 Herdaughter,Sary 32 Bina, his wife 12 Her son, Carolina 33 Sam, their son 13 Herdaughter,Flora 34 Peggy, their daughter 14 Herdaughter,Sue 35 Shanney 15 Cyrus 36Will 16 Dina, his wife 37 Jack 17 Charlotte, her daughter 38 Cuffy 18 Cate,herdaughter 39 Johnny 19 Rose,hersister 40 OldJoan 20 Sam,theirson 41 Polydor 21 Bella,theirdaughter 42 London 22 Frank,Cate's husband 43 George 44 Congaree Ned 45 Snee Jack 46 Rosetta
TABLE 2 INDIVIDUAL SLAVES NAMED IN CHARLES PINCKNEY III’S 1818 WILL
Name 1 Primus 2 Cate 3 Betty 4 Dinah her children ? 5 Anthony 6 John 7 Pineta 8 Carlos 9 Henrietta Stansbury "such servants attending to me"
34 TABLE 3 NAMES USED BY PINCKNEY FAMILY
Name Number of Times Used Charles 4 Eleanor 2 Eliza 1 Elizabeth 1 Frances 2 Henrietta 1 Henry 1 Mary 3 Miles 1 Rebecca 1 Ruth 1 Thomas 5 William 1 24
importance placed on an extended kinship network for support and socialization. The significance of family connections clearly is shown in the slave names and marriage evidence.
Summary
In conclusion, slave narratives are an untapped source for archaeologists studying African American culture. They are a valuable resource that demonstrates the agency, power, and resistance exhibited by African American slaves. I have used the narratives here to determine the self-defined marriage customs, social relationships, beliefs, and naming practices employed by a constrained people while under the domination of another society. Although this type of evidence is not available through archaeology, it should be used to assist in determining the patterns and meaning the slaves themselves used. For those archaeological sites that lack documents of slave names and family evidence, I encourage archaeologists to look at the slave narratives from the same state and define what patterns existed in the area. The black community established their own cultural rules despite the conditions they endured, and their
35 community centered on establishing a strong extended family and pride in one’s history that is still held today and can be documented from the past.
36 CHAPTER 3
THE COMMUNITY PHENOMENON
The Slave Community and Identity
African American slave identity, power, and resistance can be seen in the events of their everyday lives. African Americans form a unique group as their origins have roots in multiple cultures including numerous cultures from Africa, Native America, the Caribbean, and European America. They contrast with most other ethnicities because they not characterized by geographic boundaries, but by cultural boundaries. Developed from the horrific institution of slavery, the members of the variety of cultures were denied the freedom to continue and expand their traditions. They formed communities arranged around the customs, practices, and beliefs that the slaves and other cultures possessed. It is proposed here that African Americans, even as slaves, had choices of whether or not to acquiesce to their authoritarian repressors or to assert their own ideals through their daily actions. In addition to defining the slave community as a whole, one must address slave identity. The formation of African American slave identity involves exploring ethnicity formation theories such as Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice, agency theory, and the archaeology of consumption. Initially however, the composition of African American identity must be defined using research of individual sites and regions from archaeological, historical, physical, linguistic, and ethnographic evidence. African American slave identity can be recognized by first characterizing the community and the patterns identified from the many cultural components including family, religion, landscape, employment duties, and settlement. Second, after identifying the range of behaviors available to the people of a group, one must determine how identity is formed. Within these behaviors and community elements, slaves demonstrated power and autonomy through choices apparent in cultural processes. Human agency theory and the patterns formed through choice of action can lead to this. Patterns exist due to choices made by
37 individuals and groups under various conditions; these patterns are what define the cultural elements important to the members of the community. Status differentiation even within enslaved groups is part of the community and its patterns that are revealed through careful analysis. Archaeology of consumption can assist agency studies in defining intrasite differences due to the presence of hierarchy. Developed from agency theory, consumption theory and material culture analysis state that individuals and people as a group are presented with a choice of which products to use as consumers. Despite what one might believe, African American slaves were both producers and consumers in the colonial American economy. Individual slaves were able to choose to purchase and/or to use certain items based on their ideals. Although severely limited they possessed an amount of control over their lives. Through purchases and consumption they could choose to resist their owners’ desires or to accept them. The archaeologist’s objective is to determine how to interpret their choices. Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm includes examples of structural domains of domestic and field enslaved laborers as well as the main plantation house, overseer’s house, and kitchen. The slave community is examined through analysis of the settlement patterning and the ceramic assemblage from the field laborers’ quarters and the enslaved domestic quarters to determine African American slave identity and status differences and is discussed in Chapter 5.
The Ethnic Group and Identity
Fredrik Barth presents the initial anthropological investigation of ethnic groups in the compilation of essays entitled Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference [2001 (1969)]. Here he defines an ethnic group as a population which possesses the following elements: 1. Members that bear particular aspects of their culture (2001:12) 2. Traits that are the ecological adaptations that “reflect the external circumstances to which actors must accommodate themselves” (2001:12) 3. Maintenance of boundaries of “socially relevant factors” shared with members distinguishing themselves from others (2001:15).
38 In other words, an ethnic group is a group of self-identified members that share similar cultural traits, some of which are derived from the physical environment and some of which are conveyed by the culture. Not all groups are geographically isolated; however, all are defined by their interactions. The third aspect of an ethnic group is the most essential to the definition according to Barth. Maintaining boundaries whose designations are determined by the group’s members not by others is the self-defining aspect of the ethnic group. Prior to Barth, other social scientists discussed ethnic groups, many in terms of capitalist values. For example, Max Weber related ethnicity to status and not to any form of self-definition by members (1946). Ethnic status groups were those that shared rituals, blood, endogamous marriage, a belief in community, and were politically and legally united (1946:51). In his later work “Status Groups and Classes,” Weber remains consistent defining an ethnic group based on shared cultural practices, but stresses their political action (1956:389-390). Barth’s definition provides the basis for examining ethnicity of individuals. Interactions occur between members within the group and between members of different groups. All such behaviors are ultimately between individuals, and these individual practices become the level of analysis for ethnographic and archaeological ethnic studies. Although providing the foundation of ethnic studies, Barth’s effort lacked the development of the definition of an ethnic group. He states simply that members of ethnic groups bear similar cultural traits, never discussing in detail exactly what these cultural components are. An analysis of changes that occur when individuals switch groups or how and when the group’s customs change is also lacking. Further development of anthropological theories of agency and consumption enable one to examine issues such as ethnic formation and is recommend for future anthropological studies of African Americans. A clear definition of ethnic identity is not agreed upon in anthropological forums. Ethnic identity can be examined through the cultural components of family, community, religion, landscape and settlement, and language. Fitting with Barth’s definition of an ethnic group, those who claim commonalities of these elements would share an ethnic identity. “Ethnic identity… defines the permissible constellations of statuses, or social personalities, which an individual with that identity may assume” (Barth 2001:17). Ethnic identity is then worn by the individual, and the group, established on cultural traditions. This definition is expanded upon by Pierre
39 Bourdieu and his concept of habitus, or the range of behavior available to a person of a culture based on his/her knowledge of the culture.
Community and Agency
Recent studies have shifted toward an ego-centered perception of the individual’s place within the community, or on the interactions and the relationships individuals have in the community as in practice theory (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:2-3). Yaeger and Canuto explain the community “as a dynamic socially constituted institution that is contingent upon human agency for its creation and continued existence” (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:5). A community, however, is not synonymous with an ethnic group or identity. It is a component of the two “provid(ing) a shared identity, while simultaneously acting as a context for interaction that creates or modifies other identities… (It) can serve as a crucible where multiple and potentially incompatible or antagonistic identities such as factions, lineages, genders, and ethnicities interact, competing with or complementing one another” (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:7). Although communities do exhibit certain elements including stability, residential proximity, and members who share cultural values and experiences, this definition is inadequate. It neglects the factors of interaction with others and individual choices. One might define the African American slave community spatially as the slave quarters area of a plantation or even include the work areas of the fields and kitchens as well. This would be incorrect. It is also misleading to limit the slave community to the interactions between slaves that take place within those spaces. The African American slave community was composed of the interactions between slaves and all other individuals, ethnicities, and groups that African Americans would regularly encounter. The actions slaves chose to take in these interactions would be available to study archaeologically through the remains found within the physical space occupied by the community. Does this mean that community is equivalent to the archaeological site? No, the slave community would not be defined as a single site or places of residence, for interactions of the individual slaves were not limited to one place. Slaves had interactions in other sites as well, including towns, other plantations, the forests, and rivers. At Snee Farm the community centered around the slave quarter area, but included the house servants’ quarters, the kitchen, the main house and outbuildings, the fields, the river area, and sites outside the plantation within the
40 habitual contact of the individuals of the community. The community then is wherever and with whomever interactions of those being studied occurred. Studies should include both investigations of individual sites and the regions surrounding them and other groups in contact with the community members and not be limited to individual archaeological sites. Community is a concept that allows comparisons here between small groups of slaves with others in the same area and beyond the region. Essential to community studies is the emic perspective, the self-identification of the community and its components, values, and members by those living within it (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:8). Emic identity can be difficult to detect archaeologically, but examining descendant communities, historical documents, and oral histories can assist archaeologists in this endeavor. Chapter 2 developed the utilization of slave narratives in defining the slave community and its emic identity through primary documents and oral histories. Chapter 4 will further engage this topic through a combination of self-identification and anthropological theory in archaeological investigations of slave communities. Oscar Lewis discusses community in his culture of poverty 1961 study The Children of Sánchez: Autobiography of a Mexican Family. Here he describes a community as an endogamous group of people whose sense of togetherness is strong, especially amongst the younger members (1961:xv). This togetherness is visible in celebrations, religious practices, economic endeavors, and social family behavior. The slave community can be compared to Lewis’ concept of culture of poverty. The combination of the terms culture and poverty imply that poverty is not only a state of the lacking of resources, of economic deprivation, but it is structured and inherited from generation to generation just as culture is (1961:xxiv). It is a subculture within the national culture that becomes the “design for living” for its members in a hierarchal society. Members of the culture of poverty are (1961:xxv): those people who are at the very bottom of the socio-economic scale, the poorest workers, the poorest peasants, plantation laborers, and that large heterogeneous mass of small artisans and tradesmen usually referred to as the lumpen proletariat.” Cultural characteristics include similar kinship networks and family relationships, individual relations, value systems, and consumption patterns. African American slaves precisely fit Lewis’ definition as a culture of poverty group and his defining elements of the culture of poverty can be applied to the slave community as well.
41 In 1930s Mexico the culture of poverty had a local focus and its members did not engage in national services such as health care, labor unions, political parties, welfare, banks, or Mexican cultural institutions (1961:xxvi). They constantly struggled to maintain an adequate economic level without having cash and food reserves, not utilizing banks, pawning belongings, and borrowing small sums when needed. Second-hand furniture and clothing were essential for survival. Housing was also inadequate for their needs as most lived in one or two room apartments in tenements or vecindades. These living conditions caused social and psychological suffering including a lack of privacy, a frequency of alcoholism, and a high frequency of verbal and physical abuse. A distrust of outsiders developed especially for those in authoritarian positions. It also resulted in an abundance of free unions instead of formal marriages, mother- centered families, and a greater knowledge of the maternal relatives. These adverse conditions and their resulting behaviors became part of the everyday lives of multiple generations of Mexicans and thus part of their culture. Family became the cultural element that held the community together. Family solidarity was valued and evident in people’s actions. Although in a community of the culture of poverty the members were of diverse origins, the people and community shared a way of life that was stable and structured. Similarities exist between the culture of poverty and the slave community. With the exception of being barred from and not simply choosing not to use banks, national services, and participate in unions and politics, members of the slave community had a similar experience to those in the culture of poverty in Mexico. Family became the stable force in slaves’ lives and communities shared values of multiplicity, stability, privacy, cultural diversity. Knowledge of maternal families was greatest and provided the necessary stability of the community. Slaves also suffered economic deprivation, verbal and physical abuse, and a severe distrust of outsiders. The central difference between the two groups is freedom. Although the culture of poverty is stable and inherited, the opportunity to leave technically exists if one can earn enough money to change their situation. Slaves lacked this freedom and opportunity for the most part. Only their master could grant them the freedom to leave the institution of slavery, and although some were able to purchase their way to freedom or escape, the majority suffered and remained enslaved as did their families. Both types of communities are defined through the values and practices of the members themselves. The patterns revealed from these actions can be observed in ethnographic and archaeological analysis.
42 The human capacity to act was not of chief importance in theoretical discussions prior to practice theory in anthropology (Ahearn 2001:7). Human beings were not agents but the exercisers of cultural demands and ideals; people were behaviorists according to Ian Hodder (2000:22). As a reaction to this pawn-like image of individuals, Bourdieu and others advocated an action-centered view of culture that emphasized the individual’s ability to implement choices based on the limits set by their group or culture. Agency, therefore, is not independent of culture for all actors are socioculturally and linguistically constrained (Ahearn 2001:8). Is agency equivalent to practice then? No, new ideas from some researchers emphasized the necessity of intention on the part of the individual in the definition of agency, believing the individual’s intent in choosing a specific action was important (Hodder 2000:22). This may not be correct for there are cases of agency theory studies that demonstrate that intention may not coincide with action. Rabinowitz’s (1997:56) examination of Palestinian and Jewish Israeli interactions in the frontier town of Natzaret Illit depict multiple situations where people’s actions do not reiterate their ideals. For example, a Jewish real estate agent despite wishing to keep the Jewish town free of Palestinians will sell property to the Palestinians because they are willing to purchase it and a Jewish buyer cannot be found. Intentions are not always demonstrated in actions, their causes may be unrelated to their actual beliefs. The difference in agency theory is the focus of study; no longer is the emphasis on the structure of the culture and simply defining the habitus, the focus is on persons within periods of social transformation where individual action is most influential on the culture. For example, this study is a focused on community identity of African American slaves. This group newly deposited in a strange environment, through individual action constructed a new identity and formed a previously nonexistent ethnic group. The time of the formation of this ethnicity was a tumultuous and transitional one for Africans on this new continent and is the focus of many anthropological studies. Time is an important factor that cannot be neglected in agency studies. Researchers must take into account the context of the individual action. “It is not merely enough to identify individual events and persons” (Hodder 2000:26), structures and individuals have a history and studies should be diachronic to be accurate. Knowing the patterns of human behavior within a group and how they are depicted in their individual actions over time establishes the cultural
43 traditions of a community and leads to long term studies. Eventually from this investigation studies on the formation of the African American ethnicity can be undertaken. Archaeological investigations of agency are complicated due to a problem with methodology. Identifying individual actors is extremely difficult when examining material remains. Agency studies must begin by defining the self-determined, important cultural elements, the culture’s structure, and classifying the cultural patterns resulting from human behavior that are observed in material remains over time. Changes in these patterns reflect changes in the behavior and the structure of the group being studied. The objective is not identifying individual people, but determining the actions taken by individuals that caused changes within the community. In her evaluation of archaeological agency studies, Jennifer Dornan proposes a method to correct methodological problems (2001:314-15). Three issues are stated to be at the center of the difficulty: 1. Finding the appropriate unit of analysis 2. Focusing on resistance and rationality studies 3. The tension between intentionality versus consequence Focusing on individuals neglects the structure that exists and supports individual behavior. One must include both in a study and identify the organization and subjects (Dornan 2001:316). Although identifying the problem that exists, Dornan never supplies us with the proper unit of analysis. I believe that the community should be the unit of analysis in archaeological studies. Within the community one can identify individuals through household comparisons, groups through residence compounds, neighborhoods, and ethnicities through regional site comparisons known to be inhabited by multiple ethnicities, thus making micro- and macroscale analyses possible. The institution of slavery is directed by the necessity to control another human being’s behavior, action, and welfare. It is dialectic, a battle of power between the master and slave. The planter possesses and utilizes the power to dominate and control the slave, while the slave attempts to use his power as a cultural agent to act in spite of the domination endured (Thomas 1998:532). This dialectic is really about human agency and choice in a community. All members of the community have the capacity to act and determine their part in the social interaction. Slaves did have the power to negotiate relationships despite the asymmetrical
44 balance of power (Joyner 1984). The community is then a group of dialectical relationships between classes, and these relationships are tested by the actions of individuals with self-interest in mind (Roseberry 1989:29). The classes that existed in the slave community were the planter class, the domestic and skilled servants as the highest social class of slaves, and the field slaves as the lowest social slave class. The dominating white planters designated and enforced these classes; however, slaves took advantage of this structure for it was necessary to preserve and maintain an image, which for slaves was itself an act of power (Thomas 1998:533-534). The more valued domestic and skilled slaves certainly distanced themselves from the lower class field slaves in their actions and behaviors and reinforced the hierarchal structure. Slaves also resisted the imposed hierarchy using several methods. The most obvious methods of resistance were open rebellion and escape from the institution. Although commonly publicized for multiple reasons, revolts and fleeing were not the dominant forms of resistance. The most important and truly pivotal action was the maintenance and preservation of the slave community and development of the cultural traits and practices that defined the community. Slaves were not accepting of the status they were allotted. The community and their values persevered despite the lack of freedom and control whites perceived to have inflicted. The slave ideology was not as the planters perceived; Africans were not weak, helpless, inhuman, and unintelligent. The dominant planters accepted this belief because it benefited them and justified the enforcement of slave labor to fuel their profits. In reality slaves possessed a completely different ideology based on resistance to the social inequalities of the impressed hierarchy. The study of resistance and rationality especially with regard to African Americans is a reflection of the current trend in the social sciences (Dornan 2001:318). These resistance studies focus on defiant acts not on the maintenance of the slave community. This focus also neglects those actions of individuals who choose to conform to cultural expectations and not to instigate change or defiance. This method does not supply the researcher with the full choice of actions available to the actor. A proper study of agency would include all types of practices as well as cross-cultural comparisons of instances of acquiescence, defiance, and preservation (Dornan 2001:319). Although intention is clearly evident in some actions as well as consideration of the consequences of action/inaction, it does not mean that every action has known intentions and
45 consequences (Dornan 2001:320). Archaeological objectives are to define the intentions, consequences, and ideology of the agents in the context of their structure. Regarding rebellious acts, Dornan does not investigate the idea of what is the object of change for the agent who intends to defy expectations with the chosen action. Does the actor wish to alter the structure of his/her society or to alter his/her own situation? Initial resistant actions are likely performed to change the individual’s personal situation and not the structure. In tumultuous times, multiple defiant actions can accumulate and result in structural changes. For example, slaves may choose to defy work orders and begin a work slow down due to poor living conditions they experience. This action will not change the institution of slavery, but a number of such incidences and the making of them public can institute the creation of laws of the minimum acceptance of treatment of slaves. Overall, community and agency studies provide the avenue of examining slave resistance through defining the slave community in its own terms, examining both defiant and conforming practice, and focusing on community studies of a limited region and not individual sites or large geographic comparisons.
Consumption Theory and the Community
The relationships between commodities and consumers have been the focus of archaeological studies for many years, especially for historical archaeology and the global economy. Dealing with artifacts and produced materials, investigations of capitalism and consumption are a logical path for archaeology to take. Traditionally studies concentrated on larger ideas and processes such as functionalism, structuralism, and capitalism (Johnson 1999). Prior studies often did not address human agency and individual choices within the global networks. Although within historical archaeological excavations the initial level of analysis are the artifact remains of the goods produced within a capitalistic system, the actual subject studied is not the objects themselves, but the relationships between the individuals that produced and used the objects (Marx 1965). Previously in the culture history period of anthropology, the primary goal was a complete description of a culture and in archaeology this meant classifying the material remains of sites into typologies and defining the normative view of cultures. The practice of taxonomic divisions proves useful today although is inadequate for describing a
46 culture, its structure, its members, and their relationships. It ignores the humanity of culture in an effort to produce empirical and quantifiable analyses. Functionalism proved a different avenue of study in anthropology and attempted to expand the pure classification of culture to include human intentions within the study. This paradigm was also insufficient as it ignored alternative causes for the production of materials and once again focused primarily on the materials themselves. Structural anthropology searched for universal cultural formations and processes that organized human society. Ignorance of human creativity and individuality proved the fault of structuralism. Lewis Binford’s (1982) development of the processual archaeology approach explored the affinities and cultural associations, but not through the definition of types. Instead borrowing from functionalism he emphasized the varying functions of objects grouping them into three functional categories: ideotechnic, sociotechnic, and technomic. The ultimate goal of research was to determine the multiple meanings that objects possess for cultural members and the cultural relationships that existed between people in the production and use of the objects; it was not to simply assign the functional category. This practice Binford termed middle-range theory as it did not define large cultural processes and universals and instead focused on contextual relationships and meanings (1982:129-130). Postprocessualists then began to consider the effects of human choice on associations and cultural meanings and attempt to discover the influences explaining individual agency. This change from the global study of capitalism to examining the local area, individual choice and agency has occurred only recently. Previous consumer research in archaeology has largely focused analysis on the household and occasionally the surrounding yard (Spencer-Wood 1987). Comparisons are then made between sites on the household level often using social status to compare households. Research should concentrate on a local level, but use the community as the unit of analysis not the household (Carroll 1999:132). Household analysis permits the study of individual families, sometimes even persons, and some gender roles; however, researchers should be wary of studies that often compare households of very different contexts. Household studies also can miss local patterns observed within the surrounding community. Such a small scale of comparison can treat a practice that may not be apparent elsewhere in the local community as more prevalent than it is. On the other hand, practices that are observed in a different place in the community may not appear in the household studied. Household analysis
47 TABLE 4 COMMUNITY AND CONSUMPTION METHODOLOGY
Step Description 1 Identify the specific artifacts consumed and produced by individuals of the community.
2 Identify the patterns of consumption/production within the community.
3 Compare the patterns to other data found in the community’s region, and cross-culturally throughout the global network identifying wider patterns.
4 Determine the reasons for the particular patterns, i.e. the meaning for the artifacts’ presence.
5 Attribute the observed patterns to the appropriately associated cultural processes. strictly limits the patterns observed, and is often reported as representative of the area or used as representative of the geographic area in other studies. Community analysis allows for a greater observation of relationships and patterns and there is a lesser probability of overemphasizing and under representing a cultural practice. Downsizing the level of analysis from global studies to individual communities, does not limit one’s ability to investigate global processes; this can be completed through studies of the interactions between communities, expanding the analysis to global trade networks and issues such as colonialism, capitalism, and world systems theory. At the same time, community analysis does not deter from examining individual actors as both producers and consumers within global networks. Community studies enable both microscale and macroscale analyses. The challenge is determining the causal relationships in structural changes. Prior to analysis, a study initially must establish the context of the community and define its boundaries (Carroll 1999:133). As previously stated a community is not an isolated archaeological site, but an area of interaction between individuals, households, neighborhoods, and larger groups that may include other ethnicities. As we cannot observe consumer and producer behavior in archaeology, we rely on investigating the products of such behavior instead. In the past limitation of typological classification has been the primary focus of archaeology with little attention being paid to cultural processes, meaning, and changes. Postprocessual studies of practice and agency theory have changed archaeologists’ objective, but
48 not the attention paid to artifacts. Even in historical archaeology artifacts remain the primary focus with historical documentation supplementing the archaeological data. Consumption theory is one idea about how to interpret archaeological remains, as products are created and consumed by social beings to “maintain and reproduce social relationships, thus giving commodities their use values” (Carroll 1999:133). The addition of consumption theory to practice and agency theory allows for the development of a methodology for interpretation of archaeological remains and investigation of cultural processes. The methodology I have developed is stated in the five steps outlined in Table 4. All steps in this methodology will not be applied at this time in this dissertation as the objective is not a global investigation of capitalism or ethnicity. It is recommended for future inquiries on cultural processes of community, ethnicity, and consumption. Here the study is limited to the identification of the individual statuses within a particular community that consume and produce goods. Later determination of the reasons for the particular pattern of consumption can lead to theoretical ideas of cultural processes and meanings including ethnicity formation, and capitalism studies of ethnic groups and status.
49 CHAPTER 4
A MODEL OF SLAVE LIFE
Autonomy, a form of independence or possessing a certain degree of control over one’s own person and decisions, is not normally associated with enslaved peoples. This chapter explores slave autonomy, specifically the avenues slaves exhibited control either allowed by the dominating white planter class or unintentionally provided by them and taken by slaves. First, it is recognized that a study is influenced by the sources used to identify slave culture and its values. Self-identification and public archaeology are essential methods to achieve a more accurate picture of the culture being studied. Autonomy begins with the desires of slave descendants and the primary sources including oral histories, slave narratives, and current African American culture. Power often was not bestowed willingly, but was provided through the existing task labor system implemented in the area of the South Carolina Lowcountry. The benefit of time and freedom of choice became a consequential result of the plantation system here, one from which slaves readily reaped advantages. Reviewing the history of anthropological studies of African Americans provides an opportunity to investigate the status system that existed in the community. Although some statuses were enforced through the slave system, the questions remain: What statuses existed in reality, and how can archaeologists determine their structure? The most familiar area of autonomous studies is slave resistance. Whether active rebellion or reserved resistance exhibited in daily cultural practices but not open rebellion, slaves’ power was most certainly implemented in everyday actions. Finally, a model of slave life and its corresponding methodology are outlined for recommendation of African American archaeological studies. The development of this model of slave life provides researchers the opportunity to investigate African American slave communities through their own cultural values and desires and the ability to compare communities within and across regions of the North America and the African Diaspora.
50 Self-Identification
African Americans have been neglected in the retelling of American history. When their story has been addressed most often the source is not from themselves but from outsiders. I, too, am an outsider and not a member of the group in question; one does not need to be to tell a group’s tale through a combination of their own stories and remains. Archaeologists must attempt to reveal untold histories, not as simple description of settlements and objects used, but through the point of view of a member of the culture. Just as cultural anthropology technique of participant observation allows an outsider to actively participate within a culture in order to determine cultural meanings and central points of view, archaeologists must attempt to accomplish the same. A combination of techniques predominantly including active involvement of descendant populations, primary historical resources, and archaeological investigations can reveal meaning and the insiders’ point of view thus self-identification of a culture. Cultural behaviors to be studied should be determined using self-identification not from outside interpretations of empirical evidence. Slaves did not see themselves as part of a global system of capitalism. Although we can use some of these theories to assess the results, they should not be used to define the cultural behaviors one interprets as they are not part of the methods slaves used to define themselves. Does this mean archaeological studies should neglect capitalist theory and historical evidence? No, of course not; these ideas are essential for comparative analysis and research of cultural processes and should be incorporated in order to uncover the meanings behind past behaviors. Of utmost concern to archaeologists and cultural subjects is intellectual control of research. The establishment of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act serves as a guide for all anthropologists. NAGPRA delineates the rights of Native American descendants and tribes of primary materials. The concerns of the cultural members are most important regarding primary materials and secondary is the objective of the scientist. Command of this cultural property recovered archaeologically or anthropologically is not totally free for scientific interpretation; ultimately the property belongs to the culture and its members. It is the responsibility of researchers to consider their interpretations from the culture’s perspective in all domains including research design, collection, interpretation, publication and management. Historic archaeologists should follow the spirit of NAGPRA when conducting their own research
51 as well. Public archaeology is the implementation of this spirit in historic archaeology, and studies should involve descendant communities from the beginning of the research process. The involvement will aid both researcher and the community to develop questions and discover answers along the way. Fortunately public archaeology studies are growing more frequent in historical archaeology as archaeologists are answering the call to involve the concerns of the community themselves in their studies (LaRoche and Blakey 1997; McDavid 1997; Epperson 1999; Singleton 1999). Community concerns are not only of the past community as previously addressed in Chapter 3, but also should incorporate today’s community and its concerns (McDavid 1997:116). The danger remains in archaeological and anthropological investigations of treating the culture as if it remains isolated in the past, unmoved from its previous point in time. Culture is dynamic and as long as descendants exist the current culture must be included in studies. A culture’s local history, i.e. how it reached its position at the specific place and time of the archaeological study, should continue to be addressed, but should also follow through and include current living practices and attitudes. The foremost example of the use and misuse of concept of public archaeology can be found in the history of the New York African Burial Ground (LaRoche and Blakey 1997; Epperson 1999). The site is located in lower Manhattan, New York City on the former Commons area that surrounds City Hall. With the proposed development of the site for a federal office complex, archaeological excavations as required by Section 106A of the National Historic Preservation Act were conducted without the consultation of the local African American community and with little attention to ethnic practices, cultural behavior, and community concerns. After publicity of the rediscovery of 400 burials and likely thousands more, the local African American community demanded protection of the skeletal material, cultural remains, and intellectual property. Ultimately their concerns were addressed through reassigning the projects’ direction to Howard University and reformulating the research design to include the concerns and attitudes of the modern population and the respectful treatment of the ancestral skeletal remains. The significance of the cemetery was finally recognized in 1993 by President George Bush’s signing the designation of the African Burial Ground as a National Historic Landmark (Epperson 1999:88).
52 The Task System
Within the South Carolina Lowcountry, the primary organized form of slave labor on rice plantations was the task system. Many slaves were already familiar with growing rice in West Africa and knew the process, the environment, and tasks required (Joyner 1977:3). Initially swamps were dug and cleared for tidal flooding, embankments were built to direct the flooding, and woods were cut as needed (Joyner 1977:37-44). Grounds were plowed by hand, spade afterwards, and trenched with hoes. Agricultural work was intense and demanded heavy manual labor from its workers. Planting, tending crops, and harvesting continued throughout the entire season. It was a technique that required a mass amount of labor and both men and women participated in the process as it was a cooperative system. The more physically able helped the less. The task system was a routine that revolved around the daily assignments doled out each morning at sunrise by the planter, overseer, or driver to individual field hands after breakfast. During the day a slave performed his/her task(s) then ate dinner with their fellow slaves. Once a task was completed the slave was free to do as he/she wished (of course, within the boundaries imposed of slavery), and often not many tasks were assigned. Most of the time planters were not living on their country farms but in their homes in the city of Charleston. Overseers were left in charge of the plantations with the help of slave drivers that managed field crews. This provided even more freedom for the slave inhabitants once their work was completed. Overseers were white men of the yeoman class that supervised the slaves and performed a wide variety of duties on the plantation (Otto and Burns 1983). In return they received yearly salaries and a house while in employment on the farm. They held a higher status than the slaves, but less than the planter. More studies of their habitations will reveal the details of their everyday lives. The job of overseer was arduous, challenging, and difficult and took place in harsh conditions. As an overseer, a man rose with the slaves and assigned the daily tasks. Throughout the day he supervised the slaves, but also was responsible for many more obligations. Overseers were policemen, doctors, inspectors, and punishers. They had to prevent slaves from sabotage and stealing. They examined slave quarters and the slave village. Of course, they managed those in the fields and often the domestic slaves as well.
53 It was a harsh life with few benefits. Planters prohibited overseers from fraternizing with slaves and from having company. Overseers were not provided food or rations, but purchased those from their salaries, hunted and fished for themselves, or raised their own livestock and perishables. Unlike slaves they did not sell these to earn money. They did not make many luxury purchases. Drinking and smoking passed the time and eased the stress of the job. An overseer rarely lasted more than a year or two before he left or was discharged (Otto and Burns 1983:194). The man performed his duties as required with little benefit overall. After earning a good recommendation he would move on to another farm. From slavery accounts, documentary history, and anthropological studies the utilization of the task system provided a unique opportunity to slaves as they received likely unintended benefits (Joyner 1977:94-104). Work was not all business; it was a social time too. Although there was an overseer monitoring the slaves, he did not maintain constant vigilance over them. Offices today exhibit workers often mingling around the water cooler and in the break room. In the fields the tasks allowed for gossiping, singing, and storytelling too while unobserved. At the end of the day slaves gardened, hunted and fished, and raised small livestock with their free time. They attended social gatherings, religious meetings, and spent time visiting with families and friends in the community as allowed. This was when the importance placed on family and community would be observed. In the daily lives of the slaves, the children played; women and mothers sewed, laundered, and cooked; fathers and men hunted, built and repaired furniture and homes; while all slaves fished and raised livestock. There was storytelling, singing, praying, and socializing and courting. On holidays and special occasions such as weddings celebrations included food, dancing, singing, and visiting. Their culture persevered each and every day through the simple daily tasks of life. Autonomy was achieved every day as their culture lived and flourished despite the indecency of their enslavement.
54 History of African American Studies
Historical Research
Historical studies of the African American community dominated academic research long before archaeologists began specializing in the area in the 1970s. Anthropology is an interdisciplinary science that often procures ideas from other fields and incorporates them into its own. The contributions from and cooperation of outside disciplines creates a holistic view of African American culture otherwise impossible to achieve. Historical studies emphasize the family, the community, and social lives as the keys to the survival of slaves and their culture (Blassingame 1979). Slaves were creative at maintaining their culture and its elements including language, customs, ceremonies, songs, folktales, religious emotions and superstitions. Blassingame stressed that “the slave gained in personal autonomy and positive self-concepts” through the use of these elements (1979:105). Values fostered in the field, and the quarters especially, were cooperation, mutual assistance, and solidarity. The recreational time slaves possessed was highly valued as the lesser supervision received provided opportunities for conducting culturally significant activities such as personal chores, socializing, religious meetings and ceremonies, and festivities (Blassingame 1979:106). Proverbs, folk songs, and tales served as important tools in slave culture (Blassingame 1979:114-15). Proverbs served to instruct the young and make annotations on life as they do for most peoples. Of chief importance were folk songs which remain an element in modern African American culture. Although they may have suffered modifications over time, the messages from them clearly illustrate the slaves’ point of view. Even songs sung in the fields are useful, although slaves knew whites would hear them; these songs serve to illustrate how their worldview must have been restricted. They often contained messages of the anguish suffered from enslavement, and messages of resistance that were used for political fodder. The picture of life in these songs was not always harsh; some were songs and stories of love, demonstrations of slaves’ humanity and caring (Rawick 1972:160-161):
55 Farewell, farewell, sweet Mary; I’m ruined forever By lovin’ of you; Your parents don’t like me, That I do know I am not worthy to enter your do Here this song demonstrates a slave’s desires, love, and importance of family. Folk tales also served as instructional tools for the young and entertainment as well. They were largely for slave audiences, thus exhibiting greater freedom to express views and conditions than songs (Blassingame 1979:127). Personal experiences, hopes, work life, and hostilities suffered were compositions of these stories. These proverbs, songs, and tales demonstrate slave creativity and intelligence. They served as coping mechanisms, transmissions of opinions, and reports of harsh conditions experienced. Religion was a cultural institution often the planter class endorsed, nevertheless modified by blacks to a form of their own cultural expression. As Christians, slaveholders felt an obligation to teach their servants the ways of God, to be their missionaries. Religion served multiple purposes for whites. One was as a method of controlling slaves through lessons of morality and servitude. This was a result of fear of the unknown and belief that Africans were really savages with no consciousness and humanity. It also eased owners’ consciences about the brutality and demeaning nature of slavery. Many used the Bible as a defense for implementing slavery citing its many occurrences from ancient times in the holy text. Another purpose was the call of the missionary to teach Christianity to the “less fortunate” and unholy peoples around the world, a practice still active and maintained in modern Christian religions. For the enslaved blacks, religion served other purposes. Like whites, Christianity was used to teach the younger generation and all human morality and proper Christian behaviors, but it also became an avenue of resistance. Meetings and social gatherings served as occasions to transmit culture and values, news and information. Leaders were created of black preachers (Blassingame 1979:131). Christianity created hope, a dangerous weapon, and a valuable feeling. Religious practices included shouting, singing, and preaching all which expressed feelings of despair and desires of freedom (Douglass 1994:308): O Canaan, sweet Canaan, I am bound for the land of Canaan, something more than a hope of reaching heaven. We meant to reach the north – and the north was our Canaan.
56 I thought I heard them say, There were lions in the way, I don’t expect to stay Much longer here. Run to Jesus – shun the danger – I don’t expect to stay Much longer here This song expresses how a slave covets freedom and expresses it in a religious forum. In emotional praise meetings these actions again revealed the creativity and intelligence of the people in composing songs and music for their expression. Family was of utmost importance to the slave and slave culture from the time of childhood (Blassingame 1979:151-53). Within the family could be found love, friendship, sympathy, sexual relations, cooperation, and self-esteem. The stability of individual families varied as legal marriage was not possible; slaves were regularly married in the church and subject to Christian values. Still this did not insure stability. Slaveholders often broke up families via sales and prohibiting visitation, or they prohibited monogamous relationships. Although distinct families may not have been stable, the cultural institution and its importance were always present in slave communities. Within the family raising children and teaching them their culture and its ideals remained the primary job most often performed by the mothers and other women members. Fathers may or may not have been present on a daily basis as many lived on neighboring plantations and visitation was usually limited. Children received their self- esteem from their parents and fellow community members through example, teachings, and previously mentioned songs, folk tales, and religion. Many owners did permit and in fact encourage the establishment of monogamous families. This encouraged discipline, morality, and cooperation among the slave population. It also discouraged fighting and arguing. Even after marriage, slaves faced hardships keeping families together. Husbands and fathers faced constant pressure as subject to the authority of their masters. Masters determined almost all aspects of the couple’s daily life, their jobs, where they lived, who cooked their meals, when and where they ate them, and settling disputes. Planters provided them their house, clothing, most food, and furnishings. During free hours slaves exerted the most control within their families. Here they supplemented their subsistence through hunting, fishing, gardening and raising small livestock. Rearing children was largely done under their own supervision. Possessions were obtained through trade, production, and purchase. Later in this chapter a full
57 discussion of purchasing ability and status achievement will be presented. Autonomy was limited even within the family, but it was possible.
Archaeological Studies
African American archaeology began as a subdiscipline in the 1960s with a focus on slave life on southern plantations. There was a desire to formulate an accurate description of slave culture, one that did not rely solely on the historical documents written by men of the white elite class. Spawned by the civil rights movement of the preceding decades and racism that faces African Americans still today, African American archaeology ventured into the movement using archaeological data as a primary resource of slave culture. In archaeology the goal became the behavioral patterns between groups on plantations, first between blacks and whites, now within the slave community itself (Singleton 1985:3). Like historians, archaeologists incorporated slave narratives, autobiographies, and the WPA oral histories into their research. Other primary resources included planter records, estates, wills, inventories, probates, church records, newspaper accounts, and other primary historical documentation. As previously mentioned in Chapter 2, problems exist with each of these resources. Most common is the bias that is prevalent in all accounts, which researchers must recognize and expect when analyzing data. Accuracy, time elapsed, formats, and reliability must always be questioned with historical documents and especially with oral histories. Although archaeologists may often believe that data obtained from archaeological sites remains free of these problems, they do not and in fact more problems exist. First and foremost is cultural bias, this time on the part of the archaeologist herself/himself. Each person possesses a disposition formed within their own cultural standings and positions; recognizing your own biases and limitations from point of design through publication is a challenge facing every archaeologist. Material culture presents inherent problems for the archaeologist as well. These include taphonomic issues, selective distribution, and degradation of materials. Initially the focus of African American slavery and archaeology remained very descriptive presenting the everyday conditions existing under slavery. Quickly as processual then postprocessual anthropology developed, research turned to expressions of cultural identity and cultural processes (Singleton 1995). Then an attempt to understand planter dominance and
58 slave subjectivity through explaining status differences occurred. Cultural process and changes were first investigated largely through studies of slave resistance, and eventually through the formation of African American culture.
Living conditions of slavery and African heritage
Archaeology had much information available from historical studies regarding the living conditions imposed on slaves. What was absent from the accounts were the materials owned and manipulated, and the space occupied by African slaves. Archaeology filled that information void quickly with descriptions on housing, foodways, clothing, and social materials (Singleton 1996:147). Archaeological projects amass vast reports of artifacts including their materials, dimensions, and distributions. At the Charles Pinckney National Historic site, there are over 170,000 artifacts in the collection that have been analyzed to identify the living conditions of all the inhabitants of the plantation over the years. A description and analysis of the materials pertinent to the social classes occupying the farm is presented in Chapter 5. The daily lives of slaves centered on home and work. Meals were prepared in single pots and served communally. They consisted of soups and stews of small amounts of boiled cuts of meat, rice, cornmeal, and vegetables grown on the farms. Archaeological studies most often found lesser quality cuts of domestic animals including pig, cattle, sheep, goat, and chicken (Singleton 1996:154). Faunal studies prove an avenue of continued research of slave autonomy as diet differences are being used to interpret status, resistance, and personal preferences and choices (Scott 1998). Slave architecture varied in size, structure, and materials although most of these were largely gathered from local resources. Early quarters were constructed of mud walls and thatched roofs before log, frame and brick housing was used. Both private and communal quarters existed with kitchens and communal eating areas common on plantations (Singleton 1996:150-151). Within private quarters some slaves had dug root cellars likely used to store food and hide objects from others. Objects of unknown uses included collections of artifacts attributed to shamans, blue glass beads, pierced coins, adornments, and gaming pieces (Singleton 1996:148-149). Research of rituals revealed the possible associations with the ideological realm. Personal objects were few in the quarters consisting of functional items associated with food
59 preparation and serving (coarse earthenware and stoneware vessels, cooking pots and kettles, mismatched dishes, and few utensils), furnishings, clothing, and adornments. At the outset the need was to identify African objects, i.e. Africanisms or ethnic markers (Herskovitz 1941), in archaeological contexts, but not enough information was known about African cultures and slave origins to attempt this research and instead studies commenced with descriptions of slave living conditions. Subsequently a search for African heritage started with the identification of African styled artifacts and European or American objects that were reinterpreted with African meaning (Ferguson 1992; Brown 1994; Stine et al. 1996; McDavid 1997). During colonial times, handcrafted objects appear more frequently on slave quarter sites, while after 1800 mass-produced objects become more plentiful (Singleton 1996:143-144). Objects of known African associations include cowrie shells, ebony rings, animal horn and bone, tobacco pipes, pewter spoons, and colonoware, and were used to establish the existence and meaning of customs in the community. These cultural survivals are few in number on sites and much research remains to do of the behaviors exhibited by the multiple African cultures in order to determine if these objects are survivals or have been used in known behaviors from home. One must also study these Africanisms within the context of hegemony and define the specific conditions that occurred in each case (Mullins 1999b:33). Orser also counsels to be wary of ethnic markers as these objects may also have been used by other peoples outside the ethnic group, or may be symbols of stereotypes and racism imposed by others (1998:74). The objects may have held different meanings in different situations. Eventually acculturation research of the slave community’s use of mass-produced objects in different manners than the colonists, especially ceramics and foodways studies, becomes another method of studying heritage and is as frequent as the study of survivals.
Status and hierarchy
Slavery is a long established cultural practice with roots in complex societies for thousands of years. In the United States and American colonies it not only was an economic enterprise it was also integrated in the political, social, and ideological systems of society. There have been attempts to reduce slavery to its economic value only as in the labor thesis that rejected the immorality of slavery and reduced it to a profitable and capitalistic venture
60 (Woolfolk 1956). This theory restricts slavery to a functional focus and neglects its social, political, and ideological elements. Although there is no doubt that slavery benefited the planter class economically, critical analysis demonstrates that slaveholders also benefited socially and politically. In the social realm, slaves were not a single group according to the historic documentation and narratives. Status and hierarchy were present in the slave community dividing persons by means of skills and jobs (Joyner 1977:55-76). Higher status was given to managers such as boat captains, field supervisors, drivers, and field regulators. Skilled laborers and workers – the master craftsmen and their apprentices, artisans, blacksmiths, cobblers, carpenters, coopers, bricklayers, cooks, gardeners, tailors, tanners, weavers, and tinsmiths – all held higher status than others. Domestic servants through their proximity and continual contact with the planters were held in high esteem by the owners themselves (Mullins 1999b:1). This hierarchy was defined by rules imposed by the dominating white planters upon the African Americans; however, this did not mean that in the eyes of the slave this hierarchy did not exist. “Slaves generally seemed to have shared a sense of status stratification ranging from house servants at the top through drivers and artisans on down to field hands (Mullins 1999b:79).” Field hands held little status in the hierarchy as they relied on manual labor and were the most replaceable in eyes of their masters. Oral tradition reveals a general level of hostility on the part of field laborers toward house servants; however, as a group the community maintained its solidarity (Mullins 1999b:81). Previously freedom has been discussed in regard to time and cultural endeavors; some slaves also had greater degrees of freedom when their skills allowed them to be hired out for their talents (Mullins 1999b:83). Either through their masters or by themselves these skilled workers earned wages for their labors, and although much of the salary was collected by their master, these slaves were allowed to keep a portion of their money. Other instances occurred for slaves to receive benefits as in earning money or time off for additional tasks performed on the plantation, obtaining additional food rewards or rations for good performance and no absences, and receiving payment for livestock and produce raised and wood collected (Mullins 1999b:85- 87). These opportunities allowed slaves to spend in the open market and purchase desired goods and merchandise to use or collect. Slaves had always been considered a part of the production
61 side in capitalism, but earning wages and payments also places them on the consumer, rather purchaser side of the economy. There is historical evidence that supports the concept of slave consumers. Amy Friedlander reports that Henry Ravenel, a store owner in the South Carolina Lowcountry, maintained detailed ledger and account books of all his customers, his white neighbors, commercial firms, and slaves alike (1985:224-6). Ravenel’s Day Book has entries of slave purchases of luxury items, flannel and other cloth, and rice paying either with money or labor. They also purchased manufactured items consisting of cards, coats, and kerchiefs. Not only did slaves purchase here, they sold items to Ravenel as well including poultry, hogs, corn, fish, honey, wood, handmade crafts, and their skills. Race is a social construct that has long been used to divide peoples. The imposed status differences between whites and blacks were a part of reality every day for the slave community. This fact cannot be ignored. For blacks racism was a motivating factor of resistance and cultural survival despite the adversity endured from their position as slaves. Paul Mullins’ work Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture is an excellent example of the study of race within the global system of capitalistic society. He examines the forces behind African consumption in the wake of a racist society (1999b). Status could also be observed in materials consumed by the different social classes of slaves. Reportedly house servants ate the same foods as their masters as they took meals in the kitchen before or after the masters in the main house (1999b:190). Differences were investigated in faunal material found at sites agreeing with historical accounts that slaves ate poorer quality of meats than whites, and supplemented their diets by hunting and fishing as well (Singleton 1995:126-127). The masters had individual settings of tableware and kitchenware including serving pieces and utensils, while the slaves had communal cooking implements, and wooden spoons or broken pottery for eating utensils. Although slaves received much of their clothing or cloth from their masters likely nullifying any observed status levels for most, domestic servants received clothes of better materials. How items were worn and additional purchases proved avenues to display identity and pride for slaves within their community (Joyner 1977:213). Archaeological studies analyzing status differences on plantations most often focused on ceramic distributions between the white and black inhabitants and within the black community. These included Stanley South (1977), John Solomon Otto (1977), Susan Mullins Moore (1985),
62 Theresa Singleton (1985), and George Miller (1991) (Chapter 5). Often in slavery studies, the white planter became ignored in the analysis as a search for the living conditions and consumption of slaves was pursued (Epperson 1999c). Andrews and Fenton (2001:117) point out that slavery is both an economic and social system that truly is about the white slave owners and not the African Americans themselves. The enslaved community largely had to deal with the effects of slavery and the social conditions within their cultural landscape making adjustments and innovations as needed. In archaeology the study of African American slavery focuses on uncovering the meaning behind cultural practices and behaviors performed by the oppressed.
Cultural process
Autonomy research has its beginnings in resistance and dominance studies that frequented African American archaeology investigations. Currently studies now look at autonomy through public archaeology and self-identification techniques although resistance remains a part of the discussion. Resistance studies (Olwell 1991, 1998; Orser 1985, 1999; Pearson 1992; Orser and Funari 2001) reveal relations between landscape patterns and resistance, such as the establishment of private yards and back doors that escape planter scrutiny, and the practice of unauthorized behaviors to resist planter dominance. Other research focused on establishing slave identity through ethnic markers, evidence of folk beliefs and religion, and foodways and colonoware studies, which investigated the use and occurrence of this handmade pottery of European forms (Ferguson 1992; Singleton 1996; McKee 1998; Scott 1998). There had been attentiveness in consumer studies as blacks simply being users of materials not as people part of the cultural process (Singleton 1995:134). Investigations of agency and community studies directed by the multidisciplinary focus on self-identification and public archaeology should serve to direct consumer studies in the future. Many of these studies contemplate the status levels of slaves in their analysis and apply their ideas to a capitalistic framework (Orser 1997; Miller et al. 1994), while others attempt to define the worldview of groups through analysis of ceramic and other item assemblages at sites (Leone 1999a; Mullins 1999a, b).
63 An example of a study of the establishment of slave identity, Stine’s analysis of blue beads found extensively on sites were identified as evidence of an African American presence on plantations, rural and urban sites, burials, middens and structures (Stine et al. 1996:50). Out of 26 sites examined in the United States, blue beads represented the most frequently occurring bead (27% which was statistically significant; the second most frequent bead was clear at 20%)[ Stine et al. 1996:52]. A regional study of 50 South Carolina and Georgia sites revealed 36% of the sample, and of this 36%, African American residences contained 48% of the sample, kitchens had 24%, and the other plantation areas contained 21% of the sample (Stine et al. 1996:52). The fact that these significant percentages are found in African American domestic contexts reveals the group’s preference for blue beads more than any other type. The use of beads must also be established as well as identification of where they are used. Ethnographies, sociocultural studies, and historical documents revealed that beads were used by individuals, healers, and conjurers as charms that symbolized good health, protection from evil and good luck (Stine et al. 1996:60). They were either worn on individuals or secured in dwellings. They were also used for personal adornment and in prayer (Stine et al. 1996:61). African American communities interacted with Native American cultures. A comparison of bead consumption between the two cultures finds African Americans preferred these blue beads compared to a variety of Native American cultures that did not consume a significant percentage of blue beads including those inhabiting the southeastern United States who preferred largely white beads (Stine et al. 1996:57). Stine and her colleagues also state that Native American bead consumption and preferences affected the commodity market as records indicate that goods were refused from traders who received shipments of beads of the wrong color (Stine et al. 1996:56). It is likely, therefore, that as consumers African Americans could likewise influence the trade market with their preferences for certain colors of beads, and analogously of other items as well. Establishing which artifacts are consumed and identifying their patterns of consumption are only part of the methodology. It remains for archaeologists to determine the meaning of their usage. Objects also did not likely have unique meanings either. Mullins emphasizes the multivalence, the range of possible meanings, of articles that can change over time, differ from one space to another, but are always socially grounded (1999b:30). Evidence of using charms occurs in African cultures for all the reasons mentioned above (Stine et al. 1996:59). The color
64 blue must have cultural value for it to be preferred more than other colors regarding beads. According to Zora Neale Hurston, blue signified both the ability to protect and success (Stine et al. 1996:63). Slave narratives and historical documents attribute it to truth, protecting against evil and misfortune, good health, and blessings (Stine et al. 1996:64). Finding these beads within domestic spheres and burials demonstrates the personal nature of their use and supports the values of protection from harm, bad health, and evil. Capitalism and consumer research has centered on the people in the workforce that sell their labor to earn a living and in this case on slaves whose obligation it is to provide the labor for the dominating class of property holders. The social relations between and among these classes are the avenues for research for archaeologists (Leone 1999b:4). The classes are formed as a result of the disparity established from the wealth-producing and wealth-holding groups. One hopes to uncover the interactions and their settings in the daily working life that capitalism instituted. Capitalistic studies have long defined people based on what they possessed, not on their own ideas. This is a bias that exists due to the American and western capitalist environment in which American archaeology currently resides. One must remember that this point of view was not the same for African Americans in slavery and we should not expect it to have been. Then how are capitalism and consumer theories used to understand slave communities? Understanding the range of economic strategies and the different views of success that operate within capitalism among the different social classes, communities, households, and individuals is the key to interpreting the archaeological record and the behavior the people it represents. Why did slaves purchase products and what were their strategies in the first place? A desire for new social possibilities, personal satisfaction, expressions of identity, and display of affluence all remain possible explanations (Mullins 1999a:174). Slaves and later free African Americans knew their motivation as consumers; it is likely that they actively resisted white racism, held a desire for maintaining a better image and one of blackness, and wanted to express their own individuality (Mullins 1999a:189). Materials represent each of these things or more than one of them at a single time. This makes it difficult for archaeologists to answer questions of cultural significance. The question of African autonomy remains unanswered or at least incomplete. Identifying the material assemblage of African American sites is only a small part of researching slave identity. Studying cultural processes, specifically how slaves defied their social position
65 against the dominant racism of white expectations of Blackness and Whiteness (Mullins 1999a:172). Critical assessment of African American archaeology reveals that research is striving toward a discipline that involves the black community in both design and interpretation of investigations as it is presented in the model of slave life developed in this chapter. Self- identification remains an important avenue to pursue research in community studies and African Diaspora research.
Model of Slave Life
Terrence W. Epperson emphasizes ethnic identity as a primary focus of African American archaeology as it represents the cultural struggle within the context of domination and resistance (1999b:88). In archaeology, ethnic identity is not equivalent to recognizing cultural survivals as Epperson emphasizes using Michael S. Nassaney’s words (1986):
[C]ontinuity and change are not mutually exclusive processes, but rather articulate in a dialectical relationship. In other words, indigenous groups can be acculturated and still retain a sense of ethnic identity. A group need not maintain cultural isolation and biological purity to assert cultural autonomy and ethnic solidarity.
Studies of ethnic identity such as this dissertation need to address the dialectic that exists between the dominate whites and the subordinate blacks incorporated into the global system of capitalism. It is not about the process of capitalism itself, but the relationships between the groups within the system. Accordingly ethnic studies should reflect how the subordinate group beginning on a community level adjusts to their subsidiary position and maintains its identity while working within the dominating system. Research will not concentrate solely on survivals but involve realms where acculturation will have occurred and can be identified archaeologically in their religious lives, their social lives, and within their homes. In African American plantation slave quarters there may be found spiritual objects or caches within the home, an alteration of the landscape with gardens, back doors, and gardens, and different uses of culinary items, personal items, and furnishings within the home. Historical archaeology studies of agency should involve a combination of both archaeological remains and historical documentation. Determining African American behaviors
66 in slave communities first involves defining the habitus that existed within the household, the plantation, and the neighboring areas where interactions occurred of the slave inhabitants on a regular basis. Studies should not stop at the individual site such as the slave quarters, because the slaves had contact between other ethnic groups including European Americans, Native Americans, Caribbeans, and other Africans. According to Marshall Sahlins interaction between groups, “though based on individually conceived traditional categories, can force those traditional categories to be applied to different domains, possibly leading to transformation of shared traditional structures” (Sahlins 1981:35). Ethnicities can form through contact between different ethnic groups and transformation of the traditional habitus to include newly observed practices from other groups. The individuals captured from Africa were from many different cultures of West and Central Africa each having its own accepted habitus. The transplanted slaves then intermingled with each other and with other ethnicities in America. It was impossible for original African cultures to remain intact with the interactions experienced between such multitudes of groups. Individuals and their traditional cultures and practices were forced under their newly found circumstances to adjust and transform and created a unique ethnic group in their new territory. The distinctiveness of African Americans is that their cultural components are derived from so many sources. Thus ethnic markers or Africanisms cannot solely define African heritage and identity in the Americas and elsewhere in the African Diaspora. Although a range of behavior was ‘given’ to slaves by their white authorities, this did not compose their practice. African American slaves had a greater range of choices than were allotted to them by whites, including to conform to white rules of behavior or defy them through work slowdowns, stoppages, running away, stealing, and a variety of other choices as well. Agency is not just resistance but the capacity to act and the choice made by an individual to pursue. Archaeologically consumption studies provide a method to study African American behavior in slave communities through analysis of patterns observed in the artifact assemblages and settlement patterns. The key to defining slave behaviors is a self-identified, holistic examination of historical, primary, and literary sources in combination with archaeological investigations of a particular area that provide a likely picture of a local slave community. Once a local model is outlined archaeological tests can determine to what degree a particular site conforms to the model. After the behaviors of the local slave community are depicted regional
67 comparisons and global comparisons within the African Diaspora may be attempted. At this point a larger examination can be undertaken of the cultural processes involved on a larger scale within the African Diaspora.
Methodology
At the onset of the investigation the multiple resources available must be determined including historical documents, oral histories and slave narratives, primary sources, and archaeological studies. Particular concentration should be paid to specific information of the local environment within the same context of the archaeological site investigated. Cultural processes, identities, behaviors, and their meanings are dynamic and all change as time passes. The life of enslaved peoples is not the same from one generation to the next. As much historical information should be gathered of the site as is possible. Information should also not be restricted to the African American component, for they were not the only people that slaves interacted with. The slaveholders and their practices are just as important in the study as the slaves themselves. One must understand slave behavior within the context of their everyday lives including the whites they interacted with too. Self-reflection as always should be a concern of archaeologists as one always carries ideological, political, economic, and social biases from research design to execution and dissemination. Understanding and reporting one’s biases throughout the study is an important factor to remain as objective as possible. Modern conditions are so different for all parties involved than they were before. Knowledge of one’s biases throughout the process will aid in identifying meanings of cultural behaviors when evaluating your observations. In the initial step of the methodology, the community must be characterized exercising three principal factors: self-identification, holistic approach, and self-reflection. The goal of a community study is to identify the community from its own point of view as much as possible. Using resources from the inhabitants’ own words, behaviors, remains, and beliefs is ideal although not likely achievable; therefore, archaeologists must rely on other information to assist in this endeavor. How does the African American community define itself? Using multiple resources from historical documentation, slave narratives, oral histories, and descendant
68 TABLE 5 MODEL OF A SLAVE COMMUNITY METHODOLOGY
Step Procedure 1 Define the community. 2 Define the archaeological resources of the primary site and within the community. 3 Conduct the archaeological tests of the observed patterns. 4 Assessment. Compare the archaeological tests to the community definition. 5 Perform larger regional analyses. 6 Cultural process investigations.
stories of the site within the time and local area in question should be analyzed to identify cultural behaviors and customs, meanings and ideals, and objects used. This research also should involve identifying the groups that the community interacted with including those of other races, economics, and social classes as interactions were not restricted within the community. Finally, the researcher herself/himself needs to have an awareness of her/his own position and periodically examine the questions being examined to ensure they are those the community itself is concerned with. Ideally the study should begin with the cooperation of the descendant community from the outset as it will have its own agenda and questions. If this is not possible, as in this case where the study began after the archaeology was completed, an approach that considers the slave community’s point of view within the research should be conducted. Second, the archaeological resources studied and to be compared are identified. The history of the primary site needs to be investigated from its historical beginnings to the present day to determine all historical periods within the site and impacts on the site. The context of the site must be identified in chronology and geographic area. A history of the physical environment is important to characterize as it provides explanations of materials utilized within the site. Every site has different periods of occupation, from prehistory to present day. In historical community studies, each historical occupation must be identified using public records of deeds, probates, maps, and wills. For the physical area and different occupants must be understood over time to interpret archaeological remains accurately. The context of the particular study in
69 question should be clearly defined and the archaeological remains studied need to be identified to that particular time and place. Using the ideas previously described in Chapters 3 and 4, the expected patterns to be found within the archaeological evidence should be identified as predicted by the community definition. Once the context of the site to be studied is clear, the expected artifact and settlement patterns to be examined should be defined. Ideally the entire artifact assemblage would be examined for patterns observed in architecture, foodways, and personal items. This may not always be possible and any limitations placed on this data should be clearly stated. Preferably, archaeological investigations should begin with this model from conception to publication. In this case, the archaeological excavations had already been completed at the initiation of this study. The community model may still be implemented at this point. Performing the historical and literary research and analyzing the archaeological collection can suffice to interpret the remains in terms of the slave community. As long as the archaeological investigation overall had been well-documented and preserved the information should be available to conduct this manner of study. During this third step the archaeology should focus on identifying all inhabitants of the site over all periods of occupation. After the excavations are completed, the patterns observed within the site can be assessed. Those that can be associated with the African American inhabitants with the assistance of the historical information should be identified and interpreted. As previously discussed, the slave community is not restricted to a household, living quarters, or even the single archaeological site. It is defined by the interactions of its members with the surrounding community including the work areas, the neighboring plantations, houses, and towns. These all should be included in the archaeological assessment of the slave community as a whole. The resulting information will not be a complete record of the slave community as this is quite impossible as contextual resources have been destroyed and altered over the centuries. All archaeological evidence and historical information within the area of similar context should be examined. The objective is to identify the most accurate picture of the community as possible. The next step is assessing the model and determining if the archaeological evidence supports the community definition described in the first step. Are the expected living conditions for the slave community there? What observable differences in status and hierarchy of all
70 members of the community can be identified? At this time what cultural processes can be identified such as agency, consumerism, and resistance? This step determines if the community definition successfully predicted the archaeological evidence and the conflicts between the social classes. Some results may be unexpected; these should be clearly identified and explanations offered for their occurrence. The next two steps, regional level and cultural processes studies, are beyond the scope of this thesis, and are recommended for future research. Community level studies provide a level of comparison that can be duplicated in any area. Research of the local African American community including slave narratives, oral histories, historical and literary documents as well as archaeological investigations can be conducted and a specific model constructed for a particular local area. This enables one to compare communities of similar times to each other to assess regional differences and perform synchronic studies, and communities of similar areas over time for diachronic analysis. On a larger scale, regional comparisons can be used in African Diaspora studies and analyses of cultural processes on a larger scale such as ethnicity formation and world systems theory. The advantages of this model lie in the self-identification of the slave community and the use of a combination of resources to characterize it. It uses inductive reasoning to build evidence for studies of larger cultural processes. The theoretical models such as capitalism and world systems theory are engaged and applied to the results, but caution is observed as not to use these to define the behaviors being sought. They are instead used to explain the behaviors observed from the remains. Replication of this model is easily accomplished with the same approach in identifying the slave community may be applied and adjusted to any location. Starting from individual households and groups of households to larger community allows for family comparison, subcultural comparisons, and then bridges to regional and global inclusions.
71 CHAPTER 5
THE SNEE FARM SLAVE COMMUNITY
African Americans have been neglected in the past pertaining to the retelling of American history. If and when their story has been addressed most often the sources are not the African Americans themselves but outsiders. I, too, am not a member of the group in question; however, it is still possible to tell their tale through a combination of their own stories and remains. Using the model of slave life as defined in the previous chapter, and adapting it to the slave community at Snee Farm in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina the methodology of the model of a slave community can be applied to uncover the lives of the slaves of this particular community. First, the community must be identified using historical, primary, and literary sources. The living conditions must be predicted from these sources and archeological studies that later will be tested using the archaeological evidence from the Snee Farm site and other sites in the vicinity. In 1991 a Historic American Buildings Survey was completed for the National Park Service (Lavoie 1991). The survey outlines the chain of title of the land from its first grant in 1698 to the Pinckney family’s purchase in 1754 of an area of 715 acres. Charles (II) used it as a working rice plantation and raised a small amount of livestock as well (see Chapter 1). The farm remained in the family’s hands until 1818 when it was finally sold reportedly in a state of disrepair. This is the period addressed in this study. This property was not the sole concern of Colonel Pinckney or his son Governor Pinckney. They owned properties in Charleston, elsewhere in the Lowcountry, and Charles Pinckney III in the Columbia area after his election as Governor. Early in the Pinckney era the family likely did spend a good amount of time at Snee Farm when escaping the city life of Charleston. Later, their military and public service commitments kept them away from the plantation. During these times an overseer was left to manage the farm and the slaves. After Col. Pinckney passed, Gov. Pinckney inherited some of the slaves from his father’s estate and Snee Farm in 1788. The Governor’s public commitments not only kept his presence here at a minimum, it also kept him from maintaining the farm and his other properties in good working condition. This presents questions regarding the condition of
72 the slave community at Snee Farm during these years as well, which archaeological investigations should assist in answering.
The Slaves of Snee Farm
Who were the slaves at Snee Farm? Due to a 19th century fire at the Pinckney family’s Charleston home, the historical records of Snee Farm and much of their other properties were destroyed. As a result it is unknown who the individual slaves were at Snee Farm. The only known information is from Col. Pinckney’s estate and Gov. Pinckney’s will (Tables 1 and 2). Although a subsequent owner, William Mathewes, in 1853 had a slave settlement of 48 people for growing corn and hay; it is likely the Pinckneys held a similar number (Lavoie 1991:10). What is known from the historical documents corroborates the evidence from slave narratives and oral histories presented in Chapter 2. The Pinckney’s slaves lived in extended families with children, parents, and the elderly as members of the community. The community revolved around their kin and they likely supported each other in their daily lives. Slave marriages were encouraged by the Christian Pinckney family as husbands and wives are listed with their children in Col. Pinckney’s estate. Marriage and family were the center of slave communities according to their own historical accounts and likely was the most important factor in the lives of the slaves of Snee Farm. Archaeological evidence supporting the importance of extended families would reveal small slave houses with associated features such as gardens, livestock pens, and yards for supplementing the family subsistence and income. Associated artifacts within the quarters should include structural remains, culinary items such as ceramics, kettles, and utensils, personal items such as clothing evidence, tobacco pipes, and toys, and evidence of various furnishings. Christ Church, the local parish of the Church of England, actively attempted to convert African slaves to Christianity (Gregorie 1961:20). Although it proved difficult to assemble slaves for church and instruction as slaveholders were unwilling to release them from work for such purposes. Planters did, however, often allow slaves to be baptized though. No mention is made of marrying slaves within the church although many were stated as active parishioners at times comprising half of the parish’s congregation (Gregorie 1961:86). As previously discussed in the history of Snee Farm and slave narrative evidence from South Carolina slaves, status is a likely factor that was depicted in the daily lives of the Snee
73 TABLE 6 SLAVE OCCUPATIONS FROM 1787 ESTATE AND 1818 WILL
Occupation Name Carpenter Cyrus Carpenter George Carpenter Mulatto Jack Carpenter Polydor Cook London Cooper Frank Cooper Isaac Driver and sawyer Cudjoe Field slave Cuffy Field slave Inba Field slave Jack Field slave Johnny Field slave Will Field slave and Oarsman Shanney Gardener Quomina Girl Rosetta House servant Snee Jack House wench Affy Shoemaker Congaree Ned Superannuated Old Joan Washerwoman Betty Washerwoman Dinah Wheelwright Cudjoe and Inba’s son
Farm slaves. Historical documents including Charles Pinckney II’s inventory of slaves and Charles Pinckney III’s will indicate 24 slaves of varying occupations (Table 6), and 31 slaves of unknown occupations on the farm from 1787 to 1818 although a few of these may be the same individuals (Edgar 1991:5). Skilled occupations represented are carpenters, a cook, coopers, a driver and sawyer, a gardener, house servants, a shoemaker, and a wheelwright. Manual labor jobs indicated are field slaves, oarsman, and washerwoman. Archaeological evidence that would support the existence of hierarchy based on status lie in observable differences in ceramic assemblages, architectural remains, culinary behaviors, and personal items. This dissertation is restricted to the study of ceramics from Snee Farm and the surrounding area as it is the most comparable, available, and uniformly published data. The remaining functional categories will be analyzed in the forthcoming archaeological report of Snee Farm (Keel and Kowal 2007).
74 Archaeological History of Snee Farm
Settlement Pattern
The period plat maps and a vivid description of Snee Farm by Governor Pinckney’s grandson W.S. Elliot in the April 1866 edition of DeBow’s Review are the only historical evidence of the plantation layouts and physical descriptions that exist. The review describes the farm as a beautiful setting with a formal garden, fountains, shrubbery, an artificial lake, and fish ponds (Elliot 1866:374-75). A mile long avenue lined with oak groves led to the main house. It is likely that Eliza Lucas Pinckney, Charles Pinckney II’s aunt, advised him with the design and elements of the gardens. Her letterbook contains much information regarding gardening and Pinckney II had placed local advertisements for selling plants from London (Lavoie 1991:18; NPS N.D.a:4-6). In 1866, however, “The beautiful grounds of “Fee [sic] Farm” have disappeared, and the plough runs its furrows through the grove, and the grave-yard. The cellars are empty. The ponds are dry, the fountains are no more; its former light is quenched, its classic- shade has fled” (Elliot 1866:377). It appears subsequent owners have altered the landscape significantly from Pinckney’s era. This elaborate description is very helpful in providing an insight to the condition of the plantation and its inhabitants. The modest rice farm seems in fact to have been a status symbol at some time for the Pinckney family as gardens represent wealth and elite status for the upper class. As President Washington’s breakfast visit indicates, Snee Farm could not have been dilapidated in 1789 or Gov. Pinckney would not have consented to his visit and insisted on his arrival in the city of Charleston, just five miles away. The description imparts information of the slaves of the farm as well though never mentioning them directly. The lavish landscape necessitated a large responsibility to maintain and design. Quomina, the gardener listed in the slave inventory, likely was the individual responsible. The description reveals a large amount of the farm’s landscape devoted to gardens. A very skilled and intelligent slave gardener and assistants must have taken care of the landscape over the years it was used as the family’s country estate. The location of the oak lined avenue in the center and parallel to the road on plat maps
75 FIGURE 6. Close-up of the 1818 plat of Snee Farm (Courtesy of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History).
FIGURE 7. 1844 plat of Snee Farm showing the slave village in the lower center (Courtesy of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History).
76 (Figures 6 and 7) and it is likely that the formal garden is the cruciform shaped area immediately north of the main house (NPS N.D.a:9). Historical documentation never discusses the existence of a kitchen garden or slave gardens at Snee Farm. Kitchen gardens of the period were usually fenced and contained food crops and herbs that were used at the farm and the Charleston home (NPS N.D.a:10). In the 1991 buildings survey, Lavoie found the entrance to the main house faced south and the road was not visible from the house. The standing house is not the Pinckney’s original house but likely built in the 1830s by William Mathewes who owned the property at the time. Archaeological excavations conducted by Julia King for SEAC hypothesized that the original house lay underneath the standing house, and subsequent investigations in 1999 and 2000 supported this proposal. There are three typical plantation landscape patterns for the late 18th and early 19th century (NPS N.D.b:23). The first is an early linear arrangement that aligns the plantation along roads with a central drive to the central house and the end with smaller buildings lining the driveway or street. The second pattern maintains an overall linear form, but the buildings are more clustered. The third form is exhibited on rice plantations of a non-linear, organic pattern. Snee Farm historical plats and archaeological investigations indicate that Snee Farm was settled with the first linear plantation pattern in mind (Figure 8). The main house is centered (Structure 17) with the kitchen (Structure 13), domestic slave house (Structure 16), and overseer’s house (Structure 14) to the east. The slave quarters are found in Area B, southeast of the main house. The 1844 plat depicts the houses in linear rows in this approximate location, although the archaeology finds they were not precisely aligned (Figure 9).
Archaeological Overview
The initial archaeological excavations of the historic Pinckney farm were conducted by Larry Lepionka in 1987, hired by Darby and Associates, the development company that owned the property, to perform the required archaeology and historic survey of the property. He established a 25 ft. grid across the core of the farm and excavated eight inch posthole tests at
77 Structure 13 Structure 17
Structure 14
Structure 16
Area A
PrePinckney Era
Pinckney Era
PostPinckney Era
FIGURE 8. Archaeological features of Charles Pinckney National Historic Site.
78 FIGURE 9. Area B, the slave quarters area, excavations (Stine et al. 1994). every intersection for a total of 239 tests. Brockington and Associates, Inc., an archaeological consulting firm was subsequently hired to complete the environmental testing requirements as Lepionka departed the testing (Brockington 1987). The grid was expanded to cover the remainder of the property, shovel tests were dug at 50 ft intervals, a metal detector survey was executed, and 14 formal test 5x5 ft test units were excavated where previous tests revealed high concentrations of artifacts. Three areas of interest were identified: Area A, west of the main house found many 18th century materials; Area B, southwest of the house seemed to correspond to the slave village on the 1841 plat; and Area C, in the immediate west and east yards of the residence where an abundance of 18th century artifacts and architectural remains were recovered. The South Carolina Coastal Council required additional testing of these areas prior to
79 development. The materials from all of Brockington’s investigations are curated at the Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, Florida (SEAC-0972). Local residents grew concerned of the fate of the historic Pinckney grounds and formed the Friends of Historic Snee Farm, Inc. to prevent the remaining acres of the plantation from becoming another suburban development of Charleston, South Carolina. The group was successful in purchasing the 28 acres surrounding the main house and donated them to the National Park Service to commemorate the life and contribution of Governor Charles Pinckney. At the time of purchase, Brockington had yet to complete the final report of their work accomplished which the NPS commissioned them to do so (Stine et al. 1994). The Historic American Buildings Survey was also conducted during this time and found that the standing residence was not that of Gov. Pinckney but a later structure built in the 1820s after he had sold the farm to contribute to the payment of his debts (Lavoie 1991). Julia King of the Maryland Historical Trust was commissioned by the Friends to conduct an archaeological survey under and around the house to establish the context of the area (King 1992). Simultaneously, Walter Edgar, University of South Carolina, was hired to conduct historical research to assist with the ascertainment of the building’s context (1991). The results of both the archaeological and historical surveys confirmed that the residence was a 1820s structure. Julia King excavated 20 shovel tests and 14 test units in the east and north yards, and 3 units underneath the residence. The unit under the south porch revealed the remains of a linear brick foundation possibly dating to the Pinckney era. The bricks forming this foundation were soft and low-fired, typical of 18th century period construction and distinct from the bricks in the foundation of the standing structure. She theorized that the Pinckney house was underneath the standing house but could not confirm this at the time (King 1992:165-167). The structures in the east yard were also believed to be from the Pinckney era. Structure 13 was tentatively identified as an elite dining area, and Structure 14 either a less formal dining area or an overseer’s house. The artifacts and documents from her excavations are also curated at SEAC (SEAC-0915). Since July 1991 archaeological investigations of the site were directed by Dr. Bennie C. Keel of the Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service. As a new park and tourist attraction, archaeological testing was conducted where necessary when new buildings, pathways, parking areas, and utilities were planned for the site. In addition full-scale excavations were also conducted seeking additional information of all the inhabitants of the site. Throughout the next
80 FIGURE 10. Silver demitasse spoon with the initials CFP, Charles and Francis Pinckney (Photo by J. Jones. Courtesy of NPS). nine years, several field seasons were conducted; all of the materials, both documents and artifacts, are stored at SEAC under the accession SEAC-0943. In 1992 additional testing was conducted in the east yard confirming Brockington and Kings’ observations that the Pinckney’s 18th century structures were present (Keel 1992). Immediately north of the east wing of the house was found a silver demitasse spoon with the initials “CFP” engraved of Charles and Francis Pinckney (Figure 10). In the fall 1992 field season and subsequent years the east yard was further excavated including Structures 13, 14, 15, and 16. Structure 14 is believed to be a domicile, possible the overseer’s house. In cooperation with The University of South Carolina, a field school was conducted under the direction of Keel and Leland Ferguson of Structures 15 and 16 and the slave village area in the summer of 1995 (Ferguson 1995). Structure 15 is a 19th century smokehouse that intrudes upon the southeast corner of Structure 13, the Pinckney kitchen. Structure 16, a domestic slave quarters, is located in the southeast yard and contained similar artifacts to Structure 13. The remaining structures all belong to the Pinckney era and are described in detail in the next section. After excavating immediately south of the residence for evidence of the Pinckney home, Structure 11 was found to be a small residence, dating to the early 18th century and likely not the Pinckney home as Keel thought. In 1997 preliminary excavations testing King’s theory were conducted under the house, which confirmed the presence of 18th century material and
81 TABLE 7 SNEE FARM STRUCTURES AND THEIR MEAN CERAMIC DATES
Structure Description MCD Area B, Structure 1 Field slave quarter 1835.50 Area B, Structure 2 Field slave quarter 1760.00 Area B, Structure 4 Possible slave quarter 1804.00 Structure 13 Kitchen 1781.71 Structure 14 Overseer’s house 1819.80 Structure 16 Domestic slave quarter 1768.93 Structure 17 Pinckney family residence 1784.22 architectural rubble. Further excavations the following year found significant evidence of a major architectural structure beneath the house confirming King’s hypothesis that Col. and Gov. Pinckney’s home was located underneath the standing residence. Full-scale excavations funded by the Friends of Historic Snee Farm were conducted in 1999 to recover the remaining evidence of the Pinckney country estate. Throughout the years several graduate students and archaeological technicians worked on the site and its associated materials. Two master’s theses have been produced regarding the site, one of the kitchen, structure 13 (Meyer 1998), the other of the cotton gin, structure 12 (Tiemann 1998). At one point each field season was given a project designation with the intent to submit smaller finished projects for curation. Due to the high turnaround of staff, as most technicians were student positions that eventually graduated or left SEAC, there was no uniformity of the analysis of the site’s collection. In 2004 I was hired as a student archeological technician with SEAC by Bennie Keel. I assessed the status of the collection including all artifacts and documents, consolidated it analyzing each artifact myself, designed and managed the database, and archived all associated documents. After nine years of excavations, the materials amassed are extensive; with over 170,000 artifacts in the collection and hundreds of documents, the task has taken over two years.
Evidence
The following section discusses the archaeological evidence of the structures pertinent to this dissertation. These include the slave housing, the kitchen, the overseer’s house, the main
82 house (Table 7). There are several other structures on site but are not of the Pinckney era and have not been presented here. Further information can be found of these structures and areas in the forthcoming archaeological report of the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (Keel and Kowal 2007).
Area B slave housing In 1986 Brockington and Associates, Inc. was hired to complete the necessary archaeological tests by Darby Development Company, Inc. prior to the land’s development of a suburban residential area. The results are reported in their cultural resource survey (Stine et al. 1994) and subsequent archaeological report “Searching for the Slave Village at Snee Farm Plantation: The 1987 Archaeological Investigation” (Stine et al. 1994). The artifacts were reviewed by the author to conform to the analysis of the larger site investigated by Bennie Keel and the National Park Service. Initially, using the historic plat maps for guidance, the slave village was believed to be located in Area A (Figure 8). Shovel testing, test units, and a metal detector survey were conducted within the area and few artifacts were found. In the southwest quadrant area, Area B, a high concentration of artifacts, especially kitchen materials, was unearthed in the first season. Brockington believed this may possibly be the slave quarters area and requested further testing to confirm his hypothesis before construction development continued. In 1987 the firm returned to the site as to complete more extensive excavations in the search of the slave quarters (Stine et al. 1994). A number of difficulties were encountered by the archaeologists prior and during their excavation. Area B in the previous season was disked using a farm tractor and a towed disk clearing the top 3-4 inches of surface soil. Artifacts were flagged and subsequently collected for laboratory analysis. An abundance of materials were bagged during this controlled surface collection procedure. In October 1987, the firm arrived to complete the extensive excavations of Area B and found the land had been graded and a preliminary road base was already constructed for the suburban development. Observations revealed a larger concentration of surface objects here than in Area A. Heavy concentrations of materials and features were flagged, mapped, and collected and four test units were excavated (Figure 9). Despite the partial destruction of the site, a number of features, and brick and post hole structural remains were uncovered, leading to the conclusion that this in fact was the
83 FIGURE 11. Area B, Structure 1, a field slave quarter (Stine et al. 1994). location of the Pinckney slave village. Quantities and consequent calculations differ from the original report as many artifacts had degraded in condition over the years. Structure 1 was discovered after grading the plow zone. It consists of rectangular robber’s trenches of a building approximately 8.0 x 11.0 ft and a single posthole (Figure 11). It is oriented north/south, but not precisely on the axis, and it does not correspond exactly to the other structures found. The trenches were created for the purpose of robbing the structure’s brick foundation for reuse. It is not known when these trenches were excavated and where the materials ultimately went. Brockington suggests this structure was a two-story wooden frame building resting on a brick and limestone mortar foundation (Stine et al 1994:48-51). It lacked windowpane glass remnants and likely did not have glass windows. Lacking any hearth or charcoal feature, it likely did not have a chimney. It is relatively small in size and may have been a storage building for the slaves. The mean ceramic date was calculated using South’s formula (1977) as it is for all the ceramics in this collection (Table 8). The date calculated is after the Pinckney era, 1835.5, due to whitewares comprising 33.3% of the ceramics assemblage. Creamwares and pearlwares comprise 44.4% and 22.2% of the assemblage respectively. These percentages indicate a likely Pinckney era occupation despite the occurrence of whitewares as this artifact type has such a late MCD in comparison. The presence of ceramics indicates that the structure was likely a small residence.
84 TABLE 8 AREA B, STRUCTURE 1 ARTIFACTS
Group Item MCD* Count Percentage Weight(g) Percentage Architecture Brick 13 6.53 425.1 4.87 Architecture Mortar 9 4.52 271.1 3.10 Architecture Nail, Cut 5 2.51 26.2 0.30 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 54 27.14 115 1.32 Architecture Nail, Wire 1 0.50 1.3 0.01 Ceramics Creamware 1791 4 2.01 3.5 0.04 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 3 1.51 4.5 0.05 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 2 1.01 1 0.01 Ceramics Pearlware, Transfer Printed Cobalt Blue 1812 1 0.50 35.6 0.41 Ceramics Whiteware 1908 1 0.50 0.1 0.00 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1908 1 0.50 1.8 0.02 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 1908 1 0.50 5.8 0.07 Ceramics Whiteware, Shell Edged Blue 1908 1 0.50 1.8 0.02 Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 1908 1 0.50 2.3 0.03 Ceramics Whiteware, Transfer Printed 1908 1 0.50 4.8 0.05 Kitchen, Food Oyster 3 1.51 50.8 0.58 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 21 10.55 214.9 2.46 NA, Ceramics Unidentified 9 4.52 95.2 1.09 NA, Lithics Debitage 1 0.50 4.1 0.05 Other Bone, Unidentified 18 9.05 8.8 0.10 Other Flotation Sample 13 6.53 7367.8 84.35 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 7 3.52 11.9 0.14 Other Metal Fragment 25 12.56 73.3 0.84 Personal Bead, Glass 1 0.50 0.2 0.00 Personal Tobacco Pipe 3 1.51 8 0.09 Totals 1835.5 199 100.00 8734.9 100.00 *Calculated using South’s mean ceramic date formula (1977:217).
FIGURE 12. Area B, Structure 2, a field slave quarter (Stine et al. 1994).
85 TABLE 9 AREA B, STRUCTURE 2 ARTIFACTS
Group Item MCD Count Percentage Weight (g) Percentage Architecture Brick 21 17.36 5439.0 51.92 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 7 5.79 18.5 0.18 Architecture Windowpane 1 0.83 0.3 0.00 Arms Lead Shot 1 0.83 0.1 0.00 Ceramics Delft 1720 5 4.13 0.1 0.00 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 4 3.31 58.5 0.56 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 1 0.83 115.2 1.10 Ceramics Untyped 1 0.83 0.8 0.01 Kitchen, Food Oyster 4 3.31 83.7 0.80 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 15 12.40 940.9 8.98 NA, Ceramics Unidentified 3 2.48 5.4 0.05 Other Bone, Unidentified 14 11.56 49.9 0.48 Other Flotation Sample 37 30.58 3650.1 34.84 Other Shell, Unidentified 7 5.78 113.9 1.08 Totals 1760 121.00 100.00 10476.4 100.00
Structure 2 of Area B measures 16 ft east/west and 20 ft north/south and possibly has a 5 ft extension or porch on its southern end (Figure 12). It is much larger than structure 1 and is composed of a number of rectangular and a few circular posthole features. As with Structure 1, there was no chimney or hearth discovered associated with this building either. No associated dirt floor was found indicating either a raised wooden floor or destruction of the feature from years of plowing on the farm. Few artifacts were uncovered within the structure (Table 9). The MCD of the structure, 1760, is much earlier than that of structure 1, 1835.5, but is based on only nine sherds of two ceramic types. Overall this building was likely an earthfast structure with wooden frame with a porch resting on brick piers, and was probably used as a slave dwelling. Structure 3 is not as clearly defined as the first two buildings (Figure 13). There is a wall of postholes aligning east/west that are likely the northern wall of the structure. The close placement of the posts and their similarity to those of structure 2 indicate a structural feature rather than a fence line (Stine et al. 1994:56-57). Much of the structure had been disturbed by the previously described road grading leaving little artifacts (Table 10) and adding to the difficulty of its interpretation. There is evidence of a chimney outside the northeast end of the building composed of features 51a-c. This feature was an 8 x 3.4 x 0.7 ft dark, basin-shaped stain with a heavy concentration of charcoal in the southwest corner. Within the feature charred wood, charcoal, mammal bone, oyster shell, hickory nut shell, and squash rind was found. It is
86 FIGURE 13. Area B, Structure 3, a field slave quarter (Stine et al. 1994).
TABLE 10 AREA B, STRUCTURE 3 ARTIFACTS
Group Item MCD Count Percentage Weight(g) Percentage Kitchen, Food Oyster 1 7.69 7.4 4.71 NA, Ceramics Unidentified 5 38.46 3.4 2.16 Other Flotation Sample 7 53.85 146.4 93.13 Totals 13 100.00 157.2 100.00
87 FIGURE 14. Area B, Structure 4, a possible slave dwelling (Courtesy Stine et al. 1994). likely that this feature was either a large chimney for the structure or a communal hearth for the slave village. Overall the interpretation of this structure is also an earthfast cabin like structure 2 but of unknown dimensions. A series of post molds indicates the presence of Structure 4 along the southwest of Area B (Figure 14). The certainty of the interpretation as a structure is tentative, but is designated as such due to the artifact assemblage (Table 11). The MCD for the structure is 1804 and corresponds to the Pinckney era of the site. Generally, the structural evidence in Area B and the artifacts within it place the area in the Pinckney era, 1754-1818. There are likely four structures three of which are slave cabins, although one is smaller in size, and a fourth that is indeterminate in function. However, the artifact assemblage from this fourth structure corresponds to the other two slave dwellings, indicating it is also a slave quarter. The entire area contains 2716 artifacts including samples (Table 24). There is a mean ceramic date of 1829 for the area not including the structural evidence already presented.
88 TABLE 11 AREA B, STRUCTURE 4 ARTIFACTS
Group Item MCD Count Percentage Weight (g) Percentage Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 1 1.75 1.6 0.75 Ceramics Creamware 1791 2 3.51 1.5 0.70 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 5 8.77 10.0 4.67 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1810 3 5.26 5.1 2.38 Ceramics Pearlware, Transfer Printed Cobalt Blue 1812 1 1.75 1.1 0.51 Kitchen, Food Oyster 8 14.04 7.4 3.46 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 2 3.51 1.6 0.75 Other Bone, Unidentified 24 42.11 5.5 2.57 Other Flotation Sample 10 17.54 180.0 84.07 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 1 1.75 0.3 0.14 Totals 1804 57 100.00 214.1 100.00
FIGURE 15. Site map depicting eastern and southern structures and excavations.
89 FIGURE 16. Photograph of Structure 16 (Photo by M. Meyer. Courtesy of NPS).
Domestic slave housing The following structural excavations were all conducted by SEAC under the direction of Bennie Keel. There is one domestic slave dwelling located southeast of the main residence on the site, structure 16 (Figure 15). Structure 16 was excavated in 1992, 1993, and in 1995 by the University of South Carolina Field School (Figures 16 and 17). It is a small building 12 x 16 ft composed of a series of six brick piers on an approximate east/west orientation. The artifact assemblage reveals a MCD of 1769 for the entire structure and all levels exhibit an 18th century MCD as well (Table 12, Table 25). During the field school, four circular post molds were found in the vicinity of this structure, two of which were below brick piers. It is likely that this structure was an early post-in-ground domestic dwelling. Its location close to the main house, kitchen, and other domestic dwellings leads to the conclusion that this was the site of the enslaved house servants’ quarters.
90 FIGURE 17. Photograph of Structure 16 (Photo by M. Meyer. Courtesy of NPS).
TABLE 12 STRUCTURE 16 MEAN CERAMIC DATES
Level MCD All Levels 1768.93 LV1 1773.81 LV2 1775.56 LV3 1762.38 LV4 1757.52
91 FIGURE 18. Photograph of Structure 14 (Photo by T. Taylor. Courtesy of NPS).
FIGURE 19. Structure 14 south extension brick pier (Photo by T. Taylor. Courtesy of NPS).
92 TABLE 13 STRUCTURE 14 MEAN CERAMIC DATES
Level MCD All Levels 1819.80 LV1 1820.26 LV2 1843.63 LV3 1798.77 LV4 1775.21 NOLV 1822.30
Structure 14 Structure 14 has been identified as the overseer’s house (King 1992). It measure 15 x 23 ft and has a 4.5 ft extension off the south wall (Figures 18 and 19). Possibly a porch or fireplace, the absence of charcoal and hearth evidence leads to the conclusion that the extension was a porch. The structure dates to ca. 1819 but there is evidence of multiple occupations (Table 13). The artifact assemblage contains a multitude of both Confederate and Union Army buttons (Table 26), and King suggested that the structure underwent renovations during the early 19th century (1992). It likely was originally constructed in the 18th century and the MCD from the lower levels of the structure supports her conclusion. It likely served multiple purposes over the years possibly as an overseer’s house due to the abundance of ceramic types within the structure.
Kitchen Structure 13 has been identified as a kitchen by Keel, although Meyer (1998) disagrees with this conclusion believing it was another dwelling or multipurpose structure on the plantation. I agree with Keel in his conclusion as the functions of the artifacts found within the structure lead me to believe that this was the Pinckney kitchen. Its proximity to the house (Figures 15 and 20) supports the supposition that it functioned as a kitchen. It is an 18th century
93 FIGURE 20. The kitchen, structure 13, in the forefront, and structure 14, the overseer’s house, as seen from the main house (Photo by T. Taylor. Courtesy of NPS).
TABLE 14 STRUCTURE 13 MEAN CERAMIC DATES
Level MCD All Levels 1781.71 LV1 1804.48 LV2 1796.23 LV3 1775.30 LV4 1765.00 NOLV 1788.66
94 TABLE 15 STRUCTURE 13 FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Group Count Percent Weight (g) Percent 20thCentury 10 0.05 143.93 0.14 Agriculture 20 0.10 1295.87 1.28 Agriculture, 22 0.11 1085.77 1.07 Machinery Architecture 3293 16.62 20528.66 20.29 Architecture, Ceramics 13 0.07 38.25 0.04 Arms 72 0.36 263.35 0.26 Ceramics 7558 38.16 37114.76 36.69 Kitchen 18 0.09 1081.02 1.07 Kitchen, Food 281 1.42 2693.49 2.66 Kitchen, Glass 3893 20.11 21296.95 21.05 NA, Ceramics 206 1.04 639.99 0.63 NA, Lithics 13 0.07 64.23 0.06 Other 3112 15.71 11849.44 11.71 Personal 1203 6.07 1786.15 1.77 Tool 4 0.02 1279.17 1.26 Totals 19718 100.00 101161.03 100.00
structure with an overall date of occupation of ca. 1781 (Table 14). The artifacts have been summarized in functional groups in Table 15. A full assemblage is from the kitchen group; these include food remains, kitchen glasswares, and miscellaneous kitchen items such as metals, tools, and utensils. There are a total of 59 different types of ceramics found within this structure comprising 38.16% of the total structure’s assemblage. A detailed listing of all artifacts from the structure can be found in Table 27. The larger percentage (59.77%) of artifacts from the kitchen and ceramics groups as compared to other groups supports the conclusion that this structure was a kitchen/dining facility. Although Meyer also found higher percentages of kitchen wares, he arrived at a different conclusion due to the number of porcelain and delft tile remains.
Main House The site’s main house as previously described had been believed to be the standing residence until the HABS survey revealed that the building was built in the 1820s. The question remained where were the remains of the Pinckney’s family home? Several excavations were conducted under and around the standing house. In her 1992 report, Julia King believed that it
95 FIGURE 21. Structure 17 located underneath the existing residence (Photo by M. Betz. Courtesy of NPS).
FIGURE 22. 1998 field crew in hazardous materials gear (Photo by park visitor. Courtesy of NPS).
96 was likely that the Pinckney era house lay underneath the 1820s structure due to structural evidence she examined under the south front porch. From 1991 to 1998 SEAC concentrated its efforts on identifying the outlying buildings and adjacent yards in the hopes of uncovering the main house in the high concentration of remains. After realizing that none of these structures represented the main house, Keel began to explore the possibility that King had been correct in her assumptions. Excavations under the house were challenging to say the least (Figures 21 and 22). There was little space between the floor of the house and the ground surface, at most 3 ft. The typical plumbing, wiring, and ductwork was suspended under the house and made it even more difficult to dig. In 1991 upon inspection of the newly acquired property, asbestos was found underneath the house and in the soil (Wild 1991). This required much planning and preparation to excavate in this location. In 1998 Keel and crew excavated the area protected in hazmat suits and respirators. The grid was extended beneath the house and excavations commenced with trowels as the limited space prevented the use of shovels. The excavated soil was water screened to prevent the contamination of the air further with asbestos. Analysis occurred in the center and later by the author to verify its classification. A large pit determined to be a cellar containing 18th century materials was uncovered. Evidence of brick piers from the original structure was found on the northeast and northwest corners, although the north wall strata had been disturbed by the builder’s trench of the existing house. In addition, the structural remains of a later attached kitchen at the northeast corner of the house was discovered and attributed to the Hamlin ownership (Keel and O.T. Hamlin, personal communication). Almost all of the earlier structure was excavated and 30% of the cellar pit. The MCD of the structure is 1784.22; all levels date to the 18th century with the exception of level 2 (Table 16). A detailed list of artifact types is found in Table 28. The number of artifacts clearly indicates that the remains of a structure lie beneath the standing residence. The variety of remains and the agreement of its location and the corresponding historic maps support the conclusion that this structure was in fact the 18th century Pinckney family home. The current structure largely maintains the historic floor plan with the exception of additional wings at the north end of the residence. Many modifications occurred to the landscape around this house throughout the centuries, but the evidence of occupation remained sealed over
97 TABLE 16 STRUCTURE 17 MEAN CERAMIC DATES
Level MCD All Levels 1784.22 LV1 1778.46 LV2 1809.47 LV3 1768.41 LV4 1741.13 LV5 1733.11 NOLV 1758.65
all this time allowing archaeologists two centuries later to solve the puzzle of the location of the Pinckney’s house. The unification of historic documents, slave narratives, archaeology provides the ability to most accurately depict the picture of slave life. Here maps, family wills, estates, newspaper reviews were all used to assess the conditions of slave life at Snee Farm plantation. The structures interpreted to comprise the daily habitations of slaves and others in their immediate vicinity are presented here through their archaeological remains. These structures include the field laborer’s village and associated structures, a domestic servant’s quarters, an overseer’s house, the historic kitchen, and the main residence of the Pinckney family. Each of these structures has been presented as they are the sites of most of the daily interactions in the slave community. The addition of work areas including the rice fields would provide a larger picture of slave life; however, fewer materials would be found in the fields, and no additional 18th century structures were identified archaeologically to include in this investigation. The potential exists for further analysis in addition to the mere description of the structures and their associated materials. From this information the Snee Farm slaves lived in smaller dwellings than others and had fewer types of possessions than the Pinckney family themselves. The field laborers quarters within the slave village reveal earthfast cabins of small size and no immediate evidence of fireplaces were present. Outside of one structure was a hearth that was likely communal to the village. The domestic servant’s house was a post-in-ground frame structure built on brick piers with a raised floor. The overseer’s house was a more durable structure with brick foundations instead of piers and posts as the slave dwellings. Evidence also supports either a porch or a fireplace on the south side of the building. The arrangement of these
98 structures adjacent to the main house and those in the slave village are not linear as predicted in the plantation settlement pattern. Eighteenth century farms usually conformed to a linear pattern in the placement of the buildings. The structures are all angled and not uniformly spaced as expected, both those in the slave village and those near the main house. Instead they are clustered. The archaeological investigations of the slave village were hampered by the development company and it is certain that structural evidence was lost in the aftermath. The addition of more structural evidence would have painted a clearer picture of the settlement pattern in the slave village. It is quite unfortunate that such an event occurred as feature analysis of yards and gardens were also not possible. A thorough analysis of the ceramic artifacts in the following section should enhance the interpretation of status and hierarchy within the slave population and between the other individuals that slaves interacted with on a daily basis. There has been an abundance of large- scale works on the ceramics in slave quarters in the field of African American archaeology (Leone 1999; Otto 1977; Singleton 1985; Spencer-Wood 1987) as well as numerous smaller reports from single sites. These will be used for analysis of the Snee Farm population and comparison with other populations in the South Carolina Lowcountry to develop a community model for the region.
Ceramic Studies
John Otto Solomon was one of the first archaeologists to investigate hierarchy in the slave community (1977). Using Stanley South’s analytical techniques for pattern recognition and functional categories that could be used to reveal behavioral patterns, Otto attempted to determine social status of dwelling inhabitants from the ceramic assemblages associated with specific site structures (Singleton 1985:4). Prior to assessing status Otto recommended that a number of sites are used for comparison to demonstrate a pattern (1977:91). Further distinction should be employed that these sites should be in the same vicinity as the original excavation site to identify a community pattern that can then be used in regional and diaspora studies. Initially archaeologists must examine the historic documentation for the site and community before comparing the sites to insure they are occupied at the same time in order to explain the
99 differences observed in artifact patterns are due to status. At Cannon’s Point Plantation in St. Simon’s Island, Georgia, Otto identified three classes – upper-class white planters, middle-class white overseers, and black slaves – through the use of documents to identify social positions of each and the dwellings occupied. Ceramics were used as the basis for status comparison, a technique that will be followed here. As all classes were found to be contemporaneous, the ceramic type distribution was not the result of chronological changes but attributed to status differences. He hypothesized four scenarios: first, planters purchased ceramics for their overseers and slaves; second, planters gave chipped, broken, and discarded wares to overseers and slaves; third, ceramics were purchased directly by slaves and overseers for their own use; fourth, the planters had different needs regarding ceramics due to differences in diet from overseers and slaves. Summarizing his findings, the planter class had different types and forms of ceramics than slaves and overseers, and slaves and overseers made their own purchases from nearby shops of mismatched ceramics i.e. not sets of the same types. Also found were differences in types that indicated differences in diets between the classes. Regarding the hypotheses, the first, third, and fourth proved possible from the archaeological findings. Historical documentation confirms the diet differences observed in the ceramic data, but inventories are not specific to define types purchased and used by the different classes. Although South’s and Otto’s studies identify social status classes, they fail to explain these differences in behaviors in terms of cultural processes (Moore 1985:142-143). Differences likely linked to a combination of human agency and choice, autonomy, and community theories. Moore in a later study of ceramic distribution attempts to associate plantation size with class including the different classes within the slave community. She finds that a larger frequency of ceramic types exists on larger plantations than small farms and there were no differences attributed to ceramics between the domestic servants and field laborers.
Snee Farm Ceramic Analysis There is a great number of ceramics within the structures investigated here and slave village at the Snee Farm Plantation. The raw data for each structure can be found in Tables 29 through 33. The corresponding levels and a full artifact database are available at SEAC. Due to the destruction of Area B and the structures within the slave village, an analysis of the village as a whole is presented here in conjunction with the domestic slave quarters, the kitchen, the
100 overseer’s house, and the main house. Actual mean ceramic dates for each structure and their corresponding levels were calculated using Stanley South’s (1977:217) formula:
n
Xifi i=1 Y = n
fi i=1
As previously stated the presence of different types of ceramics in different site areas may indicate different status levels in a community. George Miller has approached this hypothesis from a purely economical point of view determining the prices of various English ceramics in America (Miller 1980, 1991; Miller et.al 1994). Various levels of status would be indicated through the presence of less and more expensive types of wares as the price is the factor determining accessibility for a status group. Higher status individuals should possess greater percentages of more expensive wares, and lower status groups should possess less expensive wares. For the purposes of the investigation here, the ceramics have been divided into four groups. 1. Refined earthenware tablewares and teawares 2. Porcelain tableware and teawares 3. Colonoware 4. Utilitarian wares, such as stonewares and coarse earthenwares Refined earthenware found in the American colonies was largely manufactured in England in an attempt to duplicate Chinese porcelain. The desire was to imitate the extreme whiteness of porcelain. British refined earthenwares were first made in the eighteenth century developed and popularized by Thomas Astbury, Thomas Whieldon, and Josiah Wedgwood (Noël Hume 1969:123-133). Whieldonware or Whieldon Cloudedware and creamware were the first types that were introduced and had a cream-colored body. Eventually these were replaced by pearlware, then whiteware as more successful attempts to develop a whiter ware to compete with Chinese porcelain. These ceramics were decorated with multiple techniques, colors, and designs. Refined earthenwares were often the most common ceramics found on colonial sites as they ranged in price from moderately expensive to quite inexpensive depending on the decoration and
101 availability. Ceramics that were transfer printed, hand painted, and polychrome decors were the most expensive and desired. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, porcelain was moderately expensive tableware that was found in wealthier homes, but became more popular in the latter half of the eighteenth century (Noël Hume 1969:157). It still remained a costly ceramic despite its increasing availability. Chinese porcelain was made of kaolin clay and feldspathic rock fired at a very high temperature to achieve great durability and a high-gloss glaze that did not flake or craze as glazed earthenwares did; thus attesting to its popularity. Porcelain was the whitest ceramic manufactured and was not duplicated in colonial times by others, although numerous attempts were conducted. Most commonly decorated in blue with Chinese motifs, porcelain was also made with a variety of colors, motifs, and decorative techniques including hand painting, decals, gilding, and transfer print. Forms included all tableware, serving wares, and decorative wares such as vases. Colonoware and utilitarian wares and are treated separately in this analysis. Colonoware is a handmade pottery created by African Americans and used largely for the same purposes, storage, cooking, and communal dining. Utilitarian wares are European and American coarse earthenwares and stonewares that were used for storage, cooking, serving, and communal dining. A predominance of these wares demonstrates that the structure has a cooking, dining, and utilitarian function. These wares are also relatively cheap to purchase and easy to acquire and a larger percentage of these items would be suggestive of a lower status. Further division of the tablewares into three groups occur based on price and the type of decoration present on the wares. The more expensive wares are porcelains and the more elaborately decorated refined earthenwares including transfer printed, hand painted, and polychromes. These are referred to as the Elaborate group. The Minimal group are the minimally decorated less expensive wares; these are not the cheapest wares available. These include molded, shell edged, sponged and spattered, annular and mocha wares. Finally the third group, the Plain ceramics, is the undecorated refined earthenwares including creamware, pearlware, and whiteware. This system of classification has been used in Miller’s articles and Laurie Wilkie’s study as well (1999). In addition to indicating status the occurrence of different wares in slave contexts denotes African aesthetic preference and cultural practices (Wilkie 1999:269). Many have assumed that
102 the planter provided all possessions for his slaves. As previously demonstrated in Chapters 3 and 4, African Americans despite the restraints slavery imposed were able to select and purchase their own goods from money earned or skills sold in the towns within their communities. Although money earned was used to purchase many things to help the household and family, ceramics was certainly one of them. The assemblage present in the slave village and quarters then represents their choices made through their purchasing powers. Comparison of these choices within the slave community will determine if intrasite status differences existed and the differences between the blacks and whites of the same site. Statistical tests for significance of the results will be assessed in the future. After examining intrasite differences on Pinckney’s Snee Farm, comparisons will be presented with other archaeological investigations in Christ Church parish and other surrounding counties of the Charleston area and the South Carolina Lowcountry. Porcelain wares are the most expensive ceramics on the American market in historic times and are relatively few in number on most sites. Due to their high price caused by high demand and low supply on the consumer market, it is expected to have a limited number of these wares on the site overall, and the majority of them should occur in high status areas of the planter’s house and facilities. Relatively low frequencies are expected in the slave quarters with the overseer’s frequency occurring somewhere in between. Most analyses of ceramic artifacts report the counts and corresponding percentages of the total type and/or ceramic assemblage. I have chosen to also present the weights of the ceramics for this site. Most of the sherds are very small in size and ceramic vessel form analysis is not possible. The weights impart a more accurate assessment of the occurrence of types than the counts. Comparisons will be conducted using both frequencies and weights to assess if there is a difference between the two variables. Both variables are presented here since most studies restrict the analysis to item counts. As this is the case, later for evaluation with other sites, the count percentages will be used to compare sites. Table 17 illustrates the percentages of porcelains between the different structures and areas of Snee Farm. The structure percentages are the percent of porcelains in the ceramic assemblage for that particular structure. The overall percentage is the percent of porcelains for that structure comparing to all of the site’s porcelain assemblage discussed here. For example,
103 TABLE 17 PORCELAIN ASSEMBLAGE
Structure Overall Structure Overall Structure/Area Count Weight (g) Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Slave Village - Area B 8 0.78 0.55 41.90 1.38 1.12 Str16 - domestic slave 241 26.92 16.50 535.32 13.71 14.33 Str14 - overseer 200 6.85 13.70 522.09 3.33 13.98 Str13 - kitchen 613 8.09 41.99 1964.13 5.30 52.59 Str17 - main house 398 20.02 27.26 671.51 7.24 17.98 Totals 1460 100.00 3734.95 100.00 porcelains represent 0.29% of the ceramics in the slave village and 0.55% of the porcelain assemblage for all the structures presented here. The weight percentages for the individual structures show that porcelain is most frequent in the domestic servant’s quarters (13.71%) and least in the slave village (0.78%). Regarding the entire porcelain assemblage, the most porcelain appears in the kitchen (52.59%) and again the least (1.38%) in the slave village. The frequency percentages reveal the same result. The slave village maintains the lowest percentage of porcelains in its own ceramic assemblage (0.29%) and site percentage (0.55%). The domestic cabin has the highest frequency of porcelains in its own assemblage (26.92%), and the kitchen has the highest overall percentage of porcelain (41.99%). Surprisingly, neither the planter’s nor overseer’s house has the highest percentage of porcelains. The domestic quarters and the kitchen in fact do. There are different possible explanations for this unexpected result. Slaves controlled the space within these structures for the most part; it is likely their influence that controls the possessions in these places. Either the porcelains were kept and stored in these spaces for the Pinckney’s use when they requested them, or, as I believe, slaves preferred these wares and purchased them on their own from the market. A high occurrence within the kitchen may be a combination of the planters’ and domestics’ use. Possibly better sets of porcelains were stored in the main house for exhibition and daily wares were kept in the kitchen due to frequency of use and cleaning. Another possibility is that the planters gave these wares to their domestic servants for their use. I do not believe this would be a correct hypothesis, as porcelains were so expensive that planters would not provide better wares to their slaves then the owners possessed themselves. Lastly, the Pinckney’s may have given broken pieces or mismatched pieces to their slaves after purchasing new wares for themselves. As preference of choices has been demonstrated in historical accounts of slaves to
104 be used as status markers, I believe it is likely that the domestic slaves chose to purchase, barter for, or exchange other items for porcelains to exhibit a higher status within the slave population. Refined earthenwares as previously stated are classified according to décor type with hand painted and transfer printed wares as elaborately decorated, annular, edged, mocha, and sponged wares as minimally decorated, and undecorated wares as plain (Table 18). High status is exhibited by a greater frequency of elaborately decorated wares, and expectations are that the higher status Pinckney family and overseer would possess greater percentages of these most expensive refined earthenwares. The most elaborately decorated ware assemblage within a particular structure or area occurs in the slave village regarding counts (10.04%) and weights (5.89%). As to the entire refined earthenware assemblage, the highest percentages occur again in the slave village for counts (1.80%) but also regarding weight (1.19%) although the overseer’s house is only slightly less (1.17%). The field laborers are the lowest status group on a plantation. They, in fact, should possess very little elaborately decorated wares based on previous patterns; however the reality is they do not. Again citing the evidence for agency and choice among slaves who had the time to earn extra money and purchase goods in the consumer market, this expresses a clear preference for decorative wares and the ability to purchase such wares existed for this group. Considering that domestic slaves had the greatest percentage of porcelains, the most expensive wares available, the fact that field slaves have the most elaborate refined earthenwares may show that although they could not afford more porcelains, they clearly preferred the fancier wares and purchased and acquired what they had the funds for. Considering the entire refined earthenware assemblage, the presumption is that plain, undecorated wares would occur most frequently followed by minimally decorated and lastly by elaborately decorated wares. This assumption holds for all groups investigated here. As it would be very expensive to stock your house with a large collection of decorated wares, this result seems sensible even for the highest status white slaveholders. The utilitarian assemblage is composed of the coarse earthenwares and stonewares commonly used for cooking, storing, and serving communal meals. These wares are quite commonplace in the consumer market and are readily available to all consumers. In the appraisal of status level, a larger percentage of utilitarian wares designate a preference for such
105 TABLE 18 REFINED EARTHENWARE ASSEMBLAGE
Structure Overall Structure Overall Structure/Area Decoration Count Percentage Percentage Weight (g) Percentage Percentage MCD Slave Village - Area B Elaborate 104 10.04 1.8 217.99 5.89 1.19 1829.00 Str14 – overseer Elaborate 79 2.7 1.37 213.68 1.4 1.17 1819.80 Str17 - main house Elaborate 33 1.66 0.57 158.23 1.71 0.86 1784.22 Str13 - kitchen Elaborate 32 0.42 0.55 30.33 0.09 0.17 1781.71 Str16 - domestic slave Elaborate 8 0.2 0.14 9.56 0.12 0.05 1768.93 Elaborate Total 256 15.02 4.43 629.79 9.21 3.44 Str13 - kitchen Minimal 776 10.26 13.42 3359.03 9.04 18.35 1781.71 Str14 - overseer Minimal 325 11.11 5.62 1212.05 10.89 6.62 1819.80 Slave Village - Area B Minimal 283 27.33 4.89 559.8 15.16 3.06 1829.00 Str16 - domestic slave Minimal 223 5.56 3.86 624.69 4.43 3.41 1768.93 Str17 - main house Minimal 133 6.69 2.3 441.61 4.76 2.42 1784.22 Minimal Total 1740 60.95 30.09 6197.18 44.28 33.86 Str13 - kitchen Plain 1440 19.02 24.9 4048.65 10.91 22.12 1781.71 Str14 - overseer Plain 714 24.44 12.34 2730.48 25.71 14.91 1819.80 Str16 - domestic slave Plain 695 18.76 12.02 1445.86 12.44 7.9 1768.93 Slave Village - Area B Plain 516 49.76 8.92 1886.42 51.01 10.31 1829.00 Str17 - main house Plain 422 21.23 7.3 1365.85 14.72 7.46 1784.22 Plain Total 3787 133.21 65.48 11477.26 114.79 62.7 Grand Total 5783 209.18 100 18304.23 168.28 100
106 TABLE 19 UTILITARIAN WARES ASSEMBLAGE
Structural Overall Structural Overall Structure/Area Count Weight (g) Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Slave Village - Area B 92 8.91 2.04 816.15 22.08 2.96 Str16 - domestic slave 1145 30.33 25.37 3899.92 27.96 14.13 Str14 - overseer 607 20.72 13.45 3547.79 26.06 12.86 Str13 - kitchen 2126 28.09 47.11 16883.68 45.46 61.19 Str17 - main house 543 27.31 12.03 2444.06 26.34 8.86 Totals 4513 100.00 27591.60 100.00
wares, a greater use for them, and the inability to purchase the more expensive wares. Thus a higher frequency of these wares should be apparent in low status groups of slaves. Examining the percentages reveals that these utilitarian ceramics appear most frequent in the kitchen in both count (47.11%) and weight (61.19%) than anywhere else (Table 19). For structural assemblages, this holds true regarding weight, but the domestic slave quarter’s assemblage has a greater percentage of utilitarian wares (30.33%) than the other structures. The kitchen is the building that is most tied to the purpose of work than any other structure examined. Little incidence of multiple functions is supported with this result. Colonoware is handmade coarse earthenware made by either Native Americans or African American slaves in the American colonies and even into the 19th century. It was first discussed by Ivor Noël Hume (1969) when he found it in a Native American site. The uniqueness of this ceramic type is that it is a handmade pottery that is constructed in the form of European ceramics. It is made from local clays and tempers and used for cooking and storing food. Several different local type designations have been proposed in previous studies including Yaughan, Lesesne, Catawba, and River Burnished (Wheaton et al. 1983). Variations occur among sites based on quality of the pottery, degree of mimicking of European forms, degree of burnishing, and types of clay used (Poplin and Huddleston 1998:143-144). Unfortunately there is not uniform reporting of colonoware stylistic differences in archaeological reports. Here at Snee Farm, initial analysis divided that colonoware assemblage into Yaughan and Lesesne types; however, after further examination, little difference was found between these types and all colonoware was grouped together for comparison. As with European and American ceramics,
107 TABLE 20 COLONOWARE ASSEMBLAGE
Structural Overall Structural Overall Structure/Area Count Weight (g) Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Slave Village - Area B 21 2.03 0.63 133.1 3.60 1.12 Str16 - domestic slave 580 18.5 17.29 1910.74 16.66 16.04 Str14 - overseer 629 21.53 18.75 1910.78 18.24 16.05 Str13 - kitchen 1842 24.33 54.92 6973.67 18.78 58.56 Str17 - main house 282 14.19 8.41 980.7 10.57 8.23 3354 100.00 11908.99 100.00 the colonoware sherds were small in size, and it was too difficult to determine ceramic forms and vessel numbers. Analysis is thus limited to frequency and weight variables. As a utilitarian and extremely low-cost ware created by slaves on the plantation or purchased from neighboring farms’ slaves, colonoware should be found in its highest frequency the slave village and domestic quarters of the site. At Snee Farm, by far the greatest frequency (54.92%) and weight (58.56%) of colonoware occurs in the kitchen structure. Within each specific structure’s assemblage, the greatest frequency (24.33%) and weight (18.78%) of colonoware is again found in the kitchen (Table 20). As with the utilitarian ceramic group this is likely the result of the function of the kitchen structure. The unexpected result from the assemblage is the lack of colonoware in the slave village. Actually the slave village exhibits the least amount and weight of colonoware than any other structure examined. This clearly represents choice and agency of African American slaves demonstrating that they preferred European wares over handmade utilitarian wares in their own homes. Next to the slave village, the main house had the lowest percentages of colonoware in its assemblage. This is to be expected as it is likely that the Pinckney’s did not use or display colonoware in their residence; however, it is quite unexpected that they did not possess the least amount of all the structures. In summary, the Pinckney family had the greatest ability to purchase the most expensive ceramics, porcelains, than the other inhabitants of Snee Farm (Table 21). This demonstrates the choice to belong to the elite white society the Pinckney’s were members of and their preference to display their higher status. The high occurrence of these wares in the kitchen possibly reflects the frequency of use or indicates their place of storage. All groups exhibited a clear preference for European wares over handmade wares and plain refined earthenwares over their decorated counterparts.
108 TABLE 21 INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURE ASSEMBLAGES
Structure/Area Porcelain Elaborate Minimal Plain Utilitarian Colonoware Slave Village - Area B 0.78 10.04 27.33 49.76 8.91 2.03 Str16 - domestic slave 26.92 0.20 5.56 18.76 30.33 18.50 Str14 - overseer 6.85 2.70 11.11 24.44 20.72 21.53 Str13 - kitchen 8.09 0.42 10.26 19.02 28.09 24.33 Str17 - main house 20.02 1.66 6.69 21.23 27.31 14.19
Ceramic analysis provides evidence of agency and consumerism within the slave population. If the enslaved population at Snee Farm did not have the ability to purchase ceramic products, the greatest percentage of wares present in slave structures would be colonoware. This is not the case at all. Colonoware is the second least frequent group in the slave village, and occurs in a much higher percentage in all other buildings. Instead, slaves certainly had the ability and desire to purchase European ceramics for their personal use, or bartered with others in the community to acquire it. The abundance of European wares within the slave village (87.13%) and high frequency of decorated ceramics (37.37%) undoubtedly supports the concept that slaves had the ability and desire to purchase products from consumer markets and exhibit a social status within the community. If there was no such desire, then colonoware would be much more prevalent. Domestic slaves also displayed their social status, this time through the prevalence of porcelain wares (26.92%) in their own home. Other than this expensive ceramic, the remainder of the domestic slave assemblage is largely composed of plain refined earthenwares, utilitarian wares, and colonoware. This possibly demonstrates a preference for the serving wares and tea wares that likely were displayed in the home, although the unfortunate small size of the sherds prevents a formal analysis of vessel forms here. The overseer was expected to possess a larger percentage of expensive porcelains and decorated refined earthenwares than the slave population. This clearly is not the case as the overseer’s house had approximately 20% decorated wares and 67% of plain and utilitarian wares. The data of the ceramic assemblage at Snee Farm certainly establishes that slaves were agents in their own lives and chose wares previously thought to be inaccessible or uncommon for slaves to own. They valued their possessions and lived in a community of varying social classes. This also supports the community theory as slaves must have had the ability to interact with others outside of the plantation and in the nearby city of Charleston in order to sell wares, sell
109 produce and livestock, and/or sell their skills to acquire money and purchase European wares at market. Further investigations to examine these ideas of the other artifact groups, such as personal items, arms, and food remains in the future will assist this study of agency and community interaction.
The Community and Neighboring Sites
Further analysis of sites in vicinity of Snee Farm and the South Carolina Lowcountry surrounding the city of Charleston will assist in formulating the complete picture of the slave community. The ceramic assemblages from the neighboring community sites are presented in Table 31. There are 29 sites or site components presented in addition to the five from Snee Farm providing a total sample size of 34 sites. The different sites are all located in the South Carolina Lowcountry in the vicinity of Snee Farm and Charleston. The types of sites are unspecified slave sites, slave work areas, overseers’ houses, kitchens, owners’ main residences, and plantation owner sites. The reporting of the data is inconsistent as they are from a variety of archaeological reports spanning from 1980 through 2005. The averages of each ceramic group were used to compare the status levels of the types of sites presented. For easier comparisons all types of slave sites and owner sites have been combined to form two individual groups and are evaluated to overseers’ houses and kitchen structures in Table 32. This community, in contrast to the Snee Farm plantation site, does not exhibit the same choices and preferences for porcelains and elaborately decorated wares as the Snee Farm slaves do. The greatest average percentage of porcelains (11.10%) is found on owner sites in the community. Slaves also do not exhibit the greatest average percentage of elaborately decorated refined earthenwares (7.55%); instead that is found in the kitchen sites (11.76%) and the owner sites (11.24%). Slaves in this community do, however, possess a greater percentage of expensive wares, both porcelains and refined earthenwares, than overseers. Comparing the utilitarian and colonoware, the pattern also differs from that of Snee Farm. In the community the slave sites possess the largest percentage of colonoware (58.65%), followed by the overseers (37.07%), owners (30.57%), and kitchens (22.37%). The utilitarian wares are dominated by the overseers’ sites (48.51%) and least occurs in slave sites (8.14%).
110 TABLE 22 COMMUNITY CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES Site Name Type Porcelain Elaborate Minimal Plain Utilitarian Colonoware European Snee Farm Str16 Slave 26.92 0.20 5.56 18.76 30.33 18.50 81.77 Lynch Plantation 38CH 1479 Slave 2.10 NA NA NA NA 39.90 60.10 Broom Hall 38BK600 Area AA Slave NA NA NA NA NA 89.10 10.90 Crowfield 38BK1011 Str1 Slave NA NA NA NA NA 96.10 3.90 Jervey Plantation Slave 0.58 18.49 6.86 72.33 1.74 NA 100.00 Liberty Hall Area D Slave NA NA NA NA NA 88.80 11.20 Point Plantation 38CH1402B Slave 3.20 NA NA NA NA 93.90 6.10 Snee Farm Area B Slave 0.78 10.04 27.33 49.76 8.91 2.03 96.82 Yaughan and Curriboo Slave 1.32 0.88 1.56 4.55 1.32 88.72 9.63 Youghal Plantation, East Slave 15.47 8.48 16.35 50.69 2.04 6.97 100.00 Youghal Plantation, West Slave 5.21 7.23 13.89 62.95 4.49 6.23 100.00 Crowfield 38BK103 Slave NA NA NA NA NA 83.60 16.40 Crowfield 38BK103 Str8 Slave NA NA NA NA NA 90.00 10.00 Slave Average 6.95 7.55 11.93 43.17 8.14 58.65 46.68 Archdale Hall Overseer NA NA NA NA NA 42.60 57.40 Belle Hall 38CH1278 Overseer NA NA NA NA NA 46.70 53.30 John Daniel Overseer 3.55 0.51 7.80 11.85 76.29 NA 100.00 Liberty Hall 38BK1900 Overseer NA NA NA NA NA 43.20 56.80 Snee Farm Str14 Overseer 6.85 2.70 11.11 24.44 20.72 21.53 65.82 Starvegut Hall 38CH1398 StrA Overseer NA NA NA NA NA 31.30 68.70 Overseer Average 5.20 1.61 9.46 18.15 48.51 37.07 67.00 Jervey Plantation Kitchen 5.73 23.09 14.02 47.81 9.35 NA 100.00 Snee Farm Str13 Kitchen 8.09 0.42 10.26 19.02 28.09 24.33 65.88 Wappoo Plantation 38CH1199/1200 Kitchen NA NA NA NA NA 20.40 79.60 Kitchen Average 6.91 11.76 12.14 33.42 18.72 22.37 81.83 Jervey Plantation Owner 3.37 25.98 14.27 53.19 3.19 NA 100.00 John Whitesides' Plantation Owner NA 10.00 14.00 76.00 NA NA 100.00 Snee Farm Str17 Owner 20.02 1.66 6.69 21.23 27.31 14.19 76.91 Broom Hall 38BK600 Area C Owner NA NA NA NA NA 30.20 69.80 Elfe Plantation Owner NA 6.00 3.00 92.00 NA NA 100.00 Green Grove 38CH109 StrA Owner NA NA NA NA NA 12.30 87.80 Limerick Plantation 38BK223 Owner NA NA NA NA NA 22.50 77.50 Lynch Plantation 38CH1585 Owner 15.30 NA NA NA NA 32.80 67.20 Moses Whitesides Plantation Owner 0.50 12.54 18.32 51.89 1.23 15.51 84.48 Parsonage 38CH1088 Owner NA NA NA NA NA 23.80 76.20 Point Plantation 38CH1402A Owner 15.60 NA NA NA NA 71.80 28.20 Starvegut Hall 38CH1400 Owner 11.80 NA NA NA NA 52.00 48.00 Owner Average 11.10 11.24 11.26 58.86 10.58 30.57 76.34 Grand Average 8.13 8.55 11.40 43.76 16.54 43.18 63.84
111 This indicates that slaves preferred or had no choice in making and using colonoware more than European utilitarian wares. Overall it appears that slaves within the community did not choose or did not have the ability or opportunity to purchase the more expensive wares in the consumer market. This may indicate that status levels within this community were not the same as they were at Snee Farm Plantation. As these are all sites in the same vicinity, the physical access to the markets in Charleston was the same for each slave population. It remains to be answered why some families purchased their ceramic wares and others produced them instead.
112 CONCLUSION
The Model as a Predictor of Slave Life
The purpose of this investigation is to present an approach to interpreting the lives of African American slaves from multiple resources. First and foremost the objective is to predict the life of the oppressed slaves from their own point of view. This has largely been undertaken through the use of primary slave accounts and narratives. From these sources I have sought the cultural values and beliefs most important to the slaves themselves and not to others outside their ethnic group. This is not to say that historical documents and writings composed by scholars cannot be used to assist in the interpretation of slave life. One must be critical of all the resources available and used in the interpretation. Each has its own problems, shortcomings, and advantages. Through the use of oral histories, slave narratives and autobiographies, primary historical documents, African American studies and historical research, and anthropological and archaeological studies I have attempted to formulate as accurate a picture of slave life possible. Slave sources have revealed that the primary cultural elements and values important to their members are maintaining their social network based on family, kinship, and marriage dependent upon generosity, reciprocity, and exchange. One may think these may be difficult to assess using archaeological remains. Architectural evidence can reveal the size of slave housing and the corresponding family units that inhabit and use the structures. Ceramics can reveal culinary of individual or communal dining practices. Personal items can be used to interpret the customs of dress, hygiene, and appearance for cultural members. It is not the items themselves that are important, but what they can disclose of the practices and reasoning of the community members that is sought. In this investigation a combination of community theory, agency, and consumerism are used to assess the lives of slaves from their own point of view. Depicting the slave population as a pluralistic community not as an individual structure or site allows for the analysis of the interactions between different social groups and classes. A household and structural evaluation is too small for useful purposes. Slaves did not exist only in their own homes; they interacted
113 with other slaves, planters, overseers, and drivers on their own plantations and in the local vicinity. To limit analysis to households is to interpret their lives as a lonely and isolated existence. Comparisons of slave households with others on the farm provide a good basis of knowledge of most of their daily interactions. It is important to include any work areas, outbuildings, residences, and landscape features in the investigation as slaves had contact with all those that utilized these areas. As archaeologists it becomes difficult not to get over-involved with the materials and data that are recovered from sites. Principally one must remember that the objective is not the classification of objects and features, but the interpretation of a people that lived under harsh conditions and survived. Agency and consumption theories provide the vehicle to link the information derived from historical studies with the materials found in an archaeological site. Observation of patterns revealed in archaeological analysis assists in this interpretation. Agency provides a method of assessing the autonomy achieved by the inhabitants of the slave community. Power is a difficult thing to attain in this oppressive institution. There are always choices available to individuals guided by their cultural rules, social class, and personal desires. Consumption studies provide a method for revealing the degree of autonomy a slave population and community as a whole possess. The model of slave life presented in this study reveals the degree of autonomy available to those oppressed by the institution of slavery. In this model are six steps presented again in Table 23. As previously discussed the community itself must be defined. The customs, beliefs, values, and living conditions of the slave community’s members should all be researched prior to conducting any archaeological studies. Self-identification is the ultimate goal despite the researcher not having membership within the group. Any primary sources regarding the members, their community composition, practices, and behaviors should all be investigated first. What are the chief elements of the African American community at Snee Farm as defined by the slaves themselves? In the study of Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm historical documents revealed names and families of the slave community. Occupations, hence, individual skills and abilities were also available. Of much assistance were the historic plat maps that revealed the general locations of the plantation’s buildings and slave village. There were no primary documents or accounts of the slaves at Snee Farm, so it remained for other historical and archaeological evidence to be used to interpret the slave lives of its inhabitants. It can be
114 TABLE 23 MODEL OF A SLAVE COMMUNITY METHODOLOGY
Step Procedure 1 Define the community. 2 Define the archaeological resources of the primary site and within the community. 3 Conduct the archaeological tests of the observed patterns. 4 Assessment. Compare the archaeological tests to the community definition. 5 Perform larger regional analyses. 6 Cultural process investigations. inferred that the slave community and its culture are similar to others presented in this dissertation. It is likely that Snee slaves established an extensive social network of close kin, extended family, and non-related friends that all supported each other for the survival of their families. Mutual reciprocity and generosity formed the fabric of this social network. The combination of values and customs of the slave culture and the historical documents should produce a representation of the community that can be further investigated using archaeological studies and methods. The second step of the model is to investigate the archaeological resources of the primary site and other sites in the community. Limits must be placed on the range of the community, chronological, geographical, and typological. A restriction should be placed of the time period that is to be investigated for the site. This may be defined by the site itself, or limited by the investigator. In the analysis of the Snee Farm slaves, the period of occupation was limited to the Pinckney era from 1754 to 1818. The determination of occupation dates using both physical evidence and historical documents were used to define these boundaries. Previous to the Pinckney family’s ownership of the plantation, there was not much evidence of occupation of the earlier owners and none of slaves on the site. The termination of the period was chosen as the main Pinckney residence was razed as were other buildings on the plantation shortly after Charles Pinckney III sold the farm. As a country getaway for the planter and his family, Snee served as a working rice plantation and recreational site. Typical features and landscape patterns found in these sites should be sought in the archaeological investigation, including tidal rice fields and associated trenches, dikes, and embankments. The work force for the plantation is a
115 slave population of field slaves, a driver, and overseer, but there were other people working for Pinckney as well. Many skilled positions were held by plantation slaves including coopers, carpenters, a gardener, and domestic servants that all assisted in the maintenance of the farm. Charles Pinckney II and III both were frequently absent from the plantation, having commitments in Charleston and with their own service in public office and the military. An overseer is known to have managed the farm in their absences. All of this information paints a picture of multiple groups and interactions occurring on the site and archaeology can be used to observe the effects on the slave community. Were African American slaves at Snee Farm consumers in their community? Historical studies and primary accounts divulging the different social groups that occupied this plantation make it apparent that status and hierarchy existed within the slave community as well as with other ethnic groups that they frequently interacted with. In the third step of the model the archaeological patterns observed interpret the cultural behaviors of the slave community. Consumption theories supported by historical accounts of slave life are utilized to demonstrate the patterns expected to be found in a hierarchal community. First one must consider is it possible for varying social status levels to exist in a slave population, and if so can these be observed through the material remains? It is known that Snee Farm was a working rice plantation and utilized the task system to control the slave labor on the plantation. This system provided a number of opportunities for slaves to utilize the free time upon completion of their daily tasks to maintain gardens, raise livestock, hunt, fish, cut firewood, and produce objects for sale in the markets of Charleston and the local parish. The vicinity of the farm to the city was made easier with the intersection of the creek on the plantation that provided water access to Charleston for the Pinckney family and their slaves. Ceramic analysis is the avenue used to assess status of the social groups within this community. This is the most frequent method utilized by archaeologists to interpret the status levels of a site’s inhabitants and the reason for its presentation here. Typically more expensive and decorated wares are associated with higher status groups as these groups often maintain both higher social and economic classes. Surprisingly the ceramic analysis of the Snee Farm community does not coincide with these expectations. In fact the higher status wares, porcelains and elaborately decorated refined earthenwares, are found in greatest frequency in the domestic slave quarters and slave village. Although these are not the most frequent ceramic types
116 possessed by the slave community, the fact that they are present in greater numbers denotes the opportunity, ability, and desire was ensconced in the slave culture. Is there evidence of resistance behavior in the slave community at Snee Farm? The slaves of Snee Farm certainly demonstrated power and resistance with their consumer choices and acquisitions. They possessed autonomy to acquire these wares, the opportunity and ability through earning money to purchase them or barter and exchange them in the first place, and the wish to possess such wares. Underlying this autonomy is the desire to assert a social position amongst the community members of their individual status and abilities despite their social positions as slaves. Do other African Americans from plantations in the area demonstrate similar community definitions to the Snee Farm community? Comparing the archaeological results of the individual site and structures to the outlying community is essential since we have established that slaves in fact did venture off the plantation to work, sell, and purchase items. The extended analysis reveals that pattern observed at Snee Farm is not the norm for the remainder of the community. Utilitarian ceramics and colonoware are the most frequent ceramic types on average in slave contexts in the community, not European wares. The owner sites and kitchens were those that possessed more expensive, high status ceramics as would be expected. It is suggested that the Snee Farm slave community had greater access to markets, more individual freedom, and a greater difference in intrasite social status than exists in the larger community. Examination of additional artifact types will further test the community model. Time and space limit their presentation here to a discussion. It is recommended that further testing and analysis of other artifact patterns be conducted for Snee Farm and the neighboring archaeological sites to interpret status differences in the slave community. Perhaps with their addition differences will be observed in the living conditions and materials purchased. Snee Farm may or may not be an exception to the anticipated patterns after other variables are examined. Once complete the results can be compared to other regions in the Southeast and Mid- Atlantic States as well as the African Diaspora at large. The advantage of this model is that it can be adjusted to any area. The techniques illustrated here can be used to determine the local conditions and cultural patterns of slave life in any area. The key is defining the community in its own terms as close as possible.
117 The community model of slave life is a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to African American archaeology. Achieving a native point of view is difficult in all past societies, but historical documents, descendant accounts, and modern behaviors can be used to interpret past conditions and values of a culture otherwise difficult to access. Cultural ideology is tenacious to outside influence and can be maintained and adapted in spite of the outside pressures faced. Autonomy can be found in various degrees no matter the social position the enslaved have in society.
118 APPENDIX A
SNEE FARM ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGES
119 TABLE 24 AREA B ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE
Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Agriculture Implement, Plow 1 0.04 510.2 0.81 Agriculture Wire 3 0.11 13.8 0.02 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 1 0.04 3.7 0.01 Architecture Brick 218 8.03 15748.5 24.98 Architecture Hinge 1 0.04 324.9 0.52 Architecture Mortar 13 0.48 324.2 0.51 Architecture Nail, Cut 12 0.44 66.1 0.10 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 193 7.11 484.7 0.77 Architecture Nail, Wire 1 0.04 1.3 0.00 Architecture Plaster 1 0.04 1.0 0.00 Architecture Spike 1 0.04 20.8 0.03 Architecture Windowpane 27 0.99 41.7 0.07 Arms Lead Shot 1 0.04 0.1 0.00 Ceramics Black Lead Glazed Earthenware 14 0.52 167.6 0.27 Ceramics Colonoware 21 0.77 133.1 0.21 Ceramics Creamware 141 5.19 229.8 0.36 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 43 1.58 47.0 0.07 Ceramics Creamware, Shell Edged Green 4 0.15 18.3 0.03 Ceramics Creamware, Transfer Printed 4 0.15 2.0 0.00 Ceramics Creamware, Unclassified 5 0.18 2.2 0.00 Ceramics Delft 1720 5 0.18 0.1 0.00 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 50 1.84 878.5 0.14 Ceramics Ginger Beer, Liquor bottle 1868 4 0.15 23.0 0.04 Ceramics Ironstone 18 0.66 121.6 0.19 Ceramics Jackfield 1765 1 0.04 2.0 0.00 Ceramics Pearlware 160 5.89 425.0 0.67 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 67 2.47 93.1 0.15 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 4 0.15 5.6 0.01 Ceramics Pearlware, Finger Painted 35 1.29 66.4 0.11 Ceramics Pearlware, Flow Blue 1850 1 0.04 2.2 0.00 Ceramics Pearlware, Mocha 3 0.11 3.6 0.01 Ceramics Pearlware, Polychrome 17 0.63 23.4 0.04 Ceramics Pearlware, Shell Edged Blue 34 1.25 100.0 0.16 Ceramics Pearlware, Shell Edged Green 18 0.66 62.4 0.10 Ceramics Pearlware, Transfer Printed 4 0.15 4.8 0.01 Ceramics Pearlware, Transfer Printed Brown 2 0.07 2.7 0.00 Ceramics Pearlware, Transfer Printed Cobalt Blue 27 0.99 74.8 0.12 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 14 0.51 22.9 0.04 Ceramics Porcelain 1 0.04 9.9 0.02 Ceramics Porcelain, English 6 0.22 31.0 0.05 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 1 0.04 1.0 0.00 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 1 0.04 16.7 0.03 Ceramics Redware, Refined 7 0.26 19.5 0.03 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 1 0.04 11.5 0.02 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 1 0.04 1.0 0.00 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 9 0.33 150.4 0.24 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 21 0.77 261.7 0.41 Ceramics Stoneware, Unclassified 3 0.11 19.1 0.03 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 1 0.04 11.1 0.02
120 TABLE 24 Continued
Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Ceramics Untyped 1 0.04 0.8 0.00 Ceramics Whiteware 138 5.08 307.3 0.49 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 48 1.77 81.7 0.13 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 4 0.15 10.4 0.02 Ceramics Whiteware, Flow Blue 6 0.22 10.6 0.02 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 18 0.66 36.1 0.06 Ceramics Whiteware, Shell Edged Blue 9 0.33 35.7 0.06 Ceramics Whiteware, Shell Edged Green 1908 1 0.04 7.8 0.01 Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 6 0.22 15.0 0.02 Ceramics Whiteware, Transfer Printed 32 1.18 74.2 0.12 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 8 0.29 20.7 0.03 Ceramics Yellow Ware 7 0.26 32.4 0.05 Ceramics Yellow Ware Banded 6 0.22 10.8 0.02 Ceramics Yellow Ware Mocha 4 0.15 7.6 0.01 Ceramics Yellow Ware Press Molded 1883 1 0.04 1.7 0.00 Kitchen Metal, Kettle 6 0.22 293.0 0.46 Kitchen Utensil, Spoon 1 0.04 18.0 0.03 Kitchen, Food Oyster 343 12.62 21644.7 34.33 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 4 0.15 55.8 0.09 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 341 12.56 3678.1 5.83 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 6 0.22 15.3 0.02 NA, Ceramics Savannah River 1 0.04 1.2 0.00 NA, Ceramics Unidentified 68 2.50 253.2 0.40 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Check Stamped 3 0.11 8.3 0.01 NA, Lithics Debitage 5 0.18 6.7 0.01 Other Bone, Ivory 1 0.04 0.8 0.00 Other Bone, Unidentified 196 7.22 179.5 0.28 Other Charcoal 1 0.04 30.9 0.05 Other Coal 1 0.04 42.8 0.07 Other Flora, Unidentified 1 0.04 0.8 0.00 Other Flotation Sample 99 3.65 15919.1 25.25 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 30 1.10 66.0 0.10 Other Metal Fragment 29 1.07 135.3 0.21 Other Shell, Unidentified 7 0.26 113.9 0.18 Other Stone Shatter 1 0.04 1.1 0.00 Other Stone, Worked 1 0.04 55.3 0.09 Personal Bead, Glass 1 0.04 0.2 0.00 Personal Bead, Glass 1 0.04 0.2 0.00 Personal Bead, Glass 1 0.04 0.1 0.00 Personal Bead, Glass 1 0.04 0.4 0.00 Personal Bead, Glass 4 0.15 0.9 0.00 Personal Clothing, Button 5 0.18 7.8 0.01 Personal Tobacco Pipe 52 1.91 80.6 0.13 2716 100.00 63056.9 100.00
121 TABLE 25 STRUCTURE 16 ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE
Level Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Agateware, Coarse 1780 1 0.05 0.55 0.01 LV1 Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 2 0.11 6.34 0.13 LV1 Creamware 1791 51 2.72 63.03 1.34 LV1 Creamware, Annular 1798 1 0.05 1.75 0.04 LV1 Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 8 0.43 20.1 0.43 LV1 Delft 1720 30 1.60 27.67 0.59 LV1 Pearlware 1810 5 0.27 13.84 0.29 LV1 Pearlware, Annular 1805 4 0.21 2.37 0.05 LV1 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 2 0.11 0.95 0.02 LV1 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 2 0.11 0.95 0.02 LV1 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 1 0.05 0.34 0.01 LV1 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 1 0.05 0.34 0.01 LV1 Pearlware, Flow Blue 1850 1 0.05 0.5 0.01 LV1 Pearlware, Green Transfer 1812 2 0.11 1.8 0.04 LV1 Pearlware, Sponged 1810 2 0.11 1.2 0.03 LV1 Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 2 0.11 3.17 0.07 LV1 Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 2 0.11 20.54 0.44 LV1 Slipware, Refined 1733 34 1.81 60.65 1.29 LV1 Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 1 0.05 2.8 0.06 LV1 Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 5 0.27 7.13 0.15 LV1 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 4 0.21 4.1 0.09 LV1 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 4 0.21 15.58 0.33 LV1 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 5 0.27 4.53 0.10 LV1 Whiteware 1915 14 0.75 21.54 0.46 LV1 Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 2 0.11 0.6 0.01 LV1 Yellow Ware 1883 1 0.05 1.53 0.03 LV1 Yellow Ware, Unclassified 1883 1 0.05 0.49 0.01 LV2 Agateware, Coarse 1780 1 0.05 5.58 0.12 LV2 Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 1 0.05 2.3 0.05 LV2 Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 10 0.53 22.55 0.48 LV2 Creamware 1791 222 11.84 472.24 10.01 LV2 Creamware, Annular 1798 3 0.16 1.84 0.04 LV2 Creamware, Black Transfer 1812 1 0.05 1.46 0.03 LV2 Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 41 2.19 156.11 3.31 LV2 Creamware, Molded 1791 3 0.16 13.45 0.29 LV2 Creamware, Spattered 1790 1 0.05 0.8 0.02 LV2 Creamware, Unclassified 1791 1 0.05 0.3 0.01 LV2 Delft 1720 132 7.04 158.86 3.37 LV2 Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 1 0.05 3.57 0.08 LV2 Delft, Polychrome 1681 1 0.05 0.81 0.02 LV2 Earthenware, Coarse, Tin Enameled 1701 3 0.16 0.8 0.02 LV2 Faience 1740 2 0.11 1.45 0.03 LV2 Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 6 0.32 20.8 0.44
122 TABLE 25 Continued
Level Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 4 0.21 219.81 4.66 LV2 Hotelware 1907 3 0.16 2.8 0.06 LV2 Ironstone 1885 13 0.69 49.36 1.05 LV2 Jackfield 1765 1 0.05 1.03 0.02 LV2 North Devon Gravel 1715 7 0.37 61.98 1.31 LV2 Olive Jar 1695 1 0.05 37.6 0.80 LV2 Pearlware 1810 21 1.12 69.2 1.47 LV2 Pearlware, Annular 1805 2 0.11 3.16 0.07 LV2 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 1 0.05 0.61 0.01 LV2 Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 10 0.53 18.76 0.40 LV2 Pearlware, Cobalt Blue 1812 3 0.16 4.07 0.09 LV2 Pearlware, Finger Painted 1805 1 0.05 1.15 0.02 LV2 Pearlware, Flow Blue 1850 3 0.16 2.59 0.05 LV2 Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 2 0.11 8.08 0.17 LV2 Pearlware, Sponged 1810 2 0.11 0.8 0.02 LV2 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 6 0.32 5.31 0.11 LV2 Pearlware, Unclassified Bowl 1810 1 0.05 11.7 0.25 LV2 Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 16 0.85 86.04 1.82 LV2 Redware, Refined, Astbury 1738 1 0.05 1.51 0.03 LV2 Rockingham 1900 2 0.11 8.12 0.17 LV2 Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 14 0.75 58.28 1.24 LV2 Slipware, Refined 1733 68 3.63 127.25 2.70 LV2 Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 2 0.11 61.7 1.31 LV2 Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 34 1.81 48.74 1.03 LV2 Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 3 0.16 104.71 2.22 LV2 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 33 1.76 26.62 0.56 LV2 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 7 0.37 26.16 0.55 LV2 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 20 1.07 66.4 1.41 LV2 Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 12 0.64 12.19 0.26 LV2 Whiteware 1915 57 3.04 112.38 2.38 LV2 Whiteware, Cobalt Blue 1915 1 0.05 1.63 0.03 LV2 Whiteware, Flow Blue 1915 1 0.05 0.3 0.01 LV2 Whiteware, Purple Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.05 0.6 0.01 LV2 Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 3 0.16 2.4 0.05 LV2 Yellow Ware 1883 1 0.05 0.79 0.02 LV2 Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 1 0.05 1.12 0.02 LV2 Yellow Ware, Unclassified 1883 3 0.16 3 0.06 LV3 Agateware, Coarse 1780 7 0.37 6.13 0.13 LV3 Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 3 0.16 39.12 0.83 LV3 Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 16 0.85 49.48 1.05 LV3 Creamware 1791 210 11.20 480.65 10.19 LV3 Creamware, Feather Edged 1791 36 1.92 169.22 3.59 LV3 Creamware, Molded 1791 6 0.32 39.56 0.84 LV3 Delft 1720 183 9.76 187.19 3.97
123 TABLE 25 Continued
Level Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Faience 1740 7 0.37 10.41 0.22 LV3 Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 5 0.27 10.85 0.23 LV3 Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 1 0.05 27.03 0.57 LV3 Hotelware 1907 2 0.11 16.35 0.35 LV3 Ironstone 1885 6 0.32 23.03 0.49 LV3 Jackfield 1765 2 0.11 0.9 0.02 LV3 North Devon Gravel 1715 12 0.64 140.49 2.98 LV3 Pearlware 1810 15 0.80 50.6 1.07 LV3 Pearlware, Annular 1805 1 0.05 1.44 0.03 LV3 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 1 0.05 0.73 0.02 LV3 Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 3 0.16 6.45 0.14 LV3 Pearlware, Sponged 1810 1 0.05 2.71 0.06 LV3 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 1 0.05 0.29 0.01 LV3 Redware, Refined, Astbury 1738 1 0.05 1.85 0.04 LV3 Rockingham 1900 5 0.27 17.5 0.37 LV3 Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 26 1.39 160.35 3.40 LV3 Slipware, Refined 1733 64 3.41 138.85 2.94 LV3 Slipware, Refined, American 1733 5 0.27 34.84 0.74 LV3 Slipware, Refined, American Bowl 1733 1 0.05 53.69 1.14 LV3 Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 4 0.21 7.1 0.15 LV3 Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 77 4.11 154.74 3.28 LV3 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 37 1.97 96.4 2.04 LV3 Stoneware, Refined, Dry 1745 1 0.05 10.39 0.22 LV3 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 8 0.43 25.91 0.55 LV3 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 30 1.60 57.21 1.21 LV3 Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 12 0.64 23.09 0.49 LV3 Whiteware 1915 27 1.44 61.84 1.31 LV3 Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 1 0.05 2.63 0.06 LV3 Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 2 0.11 1.7 0.04 LV3 Yellow Ware 1883 14 0.75 43.94 0.93 LV3 Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 6 0.32 94.5 2.00 LV4 Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 1 0.05 0.4 0.01 LV4 Creamware 1791 13 0.69 21.28 0.45 LV4 Delft 1720 17 0.91 9.12 0.19 LV4 North Devon Gravel 1715 1 0.05 3.77 0.08 LV4 Pearlware 1810 3 0.16 3.59 0.08 LV4 Slipware, Refined 1733 2 0.11 7.3 0.15 LV4 Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 11 0.59 12.91 0.27 LV4 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 1 0.05 0.6 0.01 LV4 Stoneware, Scratch Blue 1760 1 0.05 0.92 0.02 LV4 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 3 0.16 8.7 0.18 LV4 Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 1 0.05 0.3 0.01 LV4 Whiteware 1915 2 0.11 1.32 0.03 LV4 Yellow Ware 1883 2 0.11 1.27 0.03
124 TABLE 26 STRUCTURE 14 ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 20th Century Asbestos Roofing Tile 2 0.15 6.95 0.21 LV1 20th Century Battery 1 0.08 1.06 0.03 LV1 20th Century Plastic 3 0.23 1.43 0.04 LV1 20th Century Target Skeet 25 1.89 27.78 0.82 LV1 Agriculture Fence Staple 8 0.61 30.23 0.9 LV1 Agriculture Screw 3 0.23 7.08 0.21 LV1 Agriculture Wire 3 0.23 6.27 0.19 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.15 3.54 0.1 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Spiral Spring 2 0.15 1.08 0.03 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Washer 1 0.08 20.46 0.61 LV1 Architecture Brick 6 0.45 271.57 8.04 LV1 Architecture Concrete 1 0.08 170.5 5.05 LV1 Architecture Escutcheon 1 0.08 5.42 0.16 LV1 Architecture Mortar 1 0.08 2.56 0.08 LV1 Architecture Nail, Cut 201 15.22 696.51 20.63 LV1 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 31 2.35 79.97 2.37 LV1 Architecture Nail, Wire 3 0.23 9.46 0.28 LV1 Architecture Nail, Wrought 13 0.98 32.59 0.97 LV1 Architecture Plaster 1 0.08 1.89 0.06 LV1 Architecture Slate Roofing 2 0.15 4.64 0.14 LV1 Architecture Staple 6 0.45 23.29 0.69 LV1 Architecture Tack 1 0.08 0.65 0.02 LV1 Architecture Well Point Filter 2 0.15 10.55 0.31 LV1 Architecture Windowpane 127 9.61 76.05 2.25 LV1 Architecture, Furnishings Finial 1 0.08 2.46 0.07 LV1 Architecture, Furnishings Lamp 1 0.08 22.69 0.67 LV1 Arms Bullet 1 0.08 2.49 0.07 LV1 Arms Cartridge Case 5 0.38 2.46 0.07 LV1 Arms Percussion Cap 1 0.08 0.38 0.01 LV1 Arms Shotgun Shell 5 0.38 9.5 0.28 LV1 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 1 0.08 3.9 0.12 LV1 Ceramics Colonoware 77 5.83 193.23 5.72 LV1 Ceramics Creamware 1791 18 1.36 20.46 0.61 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 1 0.08 0.46 0.01 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1790 1 0.08 0.75 0.02 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 1 0.08 0.56 0.02 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Molded 1791 1 0.08 1.42 0.04 LV1 Ceramics Delft 1720 17 1.29 10.56 0.31 LV1 Ceramics Delft, Polychrome 1681 1 0.08 1.1 0.03 LV1 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 7 0.53 4.24 0.13 LV1 Ceramics Faience 1740 2 0.15 1.11 0.03 LV1 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 1 0.08 0.79 0.02 LV1 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 1 0.08 1.78 0.05
125 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 8 0.61 17.04 0.5 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 7 0.53 6.56 0.19 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Transfer Printed 1812 1 0.08 1.72 0.05 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain 5 0.38 10.47 0.31 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 4 0.3 4.09 0.12 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 2 0.15 0.65 0.02 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 2 0.15 4.33 0.13 LV1 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 3 0.23 7.88 0.23 LV1 Ceramics Redware, Refined 2 0.15 1.03 0.03 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 1 0.08 0.64 0.02 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 2 0.15 0.84 0.02 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 2 0.15 3.17 0.09 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 2 0.15 14.16 0.42 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Unclassified 1723 17 1.29 41.13 1.22 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 1 0.08 2.31 0.07 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Bristol Glazed 1868 1 0.08 0.81 0.02 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 1 0.08 1.51 0.04 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 1 0.08 1.08 0.03 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 4 0.3 10.43 0.31 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 1 0.08 4.57 0.14 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 6 0.45 21.43 0.63 LV1 Ceramics Untyped 7 0.53 22.15 0.66 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 42 3.18 102.4 3.03 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 9 0.68 25.63 0.76 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 1 0.08 1.2 0.04 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 2 0.15 4.86 0.14 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 1 0.08 2.25 0.07 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 1 0.08 4.6 0.14 LV1 Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 2 0.15 1.47 0.04 LV1 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 4 0.3 13.17 0.39 LV1 Kitchen, Food Pig 2 0.15 2.12 0.06 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 300 22.71 543.57 16.1 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Closure 1 0.08 2.24 0.07 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Liquor Bottle 1 0.08 43.33 1.28 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Stemware 1 0.08 2.4 0.07 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 1 0.08 2.43 0.07 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 35 2.65 53.6 1.59 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Wine Glass 1 0.08 2.4 0.07 LV1 NA, Ceramics Deptford Plain 1 0.08 3.15 0.09 LV1 NA, Ceramics Untyped 13 0.98 26.58 0.79 LV1 NA, Ceramics Debitage 1 0.08 3.24 0.1 LV1 NA, Ceramics Bone, Unidentified 40 3.03 49.01 1.45 LV1 Other Charcoal 2 0.15 1.92 0.06 LV1 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 97 7.34 141.66 4.2
126 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 20 1.51 215.53 6.38 LV1 Other Shell, Unidentified 2 0.15 91.11 2.7 LV1 Other Slag 2 0.15 3.32 0.1 LV1 Other Stone Manuport 4 0.3 17.93 0.53 LV1 Personal Bead, Glass 1 0.08 0.33 0.01 LV1 Personal Clothing, Button 9 0.68 10.94 0.32 LV1 Personal Clothing, Eyelet 1 0.08 0.76 0.02 LV1 Personal Mirror 5 0.38 2.69 0.08 LV1 Personal Pencil, Slate 2 0.15 2.09 0.06 LV1 Personal Tobacco Pipe 47 3.56 46.31 1.37 LV1 Personal Toy, Metal Arrowpoint 1 0.08 1.7 0.05 LV2 20th Century Asbestos Roofing Tile 1 0.02 4.26 0.02 LV2 20th Century Battery 1 0.02 4.71 0.02 LV2 20th Century Electrical Insulation 1 0.02 0.96 0 LV2 Agriculture Fence Staple 26 0.4 95.45 0.36 LV2 Agriculture Implement, Hay Fork 1 0.02 32.99 0.12 LV2 Agriculture Implement, Plow 1 0.02 1055.1 3.94 LV2 Agriculture Screw 8 0.12 29.27 0.11 LV2 Agriculture Spike 2 0.03 197.2 0.74 LV2 Agriculture Weight 1 0.02 7.74 0.03 LV2 Agriculture Wire 2 0.03 49.36 0.18 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Bolt 7 0.11 198.8 0.74 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Bracket 1 0.02 17.09 0.06 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Hardware 2 0.03 313.04 1.17 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Nut, Wing 1 0.02 72.66 0.27 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 9 0.14 22.92 0.09 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Washer 1 0.02 1.28 0 LV2 Architecture Brick 44 0.69 1569.24 5.86 LV2 Architecture Corrugated Roofing Tin 1 0.02 2.49 0.01 LV2 Architecture Door Hardware 1 0.02 69.6 0.26 LV2 Architecture Escutcheon 1 0.02 5.16 0.02 LV2 Architecture Handle 1 0.02 237.1 0.88 LV2 Architecture Lamp, Glass 1 0.02 21.2 0.08 LV2 Architecture Latch 1 0.02 76.24 0.28 LV2 Architecture Light Fixture 1 0.02 1.83 0.01 LV2 Architecture Lock 2 0.03 37.92 0.14 LV2 Architecture Lock Key 1 0.02 10.57 0.04 LV2 Architecture Mortar 1 0.02 36.3 0.14 LV2 Architecture Nail, Cut 1299 20.23 4788.34 17.87 LV2 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 82 1.28 204.29 0.76 LV2 Architecture Nail, Wire 29 0.45 202.3 0.76 LV2 Architecture Nail, Wrought 77 1.2 361.84 1.35 LV2 Architecture Pipe 1 0.02 67.98 0.25 LV2 Architecture Siding 1 0.02 4.2 0.02
127 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Architecture Slate Roofing 15 0.23 23.67 0.09 LV2 Architecture Spike 2 0.03 245.86 0.92 LV2 Architecture Staple 6 0.09 19.17 0.07 LV2 Architecture Tack 6 0.09 4.54 0.02 LV2 Architecture Windowpane 566 8.81 481.57 1.8 LV2 Architecture, Furnishings Lamp 3 0.05 41.83 0.16 LV2 Arms Bullet 3 0.05 15.61 0.06 LV2 Arms Cartridge Case 2 0.03 0.87 0 LV2 Arms Gunflint 1 0.02 5.21 0.02 LV2 Arms Lead Shot 19 0.3 79.64 0.3 LV2 Arms Musket Ball 1 0.02 17.33 0.06 LV2 Arms Percussion Cap 10 0.16 3.28 0.01 LV2 Arms Shotgun Shell 3 0.05 9.38 0.04 LV2 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse 1780 1 0.02 0.41 0 LV2 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 3 0.05 20.17 0.08 LV2 Ceramics Agateware, Refined 1758 1 0.02 2.98 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Colonoware 119 1.85 342.14 1.28 LV2 Ceramics Creamware 1791 60 0.93 120.74 0.45 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 6 0.09 14.17 0.05 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Black Transfer Printed 1880 3 0.05 2.26 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 7 0.11 16.59 0.06 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Molded 1791 1 0.02 1.4 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Delft 1720 41 0.64 49.55 0.18 LV2 Ceramics Delft, Polychrome 1681 1 0.02 0.63 0 LV2 Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 1 0.02 0.91 0 LV2 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 28 0.44 59.93 0.22 LV2 Ceramics Faience 1740 5 0.08 6.68 0.02 LV2 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 6 0.09 10.02 0.04 LV2 Ceramics Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 16 0.25 164.85 0.62 LV2 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 65 1.01 558.07 2.08 LV2 Ceramics Jackfield 1765 1 0.02 0.22 0 LV2 Ceramics Olive Jar 1695 1 0.02 3.87 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 76 1.18 273.88 1.02 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 33 0.51 64.51 0.24 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 2 0.03 11.9 0.04 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 6 0.09 8.88 0.03 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 4 0.06 16.26 0.06 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 1 0.02 1.06 0 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Sponged 1810 2 0.03 0.8 0 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 2 0.03 2.63 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain 49 0.76 196.62 0.73 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 3 0.05 2.05 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, English 1773 1 0.02 2.63 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 1 0.02 0.21 0
128 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 23 0.36 22.65 0.08 LV2 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 28 0.44 99.51 0.37 LV2 Ceramics Redware, Refined 8 0.12 14.81 0.06 LV2 Ceramics Rockingham 1900 3 0.05 36.48 0.14 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 4 0.06 4.67 0.02 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 10 0.16 24.32 0.09 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 7 0.11 19.54 0.07 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Unclassified 1723 52 0.81 82.82 0.31 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 12 0.19 191.38 0.71 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Bristol Glazed 1868 1 0.02 9.46 0.04 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 5 0.08 50.07 0.19 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 9 0.14 32.79 0.12 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 22 0.34 216.2 0.81 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 4 0.06 6.34 0.02 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 13 0.2 13.45 0.05 LV2 Ceramics Untyped 57 0.89 424.67 1.58 LV2 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 1 0.02 0.37 0 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 210 3.27 895.91 3.34 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 43 0.67 111.19 0.41 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 16 0.25 28.94 0.11 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 18 0.28 74.62 0.28 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 2 0.03 6.11 0.02 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Green Shell Edged 1915 1 0.02 1.15 0 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Green Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.02 0.97 0 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 2 0.03 1.35 0.01 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 11 0.17 19.94 0.07 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Purple Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.02 0.73 0 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 1915 11 0.17 141.33 0.53 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 3 0.05 7.52 0.03 LV2 Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 16 0.25 83.22 0.31 LV2 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 17 0.26 35.67 0.13 LV2 Kitchen Coffee Pot Lid Enameled 1 0.02 74.47 0.28 LV2 Kitchen Decanter 1 0.02 27.41 0.1 LV2 Kitchen Furnishings, Brass Hinge 2 0.03 24.39 0.09 LV2 Kitchen Metal Vessel Fragment 1 0.02 1.1 0 LV2 Kitchen Metal, Kettle 1 0.02 318.3 1.19 LV2 Kitchen Utensil, Fork 2 0.03 22.64 0.08 LV2 Kitchen Utensil, Spoon 1 0.02 22.28 0.08 LV2 Kitchen, Food Cow 9 0.14 103.61 0.39 LV2 Kitchen, Food Pig 16 0.25 44.93 0.17 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 1646 25.63 5850.94 21.84 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Closure 1 0.02 6.26 0.02 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Jar 1 0.02 15.83 0.06 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 171 2.66 428.69 1.6
129 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Kitchen, Glass Wine Bottle Seal 1 0.02 7.99 0.03 LV2 NA, Ceramics River Burnished 1 0.02 12 0.04 LV2 NA, Ceramics Thoms Creek Punctate 1 0.02 16.3 0.06 LV2 NA, Ceramics Untyped 12 0.19 24.06 0.09 LV2 NA, Lithics Core 1 0.02 21.04 0.08 LV2 NA, Lithics Debitage 1 0.02 0.2 0 LV2 Other Bone, Unidentified 374 5.82 523.31 1.95 LV2 Other Fired Clay 1 0.02 0.91 0 LV2 Other Flora, Unidentified 8 0.12 34.81 0.13 LV2 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 197 3.07 305.88 1.14 LV2 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 291 4.53 2911.09 10.87 LV2 Other Metal, Band 1 0.02 3.43 0.01 LV2 Other Metal, Buckle 3 0.05 38.4 0.14 LV2 Other Metal, Copper Tubing 1 0.02 0.4 0 LV2 Other Metal, Hook 2 0.03 40.9 0.15 LV2 Other Metal, Lead Sprue 1 0.02 1.86 0.01 LV2 Other Metal, Spiral Spring 2 0.03 1.18 0 LV2 Other Metal, Tube 1 0.02 23.4 0.09 LV2 Other Shell, Unidentified 11 0.17 54.08 0.2 LV2 Other Slag 1 0.02 5.29 0.02 LV2 Other Soil Sample 1 100 5.92 0.02 LV2 Other Stone Manuport 13 0.2 33.36 0.12 LV2 Personal Bead, Glass 2 0.03 2.21 0.01 LV2 Personal Clothing, Button 67 1.04 56.18 0.21 LV2 Personal Clothing, Snap Fastener 1 0.02 0.25 0 LV2 Personal Coin 1 0.02 10.17 0.04 LV2 Personal Cufflink 1 0.02 0.85 0 LV2 Personal Fishline Sinker 1 0.02 4.89 0.02 LV2 Personal Harmonica 1 0.02 1.56 0.01 LV2 Personal Medicine Bottle 8 0.12 107.2 0.4 LV2 Personal Mirror 15 0.23 10.21 0.04 LV2 Personal Pencil 2 0.03 0.52 0 LV2 Personal Pencil, Slate 1 0.02 1.85 0.01 LV2 Personal Thimble 1 0.02 5.28 0.02 LV2 Personal Tobacco Pipe 138 2.15 206.95 0.77 LV2 Personal Toothbrush 1 0.02 1.01 0 LV2 Personal Toy, Marble 1 0.02 14.76 0.06 LV2 Tool Ax, Felling 1 0.02 0 0 LV3 20th Century Plastic 1 0.02 0.15 0 LV3 Agriculture Fence Staple 1 0.02 5.29 0.02 LV3 Agriculture Implement, Plow 1 0.02 582.2 2.59 LV3 Agriculture Screw 1 0.02 2.21 0.01 LV3 Agriculture Strap 1 0.02 209.9 0.93 LV3 Agriculture Wire 1 0.02 2.02 0.01
130 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Bolt 3 0.07 105.53 0.47 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Hardware 1 0.02 179.7 0.8 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Machine Part 1 0.02 10.77 0.05 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.05 3.83 0.02 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Rod 4 0.09 225.25 1 LV3 Architecture Brick 19 0.44 292.87 1.3 LV3 Architecture Brick Paver 1 0.02 4.42 0.02 LV3 Architecture Hinge to be typed 3 0.07 348.66 1.55 LV3 Architecture Mortar 1 0.02 4.37 0.02 LV3 Architecture Nail, Cut 710 16.54 2936.86 13.05 LV3 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 97 2.26 195.8 0.87 LV3 Architecture Nail, Wire 10 0.23 42.16 0.19 LV3 Architecture Nail, Wrought 9 0.21 33.44 0.15 LV3 Architecture Slate Roofing 5 0.12 7.25 0.03 LV3 Architecture Spike 2 0.05 37.72 0.17 LV3 Architecture Tack 5 0.12 3.97 0.02 LV3 Architecture Windowpane 337 7.85 231.04 1.03 LV3 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 4 0.09 9.73 0.04 LV3 Architecture, Furnishings Hook 1 0.02 0.45 0 LV3 Arms Bullet 6 0.14 45.59 0.2 LV3 Arms Cartridge Case 3 0.07 3.79 0.02 LV3 Arms Gunflint 4 0.09 29.33 0.13 LV3 Arms Lead Shot 25 0.58 70.59 0.31 LV3 Arms Musket Ball 1 0.02 6.44 0.03 LV3 Arms Percussion Cap 3 0.07 0.97 0 LV3 Arms Shotgun Shell 1 0.02 2.59 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 2 0.05 81.01 0.36 LV3 Ceramics Colonoware 295 6.87 955.94 4.25 LV3 Ceramics Creamware 1791 60 1.4 96.72 0.43 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 2 0.05 3.42 0.02 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Black Transfer Printed 1915 2 0.05 2.6 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 16 0.37 71.84 0.32 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Molded 1791 2 0.05 2.02 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Delft 1720 100 2.33 186.22 0.83 LV3 Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 6 0.14 51.86 0.23 LV3 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 11 0.26 19.64 0.09 LV3 Ceramics Faience 1740 11 0.26 14.6 0.06 LV3 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 8 0.19 36.99 0.16 LV3 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Seine 1728 1 0.02 13.53 0.06 LV3 Ceramics Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 8 0.19 234.45 1.04 LV3 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 17 0.4 121.98 0.54 LV3 Ceramics Jackfield 1765 4 0.09 10.47 0.05 LV3 Ceramics North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 2 0.05 28.88 0.13 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 35 0.82 118.85 0.53
131 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 22 0.51 165.77 0.74 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 7 0.16 7.72 0.03 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 7 0.16 29.15 0.13 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Finger Painted 1805 7 0.16 17.02 0.08 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 1 0.02 4.52 0.02 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 1 0.02 3.43 0.02 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain 33 0.77 129.3 0.57 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Canton 1813 1 0.02 0.14 0 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 7 0.16 3.33 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 44 1.03 92.9 0.41 LV3 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 16 0.37 47.41 0.21 LV3 Ceramics Redware, Refined 5 0.12 3.45 0.02 LV3 Ceramics Rockingham 1900 2 0.05 26.61 0.12 LV3 Ceramics Semivitreous 1 0.02 0.4 0 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 3 0.07 19.4 0.09 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 17 0.4 32.96 0.15 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 3 0.07 3.05 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Unclassified 1723 69 1.61 180.17 0.8 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 4 0.09 99.39 0.44 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 6 0.14 56.69 0.25 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 1 0.02 28.46 0.13 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 5 0.12 8.28 0.04 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Rhenish 1600 1 0.02 2.42 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 25 0.58 142.09 0.63 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Unclassified 1 0.02 9.3 0.04 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 9 0.21 35.7 0.16 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 25 0.58 46.37 0.21 LV3 Ceramics Untyped 29 0.68 181.74 0.81 LV3 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 1 0.02 0.71 0 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 92 2.14 334.41 1.49 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 28 0.65 93.2 0.41 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 5 0.12 31.34 0.14 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Brown Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.02 1.6 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 13 0.3 27.03 0.12 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 2 0.05 4.02 0.02 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Green Shell Edged 1915 2 0.05 3.47 0.02 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Green Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.02 0.48 0 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Mocha 1915 1 0.02 1.48 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 2 0.05 2.28 0.01 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 4 0.09 8.8 0.04 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Shell Edged 1915 1 0.02 9.46 0.04 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 1915 2 0.05 18.55 0.08 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 2 0.05 4.44 0.02 LV3 Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 3 0.07 3.13 0.01
132 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 5 0.12 13.84 0.06 LV3 Kitchen Can 1 0.02 5.58 0.02 LV3 Kitchen Metal, Kettle 1 0.02 87.2 0.39 LV3 Kitchen, Food Cow 62 1.44 978.03 4.35 LV3 Kitchen, Food Deer 1 0.02 10.97 0.05 LV3 Kitchen, Food Oyster 2 0.05 19.12 0.08 LV3 Kitchen, Food Pig 12 0.28 37.19 0.17 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 842 19.62 3167.79 14.07 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 3 0.07 18.93 0.08 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 73 1.7 490.29 2.18 LV3 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 1 0.02 1.34 0.01 LV3 NA, Ceramics Deptford Plain 1 0.02 1.24 0.01 LV3 NA, Ceramics Refuge Plain 1 0.02 2.32 0.01 LV3 NA, Ceramics Thoms Creek Punctate 1 0.02 18.43 0.08 LV3 NA, Ceramics Untyped 31 0.72 82.91 0.37 LV3 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Plain 1 0.02 2.35 0.01 LV3 NA, Lithics Debitage 3 0.07 7.09 0.03 LV3 Other Bone, Unidentified 331 7.71 695.36 3.09 LV3 Other Coal 1 0.02 1.89 0.01 LV3 Other Fired Clay 1 0.02 3.29 0.01 LV3 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 143 3.33 302.34 1.34 LV3 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 112 2.61 1253.01 5.57 LV3 Other Metal, Buckle 1 0.02 31.99 0.14 LV3 Other Metal, Hook 1 0.02 58.18 0.26 LV3 Other Metal, Lead Sprue 1 0.02 12.39 0.06 LV3 Other Shell, Unidentified 4 0.09 2.43 0.01 LV3 Other Slag 1 0.02 1.69 0.01 LV3 Other Stone Manuport 8 0.19 29.79 0.13 LV3 Other Stone Shatter 3 0.07 7.56 0.03 LV3 Personal Bead, Stone 1 0.02 0.68 0 LV3 Personal Bracelet 1 0.02 3.73 0.02 LV3 Personal Clothing, Button 46 1.07 45.04 0.2 LV3 Personal Fishline Sinker 1 0.02 20.16 0.09 LV3 Personal Inkwell 1 0.02 13.67 0.06 LV3 Personal Medicine Bottle 1 0.02 LV3 Personal Mirror 15 0.35 6.2 0.03 LV3 Personal Pocket Knife 1 0.02 32 0.14 LV3 Personal Thimble 1 0.02 2.09 0.01 LV3 Personal Tobacco Pipe 214 4.99 297.61 1.32 LV3 Personal Toy, Marble 1 0.02 5.11 0.02 LV3 Tool Ax 3 0.07 5130.3 22.79 LV4 Agriculture Grommet 1 0.11 0.07 0 LV4 Agriculture Stake 1 0.11 836.3 12.84 LV4 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.21 5.33 0.08
133 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV4 Architecture Brick 22 2.32 705.12 10.83 LV4 Architecture Escutcheon 2 0.21 15.6 0.24 LV4 Architecture Nail, Cut 107 11.26 391.96 6.02 LV4 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 4 0.42 28.13 0.43 LV4 Architecture Tack 2 0.21 1.24 0.02 LV4 Architecture Window Screen 1 0.11 0.04 0 LV4 Architecture Windowpane 56 5.89 41.18 0.63 LV4 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 1 0.11 2.02 0.03 LV4 Architecture, Furnishings Handle 1 0.11 29.14 0.45 LV4 Arms Cartridge Case 1 0.11 1.49 0.02 LV4 Arms Lead Shot 5 0.53 430.2 6.6 LV4 Arms Musket Ball 1 0.11 25.91 0.4 LV4 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 1 0.11 5.81 0.09 LV4 Ceramics Colonoware 112 11.79 351.34 5.39 LV4 Ceramics Creamware 1791 17 1.79 42.75 0.66 LV4 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 1 0.11 7.28 0.11 LV4 Ceramics Delft 1720 28 2.95 49.43 0.76 LV4 Ceramics Delft, Polychrome 1681 1 0.11 4 0.06 LV4 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 1 0.11 0.53 0.01 LV4 Ceramics Faience 1740 1 0.11 1.35 0.02 LV4 Ceramics Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 1 0.11 9.73 0.15 LV4 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 1 0.11 0.76 0.01 LV4 Ceramics Olive Jar 1695 1 0.11 26.99 0.41 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 3 0.32 32.41 0.5 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 1 0.11 0.17 0 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 1 0.11 4.18 0.06 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain 2 0.21 3.45 0.05 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 4 0.42 7.74 0.12 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 7 0.74 22.61 0.35 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 4 0.42 5.08 0.08 LV4 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 4 0.42 34.1 0.52 LV4 Ceramics Redware, Refined 2 0.21 15.93 0.24 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 1 0.11 8.65 0.13 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Unclassified 1723 27 2.84 55.99 0.86 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 1 0.11 0.6 0.01 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 2 0.21 311.83 4.79 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Rhenish 1600 1 0.11 1.32 0.02 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 8 0.84 53.11 0.82 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 6 0.63 23.01 0.35 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 4 0.42 7.63 0.12 LV4 Ceramics Untyped 13 1.37 18.12 0.28 LV4 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 1 0.11 2.16 0.03 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 18 1.89 99.6 1.53 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 4 0.42 3.77 0.06
134 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 1 0.11 1.92 0.03 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.11 0.26 0 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Green Shell Edged 1915 1 0.11 10.72 0.16 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.11 0.96 0.01 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 1915 1 0.11 14.22 0.22 LV4 Kitchen, Food Cow 3 0.32 101.29 1.56 LV4 Kitchen, Food Deer 1 0.11 24.82 0.38 LV4 Kitchen, Food Pig 3 0.32 9.91 0.15 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 180 18.95 1260.02 19.34 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 1 0.11 10.04 0.15 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 46 4.84 71.08 1.09 LV4 NA, Ceramics Deptford Plain 1 0.11 5.57 0.09 LV4 NA, Ceramics Deptford Simple Stamped 2 0.21 18.67 0.29 LV4 NA, Ceramics Untyped 5 0.53 2.78 0.04 LV4 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Plain 1 0.11 1.49 0.02 LV4 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Simple Stamped 1 0.11 0.64 0.01 LV4 NA, Lithics Debitage 1 0.11 0.7 0.01 LV4 Other Bone, Unidentified 101 10.63 224.13 3.44 LV4 Other Charcoal 1 0.11 0.25 0 LV4 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 26 2.74 47.07 0.72 LV4 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 6 0.63 778.01 11.94 LV4 Other Slag 1 0.11 14.66 0.23 LV4 Personal Clothing, Button 10 1.05 10.36 0.16 LV4 Personal Coin 1 0.11 2.46 0.04 LV4 Personal Medicine Bottle 1 0.11 68.68 1.05 LV4 Personal Mirror 2 0.21 0.92 0.01 LV4 Personal Tobacco Pipe 64 6.74 105.77 1.62 LV4 Personal Toothpick 1 0.11 1.07 0.02 NOLV Agriculture, Machinery Hardware 1 0.18 286.1 6.71 NOLV Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.36 5.23 0.12 NOLV Agriculture, Machinery Washer 1 0.18 0.86 0.02 NOLV Architecture Brick 5 0.89 58.01 1.36 NOLV Architecture Nail, Cut 104 18.6 352.6 8.27 NOLV Architecture Nail, Wire 1 0.18 4.99 0.12 NOLV Architecture Spike 1 0.18 178.9 4.19 NOLV Architecture Windowpane 36 6.44 52.95 1.24 NOLV Arms Cartridge Case 2 0.36 1.54 0.04 NOLV Ceramics Colonoware 26 4.65 68.13 1.6 NOLV Ceramics Creamware 1791 2 0.36 4.69 0.11 NOLV Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 1 0.18 9.35 0.22 NOLV Ceramics Delft 1720 9 1.61 33.18 0.78 NOLV Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 1 0.18 1.14 0.03 NOLV Ceramics Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 2 0.36 69.83 1.64 NOLV Ceramics Ironstone 1885 7 1.25 81.56 1.91
135 TABLE 26 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent NOLV Ceramics North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 1 0.18 17.1 0.4 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware 1810 8 1.43 274.62 6.44 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 2 0.36 10.12 0.24 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 1 0.18 7.03 0.16 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 1 0.18 53.8 1.26 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain 3 0.54 3.8 0.09 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 3 0.54 7.5 0.18 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 2 0.36 2.54 0.06 NOLV Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Unclassified 1723 9 1.61 16.27 0.38 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 1 0.18 13.08 0.31 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 1 0.18 2.78 0.07 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 1 0.18 1.24 0.03 NOLV Ceramics Untyped 3 0.54 6.79 0.16 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware 1915 10 1.79 193.64 4.54 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 2 0.36 8.02 0.19 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.18 12.29 0.29 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 1915 7 1.25 108.34 2.54 NOLV Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 1 0.18 1.1 0.03 NOLV Kitchen Furnishings, Brass Hinge 1 0.18 11.72 0.27 NOLV Kitchen Utensil, Butter Knife 1 0.18 59.55 1.4 NOLV Kitchen Utensil, Handle 1 0.18 10.53 0.25 NOLV Kitchen Utensil, Spoon 1 0.18 37.77 0.89 NOLV Kitchen, Food Cow 1 0.18 17.29 0.41 NOLV Kitchen, Food Pig 8 1.43 19.34 0.45 NOLV Kitchen, Food Bottle Glass 94 16.82 1278.21 29.96 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 12 2.15 11.16 0.26 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Wine Bottle 2 0.36 403.5 9.46 NOLV Other Bone, Unidentified 130 23.26 302.6 7.09 NOLV Other Flora, Unidentified 1 0.18 1.21 0.03 NOLV Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 6 1.07 7.18 0.17 NOLV Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 4 0.72 68.12 1.6 NOLV Other Metal, Buckle 1 0.18 7.21 0.17 NOLV Other Metal, Ring 1 0.18 2.87 0.07 NOLV Personal Clothing, Button 18 3.22 11.57 0.27 NOLV Personal Mirror 2 0.36 1.45 0.03 NOLV Personal Tobacco Pipe 14 2.5 39.73 0.93 NOLV Personal Toy, Marble 3 0.54 25.85 0.61
136 TABLE 27 STRUCTURE 13 ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 20th Century Battery 1 0.00505 2.72 0.00269 LV1 20th Century Plastic 2 0.0101 0.57 0.00056 LV1 20th Century Target Skeet 2 0.0101 4.08 0.00403 LV1 Agriculture Implement, Plow 1 0.00505 478.4 0.47291 LV1 Agriculture Screw 1 0.00505 3.73 0.00369 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Bolt 1 0.00505 28.6 0.02827 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Gasket 2 0.0101 0.28 0.00028 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.0101 1.83 0.00181 LV1 Architecture Brick 10 0.05048 910.96 0.9005 LV1 Architecture Brick Paver 3 0.01515 205.69 0.20333 LV1 Architecture Flowerpot 1 0.00505 35.03 0.03463 LV1 Architecture Nail, Cut 113 0.57048 388.33 0.38387 LV1 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 6 0.03029 14.29 0.01413 LV1 Architecture Nail, Wire 4 0.02019 34.67 0.03427 LV1 Architecture Nail, Wrought 1 0.00505 6.73 0.00665 LV1 Architecture Spike 1 0.00505 12.36 0.01222 LV1 Architecture Staple 1 0.00505 1.88 0.00186 LV1 Architecture Tack 1 0.00505 0.75 0.00074 LV1 Architecture Windowpane 197 0.99455 101.81 0.10064 LV1 Arms Bullet 4 0.02019 12.68 0.01253 LV1 Arms Cartridge Case 5 0.02524 2.03 0.00201 LV1 Arms Gunflint 1 0.00505 11.35 0.01122 LV1 Arms Lead Shot 1 0.00505 3 0.00297 LV1 Arms Percussion Cap 2 0.0101 0.59 0.00058 LV1 Arms Shotgun Shell 1 0.00505 1.89 0.00187 LV1 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse 1780 1 0.00505 3.05 0.00301 LV1 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 2 0.0101 11.67 0.01154 LV1 Ceramics Agateware, Refined 1758 9 0.04544 6.45 0.00638 LV1 Ceramics Colonoware 115 0.58057 438.53 0.4335 LV1 Ceramics Creamware 1791 82 0.41397 122.25 0.12085 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 1 0.00505 0.85 0.00084 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 14 0.07068 38.88 0.03843 LV1 Ceramics Delft 1720 30 0.15145 15.25 0.01507 LV1 Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 4 0.02019 24.09 0.02381 LV1 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 6 0.03019 7.91 0.00782 LV1 Ceramics Faience 1740 9 0.04544 7.14 0.00706 LV1 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 6 0.03029 12.67 0.01252 LV1 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 5 0.02524 13.23 0.01308 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 7 0.03534 4.65 0.0046 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 1 0.00505 0.37 0.00037 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 1 0.00505 1.53 0.00151 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 2 0.0101 2.22 0.00219 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 1 0.00505 0.44 0.00043 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain 15 0.07573 18.64 0.01843
137 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 24 0.12116 27.96 0.02764 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, English 1773 1 0.00505 0.52 0.00051 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 8 0.04039 31.53 0.03117 LV1 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 3 0.01515 18.59 0.01838 LV1 Ceramics Redware, Refined 6 0.03029 17.51 0.01731 LV1 Ceramics Rockingham 1900 1 0.00505 4.77 0.00472 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 52 0.26252 70.72 0.06991 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 3 0.01515 30.09 0.02974 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 1 0.00505 1.31 0.00129 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 1 0.00505 1.63 0.00161 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 3 0.01515 2.1 0.00208 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 13 0.06563 67 0.06623 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 9 0.04544 11.97 0.01183 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 16 0.08078 22.06 0.02181 LV1 Ceramics Untyped 26 0.13126 57.24 0.05658 LV1 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 5 0.02524 9.09 0.00899 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 51 0.25747 183.08 0.18098 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 4 0.02019 5.81 0.00574 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 1 0.00505 1.4 0.00138 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 2 0.0101 2.8 0.00277 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 4 0.02019 2.52 0.00249 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Flow Blue 1915 1 0.00505 0.68 0.00067 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 1915 1 0.00505 4.18 0.00413 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 1 0.00505 0.25 0.00025 LV1 Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 5 0.02524 18.96 0.01874 LV1 Kitchen Metal, Frying Pan 1 0.00505 63.98 0.06325 LV1 Kitchen Metal, Kettle 1 0.00505 144.48 0.14282 LV1 Kitchen Pot Handle 1 0.00505 87.58 0.08657 LV1 Kitchen, Food Cow 5 0.02524 288.7 0.28539 LV1 Kitchen, Food Deer 2 0.0101 69.72 0.06892 LV1 Kitchen, Food Pig 4 0.02019 7.01 0.00693 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 32 0.16155 697.89 0.68988 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 345 1.74172 834.95 0.82537 LV1 NA, Ceramics Refuge Plain 1 0.00505 10.65 0.01053 LV1 NA, Ceramics Untyped 17 0.08582 39.4 0.03895 LV1 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Plain 1 0.00505 1.2 0.00119 LV1 NA, Lithics Debitage 2 0.0101 9.67 0.00956 LV1 Other Bone, Unidentified 63 0.31805 224.29 0.22172 LV1 Other Bone, Worked 1 0.00505 0.55 0.00054 LV1 Other Flora, Unidentified 1 0.00505 0.05 0.00005 LV1 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 157 0.79261 233.1 0.23042 LV1 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 4 0.02019 109.82 0.10856 LV1 Other Shell, Unidentified 1 0.00505 0.17 0.00017 LV1 Other Stone Manuport 5 0.02524 88.8 0.08778 LV1 Personal Clothing, Button 4 0.02019 2.81 0.00278
138 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Personal Fishline Sinker 1 0.00505 7.79 0.0077 LV1 Personal Mirror 3 0.01515 0.62 0.00061 LV1 Personal Pencil, Slate 1 0.00505 0.77 0.00076 LV1 Personal Pin, Straight 1 0.00505 0.07 0.0007 LV1 Personal Tobacco Pipe 55 0.27767 66.74 0.06597 LV1 Personal Toy, Shuttlecock 1 0.00505 0.56 0.00055 LV1 Tool Wrench 1 0.00505 375.5 0.37119 LV2 20th Century Asbestos Roofing Tile 1 0.00505 12.4 0.01226 LV2 20th Century Battery 1 0.00505 47.51 0.04696 LV2 20th Century Target Skeet 1 0.00505 0.27 0.00027 LV2 Agriculture Bale Seal 1 0.00505 3.14 0.0031 LV2 Agriculture Barbed Wire 4 0.02019 20.59 0.02035 LV2 Agriculture Fence Staple 1 0.00505 5.61 0.00555 LV2 Agriculture Grommet 2 0.0101 1.21 0.0012 LV2 Agriculture Screw 3 0.01515 5.24 0.00518 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Bolt 2 0.0101 95.06 0.09397 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Bracket 1 0.00505 2.5 0.00247 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Hardware 1 0.00505 14.06 0.0139 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Nut 1 0.00505 27.75 0.02743 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Ring 1 0.00505 0.93 0.00092 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.0101 2.6 0.00257 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Spiral Spring 1 0.00505 228.7 0.22608 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Spring Leaf 1 0.00505 529.4 0.52332 LV2 Architecture Brick 19 0.09592 1833.36 1.81232 LV2 Architecture Brick Paver 5 0.02524 943.9 0.93307 LV2 Architecture Concrete 3 0.01515 151.22 0.14948 LV2 Architecture Mortar 5 0.02524 2.29 0.00226 LV2 Architecture Nail, Cut 526 2.65549 2008.56 1.98551 LV2 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 29 0.14641 105.73 0.10452 LV2 Architecture Nail, Wire 8 0.04039 30.47 0.03012 LV2 Architecture Nail, Wrought 35 0.1767 131.04 0.12954 LV2 Architecture Padlock 1 0.00505 96.06 0.09496 LV2 Architecture Pintle 1 0.00505 50.3 0.04972 LV2 Architecture Pipe Coupling 1 0.00505 46.27 0.04574 LV2 Architecture Plaster 1 0.00505 12.79 0.01264 LV2 Architecture Slate Roofing 7 0.03534 6.35 0.00628 LV2 Architecture Spike 1 0.00505 52.38 0.05178 LV2 Architecture Staple 3 0.01515 7.27 0.00719 LV2 Architecture Tack 4 0.02019 3.03 0.003 LV2 Architecture Windowpane 599 3.02403 352.49 0.34844 LV2 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 6 0.03029 10.59 0.01047 LV2 Arms Bullet 3 0.01515 25.4 0.02511 LV2 Arms Cartridge Case 9 0.04544 4.36 0.00431 LV2 Arms Gunflint 1 0.00505 3.43 0.00339 LV2 Arms Lead Shot 7 0.03534 22.79 0.02253
139 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Arms Musket Ball 1 0.00505 20.41 0.02018 LV2 Arms Percussion Cap 1 0.00505 0.29 0.00029 LV2 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse 1780 1 0.00505 6.69 0.00661 LV2 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 3 0.01515 8.72 0.00862 LV2 Ceramics Agateware, Refined 1758 13 0.06563 42.13 0.04165 LV2 Ceramics Colonoware 361 1.8225 1190.99 1.17732 LV2 Ceramics Creamware 1791 270 1.36309 533.23 0.52711 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 3 0.01515 7.07 0.00699 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 43 0.21708 179.52 0.17746 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Green Shell Edged 1791 3 0.01515 3.81 0.00377 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Molded 1791 2 0.0101 7.97 0.00788 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Unclassified 1791 3 0.01515 5.18 0.00512 LV2 Ceramics Delft 1720 114 0.57553 356.39 0.3523 LV2 Ceramics Delft, Sponged 1749 1 0.00505 1.73 0.00171 LV2 Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 5 0.02524 52.13 0.05153 LV2 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 11 0.05553 29.57 0.02923 LV2 Ceramics Earthenware, Unclassified 1 0.00505 4.24 0.00419 LV2 Ceramics Faience 1740 30 0.15145 35.46 0.03505 LV2 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 10 0.05048 28.26 0.02794 LV2 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 39 0.19689 122.34 0.12094 LV2 Ceramics Jackfield 1765 1 0.00505 0.76 0.00075 LV2 Ceramics North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 2 0.0101 6.21 0.00614 LV2 Ceramics Olive Jar 1695 1 0.00505 4.85 0.00479 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 38 0.19184 53.18 0.05257 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 6 0.03029 8.13 0.00804 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 6 0.03029 15.2 0.01503 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 2 0.0101 7.46 0.00737 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 8 0.04039 5.67 0.0056 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 5 0.02524 21.11 0.02087 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Polychrome 1808 1 0.00505 1.57 0.00155 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Sponged 1810 3 0.01515 3.99 0.00394 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 3 0.01515 8.86 0.00876 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain 55 0.27767 100.93 0.09977 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 65 0.32815 102.56 0.10138 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 24 0.12116 120.73 0.11934 LV2 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 42 0.21204 159.6 0.15777 LV2 Ceramics Redware, Refined 16 0.08078 30.2 0.02985 LV2 Ceramics Redware, Refined, Astbury 1738 2 0.0101 0.82 0.00081 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 19 0.09592 109.04 0.10779 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 2 0.0101 20.12 0.01989 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 145 0.73203 311.6 0.30798 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 13 0.06563 28.38 0.02805 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 4 0.02019 4.99 0.00493 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 6 0.03029 86.64 0.08565 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Bristol Glazed 1868 1 0.00505 0.52 0.00051
140 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 1 0.00505 2.07 0.00205 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 4 0.02019 5.87 0.0058 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 6 0.03029 9.05 0.00895 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Refined, Unclassified 1 0.00505 18.99 0.01877 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Rhenish 1600 1 0.00505 22.09 0.02184 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 13 0.06563 144.31 0.14265 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Scratch Blue 1760 1 0.00505 6.61 0.00653 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Unclassified 2 0.0101 17.38 0.01718 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 15 0.07573 40.2 0.03974 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 56 0.28271 147.78 0.14608 LV2 Ceramics Untyped 97 0.4897 515 0.50909 LV2 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 20 0.10097 43.54 0.04304 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 104 0.52504 261.55 0.25855 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 20 0.10097 19.82 0.01959 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 3 0.01515 5.43 0.00537 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 6 0.03029 5.66 0.0056 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 3 0.01515 2.33 0.0023 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Red Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.00505 0.47 0.00046 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Sponged 1915 1 0.00505 0.71 0.0007 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 1 0.00505 5.58 0.00552 LV2 Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 3 0.01515 13.68 0.01352 LV2 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 1 0.00505 1.64 0.00162 LV2 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Unclassified 1883 1 0.00505 1.07 0.00106 LV2 Kitchen Metal, Kettle 1 0.00505 232 0.22934 LV2 Kitchen Utensil 1 0.00505 13.75 0.01359 LV2 Kitchen Utensil, Handle 1 0.00505 3.68 0.00364 LV2 Kitchen, Food Cow 21 0.10602 330.18 0.32639 LV2 Kitchen, Food Deer 2 0.0101 3.96 0.00391 LV2 Kitchen, Food Oyster 23 0.11611 193.01 0.19079 LV2 Kitchen, Food Pig 12 0.06058 31.91 0.03154 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 81 0.40893 495.67 0.48998 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Drinking Glass 1 0.00505 23.96 0.02369 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Jar 1 0.00505 59.79 0.0591 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Jar, Lid 1 0.00505 2.69 0.00266 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Stemware 1 0.00505 1.74 0.00172 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 4 0.02019 12.06 0.01192 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 825 4.16498 2319.63 2.29301 LV2 NA, Ceramics Deptford Plain 2 0.0101 1.56 0.00154 LV2 NA, Ceramics McCellanville Fabric 2 0.0101 5.72 0.00565 LV2 NA, Ceramics Refuge Plain 1 0.00505 1.9 0.00188 LV2 NA, Ceramics Thoms Creek Punctate 1 0.00505 1.62 0.0016 LV2 NA, Ceramics Untyped 30 0.15145 57.47 0.05681 LV2 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Check Stamped: 1 0.00505 1.98 0.00196 LV2 NA, Lithics Debitage 3 0.01515 8.44 0.00834 LV2 NA, Lithics Scraper 1 0.00505 1.23 0.00122
141 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Other Bone, Horse 1 0.00505 21.6 0.02135 LV2 Other Bone, Unidentified 193 0.97435 490.01 0.48439 LV2 Other Charcoal 2 0.0101 0.55 0.00054 LV2 Other Coal 1 0.00505 0.42 0.00042 LV2 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 528 2.66559 1122.84 1.10995 LV2 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 48 0.24233 931.81 0.92112 LV2 Other Metal, Buckle 1 0.00505 4.39 0.00434 LV2 Other Metal, Hook 1 0.00505 21.28 0.02104 LV2 Other Metal, Ring 1 0.00505 65.01 0.06426 LV2 Other Shell, Unidentified 23 0.11611 434 0.42902 LV2 Other Slag 3 0.01515 32.44 0.03207 LV2 Other Stone Manuport 4 0.02019 11.72 0.01159 LV2 Other Stone, Worked 3 0.01515 168.17 0.16624 LV2 Personal Bead, Glass 2 0.0101 3.31 0.00327 LV2 Personal Clothing, Button 17 0.08582 19.15 0.01893 LV2 Personal Coin 2 0.0101 5.95 0.00588 LV2 Personal Medicine Bottle 2 0.0101 130.92 0.12942 LV2 Personal Mirror 4 0.02019 14.68 0.01451 LV2 Personal Tobacco Pipe 254 1.28231 316.83 0.31319 LV2 Personal Toothbrush 1 0.00505 0.31 0.00031 LV2 Personal Toy, Marble 1 0.00505 11.58 0.01145 LV2 Tool Pliers 1 0.00505 33.92 0.03353 LV3 20th Century Asbestos Roofing Tile 2 0.0101 76.38 0.0755 LV3 Agriculture Bale Seal 1 0.00505 2.75 0.00272 LV3 Agriculture Grommet 1 0.00505 0.1 0.0001 LV3 Agriculture Horseshoe 1 0.00505 306.1 0.30259 LV3 Agriculture Screw 1 0.00505 0.97 0.00096 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Bolt 2 0.0101 99.79 0.09864 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Cotter Pin 1 0.00505 0.37 0.00037 LV3 Architecture Brick 12 0.06058 100.5 0.09935 LV3 Architecture Brick Paver 2 0.0101 41.03 0.04056 LV3 Architecture Flowerpot 1 0.00505 45.27 0.04475 LV3 Architecture Hinge to be typed 1 0.00505 216.5 0.21402 LV3 Architecture Mortar 1 0.00505 1.84 0.00182 LV3 Architecture Nail, Cut 565 2.85238 2393.89 2.36642 LV3 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 67 0.33825 167.74 0.16581 LV3 Architecture Nail, Wire 3 0.01515 14.1 0.01394 LV3 Architecture Nail, Wrought 24 0.12116 131.07 0.12957 LV3 Architecture Slate Roofing 4 0.02019 5.25 0.00519 LV3 Architecture Staple 2 0.0101 7.74 0.00765 LV3 Architecture Tack 7 0.03534 7.28 0.0072 LV3 Architecture Tile 1 0.00505 300 0.29656 LV3 Architecture Windowpane 541 2.73122 437.07 0.43205 LV3 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 2 0.0101 2.63 0.0026 LV3 Arms Bullet 1 0.00505 8.36 0.00826
142 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Arms Gunflint 9 0.04544 44.87 0.04436 LV3 Arms Lead Shot 11 0.05553 33.14 0.03276 LV3 Arms Musket Ball 1 0.00505 15.07 0.0149 LV3 Arms Percussion Cap 4 0.02019 1.38 0.00136 LV3 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse 1780 5 0.02524 24.55 0.02427 LV3 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 3 0.01515 83.7 0.08274 LV3 Ceramics Agateware, Refined 1758 30 0.15145 154.39 0.15262 LV3 Ceramics Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 4 0.02019 26.17 0.02587 LV3 Ceramics Colonoware 693 3.49859 2820.47 2.7881 LV3 Ceramics Creamware 1791 480 2.42326 1348.77 1.33329 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 2 0.0101 3.81 0.00377 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 138 0.69669 784 0.775 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Unclassified 1791 1 0.00505 0.33 0.00033 LV3 Ceramics Delft 1720 206 1.03998 582.67 0.57598 LV3 Ceramics Delft Jar 1720 1 0.00505 25.35 0.02506 LV3 Ceramics Delft, Polychrome 1681 2 0.0101 1.25 0.00124 LV3 Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 3 0.01515 28.77 0.02844 LV3 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 11 0.05553 17.49 0.01729 LV3 Ceramics Faience 1740 61 0.30796 142.16 0.14053 LV3 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 22 0.11107 68.96 0.06817 LV3 Ceramics Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 1 0.00505 7.52 0.00743 LV3 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 7 0.03534 13.53 0.01337 LV3 Ceramics Jackfield 1765 3 0.01515 6.73 0.00665 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 43 0.21708 76.5 0.07562 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 5 0.02524 3.73 0.00369 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 2 0.0101 1.9 0.00188 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 1 0.00505 1.97 0.00195 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 2 0.0101 0.98 0.00097 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Polychrome 1808 1 0.00505 1 0.00099 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Shell Edged 1805 1 0.00505 0.88 0.00087 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain 120 0.60582 496.1 0.49041 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 104 0.52504 294.38 0.291 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, English 1773 3 0.01515 56.1 0.05546 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 30 0.15145 72.65 0.07182 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 4 0.02019 2.67 0.00264 LV3 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 64 0.3231 8286.1 8.191 LV3 Ceramics Redware, Refined 32 0.16155 125.44 0.124 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 21 0.10602 185.2 0.18307 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, American 1 0.00505 32.02 0.03165 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 458 2.3122 1222 1.20753 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 25 0.12621 117.92 0.11657 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, American 1733 1 0.00505 54.07 0.05345 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 2 0.0101 30.95 0.03059 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 8 0.04039 51.11 0.05052 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 2 0.0101 82.02 0.08108
143 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 4 0.02019 14.49 0.01432 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 7 0.03534 22.07 0.02182 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Refined, Unclassified 3 0.01515 4.8 0.00474 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 57 0.28776 526.62 0.52058 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Scratch Blue 1760 1 0.00505 0.57 0.00056 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Unclassified 7 0.03534 8.28 0.00818 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 23 0.11611 130.46 0.12896 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 134 0.67649 380.09 0.37573 LV3 Ceramics Untyped 166 0.83805 1780.8 1.76036 LV3 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 41 0.20699 128.25 0.12678 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 54 0.27262 125.2 0.12376 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 9 0.04544 15.05 0.01488 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 1 0.00505 5.14 0.00508 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 6 0.03029 6.71 0.00663 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 10 0.05048 29.69 0.02935 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 2 0.0101 2.31 0.00228 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Red Transfer Printed 1915 2 0.0101 2.39 0.00236 LV3 Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 1 0.00505 1.54 0.00152 LV3 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 1 0.00505 0.57 0.00056 LV3 Kitchen Can 1 0.00505 1.78 0.00176 LV3 Kitchen Furnishings, Brass Hinge 1 0.00505 2.25 0.00222 LV3 Kitchen Metal, Teakettle 1 0.00505 45.52 0.045 LV3 Kitchen Utensil, Bone Handle 3 0.01515 8.78 0.00868 LV3 Kitchen Utensil, Handle 2 0.0101 40.72 0.04025 LV3 Kitchen, Food Cow 48 0.24233 550.71 0.54439 LV3 Kitchen, Food Oyster 16 0.08078 84.82 0.08385 LV3 Kitchen, Food Pig 67 0.33825 195.47 0.19323 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 35 0.1767 789.37 0.78031 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Closure 2 0.0101 21.75 0.0215 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 3 0.01515 10.18 0.01006 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 1552 7.83522 5845.49 5.7784 LV3 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 1 0.00505 5.03 0.00497 LV3 NA, Ceramics Deptford Plain 2 0.0101 6.83 0.00675 LV3 NA, Ceramics McCellanville Fabric 2 0.0101 3.4 0.00336 LV3 NA, Ceramics Refuge Plain 5 0.02524 20.22 0.01999 LV3 NA, Ceramics Thoms Creek Plain 4 0.02019 6.63 0.00655 LV3 NA, Ceramics Thoms Creek Punctate 8 0.04039 10.94 0.01081 LV3 NA, Ceramics Untyped 79 0.39883 186.83 0.18469 LV3 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Check Stamped 1 0.00505 1.5 0.00148 LV3 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Check Stamped: 1 0.00505 9.76 0.00965 LV3 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Plain 2 0.0101 1.6 0.00158 LV3 NA, Lithics Debitage 2 0.0101 18.68 0.01847 LV3 NA, Lithics Projectile Point 1 0.00505 11.8 0.01166 LV3 Other Bone, Horse 1 0.00505 4.45 0.0044 LV3 Other Bone, Unidentified 577 2.91296 1203.63 1.18982
144 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Other Charcoal 5 0.02524 1.11 0.0011 LV3 Other Fired Clay 1 0.00505 6.17 0.0061 LV3 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 510 2.57472 1650.41 1.63147 LV3 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 153 0.77242 925.62 0.915 LV3 Other Metal, Buckle 3 0.01515 25.24 0.02495 LV3 Other Metal, Chain 1 0.00505 101.21 0.10005 LV3 Other Shell, Unidentified 1 0.00505 158.43 0.15661 LV3 Other Slag 1 0.00505 11.53 0.0114 LV3 Other Stone Manuport 4 0.02019 3.76 0.00372 LV3 Personal Bead, Glass 5 0.02524 10.08 0.00996 LV3 Personal Clothing, Buckle 2 0.0101 15.78 0.0156 LV3 Personal Clothing, Button 8 0.04039 12.81 0.01266 LV3 Personal Shoe Hook 1 0.00505 0.34 0.00034 LV3 Personal Tobacco Pipe 534 2.69588 770.68 0.76183 LV3 Tool File 1 0.00505 29.15 0.02882 LV4 Agriculture Curry Comb 1 0.00505 274 0.27086 LV4 Agriculture Wire 1 0.00505 0.66 0.00065 LV4 Agriculture, Machinery Nut 1 0.00505 47.8 0.04725 LV4 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 1 0.00505 1.62 0.0016 LV4 Architecture Brick 2 0.0101 438.66 0.43363 LV4 Architecture Brick Paver 5 0.02524 374.56 0.37026 LV4 Architecture Doorknob 1 0.00505 23.39 0.02312 LV4 Architecture Nail, Cut 190 0.95921 961.33 0.9503 LV4 Architecture Nail, Wrought 3 0.01515 7.48 0.00739 LV4 Architecture Slate Roofing 1 0.00505 0.98 0.00097 LV4 Architecture Tack 4 0.02019 3.88 0.00384 LV4 Architecture Tile 3 0.01515 113.52 0.11222 LV4 Architecture Windowpane 181 0.91377 145.52 0.14385 LV4 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 4 0.02019 13.53 0.01337 LV4 Arms Gunflint 5 0.02524 14.31 0.01415 LV4 Arms Lead Shot 2 0.0101 4.08 0.00403 LV4 Arms Musket Ball 1 0.00505 30.69 0.03034 LV4 Arms Percussion Cap 1 0.00505 0.59 0.00058 LV4 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse 1780 2 0.0101 29.16 0.02883 LV4 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 2 0.0101 76.03 0.07516 LV4 Ceramics Agateware, Refined 1758 10 0.05048 18.19 0.01798 LV4 Ceramics Colonoware 630 3.18053 2386.62 2.35923 LV4 Ceramics Creamware 1791 212 1.07027 748.96 0.74036 LV4 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 1 0.00505 2.41 0.00238 LV4 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 80 0.40388 652.86 0.64537 LV4 Ceramics Delft 1720 142 0.71688 466.86 0.4615 LV4 Ceramics Delft, Polychrome 1681 1 0.00505 3.95 0.0039 LV4 Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 18 0.09087 154 0.15218 LV4 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 5 0.02524 8.4 0.0083 LV4 Ceramics Faience 1740 41 0.20699 89.39 0.08836
145 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV4 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 33 0.1666 110.34 0.10907 LV4 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 1 0.00505 0.36 0.00036 LV4 Ceramics North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 2 0.0101 12.55 0.01241 LV4 Ceramics Olive Jar 1695 2 0.0101 12.76 0.01261 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 6 0.03029 8.89 0.00879 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 1 0.00505 0.63 0.00062 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware, Sponged 1810 2 0.0101 5.67 0.0056 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain 102 0.51494 427.67 0.42276 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 5 0.02524 6.14 0.00607 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 27 0.13631 84.25 0.08328 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 3 0.01515 40.29 0.03983 LV4 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 36 0.18174 245.9 0.24308 LV4 Ceramics Redware, Refined 9 0.04544 8.46 0.00836 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 300 1.51454 1156 1.14261 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 9 0.04544 47.47 0.04693 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 1 0.00505 0.9 0.00089 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 1 0.00505 8.86 0.00876 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Bristol Glazed 1868 1 0.00505 1.05 0.00104 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 1 0.00505 0.77 0.00076 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Rhenish 1600 1 0.00505 2.33 0.0023 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 29 0.14641 328.28 0.32451 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 20 0.10097 211.72 0.20929 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 57 0.28776 248.54 0.24569 LV4 Ceramics Untyped 60 0.30291 271.45 0.26833 LV4 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 15 0.07573 106.18 0.10496 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 8 0.04039 14.12 0.01396 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 2 0.0101 0.86 0.00085 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 14 0.07068 54.27 0.05365 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 1 0.00505 0.77 0.00076 LV4 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 1 0.00505 1.55 0.00153 LV4 Kitchen Metal, Kettle 2 0.0101 185.85 0.18372 LV4 Kitchen Utensil, Fork 1 0.00505 20.75 0.02051 LV4 Kitchen, Food Cow 24 0.12116 564.89 0.55841 LV4 Kitchen, Food Deer 8 0.04039 47.99 0.04744 LV4 Kitchen, Food Pig 43 0.21708 136.61 0.13504 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 110 0.55533 2427.41 2.39955 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Closure 1 0.00505 0.47 0.00046 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Jar, Lid 1 0.00505 0.88 0.00087 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Liquor Bottle 5 0.02524 42.65 0.04216 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 8 0.04039 48.1 0.04755 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 869 4.38712 3354.24 3.31574 LV4 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 1 0.00505 2.68 0.00265 LV4 NA, Ceramics Deptford Plain 3 0.01515 14.51 0.01434 LV4 NA, Ceramics McCellanville Fabric 12 0.06058 41.1 0.04063 LV4 NA, Ceramics Refuge Plain 1 0.00505 39.11 0.03866
146 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV4 NA, Ceramics Refuge Punctate 3 0.01515 19.14 0.01892 LV4 NA, Ceramics Untyped 17 0.08582 81.02 0.08009 LV4 NA, Ceramics Wilmington Check Stamped 6 0.03029 51.44 0.05085 LV4 NA, Lithics Debitage 3 0.01515 3.93 0.00388 LV4 Other Bone, Horse 1 0.00505 46.43 0.0459 LV4 Other Bone, Unidentified 658 3.32189 1498.85 1.48165 LV4 Other Bone, Worked 1 0.00505 0.66 0.00065 LV4 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 28 0.14136 29.99 0.02965 LV4 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 8 0.04039 230.04 0.2274 LV4 Other Shell, Unidentified 2 0.0101 484.19 0.47863 LV4 Other Stone Manuport 3 0.01515 129.11 0.12763 LV4 Personal Clothing, Button 5 0.02524 8.55 0.00845 LV4 Personal Hairpin 1 0.00505 3.46 0.00342 LV4 Personal Tobacco Pipe 283 1.42872 361.96 0.35781 NOLV Agriculture Strap 1 0.00505 193.37 0.19115 NOLV Agriculture, Machinery Battery Terminal Fastener 2 0.0101 4.48 0.00443 NOLV Architecture Brick 8 0.04039 2413.6 2.3859 NOLV Architecture Brick Paver 5 0.02524 1861.25 1.83989 NOLV Architecture Nail, Cut 30 0.15145 172.18 0.1702 NOLV Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 2 0.0101 7.25 0.00717 NOLV Architecture Tack 2 0.0101 2.18 0.00215 NOLV Architecture Tile 2 0.0101 2562.5 2.53309 NOLV Architecture Windowpane 37 0.18679 25.09 0.0248 NOLV Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 1 0.00505 11.5 0.01137 NOLV Arms Lead Shot 1 0.00505 2.64 0.00261 NOLV Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 1 0.00505 7.92 0.00783 NOLV Ceramics Colonoware 43 0.21708 137.06 0.13549 NOLV Ceramics Creamware 1791 28 0.14136 106.86 0.10563 NOLV Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 21 0.10602 306.05 0.30254 NOLV Ceramics Delft 1720 17 0.08582 198.47 0.19619 NOLV Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 4 0.02019 265.6 0.26253 NOLV Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 1 0.00505 1.65 0.00163 NOLV Ceramics Faience 1740 1 0.00505 1.45 0.00143 NOLV Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 9 0.04544 62.27 0.06156 NOLV Ceramics Ironstone 1885 2 0.0101 12.75 0.0126 NOLV Ceramics North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 1 0.00505 34.28 0.03389 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware 1810 1 0.00505 5.25 0.00519 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain 5 0.02524 3.82 0.00378 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 10 0.05048 21.33 0.02109 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 7 0.03534 41.8 0.04132 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified Teacup 1 0.00505 14.06 0.0139 NOLV Ceramics Redware, Coarse 3 0.01515 9.14 0.00904 NOLV Ceramics Redware, Refined 4 0.02019 11.53 0.0114 NOLV Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, American 1 0.00505 8.18 0.00809 NOLV Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 31 0.1565 208.2 0.20585
147 TABLE 27 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 1 0.00505 1.73 0.00171 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 9 0.04544 111.31 0.11003 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 1 0.00505 1.26 0.00125 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 7 0.03534 52.29 0.05169 NOLV Ceramics Untyped 10 0.05048 70.72 0.06991 NOLV Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 1 0.00505 5.94 0.00587 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware 1915 9 0.04544 34.85 0.03445 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware Chamber Pot 1915 2 0.0101 354.1 0.35004 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 4 0.02019 5.36 0.0053 NOLV Kitchen Metal, Kettle 1 0.00505 229.9 0.22726 NOLV Kitchen, Food Cow 3 0.01515 178.25 0.1762 NOLV Kitchen, Food Pig 3 0.01515 10.26 0.01014 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 26 0.13126 3112.79 3.07706 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 80 0.40388 1195.24 1.18152 NOLV NA, Ceramics McCellanville Fabric 1 0.00505 7.47 0.00738 NOLV NA, Ceramics Refuge Punctate 1 0.00505 9.28 0.00917 NOLV NA, Lithics Projectile Point, Morrow 1 0.00505 10.48 0.01036 NOLV Other Bone, Unidentified 61 0.30796 331.82 0.32801 NOLV Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 50 0.25242 162.62 0.16075 NOLV Other Metal, Buckle 1 0.00505 76.75 0.07587 NOLV Other Stone Manuport 1 0.00505 806.4 0.79714 NOLV Personal Clothing, Button 1 0.00505 1.82 0.0018 NOLV Personal Tobacco Pipe 14 0.07068 18.58 0.01837 NOLV Tool Whetstone 1 0.00505 840.6 0.83095 Totals 19808 100 101161.03 100
148 TABLE 28 STRUCTURE 17 ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 20th Century Asbestos Roofing Tile 23 0.14149 236.35 0.02511 LV1 20th Century Asbestos Tile 4 0.02461 52.2 0.00555 LV1 20th Century Battery 2 0.0123 84.6 0.00899 LV1 20th Century Electrical Insulation 2 0.0123 0.22 2.3E-05 LV1 20th Century Magnetic Tape 2 0.0123 0.6 6.4E-05 LV1 20th Century Plastic 25 0.1538 6.75 0.00072 LV1 20th Century Target Skeet 23 0.14149 44.69 0.00475 LV1 Agriculture Fence Staple 4 0.02461 13.1 0.00139 LV1 Agriculture Horseshoe 1 0.00615 380.5 0.04043 LV1 Agriculture Screw 52 0.3199 161.51 0.01716 LV1 Agriculture Sprinkler 1 0.00615 11.76 0.00125 LV1 Agriculture Strap 4 0.02461 6.9 0.00073 LV1 Agriculture Wire 50 0.3076 180.8 0.01921 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Bolt 2 0.0123 180.7 0.0192 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Bracket 1 0.00615 56.1 0.00596 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Clamp 1 0.00615 140.3 0.01491 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Electrical Wire 3 0.01846 6.65 0.00071 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.0123 5.38 0.00057 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Rod 1 0.00615 1.4 0.00015 LV1 Agriculture, Machinery Washer 4 0.02461 3.51 0.00037 LV1 Architecture Asphalt 29 0.17841 3.8 0.0004 LV1 Architecture Brick 151 0.92894 25838.26 2.74518 LV1 Architecture Concrete 8 0.04922 1273 0.13525 LV1 Architecture Drain Tile 1 0.00615 20.1 0.00214 LV1 Architecture Electrical Box Punch Out 13 0.07998 76.2 0.0081 LV1 Architecture Electrical Insulator 2 0.0123 98.9 0.01051 LV1 Architecture Flashing 29 0.17841 456.91 0.04854 LV1 Architecture Hinge to be typed 1 0.00615 35 0.00372 LV1 Architecture Lock 1 0.00615 1.12 0.00012 LV1 Architecture Lock Key 2 0.0123 30.7 0.00326 LV1 Architecture Mortar 89 0.54752 1712 0.18189 LV1 Architecture Nail, Cut 427 2.62688 3785.98 0.40224 LV1 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 264 1.62412 1024.21 0.10882 LV1 Architecture Nail, Roofing, indeterminate 1 0.00615 2.22 0.00024 LV1 Architecture Nail, Roofing, Wire 21 0.12919 55.88 0.00594 LV1 Architecture Nail, Wire 189 1.16272 1414.34 0.15027 LV1 Architecture Nail, Wrought 1375 8.45894 3862.08 0.41033 LV1 Architecture Pipe 11 0.06767 852.5 0.09057 LV1 Architecture Pipe Coupling 1 0.00615 38 0.00404 LV1 Architecture Pipe Fitting 1 0.00615 172.5 0.01833 LV1 Architecture Pipe Strapping 1 0.00615 3.5 0.00037 LV1 Architecture Plaster 131 0.80591 5219.92 0.55459 LV1 Architecture Roofing, Tar Paper 2 0.0123 0.27 0.0003 LV1 Architecture Slate Roofing 6 0.03691 5.31 0.00056
149 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Architecture Spike 4 0.02461 180.6 0.01919 LV1 Architecture Staple 52 0.3199 329.56 0.03501 LV1 Architecture Tack 6 0.03691 6.3 0.00067 LV1 Architecture Tile 27 0.1661 2090.1 0.22206 LV1 Architecture Ventilator 1 0.00615 49.3 0.00524 LV1 Architecture Window Screen 1 0.00615 0.05 0.00005 LV1 Architecture Windowpane 1633 10.0461 4218.03 0.44814 LV1 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 24 0.14765 2009.75 0.21353 LV1 Architecture, Furnishings Washer Decorative 1 0.00615 0.5 0.00005 LV1 Arms Cartridge Case 16 0.09843 11.62 0.00123 LV1 Arms Lead Shot 2 0.0123 6.9 0.00073 LV1 Arms Musket Ball 2 0.0123 24.4 0.00259 LV1 Arms Pistol Ball 1 0.00615 3 0.00032 LV1 Arms Shotgun Shell 2 0.0123 7.7 0.00082 LV1 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 3 0.01846 15.4 0.00164 LV1 Ceramics Agateware, Refined 1758 1 0.00615 2.8 0.0003 LV1 Ceramics Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 1 0.00615 23 0.00244 LV1 Ceramics Colonoware 89 0.54752 430.41 0.04573 LV1 Ceramics Creamware 1791 39 0.23993 128.23 0.01362 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 2 0.0123 1.4 0.00015 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 3 0.01846 6.1 0.00065 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Mocha 1802 1 0.00615 6 0.00064 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Molded 1791 2 0.0123 5.9 0.00063 LV1 Ceramics Creamware, Unclassified 1791 4 0.02461 94.9 0.01008 LV1 Ceramics Delft 1720 82 0.50446 144.83 0.01539 LV1 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 4 0.02461 3.64 0.00039 LV1 Ceramics Faience 1740 2 0.0123 1.5 0.00016 LV1 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 2 0.0123 4.7 0.0005 LV1 Ceramics Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 1 0.00615 16.3 0.00173 LV1 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 5 0.03076 15.93 0.00169 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 14 0.08613 56.92 0.00605 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Annular Bowl 1810 2 0.0123 73.2 0.00778 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 2 0.0123 7.33 0.00078 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 7 0.04306 7.17 0.00076 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Finger Painted 1805 3 0.01846 2.8 0.0003 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 2 0.0123 13.1 0.00139 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Polychrome 1808 2 0.0123 12.2 0.0013 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Sponged 1810 2 0.0123 1.54 0.00016 LV1 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 1 0.00615 1.3 0.00014 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain 113 0.69517 185.37 0.01969 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Imari 1740 2 0.0123 5.2 0.00055 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 9 0.05537 9.34 0.00099 LV1 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 63 0.38757 158.01 0.01679 LV1 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 3 0.01846 9.34 0.00099 LV1 Ceramics Redware, Refined 4 0.02461 5.2 0.00055
150 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Ceramics Redware, Refined, Astbury 1738 2 0.0123 0.7 0.00007 LV1 Ceramics Rockingham 1900 1 0.00615 2.1 0.00022 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 32 0.19686 56.28 0.00598 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 5 0.03076 8.03 0.00085 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 40 0.24608 50.39 0.00535 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 22 0.13534 37.29 0.00396 LV1 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 1 0.00615 0.6 6.4E-05 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 4 0.02461 43.33 0.0046 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 6 0.03691 11.4 0.00121 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 12 0.07382 360.02 0.03825 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Unclassified 2 0.0123 11.31 0.0012 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 13 0.07998 53.3 0.00566 LV1 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 54 0.33221 69.09 0.00734 LV1 Ceramics Untyped 10 0.06152 50.25 0.00534 LV1 Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 1 0.00615 4.9 0.00052 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 76 0.46755 352.72 0.03747 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware Bowl 1915 2 0.0123 22.8 0.00242 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 1 0.00615 0.3 0.00003 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 1 0.00615 1.5 0.00016 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Green Transfer Printed 1915 3 0.01846 12.5 0.00133 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.00615 3.1 0.00033 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 1 0.00615 0.4 0.00004 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Red Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.00615 2.32 0.00025 LV1 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 1 0.00615 0.4 0.00004 LV1 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 1 0.00615 9.6 0.00102 LV1 Kitchen Bottle Caps, Metal 3 0.01846 14.2 0.00151 LV1 Kitchen Plastic, Bottle Stopper 1 0.00615 2 0.00021 LV1 Kitchen Utensil, Ferrule 1 0.00615 6.5 0.00069 LV1 Kitchen, Food Catfish 2 0.0123 0.83 0.00009 LV1 Kitchen, Food Chicken 2 0.0123 2.3 0.00024 LV1 Kitchen, Food Cow 5 0.03076 89.65 0.00952 LV1 Kitchen, Food Crab 1 0.00615 0.6 0.00006 LV1 Kitchen, Food Crustacea 10 0.06152 5.6 0.00059 LV1 Kitchen, Food Oyster 25 0.1538 52.75 0.0056 LV1 Kitchen, Food Pig 1 0.00615 8.76 0.00093 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 80 0.49216 1190.99 0.12654 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Jar 1 0.00615 9.64 0.00102 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Stemware 2 0.0123 40.3 0.00428 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 2 0.0123 46.6 0.00495 LV1 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 703 4.32482 2061.82 0.21906 LV1 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 3 0.01846 18.8 0.002 LV1 NA, Ceramics Savannah Burnished Plain 3 0.01846 35.7 0.00379 LV1 NA, Ceramics Savannah Check Stamped 3 0.01846 48.4 0.00514 LV1 NA, Ceramics Savannah Plain 1 0.00615 10.3 0.00109 LV1 NA, Ceramics Untyped 58 0.35681 323.11 0.03433
151 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV1 Other Bone, Unidentified 268 1.64872 736.13 0.07821 LV1 Other Charcoal 79 0.486 183.55 0.0195 LV1 Other Coal 1 0.00615 0.3 0.00003 LV1 Other Flora, Unidentified 26 0.15995 7.8 0.00083 LV1 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 616 3.7896 1124.21 0.11944 LV1 Other Leather Fragment, Unidentified 6 0.03691 4.4 0.00047 LV1 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 304 1.87019 4404.44 0.46795 LV1 Other Metal, Band 1 0.00615 17.2 0.00183 LV1 Other Metal, Chain 3 0.01846 1022.59 0.10864 LV1 Other Metal, Knockout Plug 2 0.0123 7.9 0.00084 LV1 Other Metal, Spiral Spring 1 0.00615 17.4 0.00185 LV1 Other Shell, Unidentified 154 0.9474 798.84 0.08487 LV1 Other Slag 1 0.00615 3.94 0.00042 LV1 Other Stone Manuport 8 0.04922 20.24 0.00215 LV1 Other Stone Shatter 1 0.00615 0.96 0.0001 LV1 Other Stone, Worked 1 0.00615 125 0.01328 LV1 Other Unidentified Mineral 1 0.00615 1.03 0.00011 LV1 Personal Clothing, Button 17 0.10458 16.01 0.0017 LV1 Personal Clothing, Snap Fastener 1 0.00615 0.53 0.00006 LV1 Personal Coin 6 0.03691 24.67 0.00262 LV1 Personal Fishing Weight (net) 1 0.00615 0.5 0.00005 LV1 Personal Medicine Bottle 3 0.01846 164.62 0.01749 LV1 Personal Medicine Vial 1 0.00615 4.7 0.0005 LV1 Personal Mirror 1 0.00615 0.18 0.00002 LV1 Personal Pen 2 0.0123 1.1 0.00012 LV1 Personal Thimble 1 0.00615 2.4 0.00025 LV1 Personal Tobacco Pipe 147 0.90434 212.23 0.02255 LV1 Personal Toy, Doll 1 0.00615 1.6 0.00017 LV1 Personal Toy, Marble 1 0.00615 4.3 0.00046 LV1 Personal Watch 2 0.0123 0.9 0.0001 LV1 Tool Bit 1 0.00615 1.72 0.00018 LV2 20th Century Asbestos Roofing Tile 15 0.09228 32.44 0.00345 LV2 20th Century Battery 4 0.02461 7.54 0.0008 LV2 20th Century Phonograph Record 1 0.00615 1.1 0.00012 LV2 20th Century Plastic 17 0.10458 2.77 0.00029 LV2 20th Century Target Skeet 9 0.05537 10.25 0.00109 LV2 Agriculture Barbed Wire 1 0.00615 1.74 0.00018 LV2 Agriculture Fence Staple 2 0.0123 5.97 0.00063 LV2 Agriculture Screw 17 0.10458 48.51 0.00515 LV2 Agriculture Wire 3 0.01846 5.04 0.00054 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Nut 3 0.01846 53.14 0.00565 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Ring 2 0.0123 1.5 0.00016 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Rivet 2 0.0123 2.36 0.00025 LV2 Agriculture, Machinery Washer 2 0.0123 1.69 0.00018 LV2 Architecture Asphalt 1 0.00615 2.9 0.00031
152 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Architecture Brick 54 0.33221 732.53 0.07783 LV2 Architecture Concrete 1 0.00615 2156.1 0.22907 LV2 Architecture Dowel 1 0.00615 4.1 0.00044 LV2 Architecture Fastener 1 0.00615 1.9 0.0002 LV2 Architecture Faucet Handle 1 0.00615 53.45 0.00568 LV2 Architecture Flashing 8 0.04922 52.6 0.00559 LV2 Architecture Mortar 65 0.39988 1001.81 0.10644 LV2 Architecture Nail, Cut 382 2.35005 5049.21 0.53645 LV2 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 412 2.5346 1521.13 0.16161 LV2 Architecture Nail, Roofing, indeterminate 1 0.00615 6.25 0.00066 LV2 Architecture Nail, Roofing, Wire 10 0.06152 20.91 0.00222 LV2 Architecture Nail, Wire 125 0.76899 506.21 0.05378 LV2 Architecture Nail, Wrought 97 0.59674 341.37 0.03627 LV2 Architecture Pipe 3 0.01846 1618.5 0.17196 LV2 Architecture Plaster 76 0.46755 5199.3 0.5524 LV2 Architecture Roofing Tar 2 0.0123 11 0.00117 LV2 Architecture Slate Roofing 3 0.01846 2.79 0.0003 LV2 Architecture Spike 3 0.01846 148.9 0.01582 LV2 Architecture Staple 3 0.01846 18.6 0.00198 LV2 Architecture Tack 6 0.03691 3.79 0.0004 LV2 Architecture Tile 2 0.0123 59.1 0.00628 LV2 Architecture Windowpane 548 3.37127 1699.72 0.18059 LV2 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 10 0.06152 806.08 0.08564 LV2 Architecture, Furnishings Furniture Caster 1 0.00615 26.4 0.0028 LV2 Architecture, Furnishings Hardware 2 0.0123 13.7 0.00146 LV2 Architecture, Furnishings Lampshade Prism 1 0.00615 2.45 0.00026 LV2 Architecture, Furnishings Molding 1 0.00615 4.1 0.00044 LV2 Arms Buckshot 4 0.02461 13 0.00138 LV2 Arms Cartridge Case 12 0.07382 12.01 0.00128 LV2 Arms Gunflint 1 0.00615 6 0.00064 LV2 Arms Lead Shot 7 0.04306 39.26 0.00417 LV2 Arms Musket Ball 2 0.0123 6.1 0.00065 LV2 Arms Percussion Cap 1 0.00615 0.43 0.00004 LV2 Arms Pistol Ball 2 0.0123 10 0.00106 LV2 Arms Shotgun Shell 0 0 2.1 0.00022 LV2 Ceramics Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 1 0.00615 26.7 0.00284 LV2 Ceramics Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 2 0.0123 10.8 0.00115 LV2 Ceramics Colonoware 65 0.39988 189.24 0.02011 LV2 Ceramics Creamware 1791 40 0.24608 78.68 0.00836 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Black Transfer Printed 1812 1 0.00615 1.5 0.00016 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 3 0.01846 10.9 0.00116 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Molded 1791 1 0.00615 2.09 0.00022 LV2 Ceramics Creamware, Unclassified 1791 2 0.0123 10.1 0.00107 LV2 Ceramics Delft 1720 43 0.26453 152.28 0.01618 LV2 Ceramics Delft Plate 1720 2 0.0123 30.5 0.00324
153 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight(g) Percent LV2 Ceramics Delft, Polychrome 1681 1 0.00615 0.7 0.00007 LV2 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 6 0.03691 18 0.00191 LV2 Ceramics Faience 1740 1 0.00615 1.3 0.00014 LV2 Ceramics Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 1 0.00615 11 0.00117 LV2 Ceramics Hotelware 1907 1 0.00615 18.5 0.00197 LV2 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 2 0.0123 6 0.00064 LV2 Ceramics North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 4 0.02461 14.94 0.00159 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 32 0.19686 67.89 0.00721 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 2 0.0123 14.6 0.00155 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Flow Blue 1850 2 0.0123 1.5 0.00016 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 2 0.0123 16.6 0.00176 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Mocha 1843 1 0.00615 0.29 0.00003 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Red Transfer Printed 1812 1 0.00615 1.2 0.00013 LV2 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 4 0.02461 10.13 0.00108 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain 114 0.70132 153.32 0.01629 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Chinese Export 4 0.02461 5.8 0.00062 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 15 0.09228 13.71 0.00146 LV2 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 13 0.07998 32 0.0034 LV2 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 7 0.04306 63.52 0.00675 LV2 Ceramics Redware, Refined 4 0.02461 13.18 0.0014 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 7 0.04306 12.57 0.00134 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 2 0.0123 4 0.00042 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 46 0.28299 146 0.01551 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 23 0.14149 29.69 0.00315 LV2 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 6 0.03691 4.11 0.00044 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 1 0.00615 1.04 0.00011 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Black Basalt 1785 1 0.00615 0.5 0.00005 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 6 0.03691 26.54 0.00282 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 2 0.0123 3.8 0.0004 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 18 0.11074 153.03 0.01626 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 13 0.07998 138.41 0.01471 LV2 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 19 0.11689 22.01 0.00234 LV2 Ceramics Untyped 11 0.06767 65.84 0.007 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 113 0.69517 388.45 0.04127 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.00615 0.35 0.00004 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 4 0.02461 26.5 0.00282 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Purple Transfer Printed 1915 3 0.01846 9.05 0.00096 LV2 Ceramics Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 2 0.0123 0.91 0.0001 LV2 Ceramics Yellow Ware 1883 4 0.02461 11.96 0.00127 LV2 Kitchen Bottle Caps, Metal 3 0.01846 12.49 0.00133 LV2 Kitchen Can 6 0.03691 14.6 0.00155 LV2 Kitchen Can Key 1 0.00615 7.8 0.00083 LV2 Kitchen, Food Chicken 3 0.01846 1.9 0.0002 LV2 Kitchen, Food Cow 14 0.08613 135.5 0.0144 LV2 Kitchen, Food Crustacea 13 0.07998 21.5 0.00228
154 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV2 Kitchen, Food Oyster 16 0.09843 2496.47 0.26524 LV2 Kitchen, Food Pig 4 0.02461 30.8 0.00327 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 53 0.32605 269.37 0.02862 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Jar 1 0.00615 2.49 0.00026 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Liquor Bottle 4 0.02461 497.35 0.05284 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 6 0.03691 86.1 0.00915 LV2 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 626 3.85112 1175.6 0.1249 LV2 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 1 0.00615 4.8 0.00051 LV2 NA, Ceramics Untyped 125 0.76899 434.87 0.0462 LV2 NA, Lithics Debitage 2 0.0123 1.67 0.00018 LV2 Other Bone, Unidentified 322 1.98093 496.38 0.05274 LV2 Other Charcoal 165 1.01507 61.08 0.00649 LV2 Other Coal 2 0.0123 0.67 0.00007 LV2 Other Fired Clay 1 0.00615 3.4 0.00036 LV2 Other Flora, Unidentified 16 0.09843 1.88 0.0002 LV2 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 236 1.45186 396.68 0.04215 LV2 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 219 1.34728 2711.77 0.28811 LV2 Other Metal, Buckle 2 0.0123 8.7 0.00092 LV2 Other Metal, Chain 1 0.00615 30.81 0.00327 LV2 Other Metal, Discoidal 1 0.00615 21.2 0.00225 LV2 Other Shell, Unidentified 63 0.38757 381.9 0.04057 LV2 Other Slag 3 0.01846 55.13 0.00586 LV2 Other Stone Manuport 15 0.09228 47.18 0.00501 LV2 Other Stone, Worked 1 0.00615 2.8 0.0003 LV2 Personal Clothing, Button 20 0.12304 23.64 0.00251 LV2 Personal Clothing, Snap Fastener 1 0.00615 0.2 2.1E-05 LV2 Personal Coin 1 0.00615 3.09 0.00033 LV2 Personal Finger Ring 1 0.00615 0.5 5.3E-05 LV2 Personal Fishing Weight (net) 2 0.0123 38.7 0.00411 LV2 Personal Medicine Bottle 6 0.03691 199.6 0.02121 LV2 Personal Pencil 1 0.00615 0.6 0.00006 LV2 Personal Pin, Straight 1 0.00615 16.1 0.00171 LV2 Personal Tobacco Pipe 141 0.86743 295.26 0.03137 LV2 Personal Toy, Pistol 1 0.00615 99.9 0.01061 LV2 Tool Chisel 1 0.00615 334.5 0.03554 LV2 Tool Hammer (Heel) 1 0.00615 135.8 0.01443 LV3 20th Century Plastic 1 0.00615 0.24 0.00003 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Hardware 1 0.00615 30.96 0.00329 LV3 Agriculture, Machinery Pulley 1 0.00615 5.7 0.00061 LV3 Architecture Brick 13 0.07998 450.14 0.04783 LV3 Architecture Flashing 1 0.00615 2 0.00021 LV3 Architecture Mortar 14 0.08613 39.15 0.00416 LV3 Architecture Nail, Cut 102 0.6275 929.58 0.09876 LV3 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 150 0.92279 502.47 0.05338 LV3 Architecture Nail, Roofing, indeterminate 1 0.00615 1 0.00011
155 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Architecture Nail, Wire 24 0.14765 73.7 0.00783 LV3 Architecture Nail, Wrought 76 0.46755 270.03 0.02869 LV3 Architecture Pintle 1 0.00615 35.1 0.00373 LV3 Architecture Plaster 45 0.27684 2583.28 0.27446 LV3 Architecture Slate Roofing 2 0.0123 0.6 0.00006 LV3 Architecture Spike 5 0.03076 144.9 0.01539 LV3 Architecture Staple 2 0.0123 0.42 0.00005 LV3 Architecture Tack 1 0.00615 2.92 0.00031 LV3 Architecture Windowpane 161 0.99046 233.87 0.02485 LV3 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 9 0.05537 78.15 0.0083 LV3 Arms Cartridge Case 4 0.02461 4.82 0.00051 LV3 Arms Gunflint 1 0.00615 4.6 0.00049 LV3 Ceramics Colonoware 49 0.30145 149.59 0.01589 LV3 Ceramics Creamware 1791 23 0.14149 33.82 0.00359 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Annular 1798 1 0.00615 0.9 0.0001 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Black Transfer Printed 1790 1 0.00615 1 0.00011 LV3 Ceramics Creamware, Unclassified 1791 1 0.00615 0.7 0.00007 LV3 Ceramics Delft 1720 13 0.07998 16.72 0.00178 LV3 Ceramics Ironstone 1885 1 0.00615 1.6 0.00017 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 11 0.06767 7.84 0.00083 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 1 0.00615 1.3 0.00014 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 1 0.00615 1.69 0.00018 LV3 Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 2 0.0123 0.53 0.00006 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain 8 0.04922 3.04 0.00032 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Powder Blue 1725 1 0.00615 5.9 0.00063 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 5 0.03076 13.9 0.00148 LV3 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 7 0.04306 8.17 0.00087 LV3 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 8 0.04922 13.97 0.00148 LV3 Ceramics Redware, Refined 2 0.0123 1.5 0.00016 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 5 0.03076 66.04 0.00702 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 22 0.13534 77.6 0.00824 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 7 0.04306 11.94 0.00127 LV3 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 2 0.0123 2.3 0.00024 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 1 0.00615 1.16 0.00012 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 5 0.03076 42.19 0.00448 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 8 0.04922 122.23 0.01299 LV3 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 7 0.04306 9 0.00096 LV3 Ceramics Untyped 4 0.02461 18.96 0.00201 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 6 0.03691 6.67 0.00071 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Annular 1915 1 0.00615 1.53 0.00016 LV3 Ceramics Whiteware, Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.00615 0.44 0.00005 LV3 Ceramics Yellow Ware, Unclassified 1883 1 0.00615 0.5 0.00005 LV3 Kitchen Can 7 0.04306 23.06 0.00245 LV3 Kitchen, Food Crustacea 7 0.04306 4.9 0.00052 LV3 Kitchen, Food Oyster 9 0.05537 1621.01 0.17222
156 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV3 Kitchen, Food Pig 7 0.04306 38.62 0.0041 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 5 0.03076 53.5 0.00568 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 84 0.51676 176.21 0.01872 LV3 Kitchen, Glass Wine Bottle 1 0.00615 88.3 0.00938 LV3 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 8 0.04922 72.37 0.00769 LV3 NA, Ceramics Untyped 116 0.71363 308.16 0.03274 LV3 NA, Lithics Bifacial Tool 1 0.00615 11 0.00117 LV3 NA, Lithics Core 1 0.00615 12.3 0.00131 LV3 NA, Lithics Debitage 1 0.00615 1.2 0.00013 LV3 Other Bone, Unidentified 202 1.24269 122.08 0.01297 LV3 Other Charcoal 171 1.05198 98.89 0.01051 LV3 Other Coal 1 0.00615 0.7 0.00007 LV3 Other Fired Clay 1 0.00615 8.8 0.00093 LV3 Other Flora, Unidentified 2 0.0123 0.1 0.00001 LV3 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 76 0.46755 103.95 0.01104 LV3 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 50 0.3076 344.03 0.03655 LV3 Other Metal, Buckle 1 0.00615 5.1 0.00054 LV3 Other Metal, Knockout Plug 1 0.00615 8.9 0.00095 LV3 Other Shell, Unidentified 24 0.14765 454.7 0.04831 LV3 Other Slag 2 0.0123 8.75 0.00093 LV3 Other Stone Manuport 2 0.0123 2.89 0.00031 LV3 Personal Pin, Safety 1 0.00615 0.4 0.00004 LV3 Personal Tobacco Pipe 51 0.31375 74.06 0.00787 LV3 Personal Toy, Marble 1 0.00615 6.8 0.00072 LV4 Architecture Asphalt 1 0.00615 6.66 0.00071 LV4 Architecture Brick 6 0.03691 7.3 0.00078 LV4 Architecture Concrete 1 0.00615 12.24 0.0013 LV4 Architecture Mortar 22 0.13534 215.75 0.02292 LV4 Architecture Nail, Brick 1 0.00615 26.84 0.00285 LV4 Architecture Nail, Cut 50 0.3076 152.62 0.01622 LV4 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 79 0.486 203.3 0.0216 LV4 Architecture Nail, Wire 8 0.04922 42.34 0.0045 LV4 Architecture Nail, Wrought 54 0.33221 217.7 0.02313 LV4 Architecture Plaster 9 0.05537 335.9 0.03569 LV4 Architecture Spike 6 0.03691 109.24 0.01161 LV4 Architecture Windowpane 12 0.07382 5.84 0.00062 LV4 Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 3 0.01846 5.03 0.00053 LV4 Ceramics Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 1 0.00615 0.4 0.00004 LV4 Ceramics Colonoware 46 0.28299 99.11 0.01053 LV4 Ceramics Creamware 1791 6 0.03691 7.59 0.00081 LV4 Ceramics Creamware, Molded 1791 1 0.00615 63.9 0.00679 LV4 Ceramics Delft 1720 8 0.04922 25.89 0.00275 LV4 Ceramics Earthenware, Coarse, Tin Enameled 1701 2 0.0123 0.07 0.00007 LV4 Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 4 0.02461 1.47 0.00016 LV4 Ceramics Jackfield 1765 1 0.00615 0.71 0.00007
157 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV4 Ceramics North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 2 0.0123 15.03 0.0016 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 3 0.01846 3.02 0.00032 LV4 Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 1 0.00615 0.71 0.00007 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain 2 0.0123 0.64 0.00007 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 2 0.0123 0.78 0.00008 LV4 Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 4 0.02461 2.43 0.00026 LV4 Ceramics Redware, Coarse 5 0.03076 10.11 0.00107 LV4 Ceramics Redware, Refined 1 0.00615 0.66 0.00007 LV4 Ceramics Rockingham 1900 1 0.00615 1.76 0.00019 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse 3 0.01846 3.4 0.00036 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 1 0.00615 0.4 0.00004 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 7 0.04306 5.65 0.0006 LV4 Ceramics Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 3 0.01846 3.4 0.00036 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Albany Slipped 1 0.00615 7.29 0.00077 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 4 0.02461 10.04 0.00107 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 9 0.05537 60.09 0.00638 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 5 0.03076 10.14 0.00108 LV4 Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 1 0.00615 1.43 0.00015 LV4 Ceramics Untyped 1 0.00615 9 0.00096 LV4 Kitchen, Food Cow 2 0.0123 4.7 0.0005 LV4 Kitchen, Food Oyster 24 0.14765 713.08 0.07576 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 4 0.02461 284.13 0.03019 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Tableware 1 0.00615 37.65 0.004 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 13 0.07998 33.41 0.00355 LV4 NA, Ceramics Deptford Check Stamped 6 0.03691 38.85 0.00413 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Deptford Plain 5 0.03076 17.68 0.00188 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Deptford Ware 2 0.0123 27.76 0.00295 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Refuge Dentate Stamped 5 0.03076 17.09 0.00182 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Savannah Check Stamped 2 0.0123 12.53 0.00133 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Untyped 32 0.19686 176.49 0.01875 LV4 Kitchen, Glass Wilmington Fabric Impressed: v 5 0.03076 69.42 0.00738 LV4 NA, Lithics Debitage 2 0.0123 2.43 0.00026 LV4 Other Bone, Unidentified 32 0.19686 23.98 0.00255 LV4 Other Charcoal 70 0.43064 19.77 0.0021 LV4 Other Concretion 2 0.0123 3.54 0.00038 LV4 Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 15 0.09228 8.38 0.00089 LV4 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 35 0.21532 81.96 0.00871 LV4 Other Shell, Unidentified 27 0.1661 24.16 0.00257 LV4 Other Stone Manuport 1 0.00615 3.92 0.00042 LV4 Personal Tobacco Pipe 24 0.14765 42.88 0.00456 LV5 Architecture Asphalt 1 0.00615 6.03 0.00064 LV5 Architecture Brick 5 0.03076 2.7 0.00029 LV5 Architecture Mortar 21 0.12919 5298.64 0.56295 LV5 Architecture Nail, Cut 15 0.09228 47.98 0.0051 LV5 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 29 0.17841 85.94 0.00913
158 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent LV5 Architecture Nail, Wrought 3 0.01846 7.55 0.0008 LV5 Architecture Windowpane 2 0.0123 1.82 0.00019 LV5 Ceramics Colonoware 3 0.01846 7.35 0.00078 LV5 Ceramics Delft 1720 2 0.0123 0.66 0.00007 LV5 Ceramics Pearlware 1810 1 0.00615 1.7 0.00018 LV5 Ceramics Porcelain 1 0.00615 0.6 0.00006 LV5 Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 1 0.00615 4.4 0.00047 LV5 Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 2 0.0123 49.51 0.00526 LV5 Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 4 0.02461 27.49 0.00292 LV5 Ceramics Untyped 1 0.00615 0.8 0.00009 LV5 Ceramics Whiteware 1915 1 0.00615 0.35 0.00004 LV5 Kitchen, Food Cow 1 0.00615 28.17 0.00299 LV5 Kitchen, Food Crustacea 1 0.00615 0.32 0.00003 LV5 Kitchen, Food Oyster 10 0.06152 638.21 0.06781 LV5 Kitchen, Food Pig 1 0.00615 0.3 0.00003 LV5 Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 10 0.06152 33.07 0.00351 LV5 NA, Ceramics Untyped 3 0.01846 6.25 0.00066 LV5 Other Bone, Unidentified 9 0.05537 3.44 0.00037 LV5 Other Charcoal 26 0.15995 42.37 0.0045 LV5 Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 11 0.06767 11.7 0.00124 LV5 Other Shell, Unidentified 1 0.00615 3 0.00032 LV5 Personal Tobacco Pipe 2 0.0123 4.4 0.00047 LV6 Architecture Mortar 1 0.00615 55.4 0.00589 LV6 Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 4 0.02461 10.6 0.00113 LV6 Architecture Plaster 2 0.0123 62.2 0.00661 LV6 Other Bone, Unidentified 2 0.0123 0.7 0.00007 NOLV 20th Century Plastic 1 0.00615 0.5 0.00005 NOLV 20th Century Target Skeet 4 0.02461 6.4 0.00068 NOLV Agriculture Screw 2 0.0123 4.7 0.0005 NOLV Agriculture Strap 1 0.00615 3.8 0.0004 NOLV Agriculture, Machinery Electrical Wire 2 0.0123 4.4 0.00047 NOLV Agriculture, Machinery Nut 2 0.0123 69.7 0.00741 NOLV Agriculture, Machinery Washer 1 0.00615 1.3 0.00014 NOLV Architecture Brick 13 0.07998 785640.4 83.4703 NOLV Architecture Concrete 2 0.0123 72.3 0.00768 NOLV Architecture Electrical 1 0.00615 2.94 0.00031 NOLV Architecture Mortar 8 0.04922 1843.2 0.19583 NOLV Architecture Nail, Cut 164 1.00892 1831.3 0.19457 NOLV Architecture Nail, Indeterminate 50 0.3076 154.9 0.01646 NOLV Architecture Nail, Wire 17 0.10458 346.14 0.03678 NOLV Architecture Plaster 14 0.08613 15068 1.6009 NOLV Architecture Slate Roofing 1 0.00615 1.5 0.00016 NOLV Architecture Spike 1 0.00615 52.5 0.00558 NOLV Architecture Staple 6 0.03691 19 0.00202 NOLV Architecture Tile 2 0.0123 33.1 0.00352
159 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent NOLV Architecture Windowpane 103 0.63365 247.47 0.02629 NOLV Architecture, Ceramics Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 2 0.0123 14.2 0.00151 NOLV Arms Buckshot 1 0.00615 3.1 0.00033 NOLV Arms Cartridge Case 1 0.00615 2.3 0.00024 NOLV Ceramics Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 1 0.00615 0.3 0.00003 NOLV Ceramics Colonoware 30 0.18456 105 0.01116 NOLV Ceramics Creamware 1791 9 0.05537 31.85 0.00338 NOLV Ceramics Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 1 0.00615 19.9 0.00211 NOLV Ceramics Delft 1720 14 0.08613 25.6 0.00272 NOLV Ceramics Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 1 0.00615 1.5 0.00016 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware 1810 6 0.03691 22.34 0.00237 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Annular 1805 2 0.0123 68.7 0.0073 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 1 0.00615 14.5 0.00154 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 1 0.00615 0.4 0.00004 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Polychrome 1808 2 0.0123 64.2 0.00682 NOLV Ceramics Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 1 0.00615 4.2 0.00045 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain 21 0.12919 55 0.00584 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain, Unclassified 5 0.03076 2.2 0.00023 NOLV Ceramics Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 9 0.05537 16.1 0.00171 NOLV Ceramics Redware, Refined 2 0.0123 3.79 0.0004 NOLV Ceramics Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 21 0.12919 23.2 0.00246 NOLV Ceramics Slipware, Refined 1733 4 0.02461 3 0.00032 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 3 0.01846 2.8 0.0003 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 1 0.00615 51.5 0.00547 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Salt Glazed 2 0.0123 38.86 0.00413 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 14 0.08613 91.1 0.00968 NOLV Ceramics Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 10 0.06152 10.9 0.00116 NOLV Ceramics Untyped 1 0.00615 0.9 0.0001 NOLV Ceramics Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 1 0.00615 0.6 0.00006 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware 1915 7 0.04306 7.2 0.00076 NOLV Ceramics Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.00615 1.3 0.00014 NOLV Ceramics Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 1 0.00615 2.03 0.00022 NOLV Kitchen Can Key 1 0.00615 4.3 0.00046 NOLV Kitchen Plastic, Bottle Stopper 1 0.00615 7.2 0.00076 NOLV Kitchen, Food Crustacea 3 0.01846 3.2 0.00034 NOLV Kitchen, Food Pig 3 0.01846 24.04 0.00255 NOLV Kitchen, Food Rabbit 2 0.0123 1 0.00011 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Bottle Glass 33 0.20301 329.29 0.03499 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Jar 1 0.00615 5 0.00053 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Liquor Bottle 1 0.00615 2.9 0.00031 NOLV Kitchen, Glass Vessel Fragment 113 0.69517 249.1 0.02647 NOLV NA, Ceramics Untyped 22 0.13534 273.9 0.0291 NOLV NA, Lithics Core 1 0.00615 21.25 0.00226 NOLV Other Bone, Unidentified 119 0.73208 378.18 0.04018 NOLV Other Charcoal 3 0.01846 3.7 0.00039
160 TABLE 28 Continued
Level Group Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent NOLV Other Flora, Unidentified 3 0.01846 2.29 0.00024 NOLV Other Glass, Indeterminate Fragment 28 0.17225 24.85 0.00264 NOLV Other Metal Fragment, Unidentified 15 0.09228 4397.89 0.46725 NOLV Other Metal, Buckle 1 0.00615 19.6 0.00208 NOLV Other Rubber Fragment, Unidentified 1 0.00615 1.5 0.00016 NOLV Other Shell, Unidentified 26 0.15995 446.8 0.04747 NOLV Other Slag 2 0.0123 3.1 0.00033 NOLV Other Stone Manuport 3 0.01846 3072.6 0.32645 NOLV Other Stone, Worked 1 0.00615 3.4 0.00036 NOLV Personal Clothing, Button 4 0.02461 3.6 0.00038 NOLV Personal Medicine Bottle 1 0.00615 11.2 0.00119 NOLV Personal Tobacco Pipe 28 0.17225 37.7 0.00401 NOLV Personal Toy, Marble 1 0.00615 6.4 0.00068 NOLV Tool Pliers 1 0.00615 456.3 0.04848 16255 100 941221.71 100
161 APPENDIX B
SNEE FARM CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES
162 TABLE 29 AREA B, SLAVE VILLAGE CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Black Lead Glazed Earthenware 1695 14 1.35 167.6 4.53 Colonoware 21 2.03 133.1 3.60 Creamware 1791 141 13.60 229.8 6.21 Creamware, Annular 1798 43 4.15 47.0 1.27 Creamware, Shell Edged Green 1791 4 0.39 18.3 0.50 Creamware, Transfer Printed 1790 4 0.39 2.0 0.05 Creamware, Unclassified 1791 5 0.48 2.2 0.06 Delft 1720 5 0.48 0.1 0.00 Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 50 4.82 878.5 23.76 Ginger Beer, Liquor bottle 1868 4 0.39 23.0 0.62 Ironstone 1885 18 1.74 121.6 3.29 Jackfield 1765 1 0.10 2.0 0.05 Pearlware 1810 160 15.43 425.0 11.49 Pearlware, Annular 1810 67 6.46 93.1 2.52 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 4 0.39 5.6 0.15 Pearlware, Finger Painted 1810 35 3.38 66.4 1.80 Pearlware, Flow Blue 1850 1 0.10 2.2 0.06 Pearlware, Mocha 1843 3 0.29 3.6 0.10 Pearlware, Polychrome 1808 17 1.64 23.4 0.63 Pearlware, Shell Edged Blue 1805 34 3.28 100.0 2.70 Pearlware, Shell Edged Green 1805 18 1.74 62.4 1.69 Pearlware, Transfer Printed 1812 4 0.39 4.8 0.13 Pearlware, Transfer Printed Brown 1812 2 0.19 2.7 0.07 Pearlware, Transfer Printed Cobalt Blue 1812 27 2.60 74.8 2.02 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 14 1.35 22.9 0.62 Porcelain 1 0.10 9.9 0.27 Porcelain, English 1773 6 0.58 31.0 0.84 Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 1 0.10 1.0 0.03 Redware, Coarse 1 0.10 16.7 0.45 Redware, Refined 7 0.68 19.5 0.53 Slipware, Coarse 1 0.10 11.5 0.31 Slipware, Refined 1733 1 0.10 1.0 0.03 Stoneware, Albany Slipped 9 0.87 150.4 4.07 Stoneware, Salt Glazed 1660 21 2.03 261.7 7.08 Stoneware, Unclassified 3 0.29 19.1 0.52 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 1 0.10 11.1 0.30 Untyped 1 0.10 0.8 0.02 Whiteware 1908 138 13.31 307.3 8.31 Whiteware, Annular 1908 48 4.63 81.7 2.21 Whiteware, Finger Painted 1908 4 0.39 10.4 0.28 Whiteware, Flow Blue 1908 6 0.58 10.6 0.29 Whiteware, Polychrome 1908 18 1.74 36.1 0.98 Whiteware, Shell Edged Blue 1908 9 0.87 35.7 0.97 Whiteware, Shell Edged Green 1908 1 0.10 7.8 0.21
163 TABLE 29 Continued
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Whiteware, Sponged 1908 6 0.58 15.0 0.41 Whiteware, Transfer Printed 1908 32 3.09 74.2 2.01 Whiteware, Unclassified 1908 8 0.77 20.7 0.56 Yellow Ware 1883 7 0.68 32.4 0.88 Yellow Ware Banded 1890 6 0.58 10.8 0.29 Yellow Ware Mocha 1898 4 0.39 7.6 0.21 Yellow Ware Press Molded 1883 1 0.10 1.7 0.05 Totals 1037 100.00 3698 100.00
164 TABLE 30 STRUCTURE 16, DOMESTIC SLAVE CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Agateware, Coarse 1780 9 0.19 12.26 0.08 Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 5 0.31 41.82 0.24 Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 28 0.54 78.37 0.66 Colonoware 580 18.5 1910.74 16.66 Creamware 1791 496 13.13 1037.2 8.52 Creamware, Annular 1798 4 0.1 3.59 0.09 Creamware, Black Transfer 1812 1 0.01 1.46 0.01 Creamware, Feather Edged 1791 86 1.61 346.89 2.21 Creamware, Molded 1791 9 0.14 53.01 0.29 Creamware, Spattered 1790 1 0.01 0.8 0 Creamware, Unclassified 1791 1 0.01 0.3 0 Delft 1720 362 11.08 382.84 3.35 Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 1 0.01 3.57 0.02 Delft,Polychrome 1681 1 0.01 0.81 0 Earthenware, Coarse, Tin Enameled 1701 3 0.04 0.8 0 Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 6 0.09 23.9 0.13 Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 39 1.07 52.05 0.51 Earthenware, Unclassified 1 0.02 0.4 0 Faience 1740 9 0.15 11.86 0.07 Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 11 0.16 31.65 0.16 Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 5 0.08 246.84 1.22 Hotelware 1907 5 0.07 19.15 0.1 Ironstone 1885 19 0.28 72.39 0.37 Jackfield 1765 3 0.04 1.93 0.01 North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 20 0.55 206.24 1.21 Olive Jar 1695 1 0.01 37.6 0.18 Pearlware 1810 44 1.61 137.23 1.36 Pearlware, Annular 1805 7 0.31 6.97 0.14 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 8 0.41 3.92 0.12 Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 13 0.19 25.21 0.13 Pearlware, Cobalt Blue 1812 3 0.04 4.07 0.02 Pearlware, Finger Painted 1805 1 0.01 1.15 0.01 Pearlware, Flow Blue 1850 4 0.1 3.09 0.03 Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 2 0.03 8.08 0.04 Pearlware, Green Transfer 1812 2 0.13 1.8 0.08 Pearlware, Sponged 1810 5 0.18 4.71 0.06 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 8 0.11 17.3 0.09 Porcelain 71 21.85 97.99 10.18 Porcelain, Chinese Export 47 2.12 75.34 0.69 Porcelain, Unclassified 105 2.6 272.78 2.28 Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 18 0.35 89.21 0.56 Redware, Coarse 119 3.5 459.61 3.79 Redware, Refined 21 0.46 27.42 0.23 Redware, Refined, Astbury 1738 2 0.03 3.36 0.02
165 TABLE 30 Continued
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Rockingham 1900 7 0.11 25.62 0.14 Slipware, Coarse 231 4.92 808.5 5.53 Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 42 0.76 239.17 2.09 Slipware, Coarse, Red Bodied 1 0.01 6.16 0.03 Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 105 3.35 463.37 3.4 Slipware, Refined 1733 168 4.69 334.05 4.37 Slipware, Refined, American 1733 6 0.1 88.53 0.49 Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 7 0.16 71.6 0.47 Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 127 4.84 223.52 1.86 Slipware, Refined, Unclassified 1 0.02 2.3 0.01 Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 3 0.04 104.71 0.51 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 75 1.59 127.72 0.86 Stoneware, Refined, Dry Bodied 1745 1 0.02 10.39 0.06 Stoneware, Refined, Slip-dipped 2 0.13 2.1 0.09 Stoneware, Refined, Unclassified 2 0.03 1.22 0.01 Stoneware, Salt Glazed 57 1.41 353.37 2.33 Stoneware, Scratch Blue 1760 1 0.25 0.92 0.03 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 19 0.49 67.65 0.97 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 58 1.85 136.84 1.14 Untyped 174 5.21 647.46 4.82 Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 25 0.62 35.58 0.2 Whiteware 1915 100 2.63 197.08 1.91 Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 1 0.02 2.63 0.01 Whiteware, Cobalt Blue 1915 1 0.01 1.63 0.01 Whiteware, Flow Blue 1915 1 0.01 0.3 0 Whiteware, Purple Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.01 0.6 0 Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 7 0.2 4.7 0.05 Yellow Ware 1883 18 0.8 47.53 0.35 Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 7 0.11 95.62 0.53 Yellow Ware, Unclassified 1883 4 0.1 3.49 0.03 Totals 1768.93 3438 116.73 9922.07 88.22
166 TABLE 31 STRUCTURE 14, OVERSEER’S CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Agateware, Coarse 1780 1 0.03 0.41 0.000 Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 7 0.23964 110.89 0.65 Agateware, Refined 1758 1 0.03 2.98 0.010 Colonoware 629.00 21.53 1910.78 18.24 Creamware 1791 157 5.37487 285.36 2.26 Creamware, Annular 1798 1 0.03 0.46 0.010 Creamware, Annular 1798 6 0.21 14.17 0.050 Creamware, Annular 1798 2 0.07 3.42 0.020 Creamware, Black Transfer Printed 1790 5 0.17117 4.86 0.02 Creamware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1790 1 0.03 0.75 0.020 Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 26 0.89011 105.62 0.73 Creamware, Molded 1791 4 0.13694 4.84 0.06 Delft 1720 195 6.6758 328.94 2.86 Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 5 0.17 11.75 0.070 Delft, Polychrome 1681 3 0.09 1.77 0.090 Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 8 0.27 53.91 0.26 Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 47 1.60904 84.34 0.45 Faience 1740 19 0.65046 23.74 0.13 Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 15 0.51 47.8 0.22 Faience Blanche. Seine 1728 1 0.03 13.53 0.060 Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 27 0.92434 478.86 3.45 Ironstone 1885 91 3.11537 764.15 4.59 Jackfield 1765 5 0.17 10.69 0.050 North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 3 0.10 45.98 0.53 Olive Jar 1695 2 0.06 30.86 0.420 Pearlware 1810 130 4.45053 716.8 8.99 Pearlware, Annular 1805 64 2.19103 246.96 1.41 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 10 0.34 26.65 0.23 Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 6 0.21 8.88 0.030 Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 12 0.41 45.58 0.19 Pearlware, Finger Painted 1805 7 0.24 17.02 0.080 Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 4 0.14 63.56 1.34 Pearlware, Sponged 1810 2 0.07 0.8 0.000 Pearlware, Transfer Printed 1812 1 0.03 1.72 0.050 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 2 0.07 2.63 0.010 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 1 0.03 3.43 0.020 Porcelain 92 3.14961 343.64 1.75 Porcelain, Canton 1813 1 0.03 0.14 0.000 Porcelain, Chinese Export 18 0.61623 17.21 0.26 Porcelain, English 1773 1 0.03 2.63 0.010 Porcelain, Unclassified 13 0.44505 30.97 0.55 Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 75 2.56761 127.5 0.76 Redware, Coarse 51 1.74598 188.9 1.33 Redware, Refined 17 0.58199 35.22 0.35
167 TABLE 31 Continued
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Rockingham 1900 5 0.17 63.09 0.26 Semivitreous 1 0.03 0.4 0.000 Slipware, Coarse 8 0.27 24.71 0.13 Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 29 0.99 58.12 0.26 Slipware, Refined 1733 12 0.41 25.76 0.17 Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 3 0.10 22.81 0.55 Slipware, Refined, Unclassified 1723 174 5.95686 376.38 3.57 Stoneware, Albany Slipped 18 0.61623 306.16 1.53 Stoneware, Bristol Glazed 1868 2 0.06 10.27 0.060 Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 12 0.41 107.36 0.45 Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 13 0.44505 374.59 5.08 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 6 0.20 9.36 0.070 Stoneware, Rhenish 1600 2 0.06 3.74 0.030 Stoneware, Salt Glazed 60 2.05409 424.61 2.64 Stoneware, Unclassified 1 0.03 9.3 0.040 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 20 0.6847 69.62 0.67 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 49 1.67751 90.12 1.04 Untyped 109 3.7316 653.47 3.49 Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 3 0.09 3.24 0.03 Whiteware 1915 372 12.7354 1625.96 13.93 Whiteware, Annular 1915 86 2.9442 241.81 1.83 Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 23 0.7874 63.4 0.32 Whiteware, Brown Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.03 1.6 0.010 Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 35 1.19822 119.06 0.83 Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 5 0.17 12.38 0.11 Whiteware, Green Shell Edged 1915 4 0.13 15.34 0.18 Whiteware, Green Transfer Printed 1915 2 0.06 1.45 0.000 Whiteware, Mocha 1915 1 0.03 1.48 0.010 Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 5 0.17117 4.59 0.03 Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 16 0.54776 33.34 0.25 Whiteware, Purple Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.03 0.73 0.000 Whiteware, Shell Edged 1915 1 0.03 9.46 0.040 Whiteware, Sponged 1915 21 0.71893 282.44 3.37 Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 5 0.17 11.96 0.050 Yellow Ware 1883 22 0.75317 88.92 0.36962 Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 26 0.89011 62.68 0.58
168 TABLE 32 STRUCTURE 13, KITCHEN CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Agateware, Coarse 1780 9 0.12 63.45 0.17 Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 11 0.15 188.04 0.51 Agateware, Refined 1758 62 0.82 221.06 0.60 Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 4 0.05 26.17 0.07 Colonoware 1842 24.33 6973.67 18.78 Creamware 1791 1072 14.16 2840.07 7.65 Creamware, Annular 1798 7 0.09 14.14 0.04 Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 296 3.91 1961.31 5.28 Creamware, Green Shell Edged 1791 3 0.04 3.81 0.01 Creamware, Molded 1791 2 0.03 7.97 0.02 Creamware, Unclassified 1791 4 0.05 5.51 0.01 Delft 1720 510 6.74 1644.99 4.43 Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 13 0.17 38.25 0.10 Delft,Polychrome 1681 3 0.04 5.20 0.01 Delft, Sponged 1749 1 0.01 1.73 0.00 Earthenware, Coarse, Unclassified 34 0.45 524.52 1.41 Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 34 0.45 65.02 0.18 Earthenware, Unclassified 1 0.01 4.24 0.01 Faience 1740 142 1.88 275.60 0.74 Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 80 1.06 282.50 0.76 Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 1 0.01 7.52 0.02 Ironstone 1885 54 0.71 162.21 0.44 Jackfield 1765 4 0.05 7.49 0.02 North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 5 0.07 53.04 0.14 Olive Jar 1695 3 0.04 17.61 0.05 Pearlware 1810 95 1.25 148.47 0.40 Pearlware, Annular 1805 13 0.17 12.86 0.03 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1810 8 0.11 17.10 0.05 Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 4 0.05 10.96 0.03 Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 10 0.13 6.65 0.02 Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 7 0.09 23.33 0.06 Pearlware, Polychrome 1808 2 0.03 2.57 0.01 Pearlware, Shell Edged 1805 1 0.01 0.88 0.00 Pearlware, Sponged 1810 5 0.07 9.66 0.03 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 4 0.05 9.30 0.03 Porcelain 297 3.92 1047.16 2.82 Porcelain, Chinese Export 208 2.75 452.37 1.22 Porcelain, English 1773 4 0.05 56.62 0.15 Porcelain, Unclassified 96 1.27 350.96 0.95 Porcelain, Unclassified Teacup 1 0.01 14.06 0.04 Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 7 0.09 42.96 0.12 Redware, Coarse 148 1.95 8719.33 23.48 Redware, Refined 67 0.88 193.14 0.52 Redware, Refined, Astbury 1738 2 0.03 0.82 0.00 Rockingham 1900 1 0.01 4.77 0.01 Slipware, Coarse 40 0.53 294.24 0.79 Slipware, Coarse, American 2 0.03 40.20 0.11 Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 2 0.03 20.12 0.05 Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 986 13.02 2967.95 7.99 Slipware, Refined 1733 50 0.66 223.86 0.60
169 TABLE 32 Continued
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Slipware, Refined, American 1733 1 0.01 54.07 0.15 Slipware, Refined, Staffordshire 1723 7 0.09 36.84 0.10 Stoneware, Albany Slipped 16 0.21 147.92 0.40 Stoneware, Bristol Glazed 1868 2 0.03 1.57 0.00 Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 4 0.05 85.72 0.23 Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 9 0.12 21.13 0.06 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 17 0.22 34.95 0.09 Stoneware, Refined, Unclassified 4 0.05 23.79 0.06 Stoneware, Rhenish 1600 2 0.03 24.42 0.07 Stoneware, Salt Glazed 121 1.60 1177.52 3.17 Stoneware, Scratch Blue 1760 2 0.03 7.18 0.02 Stoneware, Unclassified 9 0.12 25.66 0.07 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 68 0.90 395.61 1.07 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 270 3.57 850.76 2.29 Untyped 359 4.74 2695.21 7.26 Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 82 1.08 293.00 0.79 Whiteware 1915 226 2.99 618.80 1.67 Whiteware Chamber Pot 1915 2 0.03 354.10 0.95 Whiteware, Annular 1915 39 0.52 46.90 0.13 Whiteware, Blue Shell Edged 1915 5 0.07 11.97 0.03 Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 14 0.18 15.17 0.04 Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 31 0.41 88.81 0.24 Whiteware, Flow Blue 1915 1 0.01 0.68 0.00 Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 3 0.04 3.08 0.01 Whiteware, Red Transfer Printed 1915 3 0.04 2.86 0.01 Whiteware, Sponged 1915 2 0.03 4.89 0.01 Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 3 0.04 7.38 0.02 Yellow Ware 1883 9 0.12 34.18 0.09 Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 2 0.03 2.21 0.01 Yellow Ware, Unclassified 1883 1 0.01 1.07 0.00 7571 100.00 37132.91 100.00
170 TABLE 33 STRUCTURE 17, PINCKNEY HOUSE CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Agateware, Coarse, Buckley 1748 4 0.20 42.1 0.45 Agateware, Refined 1758 1 0.05 2.8 0.03 Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1695 5 0.25 34.5 0.37 Colonoware 282 14.19 980.7 10.57 Creamware 1791 117 5.89 280.17 3.02 Creamware, Annular 1798 3 0.15 2.3 0.02 Creamware, Black Transfer Printed 1801 2 0.10 2.5 0.03 Creamware, Feather Edged 1788 7 0.35 36.9 0.40 Creamware, Mocha 1802 1 0.05 6 0.06 Creamware,Molded 1791 4 0.20 71.89 0.77 Creamware, Unclassified 1791 7 0.35 105.7 1.14 Delft 1720 164 8.25 396.48 4.27 Delft, Fireplace Tile 1721 48 2.41 2913.21 31.40 Delft,Polychrome 1681 1 0.05 0.7 0.01 Earthenware,Coarse,TinEnameled 1701 2 0.10 0.07 0.00 Earthenware, Refined, Unclassified 15 0.75 24.61 0.27 Faience 1740 3 0.15 2.8 0.03 Faience Blanche. Provence Yellow on White 1758 3 0.15 15.7 0.17 Ginger Beer Stoneware 1868 1 0.05 16.3 0.18 Hotelware 1907 1 0.05 18.5 0.20 Ironstone 1885 8 0.40 23.53 0.25 Jackfield 1765 1 0.05 0.71 0.01 North Devon Gravel Tempered 1715 6 0.30 29.97 0.32 Pearlware 1810 67 3.37 159.71 1.72 Pearlware, Annular 1805 4 0.20 141.9 1.53 Pearlware, Blue Hand Painted 1808 1 0.05 0.71 0.01 Pearlware, Blue Shell Edged 1805 4 0.20 23.13 0.25 Pearlware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1812 10 0.50 22.17 0.24 Pearlware, Finger Painted 1805 3 0.15 2.8 0.03 Pearlware, Flow Blue 1850 2 0.10 1.5 0.02 Pearlware, Green Shell Edged 1805 5 0.25 31.39 0.34 Pearlware,Mocha 1843 1 0.05 0.29 0.00 Pearlware, Polychrome 1808 4 0.20 76.4 0.82 Pearlware, Red Transfer Printed 1812 1 0.05 1.2 0.01 Pearlware, Sponged 1810 2 0.10 1.54 0.02 Pearlware, Unclassified 1810 8 0.40 16.16 0.17 Porcelain 259 13.03 397.97 4.29 Porcelain, Chinese Export 4 0.20 5.8 0.06 Porcelain, Chinese Imari 1740 2 0.10 5.2 0.06 Porcelain, Powder Blue 1725 1 0.05 5.9 0.06 Porcelain, Unclassified 36 1.81 39.93 0.43 Porcelain, Underglaze Blue Chinese 1730 96 4.83 216.71 2.34 Redware, Coarse 23 1.16 96.94 1.04 Redware, Refined 13 0.65 24.33 0.26 Redware, Refined, Astbury 1738 2 0.10 0.7 0.01 Rockingham 1900 2 0.10 3.86 0.04 Slipware, Coarse 47 2.36 138.29 1.49 Slipware, Coarse, Combed 1733 7 0.35 12.03 0.13 Slipware, Coarse, Yellow Lead Glazed 130 6.54 297.59 3.21 Slipware, Refined 1733 63 3.17 87.57 0.94
171 TABLE 33 Continued
Item MCD Count Percent Weight (g) Percent Slipware, Refined, Combed 1733 12 0.60 10.41 0.11 Stoneware, Albany Slipped 2 0.10 8.33 0.09 Stoneware, Black Basalt 1785 1 0.05 0.5 0.01 Stoneware, Brown Salt Glazed 1733 14 0.70 77.07 0.83 Stoneware, Coarse, Unclassified 1 0.05 51.5 0.56 Stoneware, Nottingham 1755 13 0.65 26.4 0.28 Stoneware, Salt Glazed 48 2.41 703.7 7.58 Stoneware, Unclassified 2 0.10 11.31 0.12 Stoneware, Westerwald 1675 57 2.87 442.67 4.77 Stoneware, White Salt Glazed 1745 91 4.58 112.43 1.21 Untyped 28 1.41 145.75 1.57 Whieldon Cloudedware 1755 2 0.10 5.5 0.06 Whiteware 1915 203 10.21 755.39 8.14 Whiteware Bowl 1915 2 0.10 22.8 0.25 Whiteware, Annular 1915 2 0.10 1.83 0.02 Whiteware, Cobalt Blue Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.05 0.35 0.00 Whiteware, Finger Painted 1915 1 0.05 1.5 0.02 Whiteware, Green Transfer Printed 1915 3 0.15 12.5 0.13 Whiteware, Pink Transfer Printed 1915 6 0.30 30.9 0.33 Whiteware, Polychrome 1915 1 0.05 0.4 0.00 Whiteware, Purple Transfer Printed 1915 3 0.15 9.05 0.10 Whiteware, Red Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.05 2.32 0.03 Whiteware, Transfer Printed 1915 1 0.05 0.44 0.00 Whiteware, Unclassified 1915 3 0.15 1.31 0.01 Yellow Ware 1883 4 0.20 11.96 0.13 Yellow Ware, Banded 1890 2 0.10 11.63 0.13 Yellow Ware, Unclassified 1883 1 0.05 0.5 0.01 Totals 1988 100.00 9278.31 100.00
172 REFERENCES
Ahearn, Laura 2001 Agency. In Key Terms in Language and Culture. Alessandro Duranti, editor, pp. 7-9. Blackwell, Oxford.
Andrews, William L. 1997 Slave Narrative. In Oxford Companion to African American Literature, William L. Andrews, Frances Smith Foster, and Trudier Harris, eds., pp. 667-670. Oxford University Press, New York.
Andrews, Susan C., and James P. Fenton 2001 Archaeology and the Invisible Man: The Role of Slavery in the Production of Wealth and Social Class in the Bluegrass Region of Kentucky, 1820 to 1870. World Archaeology 33(1):115- 136.
Babson, David W. 1988 The Tanner Road Settlement: The Archaeology of Racism on Limerick Plantation. Volumes in Historical Archaeology (4). South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Barth, Fredrik 2001 [1969] Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL.
Binford, Lewis R. 1982 Objectivity – Explanation – Archaeology [1981]. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M.J. Rowlands, and B.A. Segraves, pp. 125-138. Academic Press, New York.
Blakey, Michael L. and Leslie M. Rankin-Hill 2004 The New York African Burial Ground Skeletal Biology Final Report. Washington DC: Howard University.
Blassingame, John W. 1979 [1972] The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. Oxford University Press, New York.
Brockington, Paul E., Jr. 1987 A Culture Resource Survey at Snee Farm, 38CH917, Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Atlanta.
173 Brown, Kenneth L. 1994 Material Culture and Community Structure: The Slave and Tenant Community at Levi Jordan’s Plantation. In Working Toward Freedom: Slave Society and Domestic Economy in the American South, L.E. Hudson, ed., pp. 95-118. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY.
Browne, Phiefer L. 1997 Marriage. In Oxford Companion to African American Literature, William L. Andrews, Frances Smith Foster, and Trudier Harris, eds., pp. 478-479. Oxford University Press, New York.
Carney, Judith A. 2001 Black Rice: the African Origins of Rice Cultivation in the Americas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Carroll, Lynda 1999 Communities and Other Social Actors: Rethinking Commodities and Consumption in Global Historical Archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3(3):131-136.
Chicora Foundation N.D. Youghal: Examination of an Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Plantation, Christ Church Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina. Research Series 65. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC.
Cody, Cheryll Ann 1987 There Was No “Absalom” on the Ball Plantations: Slave-Naming Practices in the South Carolina Low Country, 1720-1865. The American Historical Review 92(3):563-596.
Crass, David Colin and Mark J. Brooks, editors 1995 Cotton and Black Draught: Consumer Behavior on a Postbellum Farm. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Deagan, Kathleen A. 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Deagan, Kathleen A. and José María Cruxent 2002 Archaeology at La Isabela: America's first European Town. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery 2004 Building o: Chronology. The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery, December 15, 2004 (http://www.daacs.org/).
174 Dornan, Jennifer L. 2001 Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(4):303-329.
Douglass, Frederick 1998 [1853] The Heroic Slave. University of Virginia. 24 Sept. 2001
Edgar, Walter B. 1991 Historic Snee Farm: A Documentary Record. University of South Carolina Department of History, Columbia, SC.
Elliot, W.S. 1866 Founders of the American Union. – Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina. In DeBow’s Review April 1866, pp. 372-378.
Epperson, Terrence W. 1999a Beyond Biological Reductionism, Ethnicity, and Vulgar Anti-Essentialism: Critical Perspectives on Race and the Practice of African-American Archaeology. Newsletter of the African-American Archaeology Network 24. 1999b The Contested Commons Archaeologies of Race, Repression, and Resistance in New York City. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 81-119. Plenum Press, New York. 1999c Constructing Difference: The Social and Spatial Order of the Chesapeake Plantation. In “I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 159-172. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Escott, Paul D. 1979 Slavery Remembered: A Record of Twentieth-Century Slave Narratives. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Federal Writer’s Project, United States Work Projects Administration (USWPA) 1998a American Life Histories: Manuscripts from the Federal Writers’ Project, 1936-1940. Library of Congress. 15 Nov. 2001
Ferguson, Leland 1996 [1991] Struggling with Pots in Colonial South Carolina. In The Archaeology of Inequality. In Images of the Recent Past Readings in Historical Archaeology, Charles E. Orser, Jr. editor, pp.260-271. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, MI. 1995 Letter Report of 1995 Field School at Snee Farm. Report on file Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, FL.
175 1992 Uncommon Ground, Archeology and Early African America, 1650-1800. Smithsonian Press, Washington.
Friedlander, Amy 1985 Establishing Historical Probabilities for Archaeological Interpretations: Slave Demography of Two Plantations in the South Carolina Lowcountry, 1740-1820. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton, editor, pp. 215-238. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Gallo, John 1985 Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Yellow Ware. J. Gallo, Oneonta, NY.
Gardner, Jeffrey W. and Eric C. Poplin 1992 Wappoo Plantation (38CH1199/38CH1200): Data Recovery at an Eighteenth Century Stono River Plantation, in Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
Genovese, Eugene D. 1974 Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. Pantheon, New York.
Gibb, James G. 1996 The Archaeology of Wealth: Consumer Behavior. Plenum Press, New York.
Gregorie, Anne King 1961 Christ Church, 1706-1959, a Plantation Parish of the South Carolina Establishment. The Dalcho Historical Society, Charleston, SC.
Heath, Barbara J. 2001 Bounded Yards and Fluid Boundaries: Landscapes of Slavery at Poplar Forest. Paper presented at Places of Cultural Memory: African Reflections on the American Landscape Conference. Atlanta, GA.
Herskovits, Melville J. 1941 Myth of the Negro Past. Harper & Brothers, New York.
Hodder, Ian 2000 Agency and Individuals in Long-term Processes. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, pp. 21-33. Routledge, London.
Inscoe, John C. 1983 Carolina Slave Names: An Index to Acculturation. The Journal of Southern History: 49(4):527-554.
Jacobs, Harriet A. 2000 [1861] Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself, Jean Fagan Yellin, ed. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
176 Johnson, Matthew. 1999 Historical, Archaeology, Capitalism. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 219-232. Plenum Press: New York.
Joyner, Charles Winston 1984 Down by the Riverside: A South Carolina Slave Community. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. 1977 Slave Folklife on the Waccamaw Neck: Antebellum Black Culture in the South Carolina Lowcountry. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of History, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
Keel, Bennie C. 1992 Research Design for Archeological Investigations at Charles Pinckney National Historic Site Fiscal Year 1992. National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Keel, Bennie C. and Amy C. Kowal 2007 Archaeological Investigations at Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. Manuscript in progress. National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL.
King, Julia A. 1992 Archaeological Investigations at Charles Pinckney's Snee Farm, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. A Report for Friends of Snee Farm, Mt. Pleasant, SC.
LaRoche, Cheryl A., and Michael L. Blakey 1997 Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground. Historical Archaeology 31(3):84-106.
Lavoie, Catherine C. 1991 Historic American Buildings Survey. Report for the National Park Service. Report on file Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, FL.
Lees, William B. 1980 Limerick – Old and in the Way: Archaeological Investigations at Limerick Plantation, Berkeley County, South Carolina. Studies 8. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Leibowitz, Joan 1985 Yellow Ware The Transitional Ceramic. Schiffer, Atglen, PA.
Leone, Mark P. 1999a Ceramics from Annapolis, Maryland: A Measure of Time Routines and Work Discipline. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 195-216. Plenum Press: New York. 1999b Setting Some Terms for Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 3-20. Plenum Press: New York.
177 Leone, Mark P. and Parker B. Potter, Jr. editors Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. Plenum Press: New York.
Lewis, Kenneth E. 1985 Plantation Layout and Function in the South Carolina Lowcountry. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton, editor, pp. 35-65. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Lewis, Oscar 1961 The Children of Sánchez: Autobiography of a Mexican Family. Random House, New York.
Matthews, Marty D. 2004 Forgotten Founder: The Life and Times of Charles Pinckney. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Marx, Karl 1965 [1867] Capital, edited by Frederick Engels. Progress Publishers, Moscow.
McDavid, Carol 1997 Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. Historical Archaeology 31(3):114-131.
McKee, Larry 1998 Some Thoughts on the Past, Present, and Future of the Archaeology of the African Diaspora. Newsletter of the African-American Archaeology Network: 21.
Meyer, Michael J. 1998 Intrasite Spatial Patterning on a Colonial Site in the South Carolina Low Country: The Archeology of Charles Pinckney's Snee Farm. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. 1995 Excavation of an Eighteenth Century Well at Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (April 17-May 10, 1995). National Park Service, Tallahassee. Copies available from the Southeast Archeological Center.
Miller, G.L. 1980 Classification and economic scaling of 19th century ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1-40. 1991 A revised set of CC index values for classification and economic scaling of English ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25.
Miller, George L., Ann Smart Martin, and Nancy S. Dickinson 1994 Changing consumption patterns: English ceramics and the American market from 1770 to 1840. In Everyday Life in the Early Republic, edited by Catherine E. Hutchins, pp. 219-248. Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, DE.
178 Moore, Susan Mullins 1985 Social and Economic Status on the Coastal Plantation: An Archaeological Perspective. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton, editor, pp. 142-160. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Mudge, Jean McClure 1986 Chinese Export Porcelain in North America. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., New York.
Mullins, Paul R. 1999a A Bold and Gorgeous Front: The Contradictions of African America and Consumer Culture. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 169-193. Plenum Press, New York. 1999b Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture. Springer, New York.
National Park Service N.D.a Developing and Interpreting the Rural Vernacular Landscape at Snee Farm. National Park Service, Atlanta, GA. N.D.b Charles Pinckney National Historic Site Charleston, South Carolina Historical Overview of Snee Farm and Christ Church Parish. Submitted to National Park Service, Atlanta, GA.
Noël Hume, Ivor 2001 If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2,000 Years of British Household Pottery. Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI. 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Olwell, Robert 1998 Masters, Slaves, & Subjects: the Culture of Power in the South Carolina Low Country, 1740-1790. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 1991 Authority and Resistance: Social Order in a Colonial Slave Society, the South Carolina Lowcountry, 1739-1782. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Orser, Charles E. Jr. 1999 Archaeology and the Challenges of Capitalist Farm Tenancy in America. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 143-167. Plenum Press: New York. 1998 The Archaeology of the African Diaspora. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:63-82. 1987 Plantation Status and Consumer Choice: A Materialist Framework for Historical Archaeology. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne M. Spencer- Wood, pp. 121-137. Plenum Press: New York. 1985 Artifacts, Documents, and Memories of the Black Tenant Farmer. Archaeology 38(4):48- 53.
Orser, Charles E. Jr. and Pedro P.A. Funari 2001 Archaeology and Slave Resistance and Rebellion. World Archaeology 33(1): 61-72.
179 Otto, John Solomon 1980 Race and class on antebellum plantations. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 3-13. Baywood, Farmingdale, MA. 1977 Artifacts and Status Differences – A Comparison of Ceramics from Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites on an Antebellum Plantation. In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, edited by Stanley South, pp. 91-118. Academic Press, New York.
Otto, John Solomon, and Augustus Marion Burns III 1983 Black Folks and Poor Buckras: Archeological Evidence of Slave and Overseer Living Conditions on an Antebellum Plantation. Journal of Black Studies 14(2):185-200.
Pearson, Edward Anthony 1992 From Stono to Vesey: Slavery, Resistance and Ideology in South Carolina, 1739-1822. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Poplin, Eric C. and Connie Huddleston 1998 Archaeological Data Recovery of the Thomas Lynch Plantation (38CH1479 and 38CH1585), RiverTowne Development Tract, Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
Rabinowitz, Dan 1997 Overlooking Nazareth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rawick, George P., editor 1972 The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography: Vol. 1 From Sundown to Sunup: The Making of the Black Community.
Rogers, George C., Jr. 1980 Charleston in the Age of the Pinckneys. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Roseberry, William 1989 Anthropologies and Histories: Essays in Culture, History, and Political Economy. Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ.
Rushdy, Ashraf H. A. 1999 Neo-slave Narratives: Studies in the Social Logic of a Literary Form. Oxford University Press, New York.
Sahlins, Marshall D. 1981 Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Schuyler, Robert L. 1980 Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History. Baywood Pub. Co., Farmingdale, NY.
180 Scott, Elizabeth M. 1998 Some Thoughts on African-American Foodways. Newsletter of the African-American Archaeology Network: 22.
Singleton, Theresa A., editor 1999 “I, Too, am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 1996 [1991] The Archaeology of Slave Life. In Images of the Recent Past Readings in Historical Archaeology, Charles E. Orser, Jr. editor, pp. 141-165. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, MI. 1985 The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Smith, Mark M. 1996 Time, Slavery, and Plantation Capitalism in the Ante-Bellum American South. Past and Present (150):142-168.
South, Stanley 1975 Pattern Recognition in Historical Archeology. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 10:153-155. 1971 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archaeology. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1971 6(2):77-106.
South, Stanley, editor 1977 Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M., editor 1987 Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York.
Stack, Carol 1974 All Our Kin. Basic Books, New York.
Stine, L. F., P. E. Brockington, and C. M. Huddleston 1994 Searching for the Slave Village at Snee Farm Plantation: The 1987 Archaeological Investigation. Report on file Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, FL.
Stine, Linda France, Melanie A. Cabak, and Mark D. Groover 1996 Blue Beads as African-American Cultural Symbols. Historical Archaeology 30(3):49-75.
Thomas, Brian W. 1998 Power and Community: The Archaeology of Slavery at the Hermitage Plantation. American Antiquity 63(4):531-551.
Tiemann, M. A. 1998 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of a Turn-of-the-Century Cotton Gin. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee FL.
181 Trinkley, Michael and Debi Hacker 2004 Investigation of Jervey Plantation, Christ Church Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina. Research Series 63. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC. 2001 Archaeological Investigations of Indian and Slave at the Moses Whitesides Plantation, Christ Church Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina. Research Series 60. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC. 1996 “With Credit and Honour:” Archaeological Investigations at the Plantation of John Whitesides, A Small Planter of Christ Church Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina. .” Research Series 48. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC.
Trinkley, Michael, Debi Hacker, and Natalie Adams 1995 Broom Hall Plantation: “A Good One and in a Pleasant Neighborhood.” Research Series 44. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC.
Trinkley, Michael, Debi Hacker, and Sarah Fick 2005 Investigations of an Eighteenth Century Overseer Site (38CH1278) Christ Church Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina. Research Series 64. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC. 2003a Liberty Hall: A Small Eighteenth Century Rice Plantation in Goose Creek, Berkeley County, South Carolina. .” Research Series 57. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC.
Trinkley, Michael, Debi Hacker, and Nicole Southerland 2003b Archaeology at an Eighteenth Century Slave Settlement in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Research Series 57. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Columbia, SC.
Walthall, John A 1991 Faience in French Colonial Illinois. Journal of Historical Archaeology 25(1):80-105.
Wayne, Lucy B. and Martin F. Dickinson 1996a Starvegut Hall Plantation: Archaeological Data Recovery, 38CH1398 and 38CH1400, Dunes West, Charleston County, South Carolina. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville, FL. 1996b The Parsonage Tract: Archaeological Data Recovery Entry 1, 38CH1087, and Entry 2, 38CH1088, Dunes West, Charleston County, South Carolina. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville, FL.
Weber, Max 1946 Class, Status, Party. In Max Weber, edited by S. M. Miller, pp. 42-58 [1963]. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. 1956 Status Groups and Classes. In Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, pp. 385-398 [1968]. Bedminster Press, New York.
Wheaton, Thomas R., Amy Friedlander, and Patrick H. Garrow 1983 Yaughan and Curriboo Plantations: Studies in Afro-American Archaeology. Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, GA.
182 Wild, Ken 1991 Archeological Investigations Conducted During Asbestos Removal at Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL.
Wilkie, Laurie A. 2004 Considering the Future of African American Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 38(1):109-123. 1999 Evidence of African Continuities in the material Culture of Clifton Plantation, Bahamas. In African Sites Archaeology in the Caribbean, Haviser, Jay B., ed., pp. 264-275. Markus Wiener, Princeton.
Williams, Frances Leigh. 1978 A Founding Family: The Pinckneys of South Carolina. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
Wood, Peter H. 1975 Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina from 1670 through the Stono Rebellion. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Woolfolk, George R. 1956 Planter Capitalism and Slavery: The Labor Thesis. Journal of Negro History 41(2):103- 116.
Yaeger, Jason, and Marcello A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-15. Routledge, London.
Young, Amy L. 2000 Gender, and Labor in Three Communities of Enslaved African Americans. Newsletter of the African-American Archaeology Network, No. 28.
Zierden, Martha, Jeanne Calhoun, and Debi Hacker-Norton 1985 Archdale Hall: Investigations of a Lowcountry Plantation. Archaeological Contributions 10. The Charleston Museum, Charleston, SC.
183 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Amy Kowal was born to loving parents, Ron and Carol, in Buffalo, New York who encouraged freedom and independence in their children. The value of an education was implanted at an early age in their three children, two sons, Paul and Gary, and the youngest, a daughter. Anthropology and archaeology were never subjects encountered directly by Amy as a child. Her parents, however, visited numerous historical sites and museums with their children. With this education Amy acquired her interest in history and interacting with people that she continues to develop today. In high school Amy pursued her interests in all subjects including history, science, music, mathematics, and Spanish. She continued to visit museums and historical sites, and engage in her interests in the sciences most of all. She was valedictorian of her class and earned a number of awards as a result of her high academic achievements. Although neither her mother nor father attended college, Amy and her brothers did. It was as an undergraduate sophomore searching for a new major that Amy enrolled in her first anthropology course, ‘Great Sites in Romantic Archaeology.’ Never realizing that archaeology could possibly be a profession, Amy attended more classes and found her career. Anthropology became the subject where Amy could connect all her interests–history, science, and people. After a couple years in the ‘real world’ Amy returned to school and enrolled in the anthropology master’s program at Florida State University, a far cry from the cold of Buffalo, but in company with her future husband making the surroundings feel like home. As a teaching assistant Amy discovered her love of teaching, of conveying the importance of archaeology and history to others. Also here she first worked at the Southeast Archeological Center and met Bennie Keel. The opportunities available in archaeology became realized and the desire to learn, to teach, and to write continued. Amy returned to Florida State after two years back in New York where she married her husband Bill. Now in the doctorate program Amy benefited as an instructor with the Anthropology Department. Not only did she teach archaeology, but also biological and cultural anthropology, and museum studies courses. Passionately she continued her pursuits and expressed them in her courses and studies. Ultimately she again found employment with Bennie Keel at SEAC and was given the opportunity to research the slave population at the Charles
184 Pinckney site or CHPI (pronounced chippy) as it is referred to in the National Park Service. With large research questions in mind, this site proved to be the perfect subject as the archaeology was complete and much had yet to be written and answered. Amy continues her exploration of history and archaeology today as she begins the next step in her career with continual, unending support from her family. With a passion and enthusiasm cultured from her mentors, she hopes to be able to accomplish as much as they did and exemplify this attitude with others.
185