University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Research Manuscript Series Institute of

6-1979 Middleton Place: Initial Archeological Investigations at an Ashley River Rice Plantation Kenneth E. Lewis

Donald L. Hardesty

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books Part of the Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Lewis, Kenneth E. and Hardesty, Donald L., "Middleton Place: Initial Archeological Investigations at an Ashley River Rice Plantation" (1979). Research Manuscript Series. 150. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/150

This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Manuscript Series by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Middleton Place: Initial Archeological Investigations at an Ashley River Rice Plantation

Keywords Excavations, Middleton Place, Ashley River, Dorchester County, South Carolina, Archeology

Disciplines Anthropology

Publisher The outhS Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina

Comments In USC online Library catalog at: http://www.sc.edu/library/

This book is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/150 MIDDLETON PLACE: INITIAL ARCHEOLOGI'7AL INVESTIGATIONS AT AN ASHLEY RIVER RICE PLANTATION

by

Kenneth E. Lewis and Donald L. Hardesty Research Manuscript Series No. 148

Prepared by the INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA June, 1979 • The University of South Carolina offers equal opportunity in its employment, admissions and educational activities, in accordance with Title IX, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and other civil rights laws. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF FIGURES...... iv LIST OF TABLES . . v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

INTRODUCTION . . 1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING. . ... 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...... 5

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIDDLETON PLACE SETTLEMENT . 8

Introduction...... 8 The Background of British Colonization...... 8 Middleton Place in the Colonial and Antebellum Periods.. 10 Middleton Place in Transition. 14 THE ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 23

Introduction...... 23 Methodological Framework. 23 The Condition of the Site 26 The Middleton Place Site: Its Position in Time and Space. 28 Introduction. ...•...... 28 The Cultural Affiliation of the Settlement. . 29 The Temporal Position of the Settlement .. 32 The Location of the Settlement...... 35 Swnrnary ...... 39 The Middleton Place Site: Its Identification as a Plantation Settlement ...... 40 Introduction...... 40 Form and Function at Middleton Place. .. 40 Variability in the Plantation Settlement. 56 Middleton Place in the Antebellum Southern Economy. 58 Test Implications ..... 60 The Documentary Record. . 60 The Archeological Record. . 62 Summary ...... 64 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 66

APPENDIX A - ARTIFACT CATALOG. .. 71

-iii'- TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page

APPENDIX B - DERIVATION OF MEAN CERAMIC DATE. ..•••• 7r

APPENDIX C - PREHISTORIC CERAMICS FROM MIDDLETON PLACE. • 80

REFERENCES. .•••.•••...••..•.••••.• 82

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Loc:ator map of Middleton Plac:e 3 Dorc:"hester County 3 South Carolina .•••••••.••... 2

FIGURE 2: Vertic:al aerial view @f Middleton Plac:e in 1938 (SQVflf>Be: U. S. Department of Agric:uUure 14-938). 12

FIGURE 3: Ruins of the main house and northern dependenc:y in 1865 (photo c:ourtesy Middleton Plac:e Foundation!. 14

FIGURE 4: Map of known c:olonial and antebellum strnc:tUY1es at Middleton Plac:e. •..•.•••••.• 15

FIGURE 5: T"he west fac:e of the southern dependenc:y after its c:onversion to a residenc:e in 1871 (photo c:oUY1tesy Middleton Plac:e Foundation). ••...... • 16

FIGURE 6: The southern dependenc:y residenc:e with the 'pagoda" porc:h mentioned in 1879 (Photo c:oUY1tesy Middleton Plac:e Foundation). ....•••.. .. 17

FIGURE 7: Map of strnc:tures at Middleton Plac:e prior tot"he c:onstruc:tion of t"he guesthouse and stableyard c:omplex in 1937 (Sourc:e: John Mc:CY'ady Co. 1936). 21

FIGURE 8: Map of strnc:tures lying within the sample area at Middleton Plac:e following the 1937 c:onstruc:tion (SoUY1c:e: LaFarge 1936)...... 22

FIGURE 9: Plan of 1978 exc:avations at Middleton. .• 25

FIGURE 710: Comparison of temporal ranges of c:eramic: types rec:overed at ~ddleton Plac:e ..•... 34

FIGURE 11: SYMAP of bric:k rubble with distribution of nails superimposed. •...... 37

FIGURE 12: SYMAP showing distribution of c:olonial and antebellum bottle glass...... 38

-iv- LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Page

FIGURE 13: Plan of Mt. Vernon in Fairfax County~ Virginia showing typical plantation settlement pattern (Source: Architects' Emergency Corrorrittee 1933: 70- 71)...... 43

FIGURE 14: Map of structure-based activity areas at Middleton Place ...... •. 45

FIGURE 15: Structural feature uncovered in Area 4. 46

FIGURE 16: SYMAP sh07.Uing distribution of faunal material. 53

FIGURE 17: SYMAP showing distribution of prehistoric cerrarmcs...... 81

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Temporal Range of Non-cerarmc Artifacts from Middleton Place...... 35

TABLE 2: Frequency of Occurrence of Porcelain by Area .. 48

TABLE 3: Comparison of Faunal Debris and Total Non- ceramic Artifacts in Areas i~ 2~ and 3 ... 49

TABLE 4: Comparison of Europeqn!Processing and Colono Cerarmcs vs. European Serving Cerarmcs .•. 49

TABLE 5: Functional Activity Categories and Associated Artifact Classes .•.....•..•... .. 51

TABLE 6: Comparison of Artifact Occurrence by Activity ~~~~..... ~

TABLE 7: Occurrence of Faunal Material by Area. . 54

TABLE 8: Bills for Services Performed or Materials Received at Antebellum Middleton Place.. .. 62

TABLE 9: Middleton Place Production from Agricultural Censuses ...... •.... 63

TABLE 10: Activities Identified from the Archeological Record at Middleton Place...... 64

-v- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CCRMC Charleston County, Register of Mesne Conveyance.

CCROPJI Charleston County, Records of the Ordinary/Probate Judge, Inventories, Appraisments, and Sales.

CCROPJW Charleston County, Records of the Ordinary/Probate Judge, Wills.

C0CROPJI Colleton County, Records of the Ordinary/Probate Judge, Inventories, Appraisments, and Sales.

DCRMC Dorchester County, Register of Mesne Conveyance.

GCRPJW Greenville County, Records of the Probate Judge, Wills.

MCASC/SGDP/CD Manuscript Census, Agriculture, South Carolina/St. George Dorchester Parish/ Colleton District.

MCPSC/SGDP/CD Manuscript Census, Population, South Carolina/St. George Dorchester Parish/ Colleton District.

MCPSC/SS/SGDP/CD Manuscript Census, Population, South Carolina/Slaves Schedules/St. George Dorchester Parish/Colleton District.

MFP Middleton Family Papers.

MPRNHL/MPF Middleton Place Registered National Historic Landmark, Inc. and Middleton Place Foundation.

SCRSSLGCS South Carolina, Records of the Secretary of State, Land Grants, Colonial Series.

WMP Williams Middleton Papers

-vi- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the following individuals and organizations for the support they provided for the Middleton Place archeological project. The Middleton Place Foundation sponsored this work as part of its continuing program of research and interpretation of this historic site. Appreciation is especially due its director, Sarah Lytle and her staff who provided support and cooperation during all phases of the excavations. They include Ellen Clark, Coordinator of Volunteers; Barbara Smith, Secretary for the Middleton Place Associates; Barbara Doyle, Director of Education; and Crewes Leland, Director of Research. Documentary research in the Middleton Place Foundation archives was accomplished by Mrs. Leland.

Charles Duell, General Manager of Middleton Place, helped insure the success of the project by placing personnel and equipment of his staff at our disposal during our work there. He also provided accommodations for us at Middleton Place. Hank Jellison, Manager of the Gardens and Stables, and lab crew greatly facilitated the archeological work by helping to maintain our equipment and by re-Iandscaping portions of the site disrupted by our excavations.

Our field crew, without whom efforts the excavations could not have been accomplished were: Jan S. Beson, Jr., Dallas Cole, John K. Cole, Daniel S. Mileu, III, Sharon A. Newman, and Robert B. Wallace. Two days volunteer labor by Sue Jane Alsing is also appreciated.

Last, but certainly not of least importance, was the labor supplied by the volunteers who washed and sorted the artifacts in the field. They were: Karen Corcoran, Barbara Doyle, Patricia Jacobs, Bruce Krucke, Delores LaTorre, Jacqueline Morgan, Frank Smith, and Shari Turner.

The Middleton Place project was conducted by the Institute of Archeology and Anthropology of the University of South Carolina, and thanks go to its director, Robert L. Stephenson and other staff members for their support. Gordon Brown is res~onsible for the photographs appearing in the report and Darby Erd prepared the illustrations. Appreciation is also due Kenneth Pinson for editing the manuscript for publication and Miss Sandra Lee for typing the final copy.

-vii- INTRODUCTION

In November 1978 archeological investigations were conducted under the authors' direction at Middleton Place (38DR16), the site of an eight­ eenth and nineteenth century plantation on the Ashley River in Dorchester County, South Carolina (Fig. 1). The work was sponsored by the Middleton Place Foundation and ~unded through the Historic Preservation Program of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History with the assistance of a matching grant from the United States Department of the Interior under provision of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The results of these investigations- are intended to aid in the planning and development of Middleton Place as a historic site and to provide information relating to the nature of plantation settlements in general.

The 1978 investigations at Middleton Place were the first archeological excavations carried out at this site. For this reason it was necessary that they not only address questions relating to the contents of the site but also be designed to provide basic information as to its spatial extent and condition. The immediate goals of the archeological investigations were, of course, descriptive. They were aimed at diSGOvering the form, size, temporal and cultural affiliations, and architectural nature of past occupations at Middleton Place. In order to understand more fully the role played by this settlement in the economy of eighteenth and nineteenth century South Carolina it is also necessary to consider research goals related to social and economic processes associated with low country plantations. This study will be directed at exploring both descriptive aspects of the Middleton Place site as well as problems con­ cerning functional aspects of the past settlement as reflected in the archeological record.

Middleton Place, as a substantial plantation settlement, was an important center of social and economic activity in the South Carolina low country for over a century. As such, it should be amenable to investigation in terms of models constructed to describe and explain the operation of similar types of settlements in this and other plantation regions. This study will be organized around an anthropological model of plantation agriculture which should permit examination of Middleton Place as a functional entity within the larger plantation economy of the South Carolina low country. By approaching the study of an individual settlement in terms of a comparative context as well as in the broader historical and cultural milieu within wh~Gh it existed, it should be possible not only to clarify that settlement's role but also to explain it in terms of the operation of the larger system of which it was a part.

-1- LAKE MOULTRIE

SI.George0 L E y C' Dorchestero

"

." MIDDLETON .f (' ------'" -- ---.,.' "'-, ...-~I-~v" :--...-...----/-:;~~~~::?=\ o

c , )

5 10 Miles

FIGURE 1: Locator map of Middleton Place, Dorchester County. South Carolina.

-2- PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING

Middleton Place is situated 10 miles southeast of Summerville. South Carolina, on South Carolina Route 61, It lies in the Atlantic Lower Coastal Zone physiographic province, dominated by primary topography and made up of Cretaceous to Recent age sediments eroded from the Piedmont (Colquhoun 1969: 4-5), The sediments are water-layered and unconsolidated sands and clays underlain by marl (Miller 1971: 79), Strata cuts on the Ashley River near Runnymede, Magnolia Gardens, and Drayton Hall suggest that the sediments of the top several feet are mostly Eocene in age (Cooper Marl), with an overlying limestone of Miocene origin and a top loam of Recent age (C6ok~ 1936: 88, 114-115). The Lower Coastal Plain is crossed by a series of six terraces running, generally, parallel to the coast and separated by' scarps (Colquhoun 1969: 6). These terraces were formed by cycles of lfcontinenta1 submergence and emergence with consequent disruption in erosion-deposition" associated with glacio­ eustatic changes during the Pleistocene (Colquhoun 1969: 6). Distance above sea level (mean high tide) is the principal criterion used to identify the terraces, although there is quite a bit of altitude variation within each one. Middleton Place lies on the edge of a broad terrace ranging £:t;om abeut 20 to 40 feet abOiV'e sea level. According to the data g;f;ven by Colquhoun (1969: 7), Cooke (1936), and Miller .(1971: 74), it is on the Ta1bet terrace,dating midway between the early Pleistocene ~comico terrace and the Recent terrace.

Soils on the terrace are mostly' of the Wando-Seabrook association wi,th some belonging to the Bayboro...Wagram...0rangeburg-Quitman association. The forlIle.1,P ?l,remoderately well to excessively drained sandy soils usually found on level to gently sloping surfaces 01iller 1971: 3). The latter are well to very poerly drained loamy sand soils with an underlying l<\H3;my, to a clayey subsoil occurring on the same kind of surfaces (Miller 1971: 4). Both sotls,are derived f!t'om sediments eroded from the Piedmont and t!t'anspo!t'tedbY'streams, (Lat;f;mer, Snyder, and Van Duyne 1917: 13). The ?l,ge of both i$ probably' p1ei,stocene to Recent (Ceoke 1936: 114).

The biota of ~tdd1eton Place and its gardens can best be explained by hUlIlan inte!t';felJ7ence on the one hand and by wetlands on the other, Plants and animals, occulJ7ring naturally' in the area belong to a "coastal wetland" c~unity (United States AlJ7my 1972: 10...11), The vegetatien is mostly sWa,lIlp and bottom,land ha\pdwQ(i)ds, such as oak, tupo10 gum, bald cypress, and salt...t<1>lerant g!J:laSseS; however, upon the te't"race, loblolly pine, oak, Dald cypres-s, sweetgum" and pond pine dominate. Waterfowl and other birds in the' c.o1l1;1Il,uni;ty include ducks, gees,e, coot, he.ron, ibis, oyster catcher, mapWI haWK, os,ppey, clappe'P rail, and a JVla't'i;ety of songbirds, The American alligator i$ found ne!t'e, as a!t'e such furbea't'ing mammals as muskrat, mink

-3- and otter. Raccoons, squirrels, deer, and a variety of other mammals are also associated. The community as a whole is largely controlled by the water level of the Ashley River and any major change can have a dramatic impact upon the natural biota. As its name implies, Middleton Gardens is partly a man-made environment. In 1741 Henry Middleton began to build a garden landscaped in the formal symmetry and precise pattern of the French architect Andre Le Notre (MPRNHL!MPF 1976: 21). The classic European garden that emerged, the first in America, included sweeping terraces, butterfly lakes, alleles, ornamental canals, parterres, and other innovations. A wide variety of non-native trees and shrubs was planted in the garden. Camelias (Camellia japonica) and azaleas (Azalea idica) dominate the garden. The French botanist Andre Michaux introduced the first camelias to Middleton Place in 1786, while the azaleas were apparently introduced by the Reverend john Grimke-Drayton about 1840 (MPRNHL!MPF 1976: 31). Other plants in the garden include Japanese and native anise, mountain laure1,Daphne odora, Condederate jasmine, wisteria, Cherokee Tose, sweet olives (Osmartthus fragrans), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), American holly, tulip poplar, and many others (MPRNHL!MPF 1976).

The climatic regime o£ the area can be generally characterized as mild with well distributed rai~fa11. TempeTature highs average in the upper 80's ;tn the summer and the low 60's in the winterr, with lows about 20 degrees less. AveTage 'l;'ainfall ;ts about 50 inches a year, with 6 to 7 inches falling dU'l;'ing each of the summer months and 2 to 3 during the winter months. The growing season, as measured by the mean freeze-free period, is 266 days (near the Charleston airport). Drought is not unusual, with part;ta1 droughts occurring 1-2 times each 10 years and major droughts about twice every 50 years (kronberg 1971: 72-74).

-4- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study will look at the historical development of the Middleton Place settlement on the South Carolina low country primarily through the examination of its archeological remains. Archeology may be defined broadly as that branch of anthropology that deals with the material remains left behind by man. It seeks to expand knowledge of human behavior into situations where the latter is not directly observable. Thus, its chief goal is to understand the relationship between past behavior and the material remains left behind. Archeology has a unique ability to study behavior in that its subject matter can extend far into the past, allowing the study of both long- and short-term processes of cultural change.

The archeologist's ability to relate past behavior to material remains is based on the following set of basic assumptions, which are implicit in this report.

1. Culture may be viewed as those learned patterns of human behavior by which man adapts to his physical and social environment. Rather than a sum of traits, culture is a series of interacting componentscwhich are continually acting and reacting to one another, resulting in constant variation and change.

2. This interaction implies the existence of a system whithin which certain cultural mechanisms operate to regulate change or to main~ tain behavior within certain limits or boundaries. In order to deal with a phenomenon as complex as human culture it is necessary to adopt an approach that stresses the interrelationship of all variables in the system rather than between isolated characteristics of man and his environment (see Geertz 1963: 9-10; Buckley 1967: 41).

3. Just as human behavior may be seen as part of an interrelated system, separate activities not involving all parts of the system or all members of the society may be defined as subsy~tems. The number of subsystems increases with the level of complexity of the cultural system and concomitantly, with the degree of specialization with it (Binford 1965: 205).

4. Because behavior is rtot random, it is possible to obsexye Patterns in human activities. A recognizable structure may be seen to appear in the systemic organization of technology, economics, religion, social organization, and other specialized activitres. Changes in these patterns may be traced through time and variation in systemic structure viewed as a historical phenomenon.

5. Of crucial importance is the final assumption that the archeolo­ gical record will exhibit particular patterns reflecting those in the cultural system which produced them (Longacre 1971: 131) and will reflect temporal changes occurring in those patterns and the system. In order to

-5- understand more clearly the relationship between a living behavioral system and the material record it leaves behind, recent studies have investigated those processes governing the transfer of artifacts from the former state to the latter (Schiffer 1972, 1977).

Because the archeological record represents the by-product of past activities, our ability to interpret this record is dependent upon an understanding of those processes by which it was formed as well as those that may have affected it prior to and during its recovery. Archeologists assume that human activities are patterned; that is, the same arrangement of tools, time, and work are repeated because of underlying cultural rules about the way things should be done. Since activities often include tools and/or the modification of materials through the performance of work, it is also assumed that they are sometime reflected in the archeological record. The recognition of artifact patterns, then, is the key to reconstructing human activities. Furthermore, different patterns are assumed to reflect different activities. In a most general way that is no more than common sense, the garbage left behind in an old black­ smith shop is going to be different from that in somebody's kitchen or living room. The problem is that the pattern of a particular human activity is not so easy to identify.

People seldom just drop things where they were used, contrary to the wishes and hopes of all archeologists. Some things are, in fact,"trampled" underfoot but others are tossed outside or carried to a dump; some things are treasured and seldom, if at all, find their way into the archeological record but others have little value and are thrown away readily, over­ representing their importance; "small" things tend to be trampled into the ground close to where they were originally used, but "large" things are kicked aside or carried away from their original place of use; and so forth. All of these distui;bances make it difficult to recognize a pattern that could be used to identify and reconstruct ancient or not so ancient human acitvities, and problems of diffe!1~ntial preservation and natural disturbances make it even more difficult. ' Consequently, mistakes of identification are easily made; garbage can lie (see Schiffer 1976). Verification, then, is no less a problem to archeologists than to historians working with the documentary record.

Schiffer (1976: 14-16) defines two kinds of processes that affect the "transformation" of human activities into the archeological record: cultural and natural. Both have played a role in the formation of the archeological record at Middleton Place. Discard, loss, and abandonment are the three cultural processes most likely to be involved. Briefly, discard is the deposition of waste material. It may accumulate at its location of use as primary refuse or be deposited elsewhere as secondary refuse (Schiffer 1976: 30-31). Secondary deposition may vary in terms of distance from the location of use depending upon the size and nature of the material deposited (South 1977: 179). Loss involves the inadvertent deposition of items and may vary with the object's size, portability, and function (Schiffer 1976: 32-33). Finally, the process of abandonment is the accumulation of artifacts that remain in a given area following its abandonment. Abandoned material may include the de facto refuse of production or habitation that is left behind because it is inefficient or impossible to remove it to a new site (Schiffer 1976: 33-34). An important

-6- type of abandonment refuse is architectural in nature, consisting not only of standing remains but also material that has accumulated·as the result of the construction, repair, or demolition of structures (Green 1961: 53). Abandonment may also modify other cultural formation processes such as discard, resulting in the development of refuse disposal patterns different than those associated with an act;ivity area still in use (Schiffer 1976: 33; South 1977: 61).

-7- THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIDDLETON PLACE SETTLEMENT

IntY'oduC!tion

The Middleton Place site constitutes a portion of a larger plantation property that for over two centuries has occupied a position on the west bank of the Ashley River. During this time the settlement there has varied in function in response to changes in the socio-economic milieu of which it was apart. Such change is typical of many of the plantations in this region and reflects the operation of similar adaptive processes through time. Many of these processes are characteristic of plantations as a settlement form in general and may be investigated through the use of cOlnparative IIl0

The BaC!kgY'ound of BY'itish CoZonization

Plantation settlement in the South Carolina low country developed in response to the colony's role in the European "world economy" of the eighteenth century. Wallerstein (1974: 7) has suggested this term to characterize the system within which the European nations of the post­ medieval period participated because of the particular nature of its organization. In this system individual nation-states were tied together by a web of mutual interdependence. The self-contained development of the worl~ economy likens it to an empire, but its capitalistic economic mode, based on the fact that the economic factors operated within an arena larger than any political entity could completely control, prevented domination by a single nation. This situation gave capitalist entre­ prenuers a structurally-based freedom of manuever and allowed a continual expansion of the world economy (Wallerstein 1974:348). The role of commercial forces in the initiation of British colonization in Scotland, Ireland, and America is well known. The flexibility of privately­ organized, economically-oriented ventures proved the key to the success­ ful establishment of many early sustained British colonial settlements (MacLeod 1928; Cheyney 1961; Rowse 1957).

Of particular significance to a discussion of British colonial North America is the nature of the relationship between an expanding world system and those areas outside its boundaries. Because of the system's economic orientation this relationship is largely one of exchange. This exchange is of two types: (a) that involving trade with external areas dominated by other world systems and (b) that with areas inside the system's own periphery. The latter consists of

-8- I. ••• that geographical area .•• wherein produdiion is primarily of low-ranking goods (that is, goods whose labor is less-well rewarded) but which is an integral part of the overall system of the division of labor, because the commodities involved are essential for daily use (Wallerstein 1974: 302).

Exchange between the periphery and the "core" states at the center of the system tends to have a "vertical specialization" involving the movement of raw materials from the former to the latter and the movement of manufactured goods and services in the opposite direction (Gould 1972: 235-236). Such was the case in much of colonial North America, especially in the agricultural South (Sellers 1934: 302).

One of the institutions best adapted to carrying out the task of commercial agricultural production in frontier areas is the plantation, which is essentially a capitalistic agriculturalventu~ei~ntendedto produce staples on a large scale for a substantial non-domestic market (Wagley and Harris 1955: 435). The competition of agricultural staples for suitable land, labor supplies, and markets favors the location of plantations so as to minimize cost while maximizing access to markets. These conditions would be found on the periphery of a world economic system where native resources could be cheaply exploited to obtain raw commodities that could then be shipped directly from a colonial entrepot to markets in the parent state (Thompson 1959: 29-30).

In the early years of the eighteenth century settlement in the British colony of South Carolina was primarily confined to the coast and soon evolved into a planta1!ion economy centered around the port of Charleston. This port, provided a direct link to the metropolitan area of Great Britain as well as to other British colonial ports in the New World. Its location at the mouth of the Cooper River greatly facilitated the emergence of a plantation economy on the ~ower Coastal Plain and it served as a collecting point for colonial export commodities and a redistribution center for imported commercial goods and plantation slaves (Sellers 1934: 5). In addition to supplying its own inland settlements, Charleston developed as a re-export center for the West Indies (Earle and Hoffman 1976: 17). Not only was Charleston the focus of the coastal plantation economy but it also served as the terminus of the British Indian trade in the Southeast (Crane 1929: 108).

The earliest coastal settlement in South Carolina was confined to the area between th~ Santee and Edisto Rivers and centered on Charleston. Early land allotments were made along the rivers and tidal inlets, for these watercour~es offered the easiest means of trade and communication with the entrepot as well as some protection against hostile Indian attack (Petty 1943: 23). The first expansion of settlement inland from Charleston took place along the Ashley River, particularly along its west bank where lands were granted as early as the 1670's (Smith 1915). Among the lands granted during the colony's first decade of existence were those that were later to comprise Middleton Place.

-9- MiddZeton PZaae in the CoZoniaZ and AntebeZZum Periods

The site of Middleton Place was included in a 764 acre grant issued to Jacob Waight in 1675 on.the south side of the Ashley River. It was bounded on the west by Jacob's Creek (SCRSSLGCS/38: 9). This land was apparently abandoned or disposed of, for in 1699/1700, 600 acres of it were granted to Richard Godfrey (SCRSSLGCS/38: 380), from whom it passed to John Williams in 1729.

Williams was a large landowner who had acquired 200 acres of a grant on the south side of the Ashley prior to 1712. On the basis of comparative map evidence, Smith (1919: 116) has placed this tract adjacent to the Godfrey property. In 1725, Williams also acquired 825 acres that had been Peter Bacot's property and which bounded on the west of Godfrey's land. This holding of over 1600 acres passed to Williams' daughter Mary upon his death and following her marriage to Henry Middleton in 1741, it became a Middleton residence (Smith 1919: 118).

Henry Middleton I was the son of Arthur Middleton 1, a wealthy lanq~wner and former governor of the province. Henry inherited estates in South Carolina, England and Barbadoes. He owned 20 plantations in South Carolina alone, totalling over 50,000 acres and possessed 800 slaves. In addition to managing these activiti~s he was politically active, having been a member and speaker of the prOvincial Commons House of Assembly, a member of His Majesty's CounCil, a delegate to and president of the first Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety, ane. a member of the Continental Congress (Cheves 1900: 239-240).

Although Henry Middleton owned other properties, he made his wife's Ashley River estate his principal residence. He may have modified the existing mansion there and added two dependencies in 1755. He employed an English landscape architect to layout terraces and formal gardens adjacent to the main house complex (Redfield 1978: 104). Unfortunately there is little available documentary information describing either Middleton Place or the activities carried out there during Henry's residence. A 1753 "poetical essay" mentions the Middleton seats but notes only that such an estate "would make a good figure in England" (Gentleman's Magazine 1753: 337). The major agricultural product at the time was rice, which had become the primary money crop in the South Carolina low country in the second decade of the eighteenth century (G~~ 1932: 56). Henry Middleton I died in 1784 and was succeeded by his eldest son Arthur.

Arthur Middleton II inherited Middleton Place from his father along with other tracts in South Carolina (CCROPJW/1783-1786!A: 345). Like his father, Arthur pursued political interests. He was elected to the provincial Commons House of Assembly and to the Provincial Congress. Prior to the American Revolution he was a leader of the American party in South Carolina and a member of the Council of Safety. Arthur succeeded his father as a delegate to the Continential Congress and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. After the war he served in the United States Congress and the state legislature. Arthur Middleton died in 1787.

-10- It is uncertain. ~ how long Arthur Middleton was actually in residence at Middleton Place or what innovation his ownership of the estate may have brought. Rice remained the main cash crop, and it may have been dur~ng this time that the tidal marshes adjacent to the Ashley River were first utilized for its cultivation. Prior to the Revolution most rice had been cultivated in inland swamps or fields adjacent to freshwater streams where water could be impounded and applied to the fields; however, efforts to expand production in the 1780's led to the development of a more efficient method of cultivation which utilized the tidal action of the rivers to flood the fields (Hilliard 1975: 58). Middleton Place plantation contains two large tidal rice fields that comprise over 1/3 of its total frontage on the Ashley River (Fig. 2), and a pond and rice mill are situated near these fields. Although it is not known if these features date from the time of Arthur's residence, the mention of tidal rice fields there in 1786 (Castiglion,~ 1790: 233-234) suggests that the innovation had been adopted prior to his death.. Arthur's inventory reveals that the work force at Middleton Place consisted of 50 slaves in 1793 (CCROPJI/ 1783-1797: 499).

The earliest account of the actual plantation buildings was made during Arthur's residence by Luigi Castiglione, a touring Italian nobleman who visited Middleton Place in 1786. It describes the main residence as a three storied structure with the design of an antique castle. A wi~g was situated on either side to create a symetrical arrangement of buildings (Castiglion~ 1790: 234).

During Arthur's time a substantial addition to the family holding was made with the inheritance of the large Cedar Grove plantation directly across the river by his wife Mary Izard Middleton in 1782. It remained Middleton property until 1820 (Smith 1919: 40). Following Arthur's death she purchased the adjacent Ashley Hill plantation, but owned it only briefly (Smith 1919: 114).

Henry Middleton II, Arthur's heir, inherited Middleton Place together with the family's Newport estates and apparently divided his time between these and his travels in Europe (Cheves 1900: 245). His mother continued to reside at Middleton Place (Smith 1919: 119). Henry also followed a pOlitical career, serving as state representative, senator, and governor from 1801 to 1812, United States Congressman from 1816 to 1820, and then Minister to Russia until 1830 (Cheves 1900: 246). He then retired to Middleton Place and died there in 1846, leaving the property to his younger son, Williams (CCROPJW/1845-1851/K: 32).

A general description of Middleton Place was written during Henry's early ownership by the Duke de la Rochefoucault-Liancourt who visited the plantation in 1798. He wrote:

The outbuildings, such as kitchen, wash-house, and offices, are very capacious. The ensemble of these buildings calls to recollection the ancient English country seats. The rooms in the house are small, and the outside, as well as the inside is badly kept ••.. The garden is beautiful, but kept in the same manner as the house; the soil is very bad, ..• (Smith 1919: 119).

-11- FIGURL 2: Vertical aerial view of Middleton Place in 1938. The Ashley River lies to the east of the rice fields which occupy the floodplain below the plantatjon settlement and gardens (Source: u. S. Department of Agriculture 1938).

-12- During Henry's restdence the g~:rdens at Middleton Place were maintained and enlarged. HIs garden notes made between 1800 and 1838 reveal experi­ mentation with over 200 varieties of plants there (MFP!1-6). Andre Michaux, the French botanist, made frequent visits to Middleton Place during his travels in the United States in the late eighteenth century and himself introduced many of the rare plants found there (Smith 1919: 120).

Rice remained the major money crop at Middleton Place as it did on other family plantations during Henry's lifetime and was cultivated by a portion of the 123 slaves he maintained there (MCPSC!SGDP!CD!1820: 62).

MiddZeton PZaae in Transition

Williams Middleton inherited Middleton Place in 1846 and resided there until the American Civil War. During the period immediately pre­ ceding the war he was active in the secession movement, as a member of the Secession Convention and a signer of the Ordinance of Secession. He lived in Charleston and at Middleton Place following the war and died in Greenville, South Carolina in 1883 (Cheves 1900: 251).

For the period of Williams' residence we have the most complete record of events at Middleton Pl~ce. The following description of the antebellum plantation was made by Nathaniel Russell }1iddleton, Jr. (1929: 153) in his- later years.

As you approach the place on the road, a gateway set in a serili­ circular brick wall opened on. the lawn, across which, a third of ami.le back, stO\'1ld the house, a three story brick structure with a smaller brick building of two stories on either side, which, although not joined to the house, presented the effect of wings. In these were the library on one side, laundry and additional bedrooms on the other. As one entered the gate, the lawn was flanked by rows of oak and beech trees, and as the house was approached, the outbuildings appeared to the right, while on the left, behind a wire fence, extended the ornamental grounds and gardens and artificial ponds. The shrubbery extended around the front of the house, descending to the river in a series of fine terraces •••• The estate was an extensive one, about seven miles long by three wide.

In Febpuary 1865, Federal tX00PS looted the plantation and burned the main hous·e, the two dependencies, the stable, the barn, and S0me slave houses (Fig. 3). The slave houses, located on the hill south of the mill pond, however, were not disturbed (John Drayton to Williams Middleton June 2, 1965!MFP!7-2).

Following the destruction of the residence, Middleton Place was temporarily abandoned by its owner and was for a while rented to a "Yankee Captain" (Williams Middleton to E1izaM. Fisher and J. Francis Fishex!March 1, 1866!MFP/8-3), during which time the garden became over-

-13- FIGURE 3: Ruins of the main house and northern dependency in 1865 looking northwest. These ruins were levelled by the earthquake of 1886 (Photo courtesy Middleton Place Foundation).

-14- . , FIGURE 5: The west face of the southern dependency after its conversion to a residence in 1871. The date of the photograph is unknown (Photo courtesy Middleton Place Foundation).

-16- FIGURE 6: The Southern dependency residence with the "pagoda" porch mentioned in 1879 (Photo courtesy Middleton Place Foundation).

• -17- " grown and plants were removed by Federal officials who visited the site (Williams Middleton to J. Francis Fisher/April 21, 1866/MFP/8-3). In 1867, w~ile still. 1...~.ving in Ch~rlEH3t;()n" ~illiams began rebuild~l1~ the plantatwn. He ret~~fed the r~c@m111.(Fig. 4) and had two servants' houses constructed ~Williams Middleton to Eliza M. Fisher/March 10, 1967!MFP!8-9), and ~egan the repair and conversion of the southern dependency into a r~sidence .for his family (Edward Middleton to Williams Middleton/June 6, 1~67/MFP/8-10). The move to the rebuilt house did not take place until th~ sunnner of fall of 1871 (Williams Middleton to Henry Middleton/April 15, 11871/MFP /l1-:,J) , although the construction work was still not completed I(Susan Pringle Middleton to Henry Middleton/November 25, 1871/MFP/12-12).! By February of the following year the house was nearly finished (Su an Pringle Middleton to Henry Middleton/February 2, l872/MFP/13-2) (Fig. 5). In the 1870's a "pagoda" porch had been added to the extension bu·lt on the front of the house (Fig. 6) (Henry Middleton to Susan Pringle Mi dleton/May 25, l879/MFP/2l-5). During this time the springhouse (Fig. 4) was reroofed and floored (John 1. Middleton to Williams Middleton/ eptember 11, 1876/MFP/17-4) and a wire fence was erected around the ouse and outbuildings (Susan Pringle Middleton to Henry Middleton/Aug st 24, l875/MFP/16~5). Work on the house and gardens continued through ~e 1870's (Williams Middleton to Susan Pringle Middleton/M.arch 10, l8.. 7..• 8MF.. P/19.-.3. ).' and tax reo cords indicate the planta\tion grew from 9 buildin s in 1875 (A. C. Shaffer to Williams Middleton/ February 25, 1875/ P16-l) to 16 in 1881 (J. D. Edwards to Williams Middleton/Hay 16, l8l!MFP/23-l0). ! Williams appar~ntly was no longer in residence at Middleton Place by late 1880. His ~ubsequent removal to Greenville and Summerville is reflected in his co~respondence (Susan Pringle Middleton to Williams Middleton/June 11, ~88l/WMP), and his absence from the 1880 census for St. George Dorchest~rParish. ! During William~ Middleton's ownership the plantation underwent radical change as a \result of the economic effects of the Civil War and the abolition of sl~ery. Prior to the war Middleton Place was primarily an agricultural ope~ation. The 1850 census reveals that the plantation was producing a cas~ crop of 45,000 pounds of rice annually and lesser amounts of corn, oatiS, peas and beans, sweet potatoes, and hay (MCASC/ SGDP/CD/1850: 494-495). Cotton was also grown in the marsh fields at least during some y~ars (Williams Middleton to Eliza M. Fisher/April 16, l853/MFP/5-7). Mid~leton Place plantation maintained a herd of 1,000 cattle as well as 1010 milk cows, 300 sheep, 200 hogs, and three working oxen. In addition, ~illiams Middleton had imported 11 water buffaloes, presumably as exper~ental beasts of burden (Williams Middleton to W. D. Clancy/November 29, !1870/MFP/IO-13). The plantation was worked by 116 slaves at this time !1(MCPSC/SS/SGDP/CD/1850). By 1860 rice production was 210,000 pounds,annually with some in6.rease in the amounts of other crops produced and numbers of !livestock maintained (MCASC/SGDP/CD/1860: 529-530). The production of ~ubstantial quantities of food crops in addition to the cash crop of ~ice, the annual slaughter of a sizable number of livestock, and an absence of accounts for the purchase of substantial amounts of provisions suggest that Middleton Place was largely self-sufficient in terms of foodstuffs.

-18- Production of rice continued during the Civil War, at least as late as 1863 (Williams Middleton to Susan Pringle Middleton/September 11, 1863/ WMP). Much of the labor force from Middleton Place, however, was often diverted to construction projects for the Confederate government later in the war, and this undoubtedly had the effect of curtailing production on the plantation (T. B. Burnett to Williams Middleton/October 28, 1864/ MFP/6-ll). Livestock were also sold off during the war (Williams Middleton, Account/April 8, l863/MFP/6-6), and those animals that remained were taken by the Federal army in 1865' (A.C. Anderson to Williams Middleton/ July l865/MFP/3-7).

Attempts were made to cultivate rice, cotton, and corn after the war (Williams Middleton to Eliza M. Fisher/April 14, l867/MFP/8-9), but these appear to have been largely unsucce$sful. The 1870 census reveals the extent to which the war had curtailed' agriculturalproductw.on at Middleton Place. Rice, so long the staple crop, is entirely absent. Small amounts of corn and cotton were the only crops reported that year and only eight head of livestock were present (MCPSC/SGDP/Cn/1870: 3-4). Sheep, although not reported in 1870, were maintained at Middleton Place until 1880 (Williams Middleton to Susan Pringle Middleton/April 28, l880/MFP/22-4), and cattle were kept there as late as 1884 (Williams Middleton, Inventory/ January 18, lES4/CoCROPJI).

In the absence of a salable agricultural commodity, Williams Middleton turned to the heretofore unexploited mineral deposits on his land. In the immediate post-war period phosphate deposits on the Ashley River were beginning to be commercially mined as a source of fertilizer (Antisell 1869: 74-75). As early as 1868 phosphate was being excavated on Middleton property and Williams had become a partner in the Ashley Mining and Phosphate Company during the two years of its existence (John I. Middleton to Williams Middleton October 11, l870/MFP/lO-12). The following year four tracts of Ashley River property were leased for phosphate mining (Williams Middleton to Thomas C. Davies/June 8, l87l/MFP/11-5) and 10 years later contracted with another party to mine phosphate on Middleton property (Williams Middleton to Julien Fishburne/February 8, l88l/MFP! 23-7). It is uncertain how late phosphate was mined at Middleton Place; however, the operation continued at least as late as 1915 (Elizabeth M. Heyward/July 6, 19l5/GCRPJW/250/6).

In addition to phosphate, lumbering became a significant economic activity at Middleton Place after the Civil War. During the war lumber and railroad ties had been furnishedfor~t:he'Confederate government. Bennett to Williams Middleton/October 28, l864/MFP/6-ll). Within a year after the cessation of hostilities a saWmill was being erected on the' plantation (Williams Middleton to J. Francis Fisher/April 1, l866/MFP/ 8-3) ,and by 1871 leases had been granted to cut timber on Middleton property (W. H. Bartless to Williams Middleton/Nay 9, l87l!MFP/11-4). Lumbering continued there at least into the early twentieth century (Elizabeth M. Heyward to United Timber Co., Deed/CCRMC/23: 256; DCRMC/ 6: 165).

Upon Williams' departure in 1880 Middleton Place was abandoned as a family residence. The Charleston earthquake of 1886 caused damage to the property, demolishing the standing ruins of the main house and north

-19- dependency (Dutton 1889; 295), d;pa,;i:n;i:ng the ponds, and damaging the terraces. The resto;ped ;pes;i:dence, howeve;r;, remained intact (MPRNHL/ MPF 1976: 11). Willi:amsM:;i:ddleton d;i:ed intestate in 1883 and the plantation passed to his wife Susan P'ringleMidd1eton and his two children Henry and Elizabeth. Upon Susan Middleton's death in 1900, also intestate, her chi1d'ren inheried the property (Julius H. Heyward to J. J. Pringle Smith, Deedl'March 20, 1916/DCRMC). Three years later Henrrso1d his portion of the estate to his sister (June 22, 1903/CCRMC/F/24: 194,196; DCR;MC!4: 518,520). When Elizabeth Middleton Heyward died in 1915, she left Middleton Place to her husband Julius H. Heyward until his death OT remarri:agewhen it was to pass to her cousin J. J. Pringle Smith (J'Uly 6, 1915/FCRPJ/250(6). The following year Heyward sold the estate to Smith (March 20, 1916/DCRMC), who subsequent1ym,oved back to Middleton Place and began restoring the residence and gal:'dens there (Red£ield1978~110). In 1937 he added a brick stableyal:'d and guest house (presently a restaurant) on the south side of the residence and it'emoved a number of frame structures bel;i:eved tli> have been bullt fol10w:i:ng the Civil War (~igs. 7 and 8) (News and Courier, April 12, 19371.

Following Smith's death :i;n 1970 the plantati0n became the 'Middleton Place Regi:ste;pedHls,tori:c La,ndmaTk, Inc. under the management of Charles Duell. The/M::t.ddleton Place FO'Undation was cTeatedin 1975 to oversee the ;pesto'Fa,tion of the !j7es;i:dence and t(i}c(\lnductl:'esearch pertaining to pa,s:t l;i:fewaY'S' a,t

-20- -- I

FIGURE 7: Map of structures at Middleton Place prior to the construction of the guesthouse and stableyard complex in 1937 (Source: John McCrady Co. 1936).

-21- I

FIGURE 8: Map of structures lying within the sample area at Middleton Place following the 1937 construction (Source: LaFarge 1936).

-22- THFLAJ?r;]£EQfOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Introduction

The investigations conducted at Middleton Place in 1978 constituted the initial archeological exploration of this site. As such, the information that they yield is intended to be of a basic nature, relating to the site as a unit rather than focusing upon its individual parts. The archeological investigations were designed to explore the site as that both of a particular plantation and as a representative of a larger class of plantation settlement that existed in the antebellum South Carolina low country.

The first portion of the archeological analysis will be concerned with the identification of the site as a portion of the settlement at Middleton Place plantation. Although documentary data regarding this settlement are relatively scarce, it sh~uld be possible to determine particular characteristics recognizable in the archeological record that will establish the site's position in time and space and thus demon­ strate its affinity to the plantation settlement described in the written sources.

The remainder of the discussion will be concerned with the site as that of a particular type of settlement. On the basis of comparative evidence a model of plantation settlement may be constructed. Based on this model a number of general functional characteristics that should be discernible archeologically'will be examined. Because documentary evidence indicates that Middleton Place was a plantation, it is likely that evidence of this function will be observable in the archeological record there.

The exploration of the Hiddleton Place site as an individual settlement and as an example of a broader settlement type should permit us to gain information relating to both formal and functional aspects of its past occupations. This information, in turn, should identify those aspects of the site's past about which least is known and help formulate meaning­ ful questions that may be pursued in the future. As such, the results of the initial phase of archeology can serve as the basis for further research intended to explore particular problems of interest and facilitate the interpretation of the site.

MethodoZoaicaZ Framework

The archeological investigations at Middleton Place were designed to examine a large portion of the site and to discover behaviorally significant material patterning within it. In the discovery phase of investigation it is possible to recognize only broad patterning in the archeological record. Consequently, questions to be asked at this point

-23- must deal with phenomena that relate to general behavioral variables and may not seek to elicit information concerning specific aspects of the past settlement.

The discovery phase of archeology at Middleton Place required the use of an exploration technique designed to gather a representative sample of the archeological materials distributed over the area to be surveyed. In order to achieve maximum dispersal of the sample units within this area a stratified systematic unaligned sampling technique was chosen (Haggett 1966: 196-198). Redman and Watson (1970: 281-282) have suggested that this technique is the best for revealing overall artifact patterning because it prevents the clustering of sample units and assures that no parts of the survey area are left unsamp1ed. It is capable of discovering patterning in the archeological record occurr1ng both at regular and irregular intervals. It accomplished this by dividing the area to be sampled into a series of square units (strata) based upon the coordinates of the site grid and then sampling a smaller unit within each stratum. The positions of the smaller units are determined by the intersection of coordinates selected along both axes of the grid from a random numbers table. The relative sizes of the units involved determine the percentage of the site area sampled. Naturally the greater the size of the sample the more reliable will be the results; however, the difficulty of enlarging the sample increases in direct proportion to the size of the site.

The portion of Middleton Place sampled lies directly to the south of the formal gardens that occupy the high terrace on the west bank of the Ashley River (Fig. 9). The sample was designed to examine an area above the terrace between the gardens and the mill pond. This area is situated south and east of the circular drive in front of the present residence and extends westward to the western boundary of the modern stab1eyard. The L-shaped sample area is 600 feet from north to south and measures 450 feet from east to west and encompasses 137,500 square feet. A sample of 1% of the site contents was recovered at Middleton Place. It consisted of 55 pits 5 x 5 foot, each of which was excavated within a larger 50 x 50 foot square (Fig. 9).

In order to maintain horizontal control for the excavations a grid system of 50 x 50 foot squares was superimposed over the entire site. All points were measured north and east along two axes from a single datum point located south and west of the site. This point was designated North 0, East O. Excavated units were identified by the coordinates in the southwest corner of each pit. To take advantage of the axis upon which the gardens and standing ruins were laid out, the entire grid was offset 8.5 degrees east of north. Vertical control was maintained with a transit, measuring all elevations above mean sea level from a datum established in an earlier survey (John McCrady Co. 1936).

The content of excavated units were screened utilizing mechanical sifters ~dth 1/4 x 1/4 inch hardware cloth mesh. All units were dug by natural stratigraphy. Subsurface archeological features discovered in the excavations were explored extensively only when it appeared certain that they would be contained entirely within the sample unit or when excavation would hot damage the integrity of a larger feature. All

-24- + ~+ I o I I . NORTH DEPENDJNCY 2. MAIN HOUSE 9 + + 3. SOUTH I 4. PRIVY DEPENDEjNCY

5. GIFT SHOP I 6. RESTAURANT I CRAFT AND I' 8.1. STA8LES EXH 81T BLDG.

9. SERVANTS' ~ 10. CARRIAGE QUA TERS II. GRAVEYAR~OUS ,

I + + +

I 0 I 0 + + + +1 + + + + + : I 0 I o o 0 0 0 I + + + + + t ~+ 0+ + I o 0 I o I 0 I 0 0 [II N5300-' "+ I +! + + I + + TI=I + + i o 0 O! I 0 1 o ! o "N2iO-- + + + +1 + d- + I 01 o o + I + +

.:1150-

I I I I , I I I I I .sooo .""" .""" ."zoo ...." .."'" ..,.. ..- ....., ......

.F:ICURE 9: Plan of 1978 excavat". l.ons at Hidd1eton Place.

-25- features not excavated were exposed, recorded, and sealed in order to protect them until complete excavation, if desired, could be accomplished during a later phase of excavations at Middleton Place.

The Condition of the Site

The Middleton Place site is situated between the Ashley River and U.S. Highway 61 and encompasses at least 100 acres. It contains several landscape features from earlier times. These include the brick rice mill near the river, the brick spring house, the present residence and the two clusters of brick ruins lying just north of it, a frame privy, the circular driveway leading into the site from Highway 61, the Middleton family tomb, the rice and mill ponds, and the extensive gardens and terraces (Fig. 4). While these surface features permit one to ascertain the basic form of the site, they provide few clues as to where other structures or activity areas may have been located. The discovery and interpretation of the latter is dependent upon an analysis of the archeo~ logical data alone which, in turn, is affected by the condition of the site. The site's condition is largely reflected in its physical structure.

The key to interpreting the physical structure of the site is stratigraphy because it reveals not only the nature of the site in the past but also provides a record of changes that have taken place up to the present. The stratigraphic record at Middleton Place reflects both the natural processes of pedogenesis and human activities. Dominant soils are fine sands and fine loamy sands originating in sediments eroded from the Piedmont and the Appalachian Mountains and transported by streams to this area. An early classification has defined these soils as belonging to the Norfolk group (Latimer, et aL 1917: 13-14), a broad category used for a wide range of soils on-the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Amore recent survey in neighboring Charleston County suggests that the Norfolk soils on Middleton Place are part of the loamy fine sand Wando Series (Miller 1971: 30). Test pit N5360, E5240 provides a typical profile:

Stratum 1 (A Horizon)-t;.5 feet t.hiGk;light brC';lwn,ish gray (lOYR, 612) loamy fine sa,nd; single-grain; bose to very friable.

Stratum 2 (ClHorizon) - 0.4 ;feet thj:ck; brown (7.5YR 5/4) loamy fine sand;, single-grain; loose.

Stratum 3 (C2 Horizon) - 0.5 feet plus thick; very pale brown (10YR 8/4) to pale brown (lOYR 6/3) with few­ mottles; single-grain;, loose.

Soils of this series are distributed primarily on· the high terrace upon which the house complex sets. Dropping off the terrace toward the east and the south is associated with a shift toward more loamy soils with a distinct B horizon and an underlying sandy clay C horizon. Soils with these characteristics belong to the Wagra,~ Series in the Cha,rleston County

-26- survey (Miller 1971: 30) but are classified as Ruston Fine Sandy Loam in the earlier soil survey of Dorchester County (Latimer, et al. 1917: 24). Test pit N5130, F5315 has a typical Wagram Series profile:

Stratum 1 '(A Horizon) - 0.4 to 0.7 feet thick; light brownish-gray (lOYR 6/2) loamy fine sand; single-grain; loose to very friable.

Stratum 2 (B Horizon) - 0.1 to 0.6 feet thick; pale brown (lOYR 613) sandy clay loam; granular structure; hard.

Stratum 3 (C Horiqpn) ~ 0.5 + feet thick; yellow (lOYR 7/8) sandy clay; massive; hard.

The B horizon is not always present, however, and there is considerable mixing of Wagram Series and Wando Series soils on the eastern and southern boundaries of the excavated area at Middleton Place.

Human activities have had a dramatic impact upon the stratigraphy of a few places. Recent filling of the slope south of the restaurant, for example, is responsible for the following profile of test pit N5075, E5335:

Stratum 1 - 0.3 feet thick; light brownish-gray (lOYR 6/2) loamy fine sand; single-grain; loose to very friable.

Stratum 2 - 1.0 feet thick; gray (lOYR 6/1) clay; massive; plastic.

Stratum 3 - 0.9 feet thick; (lOYR 6/1) fine sand; single-grain; loose.

Stratum 4 - 0.05 feet thick; dark brown (lOYR 3/3) loam; single­ grain; friable.

Stratum 5 -0.5 +- feet thick; white (lOYR 8/1) fine sand; single­ grain; loose.

This is a Wando Series soil with three different kinds of fill over top. The fill was introduced in order to counter continual erosion off the slope into the pond at the bottom. Another kind of human modification that may have both recent and earlier origins is the preparation of roadbeds by the addition of clay fill. Test pit N5365, E5195 west of the guest dependency is typical:

Stratum 1 - 0.35 feet thick; grayish-brown (lOYR 5/2) loamy fine sand mixed with a heavy concentration of gravel and mortar fragments; single-grained; loose to very friable but the gravel content makes the stratum extremely compact.

Stratum 2 - 0.30 feet thick; grayish-brown (lOYR 5/2) loamy fine sand; single-grained; loose towery friable.

-27- Stratum 3 - 0.40 feet thick; yellow (lOYR 7/8) sandy clay; massive; hard.

Stratum 4 (A Horizon) - 0.30 feet; grayish-brown (lOYR 5/2) loamy fine sand; single-grained; loose to very friable.

Stratum 5 (C Horizon) - 0.50 + feet thick; white (lOYR 8/1) fine sand; few mottles; single-grained; loose.

This pit

The MiddZeton PZace Site: Its Position in Time and Space

Intpo(luction

Based on documentary evidence and the presence of remnant landscape features, it is clear that the area investigated lies within the bounds of Middleton Place plantation and is situated near the standing ruins of the colonial and antebellum main house complex there. Although documents reveal the past occupants of Middleton Place and the temporal s~an of their residence, these records are virtually silent regarding the actual layout and composition of the plantation and provide almost no information about the size, form, and nature of its past occupations. In order to determine the extent to which the materials recovered in the archeological investigations pertain to the early plantation, it is necessary to demonstrate that they were generated by a settlement whose temporal and spatial limits conform to those of the plantation's past occupations. It will also be necessary to establish that the cultural affinity of the site's occupants was the same as that of the past inhabitants of Middleton Place pl~ntation.

The requirements of space, time, and ethnicity may be explored through the analysis of particular classes of artifacts that are sensitive to these variables. These questions may be approached int~rms of several hypotheses that are amenable to archeological analysis. These hypotheses may be summarized as follows:

1) The archeological evidence should reveal the presence of two principal ethnic groups that occupied Middleton Place during the col{)nialam:lanteb~Ht1mpe:fiods,th~ British colonists and their decendents who owned and managed the plantation and persons of

-28- African descent who comprised the labor force.

2) The temporal range of the Middleton Place site should reflect the heavy plantation occupation dating from.before 1741 to 1865 as well as lighter post-war residence occupations.

3) The area of most intensive plantation period occupation should lie to the south and southwest of the main house complex as suggested in written sources.

Ihthe remainder of this section each of these hypotheses will be examined in terms of the archeological data obtained from the site. The results of this anslysis should demonstrate the relationship between these material remains and Middleton Place plantation.

The Cultu:r>al AffiUation of the Settlement

Documentary evidence indicates that the site of Middleton Place was owned by British colonists as early as the fourth quarter of the seventeenth century and was occupied by their descendents throughout its existence as a working plantation. As Englishmen, they would have carried with them the cultural traditions of Great Britain. As part of the British colony of South Carolina the settlement was enmeshed in an economic system that restricted colonial trade in favor of its home industries. Because most of the colony's imports consisted of manufactured goods made in or re­ exported through the homeland, the archeological record produced by settlements in the colony should reflect the use of an abundance of British products. Great Britain continued to playa major role in supplying industrial goods to its former North American colonies in the nineteenth century and their occurrence together with American-made products is characteristic in post-colonial settlements in the United States.

The majority of the inhabitants of the plantation were of African origin. As slaves or low-status free persons, the Negro population of coastal South Carolina far outnumbered the Europeans residing there (Petty 1943: 45). In Colleton District, where Middleton Place was situated, Negroes constituted over 82% of the total population in 1790 and had declined only to about 78% by the eve of the Civil War. In 1890 black persons still accounted for over 65% of the county's residents (United States Census 1790-1890). Although living within the British colonial system, their low status and separate ethnicity are likely to have placed Negroes outside the realm of many elements of its material culture, a condition that continued after American independence (Blassingame 1972: 159-160). For this reason it is also likely that distinctive artifacts would have been produced by or for them, perhaps employing recognizable African attributes, and that the presence of such artifacts would be characteristic of British colonial and post-colonial plantation settlements in Nortq America.

Perhaps the clclss of artifact that best reflects ethnicity is ceramics, an item recovered in quantity in the excavations at Middleton Place. Ceramics are especially useful in archeological studies because their composition and method of manufacture lend them to wide variation

-29- in form (Shepard 1956: 334) and their fragile nature seems to insure a continual deposition in the archeological record.

By the mid-eighteenth century Great Britain was undergoing a rapid change in manufacturing technology characterized by rapid innovation and increasing industrialization (Clow and Clow 1958: 328-329). This not only resulted in the proliferation of British goods, including ceramics, but also enhanced the ability of these products to compete with those of other Eur~pean countries on the international market. Industrialization in ceram1cmanufacturing even led to the decline of some foreign industries, most notably French faience (Haggar 1968: 165).

The commercial expansion of Great Britain in the eighteenth century brought an increase in the amount of foreign goods shipped through British ports (Darby 1973: 381). Although the re-export of foreign ceramics, for the most part Oriental porcelains (Noel Hume 1970: 257), was also carried out by other European states, it was Great Britain that came to dominate this trade in the eighteenth century (Mudge 1962: 7-8). These together with large quantities of German and Flemish stonewares were re-exported into Britain's North American colonies (Noel Hume 1970: 141). The extensive nature of British trade coupled with the importation of se~e~ted foreign goods into her colonies is likely to have resulted in the use of these foreign wares as an integral part of British ceramic material culture.

Following independence British ceramics continued to dominate the American market and did so for most of the nineteenth century (Laidacker 1954/1: 67; Fontana and Greenleaf 1962: 93), although French porcelains had begun to be imported prior to 1850 (Wood 1951: 25) and the American pottery industry was slowly expanding.

It is likely that the archeological record generated by a British colonial settlement will be characterized by imported artifacts that reflect both the industrialization of English ceramic manufacturing in the eighteenth century as well as the re-exportation of foreign ceramics within the British colonial system. British ceramics are also expected to dominate American settlements of the nineteenth century.

The first test implication for the site's cultural affiliation predicts that the Old World ceramics representing the colonial period occupation at Middleton Place will be of British origin and that contem~ porary wares of competing colonial powers, namely France and Spain, will not be present. Subsequent occupations should also be characterized by British ceramics and may include some later American or foreign wares.

Secondly, the eighteenth century revolution in the British ceramics industry resulted in a dramatic increase in technological innovation and a proliferation in the variety of ceramics manufactured. This diversity should be reflected in a great number of ceramic types present in the archeological record of the Middleton Place site.

-30- Thirdly, evidence for the re-exportation of foreign ceramics should be present in the assemblage of artifacts from the site. These ceramics should consist primarily of European Westerwald stonewares and oriental porcelains. A comparison of the collections from several British colonial American sites (Lewts:19.76~ 79) sugge.sEst:hai'Bthe W~sterlV'ald stone-wares will normally comprise less than 6% of the total Old World ceramics by count and that the oriental porcelains may account for up to 20% of the specimens.

Ceramics also appear to offer the best evidence for the presence of persons of African ancestry in eighteenth century British colonial American plantation settlements. Ferguson (1978) has recently proposed that Colono ceramics, a type found exclusively in colonial and early post-colonial European archeolo~ical contexts, represents a ware manufactured predominantly by Negro potters following West African ceramic traditions.* The association of high ratios of Colono pottery with predominatly black populations appears to be evidenced by the relatively high occurrence of this ware relative to European types on extensively sampled plantation sites in South Carolina (Lees and Kimmery-Lees 1978: 10; Drucker and Anthony 1978~ 2; Carrillo, personal communication). On non-plantation domestic sites the occurrence of Colono ware is much lower (less than 3%) or it is non­ existent (South 1977: 17S} Lewis 1976:139, 1978: 61), while on entire plantation sites this ware accounts for half or more of all the ceramics recovered. Based on these data, it would appear that the occurrence of Colono pottery is capable of revealing the presence of a large slave population archeologically. Consequently the fourth test implication for ethnicity at Middleton Place plantation is that a majority of the ceramics recovered from this site will be Colono ware.

With regard to the first test implication, 2374, or 86%, of the identifiable Old World ceramics from the Middleton Place site are British in origin. None of the remaining specimens may be identified as having originated in the homeland of another competing European colonial power. A total of 340 post-colonial British and 33 post-colonial American ceramics were recovered, but no identifiable post-colonial European specimens were found.

The occurrence of 37 distinct types of British ceramics reflects the diversity of wares expected at the site of a British colonial settlement (Appendix A). The types recovered represent those commonly associated with the sites of such settlements occupied in the latter part of the

*This pottery has been referred to as "Colono-Indian" ware in the archeological literature because of its assumed manufacture by aboriginal groups as a trade item in the European colonial economy (Noel Hume 1963a: 7). Its association with and manufacture by African populations residing on European plantations, however, makes the term inapplicable for all of this pottery. For this reason Ferguson (1978: IS) has suggested the term "Colono" be used in its place until recognizable morphological distinctions can be made between varieties of this ware.

-31- eighteenth century. These include earthenwares, stonewares, and porcelains, the products of three distinct methods of manufacture. Earthenwares run the gamut from heavy-bodied, coarse-paste lead or tin-glazed slipwares to refined creamwares and pearlwares developed in the last half of the eighteenth century. Stonewares range from heavy utility wares to fine white and "scratch-blue" salt-glazed tablewares in use by the 1720's. Unglazed black "basalt" and red stonewares, produced after 1750's, are present as are the black-glazed "Jackfie1d" stonewares manufactured from 1745 to 1790: British porcelains consist primarily of "teawares." In short, the variety of ceramics recovered at Camden clearly illustrates the proliferation of ceramic technology characteristic of the British potteries in the eighteenth century and mirrors the diversity of ceramic types found on English colonial sites of this period.

Re-exported ceramics are present in the archeological materials. These consist of 37 specimens of Westerwald stoneware and 332 specimens of oriental porcelain. The former make up 1% of the total ceramics while the latter account for about 12% of the collection. Both of these fall within the predicted limits for British colonial sites.

Finally, the occurrence of 3383 specimens of Co1ono pottery, 55% of the total ceramics recovered at the Middleton Place site, satisfies the fourth test implication that this artifact will comprise half or more of the ceramics there. The appearance of Co1ono ceramics in such quantity would appear to reflect the presence of the substantial black population characteristic of plantation settlements.

In summary, archeological evidence supports the hypothesis that the Middleton Place site was occupied by populations of both English and African descent during the colonial and antebellum periods. Ceramic data reveal the compleXity of the British pottery industry in the eighteenth century as well as the monopoly it held over the American market, even after independence.

The Temporal Position of the Settlement

Middleton Place plantation was in existence prior to 1741 and was destroyed in 1865. It was occupied again as a residence from 1871 to 1880 and then abandoned until the second decade of the 20th century when it again became a family residence. Although the site of Middleton Place has remained in family hands since the close of the Civil War, it never again functioned as a working plantation. For this reason it is likely that the intensity of its occupation in this later period was much less than before the war and that the archeological record generated then was also a great deal smaller. This situation has undoubtedly been accentuated during recent times when modern methods of refuse disposal would have drastically reduced the amount of discard at the site. It seems likely, then, that the site basically will reflect its colonial and antebellum occupations. The archeological record should indicate this as well as provide evidence for its later residential occupations.

-32- Several classes of artifacts are extremely useful in establishing occupation spans of historic sites. Ceramics, because of their peculiar qualities of variation, are particularly well suited to reflecting temporal change. This is especially true regarding eighteenth century British ceramics for not only did the industrialization of ceramic manufacture result in the production of numerous morphologically distinct types but the rapid innovation that accompanied industrialization generated types with relatively limited and well documented temporal ranges. The presence>of a class of artifact possessing these characteristics permits the calculation of a reasonably accurate chronological range as well as a mean date for an archeological occupation (South 1972: 72). Other types of artifacts with more general chronological ranges may also be employed to establish the time of a site's occupation. While these will yield less precise dates than those based on ceramics, the period of occupation indicated should encompass the ceramic dates.

An estimate of the minimum range of occupation for the settlement may be ascertained by comparing the ranges of the Eur(\jpean ceramic types recovered in the archeological investigations. The !£rminus post quem, or date after which the earliest objects found their way into the ground, and the terminus ante quem or the date before the archeological materials were deposited, must be determined on the basis of a mixed deposit containing material deposited from the beginning to the end of the occupation. In order to establish a minimum chronological range for a mixed occupation the terminus post quem may be estimated by the closing date of the use range of the earliest ceramic type and the terminus ante quem by the beginning date of the use range of the type introduced latest. A comparison of the date ranges of the ceramic types at Middleton Place (Fig. 10) reveals that the site was occupied at least as early as 1750 and its termination date was no earlier than 1820.

A more accurate time span may be ascertained using the South (1972) formula to calculate a mean ceramic date which should approximate the median historic date for the site. Using 1865 as the terminus ante quem, half of the range of the site's occupation can be obtained by subtracting the mean date from it. The terminus post quem may then be estimated by subtracting an equal number of years from the mean date.

Based on a total of 2092 datable typed sherds, the mean ceramic date for the Middleton Place site is calculated to be 1796 (Appendix B). If this date may be assumed to represent the median historic date for a period ending in 1865, then the beginning date of the occupation would be 1727. This date corresponds to the period during which John Williams was acquiring his vast landholdings on the west bank of the Ashley and the earliest occupation could easily date from this time.

A number of other artifacts whose date ranges are known were also recovered. They are listed in Table 1. The presence of these artifacts reveals that deposition took place from the eighteenth century until the present. Most of the artifacts, however, are items used during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and seem to reflect the more intensive plantation occupation of this period.

-33- o o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 000 <::t­ Ln <.0 CCO"lOr-N('Y") o o o o o o o o o <::t- Ln t..O ...... 0::> en 0 r-- N M <::t­ Ln <.0 0'1 o <.0 <.0 <.0 <.0 l..D l..O f""-o. r---. f""'-.,...... co " co co co co co co" co co 0'1 " " " " " ~" co co ~ ~ ~ British Grol'Jn Stoneware Westerwald Chamber Pots White Salt-Glazed Scratch-Blue Salt­ Glazed Slip-Dipped White Salt-Glazed "Black Basaltes" Engine Turned Un­ Glazed Red Stoneware Lead Glazed Sli~­ ware Mocha "Jackfield" Ware Green-Glazed Cream-Bodied Ware "Clouded" Wares "Astbury" Hare Decorated Delft Plain I'Jhite Delft "Finger-Painted" Wares Annular Hares Overglaze Enamelled Hand-painted Creamware Creamvlare Embossed Pearl ware Transfer-Printed Pearl ware Underglaze Poly­ chrome Pearl ware Underglaze Blue Hand-painted Pearlvlare Blue-Green Edged Pearl ware Undecorated Pearl ware Stoneware Bottles Ironstone-Hhite­ ware

FIGURE 10: Comparison of temporal ranges of ceramic types recovered at Middleton Place.

-34- In summary, the archeological data indicate that the site investigated was occupied most intensively during the time Middleton Place served as a plantation. They also reveal that a settlement existed there prior to the time the property passed into the hands of the Middleton family. The post-Civil War occupation of the site is reflected by the presence of lesser amounts of later artifacts at the site.

'fABLE 1

TEMPORAL RANGES OF NDN-CERAMIC ARTIFACTS FROM MIDDLETON PLACE

Approximate Artifact* Date Range Source

Wrought nails ~1800 Mercer (1923: 1) Cut nails 1800-1890 Fontana and Greenleaf (1962: 54) Wire nails 1890­ Fontana and Greenleaf (1962: 54) Wrought iron hinges -1783 Mercer (1923: 10) Cast iron butt hinges 1783- Mercer (1923: 13)

Horseshoe l750-late 1800's Noel Hume (1970: 239) Pointless screws 1783-1846 Mercer (1923: 24) Pewter spoon handle with rounded terminal l7l5-late 1700's Noel Hume (1970: 183) Bottle glass with raised letters embossed in panels l860's-1915 Jones (1971: 10) Bottle glass with pontil marks -1857 Lorrain (1968: 40)

Machine-made bottle glass 1903­ Lorrain (1968: 43) White clay pipes -1860 Noel Hume (1970: 302) Brass upholstery tacks 1700's Noel Hume (1970: 228) Gunflints (spall) -1810 Hamilton (1964: 53-54) Logan (1959: 5) Gunflints (blade) l8l0~1840's Hamilton (1964: 53-54) Logan (1959: 5) Cartridge cases (center-fire, outside primed 1887- Logan (1959: 9)

*For totals of each artifact see Appendix A.

The Location of the Settlement

Documentary sources reveal that the outbuildings at Middleton Place plantation lay to the right of the main house complex when the latter was approached from the west. These outbuildings would very likely have marked the site of the most intensive activity associated with the plantation and consequently have accumulated the most concentrated deposition from such activity. It is assumed that these remains will consist of.materials discarded in the vicinity of the activity that produced them as was typical of English1t\.edieval and-post-

-35- medieval living sites (Hurst 1971: 116) as well as those in British colonial North America (South 1977: 47). Artifacts lost at the site as well as structural remains and artifacts associated with its abandonment are also expected to be present.

In order to observe the occurrence of activity patterning at the site of a settlement it is helpful to display the frequencies of the archeological evidence of such patterns activfties on a map. A Synagraphic Computer Mapping Program (SYMAP) was employed in the analysis of the Middleton Place data because this program has the ability to graphically depict disposed quantitative variables, in this case artifact classes, by weight or count, and qualitative variables, such as the presence or absence of particular classes. It accomplishes this by taking the assigned values for the coordinate locations of data points, here positions of the archeological test units, and interpolating a continuous surface in the regions where there are no data points, basing these interpolated values on the distances to and the values of the neighboring data points (Dougenik and Sheehan 1976/1: 1). The result is a contour map of the intensity of a particular archeological variable's occurrence over the area of the site. It is important to remember, however, that the patterns produced by the SYMAP are not pictures based on the entire contents of the site, but rather projections based on the sample gathered. Although some distortions may be present, it is emphasized that the patterns displayed on the SYMAP are true reflections of actual patterns in the archeological record.

The distribution of structures may be observed through the use of SYMAPs showing the spatial distributions of two classes of artifact that represent the archeological by-products of architectural aCtivities, brick rubble and cut and wrought nails. When superimposed (Fig. 11), these maps reveal the locations of the two destroyed brick buildings of the main house complex. A third building, the southern dependency, is still standing and thus has produced a lesser amount of construction debris. At least three other concentrations of brick lie to the south and west of the main house complex, representing structures with brick components. The distribution of nails (Fig. 11) shows four concentrations south and southwest of the main house complex, situated adjacent to but not always coterminous with those of brick. These nail clusters are likely to reflect the locations of wooden architectural components. The distribution of these two structurally related artifacts indicates that the outbuildings at the site were situated in the area where documents indicate those at MiddleSqn Place plantation were located.

The limits of the overall activity areatassociated with these structures may be ascertained by observingfhe distribution of a class of artifact, the the disposal ofwhich is likely, to have been ubiquitous within inhablted and frequently used areas during the period when Middleton Place functioned as a plantation. In this case eighteenth and early nineteenth century bottle glass is considered. A SYMAP of its distribution (Fig. 12) reveals a concentration of this artifact near the complex formed by the main house and its two dependencies, a large area directly south of it, and two concentrations lying to the southwest. As was the case with the structural artifacts, bottle glass is not concentrated directly west of the main house complex, indicating that this area was not a site of intensive activity.

-36- ...... , ,...... •.... _..--..-. ---.-.. ~--_ ...... , , ....,_-,...... •...... _., ::::::= :,

-- :, ., ._- , -1<'-,,,,"',, _..,,. -,_ , ...... _ , _ , -_ ...... -_ , _.,- ' " :;:::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::_-_ , --"-"-'-'...- _ _.. ::::.:::.::'.::::::::::::'.::::.:::::::::'::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::.:::- _ ...... , - ...... ,, _,- ,,-..- -... --- -" .

...... _ ,_ , _ - ...... •.-•....•...... m. _-_­_ ...... ~..:;;;;;;;;.=-~_-. '.... ~ ...... ::.., .,­ ,-­ ...... ,-, ,-­..._, ...... , ,­,-, ,.._, , ...... '..,.., ,­ ..._._, '..,.., ,-:= ,.._, ::" I::::::. ,- .. ,,...... ,, ...... ::U:::,, ::.. ,:::i:::...... , ...... , ,." ,,, ::.. ,:::::::....., .... ,.. ,.., :; :::::::

,:::::: ...... -,.,.., .. :::::::::::::::::::::::...: ::: :::;: .. , , ...... _...... _. , ...... ,_ _._-, ,.. ..- , ,....•...., , . "...

FIGURE 11: SYMAP of brick rubble with distribution of nails superimposed...... ,,...... •

--..-...... -.- _ __.,_ "rt, ,._" -_. ,..,, _.,

...... :::::: ,...... ~ ".- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.•....:•.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::...... -.. _...... -- ...... - _.,..... ,,,,,...... ' ,......

._.-. ''''''--'''''' ,- ,,~, ...... - ,.... --~._ ~ : ;.._ ~ ...... " _...... , _-- ~~;.:;;;.;:;;.:::::.::::.=.:::::::::.=_--. .-. , ..,:... ,.~: .., ,.~;.., ...:-- .~ ~ · ...... ,.."' ,...... ,.., ,,,,...... --..- ,- · ....."""..,,,...... ,..,,, ,..,..,,'''-'.._, ,·..,.." :::::::'..'..',,::::::: ::::'00- '.. '..' ,,, -, :: I:::::: ::::::: ,...... :1 ::::::: ::::::: ::.. l:::::: ,E:~:::......

, , L ...... ,...... -- , ,, , .

FIGURE 12: SYMAP showing distribution of colonial and antebellum bottle glass. l'he.distributiollQ£ tW(3) structuralartHaces and early bottle glass has revealed that outbutlding~ and activtty areas occupied during the plantation period at ~iddleton Place were located to the south and southwest of the main house complex.. This layout conforms to descriptive accounts of the plantation and SUppO'l7ts the hypothesis rega'l7ding settlement location.

An examination of the archeological evidence recovered from the Middleton Place site has 'l7evealed that the latter represents a settle­ ment associated princtpally with the colonial and antebellum occupation of Middleton Place plantation. Ceramics from the site 'l7eflect the va'l7iety of English and re-exp(Dt'ted foreign ceramics characteristic of Bt'itish colonial settlements in the eighteenth century. Colono pottery CDccurs in quantities substantial enough to indicate the presence of a large labor fO'l7ce of African descent, a crucial component of 'l7ice plantations in this a'l7ea.

An analysis of the ce'l7amics a'l7tifacts indicates a plantation occupation with a median date of about 1796. Occupation may have begun as ea'l71y as 1727. Othe'17 artifact types also suggest an occupation during this general period. A post-bellum occupation of low intensity is also revealed in the archeological record.

Finally, archeologtcal evidence of structures and overall activity patterning at tfie site show a dist'l7ibution of structures and activities to the south and sCiluthwest of the main house complex. This is the area indicated by documents to have been the site of the outbutldi:ngs associatedwtth Middleton Place plantation. The presence of archeological evidence for a colonial and antebellum settlement here supports the hypothesis that the site represents a portion of that plantation.

Certain archeological data have served to identify the site investigated as the remains ofa settlement that once constituted a part of Mtddleton Place plantation. Documentary sou'l7ces are, however, silent as to the specific nature of the site's occupation, making it difficult to p'l7oceed beyond the verification of its identity on the basis of ~itten evidence alone. A further investigation of the site's past form and function must rely solely upon an analysis of the archeological record and comparative data relating to settlements of overall functional similarity. The identification of the site in time and space is only the first step in the functional study of the past occuPations at ~iddleton Place.

-39- The Middleton Plaae Site: Its Identifiaation as a Plantation Settlement

Introduation

In addition to its temporal and spatial dimensions, the archeological record of the Middleton Place site can be explained functionally. The documentary record suggests that Middleton Place was a plantation. If so, the activities taking place there and the social/economic structure of the site can be explained by a model based upon the comparative study of plantations in the South. In this section the test implications of such a model for the archeological record are defined and tested, along with a discussion of the model itself. Plantations in the antebellum South have two distinctive settlement patterns, one in which all of the buildings and activities are clustered around a single nucleus, and the other in which two or mOTe spatial clusters are present. In the second part of this section, the test implications of these alternative models are set out and tested with archeological data from the Middleton Place site. Beyond the functional organization of the site itself, the question of the role of }liddleton Place in the larger region can be asked. Economic historians have closely examined the .role of the plantation in general upon the economic development of the United States in the 19th century and have proposed alternative models. Those models have test implications for the documentary and archeological records of Middleton Place and are discussed.

Form and Funation at Middleton Plaae

The activities taking place at Middleton Place, their organization, and their role in the larger region can be best explained by the fact that Middleton Place was a plantation. Plantations are unique institutions that emerged with the expanding world economy (see Wallerstein 1974: 7) as a way of efficiently producing raw materials in frontier regions (Thompson 1959: 30). They are a part of colonial systems that depend upon the raw materials being produced to run their economy. Sidney:Mintz (1959: 43) has defined the plantation as " ••• a capitalistic type of agricultural organization in which a considerable number of unfree laborers were employed under unified direction and control in the~roduction of a staple crop. II The organization of a plantation is marked by (1) a relatively large population and territorial size, (2) an emphasis upon the production of specialized cash Grops, (3) a use of labor beyond the limits of the owner-family, and (4) a dependence upon the authority principle as the basis for collective action (Pan American Union 1959: 190). The activities taking place at a plantation, and their arrangement, can best be explained by these characteristics.

The most common plantation settlement pattern in the antebellum South is a single cluster-of buildings and activities. The following described for sale in the February 12, 1834 edition of the Southern Recorder Milledgeville, Georgia) is typical:

-40- the (main) dwelling contained nine rooms, a hack piazza twelve feet wide, and a portico and balcony in front; in addition to this there were two frame bUildings adjacent, the kitchen and wash-house, and the weaving house, used also as quarters for the house servants; a brick dairy, a smokehouse, and the home of the overseer were located near by; there were "new framed houses with brick chimnies sufficient for the accommodation of 30 hands," stables, blacksmith and carpenter shops, and a two-story barn (Flanders 1967: 95);

That arrangement is often considered to be the form of the antebellum plantation (Prunty 1955: 465-466). Although the plantation itself might be large, the settlement was compact. The actual layout of build­ ings varied but seems generally to have followed the same pattern. Waterman and Barrows (1969: xiv) have noted that eighteenth century plantations in the Southeast, particularly those in South Carolina, ~irginia, and Maryland, centered around a main house and its dependencies. Throughout the eighteenth century these structures exhibited a basic Georgian symmetry in their arrangement, with the house and its forecourt flanked by the dependencies which were sometimes attached by passages to the main house (Kimball 1922: 79). In the last quarter of the century the dependencies shifted from a position on either side of the forecourt to one in line with the orientation of the house. Dependencies apparently did not possess definite functions in every plantation and served variously as offices, kitchens, overseers' quarters, libraries, servants' quarters, as well as housing for other support activities related to the main house (Waterman 1945: 61, 259, 341).*

Farm buildings associated with the plantation seem to have been situated apart from the main house complex and the house did not form an integral part of the farm building layout. Rather, such structures usually constituted a separate unit arranged in a row or rectangle to the side of the main house (Waterman and Barrows 1969; Phillips 1929: 332).

The slave quarters were generally situated near the agricultural buildings to one side of the main house. They were commonly arranged in rows facing a cleared square at one end of which the main house and its

*The pattern of plantation settlement outlined here is derived from the layout of structures on the following plantations: Tryon's plantation, Brunswick Town, North Carolina (Sauthier1769); the Price house, Spartanburg County, South Carolina (South 1970); the Hermitage, Savannah, Georgia; Mt. Vernon and Gunston Hall, Fairfax County, Virginia; Bremo, Fluvanna County, Virginia; Lower Brandon, Prince George County, Virginia (Architects' Emergency Committee 1933: 23, 70-71, 95, 107); Amphil1 and Stratford, Westmoreland County, Virginia; Carters Grove, James City County, Virginia; Carters Grove, James City County, Virginia; Westover, Charles City County, Virginia; Mounty Airy and Menokin, Richmond County, Virginia; Blandfie1d, Essex County, Virginia; (Waterman and Barrows 1969: 179-183); and Rosewell, G10uscester County, Virginia (Noel Hume 1962b: 161-162; Waterman and Barrows 1969: 181).

-41- dependencies stood. Quarters varied in size and method of construction from one room huts to larger buildings of log, frame, or brick (Rawick 1972: 70-71, 77).

In general, the entire plantation complex was not situated directly on a main road linking settlements, but rather would have been placed along a branch road leading into the plantation lands (Phillips 1929: 335). The complex was usually adjacent to the earliest cultivated land. the exhaustive effect of continuous cropping of cotton required a continual clearing of new land for planting (Dodd 1921: 25), resulting in a constant expansion of cultivated lands accompanied by a general movement away from the site of the original plantation settlement (Olmstead 1957:53).

Mt. Vernon, in Fairfax County, Virginia, a plantation that had assumed its final form by the 1770's (Architects' emergency Committee 1933: 70-73),** clearly illustrates the layout of the plantation settlement pattern. The geometric layout of the structures at Mt. Vernon is clearly visable (Fig. 13), with the main house and dependencies situated at the center of a U-shaped plan. Service buildings lie in a row stretching to either side of the forecourt. Quarters form a block oriented at a right angle to the service buildings. The U-shape of the layout is further emphasized by the positions of entrance roads, paths, walls, and ornamental and vegetable garden plots.

If Middleton Place has this kind of settlement pattern, the following propositions should be supported by the archeological record:

1. The form of the settlement will correspond to that outlined above.

2. The main house should be identifiable as a living quarters with archeological markers of high social status.

3. Secondary dependency buildings together with their activity loci detached from the main house should also be present. They will be arranged in a line usually perpendicular to the long axis of the main house and have archeological evidence of specialized domestic activities and possibly lower status occupation. The buildings mayor may not be architecturally similar to the main house.

4. Buildings used for animal husbandry, manufacturing andmaint­ enance activities, and storage should be situated to the s:ixie of the main house. They may be arranged in a line or in a rectangle with animal accommodation structures furthest from the main house. There should be archeological evidence for a variety of different activities

*Although it may appear irregular to choose as an example a plantation that has achieved such notoriety as has the estate of George ~shington, the amount of architectural information generated as the :r;esult of this intense interest has made it possible to construct an accurate picture of the plantationfs form and structure.

-42- -

I""'~I /

/ \. D-OAIRY " /1Ct: HOUSE I /"-...... \ ~,~"====="''''''''''''rn~ \ m"''''''''''''L- ___ __ - f} = "- ///-->0 0-1 J\" / 0 00..., \\ / SPINNING HOUSE / I I " _...... \ <& \.. \ COACH tENTER SHOf' / f' ../\ \ ~~ -\ '\ WASH HOUSE I I I GARDENER'S ~SE // ...... - -- \\ 'q(~_ SMOKEHOUSE \\ II II \\'" \\ i! // \\ \\ M {I \\ 1\ """'" II "'...... I \ Ii II I I OfIJrlANEHTAL \\ II V£GETA8LE I " GARDENS ) I II GARDEN II I i I I / I I I II I / II I J I I / I \\ J J II II \\ I{ I I II \\ II II II \\ /I II II \\ { / SCHOOL HOUSE SEED HOUSE

FIGURE 13: Plan of Mt. Vernon in Fairfax County, Virginia showing typical plantation settlement pattern (Source: Architect's Emergency Committee 1933: 70-71).

-43- related to plantation production and maintenance. It is possible that lower status living quarters may be the same as, or close to, manu­ facturing, maintenance, and storage facilities.

5. There may be archeological evidence of specialized production systems, in the case rice mills, rice storage barns, and the 1ake.~

Archeological hypothesis for the recognition of the p1antation­ type settlement revolve around the spatial arrangement of activities. The archeological record contains two kinds of evidence that are relevant: structures and portable artifacts. Both can be used to identify the spatial position of activities at Middleton Place.

lfuat does the archeological record have to say about the overall spatial arrangement of structures at Middleton Place? The main house and its dependencies are easily located by presently observable foundations. That cluster of houses a13e consistent with the plantation interpretation. No other structures of antebellum origin could be readily ovserved within the sample area, but recourse may be made to the portable artifacts. The artifactua1 evidence of structures largely comes from distinctive materials that accumulate when the building is abandoned. Brick and mortar rubble and nails in high concentrations are the best indicators, and SYMAP distributions of the three categories (Fig. 11) suggest the locations of additional structures at the site. These concentrations may be grouped into seven areas (Fig. 14). Three structural concen- trations arranged in a row occur in the northeastern part of the site. These are respectively areas 1, 2, and 3 and represent the main house and its two dependencies. In addition, four other areas have high concentrations of the structure indicators. One (area 4) is directly south of the main house complex. It contains a structural feature consisting of a footing trench containing bric~ debris and is aligned with the axis of the main house complex (Fig. 15). The second area (Area 5) is just south of the driveway plaza of the main house complex, the third (Area 6) is just south and west of the second structure and the fourth (Area 7) lies just north of Area 6. The semi-circular arrangement of these structures, along with those of the main house complex, support the plantation model. The areas defined here on the basis of architectural material are assumed to represent loci of structure­ based activity areas. In the following discussion these areas will be used as the basis for intra-site functional comparisons of archeological materials.

Intra-site activity patterning may be observed at Middleton Place through a comparison of the artifacts recovered from the seven areas defined on the basis of the distribution of structural materials. The second hypothesis states that the main house complex should be distinguish­ able by the presence of artifacts reflecting its role as a high status living area.

Several forms of archeological evidence relating to status on a plantation settlement may be examined. The first is architecture. The

-44- FIGURE 15: Structural feature uncovered in Area 4. It consists of two intersecting footing trenches aligned with the axis of the structures in the main house complex. structure identified as the main house at Middleton Place is composed of brick which has collapsed into a mound that marks its location. The structure itself measures approximately 50 x 42 feet and its two and a half brick thick walls were capable of supporting the three and a half story house (Noel" Hume 1969:128) that documentary evidence (Fig.3) indicated occupied this site. The structure is the largest of the brick ruins at Middleton Place. Its interior plan of two sets of rooms separated by a central hallway conforms to that of the "lowland plantation," a house type characteristically associated with the high status residences in the colonial and antebellum American South (Newton 1971:12).

It is assumed that certain artifacts indicative of high status in the eighteenth century will be found in association with toft areas occupied by high status persons. The distribution of such items is somewhat complicated by the fact that high status artifacts are, in themselves, highly valued objects that are subject to a high rate of retention. For this reason, the occurrence of such items in the arche­ ological record is not usually the result of discard or abandonment as is often the case with less valuable artifacts. Rather, their appearance there is nearly always a consequence of loss. Only one such item was recovered in the excavations at Middleton Place. It consists of a whit~ metal stringed ~nstrumenttuming knob which was found in Area 2. Its presence implies a high status occupation at the site of the main house.

Another artifact that is likely to be linked to status within the colonial plantation context is oriental porcelain, an imported ware that increased in popularity during the eighteenth century. Its use was particularly associated with the tea ceremony, an English social custom in which people of both sexes gathered to exchange information, engage in conversation, and court while consuming the beverage (Roth 1961:70). The tea ceremony and its required use of porcelain had become commonplace in British colonial North America in the second half of the century, making the archeological occurrence of this ceramic unreliable as a status marker in most colonial settlements.

In a plantation settlement, however, only a small portion of the population, its owners and managerial staff, were English and the occurrence of the tea ceremony is likely to have been restricted to the areas they occupied. The remainder of the plantation population was not ethnically British and is not believed to have participated extensively in this ceremony in slave living areas. Consequently, the use of porcelain by these two groups may be expected to have been dramatically different. In addition, with the exception of Colono ware, most ceramics used on the plantation were obtained and distributed by the owner or manager. This centralized acquisition of ceramics is +ikely to have further systematized the kinds of ceramics used and served particularly to restrict the flow of porcelain to those individuals of higher status. Plantation slaves, particularly household servants whose work regularly placed them in close proximity to the behavior of such high status persons, may be expected to have become acculturated to the use of porcelain and have begun to acquire it in small quantities in the ante­ bellum period (Otto 1977:106).

-47- Archeologically it is predicted that porcelain will occur in deposits associated with living areas of both manager and worker on the plantation. Differences in the use patterns of this ware, however, make it very likely that a great deal of disparity will exist in the occurrence of porcelain between these two areas. For this reason the area within and adjacent to the main house complex should exhibit a higher frequency of porcelain than other areas at the Middleton Place site.

Table 2 shows the predicted variation in the presence of porcelain among the structure-based activity areas. Areas 1-3, the main house complex, and the adjacent Area 4 exhibit markedly higher percentages of porcelain than do Areas 5, 6, and 7. These results support the hypothesis.

TABLE 2

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF PORCELAIN BY AREA

Number of Specimens Total European Percentage of Area of Porcelain Ceramics Porcelain

1-3 24 137 18% 4 73 357 20% 5 32 305 10% 6 129 1376 9% 7 66 1001 7% Site Total 324 3176 10%

The third hypothesis states that the dependencies should be architecturally similar to the main house yet are likely to evidence the occurrence of specialized domestic activities.

At Middleton Place the brick dependency structures are located to the north and south of the main house on the same axis as the latter. Both are constructed of brick. The southern dependency measures 50 x 21 feet and is two and a half stories high with a gabled roof (Figs. 5 and 6). It has been enlarged to form the present residence. The northern dependency is 60 by 21 feet and appears to have had the same form as the southern dependency (Fig. 3). Unlike the latter, however, the northern dependency has completely collapsed and its foundations are nearly buried beneath brick and rUbble. Each dependency is situated 70 feet from the main house. The size, composition, and alignment of these structures conformi to our architectural expectations for plantation structures of this type.

With regard to the occurrence of specialized domestic activities, Areas 1, 2, and 3 were compared in terms of those classes of artifacts that might be indicative of such activities. Perhaps the most common specialized domestic activity likely to have produced a recognizable archeological by-product is that associated with a kitchen where foods were processed, prepared, and to some extent stored. Relatively greater

-48- quantities of certain types of materials are expected to have been generated by such activity. These materials include faunal debris that accumulated as a result of food preparation, European ceramics associated with food processing and storage, and Co1ono pottery, a ware apparently used for food preparation even in high status living areas (Baker 1972: 13; Ferguson 1978). The occurrence of these materials in the archeo­ logical record is presented in the following tables.

TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF FAUNAL DEBRIS AND TOTAL NON-CERAMIC ARTIFACTS IN AREAS 1, 2, AND 3

Frequency of Total Percentage of Area Faunal Debris Non-Ceramic Artifacts Faunal Debris

1 133 437 30% 2 30 256 12% 3 26 207 13%

TABLE 4

COMPARISON OF EUROPEAN PROCESSING AND COLONO CERAMICS VS.EUROPEAN SERVING CERAMICS

Number Pef~~p.t European Number Ed~opean Percent Processing European Processing European and Co1ono Serving and Co1ono Serving Area Ceramics Ceramics Totals Ceramics Ceramics

1 126 65 191 66% 34% 2 20 22 42 48% 52% 3 25 44 69 36% 64%

Table 3 reveals a markedly higher frequency of faunal debris in Area 1 than in Areas 2 and 3. This indicates a high intensity of food refuse disposal that is likely to be associated with the food production activity in a kitchen area. This conclusion regarding the function of the northern dependency is further supported by the relative frequencies of occurrence of Co1ono ware and European serving ceramics, which are also highest in Area 1 (Table 4). Areas 2 and 3 show a progressively lower occurrence of these artifacts relative to the presence of European serving wares, suggesting that the serving and consumption of food was a more typical activity here than was its preparation and storage.

-49- It is assumed that structures and activity areas associated with animal husbandry, agriculture, processing, and storage will be situated in a linear or rectangular arrangement to the side of the main house complex. Living areas for lower status persons should be adjacent to such areas. Those areas devoted to agriculture are likely to be furthest from the main house. Several archeological implications may be examined to test this hypothesis. They are based on a comparison of the frequencies of various functionally significant artifact classes among the structure­ based activity areas defined above. On the basis of this comparison it should be possible to distinguish patterned artifact variability among the areas. This patterning should permit us to recognize the occurrence of the types of activities postulated to have occurred at the Middleton Place settlement and to observe their spatial arrangement on the site.

In general, structures and activity areas may be grouped according to three functional categories: living areas; animal husbandry areas; agriculture, processing, and storage areas. Each is assumed to be chara­ cterized archeo10gica11y by the by-products of the following activities. Living areas should be associated with domestic-related activities involved with the preparation, consumption, and storage of subsistence products and the housing of persons. Structures devoted to these activities include houses, quarters, and perhaps portions of buildings primarily devoted to other purposes.

Areas for the accommodation of animals are likely to include the housing of animals used in cultivation and transportation as well as those kept for food. Accommodation areas for working animals would also include room for their equipment. These areas may consist of structures as well as open enclosures, neither of which are likely to have accumulated a great deal of artifactual material because of regular cleaning and the absence of activities that would have generated a substantial archeological by-product. Structures used for housing specific types of animals may be distinguished by their architectural form.

Agriculture and processing areas would have housed equipment and supplies used in agricultural tasks as well as in the initial processing of agricultural commodities. P!J:iocessingand repair loci may 'De expected to generate an archeological output of a rather specialized nature, reflecting both the discarded by-products of the particular tasks performed the:re, as well as dQll\estic equipment and equipment parts lost Ol:' discarded as a l:'esult of these tasks. Sto:rage areas, like those used to accommodate animals, essentially serve as tempora:ry housing for itell\s which are not usually greatly modified while there. The a'.t.'cheological by-product of such activities is not expected to be great and is mo:re likely to be characterized by the l:'emains of storage equipment and containel:'s rathel:' than by the actual pl:'oducts which were once stored the:r;e.

The expected archeological by-pl:'oducts of these functional activity categol:'ies are summarized in Table. 5. The associated artifact classes include the types of material assumed to be generated as the result of the processes of discard and loss.

-50- TABLE 5

FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITY CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED ARTIFACT CLASSES

Activity Category Artifact Class

Domestic Living Areas Preparation and consumption of food artifacts Storage containers Food processing tools Cooking and eating utensils Floral and faunal remains Fishing and hunting equipment

Housing artifacts Furniture Personal items

Domestic architectural artifacts Window glass Building hardware

Animal Husbandry Areas Draft animal equipment Riding equipment Vehicle equipment

Agriculture, Processing and Farming tools Storage Areas Raw material processing tools Equipment maintenance tools Food processing tools Storage containers Shipping containers Packing tools

The artifacts grouped under the three functional categories above represent those most likely to have been generated more or less exclusively as a result of the activities associated with each category. In this sense, each class of artifact represents a separate activity set. Because of the relatively close prroximity of structures and activities, however, it is very likely that the archeological record from any given location will reflect an overlapping of the output of several sets. Therefore it is expected that activity variation will be reflected in the relative frequency of occurrence of the artifact classes rather than by the exclusive presence or absence of any given class. It is predicted that these classes will occur consistently within areas which the activity played a role of similar intensity. Due to the relatively small size of the sample collected at }iiddleton Place it is possible that artifacts representing the by-products of activities generating very low outputs may be present in quantities too small to yield statistically significant amounts of data. In such cases the simple occurrence of the

-51- diagnostic items should be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of that activity.

The numerical counts and percentages of the artifact classes associated with the three activity categories are shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6

COMPARISON OF ARTIFACT OCCURRENCE BY ACTIVITY CATEGORY (Percentages given within parentheses)

Activity Agricultural, Categories Animal Processing, and Domestic Husbandry Storage Totals Areas

1 339 (99.7) 0 1 (0.3) 340 2 145 (100.0) 0 0 145 3 401 (99.0) 1 (0.3) 3 (0.3) 405 4 1288 (99.7) 4 (0.3) 0 1292 5 955 (64.9) 0 516 (35.1) 14H 6 4019 (99.8) 2 ( 0.1) 7 ( 0.2) 402e 7 2719 (99.5) 5 ( 0.2) 7 (0.2) 2731

Table 6 reveals that artifacts associated with domestic activity greatly outnumber those produced as by-products of animal husbandry, agriculture, processing, or storage in all of the areas except one. This indicates that each area is likely to have had a domestic component and that in all but one it was responsible for generating over 99% of the refuse that accumulated there.

In an attempt to measure the intensity of the domestic occupation in each area, frequencies of faunal material were measured against the artifact totals. If we assume that food was cooked in individual family houses (Fogel and Engerman 1974:127), then it is likely that food remains, in this case consisting of faunal debris, would have been discarded nearby. The presence of this material in the archeological record, in turn, would mark such locations and identify the areas in which they occur as living areas. Table 7 reveals that at Middleton Place faunal remains comprised the greatest percentage frequency in Areas 1-3, the main house complex, and the lowest in Area 7. The concentrations of faunal remains in these areas is further revealed in a SYMAP (Fig. 16) showing the distribution of this artifact at the site. Loci of high occurrence appear in Areas 1-6, yet are virtually absent in Area 7. It seems likely, then, that the intensity of domestic activity was higher and more centralized within these six areas and the latter probably contain the plantation living areas.

-52- '..m.m' , . , , =--"- _. - --..... --- .. -..-...:'..::::':'

..... , ...... _" .""".....m , ...... , ...... , ...... , ...... , .." ,,,,,, "".~ ..'" ''''.n :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ~ " ....""...." ,...,"","_'0.... ,..,-".,."" ••• t." ....., mmmmmtmmttmt~mt:·: :~~~~~ :ii~~ :~~::)~~~ :i~~:ji ~~~j~~~~~m~~~m~~~j:~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~~~~i .,.,~~ ,... ".., "." ..... ""'".""""",,,,,,"',, ::::: :::::: :::::: ::::: :ii:: , ..".... "",... ".., ..... "." ..... , "~:::tlmmtt'::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:! "" ...... ,,,,,.,,,, " .. .. "'...Oh.... ,"" ...... ", ...", .._ ....',.. " ,,<0 ,"" ::::: .':::~~::: : ::. ,::-::::~" :::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::. :::: ...... ,' , ::. ·::~::t~~:::~" ::::: :::: :::..:::::::::::: :: ...... "...."'....."'...... ,""."'""',,"',,"',,"m"" "",,,,,,, . ,"'...... , "".,.."" "" ..,., ",,,,, .. '''0 '"'' ... """"'""',,,,"',, "", : : : : . . "",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .... """m . _ ...... ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," ,,,,,,,,"',,,,,,,,"',,"',,, ... _-- ,,-, ,"',,"',,,,,,,,, , .. _-----.. ,Co ...... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,""m,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' . ;';"i"~-::':;;;:::j§:::::::. "",,'u · ·...... ,_--_ .. _- ...... "'"'' .. .. " ",,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,, " ,. ,. , ...... :::: ::::::::. ,i::~~::~~,' , :: ',::~~:::~~~::~~~:::~~::~~::::~~: -_."...:.- "",,,," I:::::; ,....., ,,_..._, ,.. ,.., ,..,.., , " ::·.::::~~~:~~t~~~ :::::::~mmmmmmmmmm~h·::: ","'"''''" ,.. ,.., ,..,.., , " '" ...... :::. - '"'''" ,.... ,.., ,..,.., , .. ~:::::" ,,::::~::~:::~~~:: ...... """"""",,,,,,,,,,,"',,"',,, ...... ""'"'"'''' ,.. ,.. , ,..,.., ­ ::~~~: , , ,..,.., """,m, "".'"'''''''''' • ...... "',,,,,,,,,"'.'"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"""...... ; ,.. ,.. , ,..,.., """,m" m""""" ...... """"",,,,,,,. .. """ - ,Co,,"~ ,.. ,.. , , •• >.., """", ':i::~:i::::~:' " ,,,.,, , ,.. ,.. , ,.. >0., '''''''' . .:. ,..'.. , " ",,,,,'''''''' ,..,.. ,' '. :~~::ti .. .. ::,. "",,,t ,'..'.. ' " """, ,.."., ...... 0'""''::11:''::'',',::::,::,', """, ,..,'.. ' ...... ::::::... ..--;:'''f, ".i. " , I ~ ·.. ·,·",·1..""":5i~·:::::~:;tmm , ""'" ...... "" ;=:.,_..- --;--..:::;::::::~-. .. ,--"..--.--..-.. __• ...__o,~"-,....,• . .~--_.,,- ,.~,,'" . .'-"" .._.- ,,"_..." . ..._---_,,--~_._ ,,...... o,,, _.~ , w . , '~- .. " .. :: "',:"" """"""" :~~.,"""~, •. :... ::.O;:;:;~:::::: :"" :::::::::::::::::::::.: ::::.. , . : ::::::~.:::: , ...... , ...... , : , ..... ___ ._ ,,.m __•..__ ,.···.····.··_·.··

FIGURE 16: SYMAP showing distribution of faunal material. TABLE 7

OCCURRENCE OF FAUNAL MATERIAL BY AREA

Frequency of Total Percentage of Area Faunal Remains Artifacts Faunal Remains

1-3 184 890 21% 4 180 1292 14% 5 92 1471 6% 6 334 4028 8% 7 40 2731 2% Totals 830 10412 8%

The occurrence of processing refuse amounting to 35% of the artifacts recovered from area 5 (Table 6) reveals the presence of an activity here that generated an unusable by-product that was discarded at the site of its production. In this the slag and clinkers are likely to represent a by-product of metal smithing. Their presence clearly indicates this specialized activity here in association with a domestic occupation.

Artifacts related to other specialized activities are found in all of the areas examined. Their occurrence in such small numbers is due to the fact that they are by-products of loss processes rather than those 'of discard as is the case with the domestic and industrial refuse. Animal husbandry, storage, and. agriculture and processing activities would not have generated a substantial amount of discard and much would consist of organic or other material that would not be preserved in the archeological record. Rather, artifacts involved in such activities would have been removed, recycled, or otherwise retained if possible. Only when lost or broken beyond repair would they have entered the archeological record. With regard to the process of loss, Schiffer (1976:32-33) has suggested that certain regularities are likely to affect the probability of an object's entering the archeological record as the result of thisf~rocess. First, the probability of loss should vary inversely with the object's mass. Small objects are more likely lost than larger ones. Second, loss probability varies directly with the artifact's portability. An item more frequently moved or moved longer distances is more likely lost than one that is stationary. It may be added that the probability of loss is also directly related to its usable condition as the result of age or wear. Thus, a worn-out valuable is more likely to be exposed to conditions leading to loss than a new one.

The specialized activity artifacts from Middleton Place consist of small, portable items, many of which are incomplete or in worn condition. For this reason they are likely to represent items lost through use, presumably in the vicinity in which they were employed.

-54- Animal husbandry artifacts were found in Areas 3, 4, 6, and 7, but not in Areas 1, 2, and 5. They consist entirely of tack. Because horses were used in the transportation of people and commodities as well as in agriculture, artifacts associated with them would probably not only be in the areas where such animals were accommodated, but also in areas in which they were used and through which they traveled. The latter would include the domestic areas and those associated with agri­ cultural processes in which horses were involved. At Middleton Place these artifacts indicate that these activities took place over much of the settlement, excluding only the main house and its north dependency.

Artifacts associated with agriculture, processing, and storage slightly outnumber animal husbandry items. They occur in all areas except 2 and. 4. Apart from the slag in Area 5, these artifacts do not appear to represent discard. Rather, most seem to have been lost through use. The patterned distribution of these artifacts reveals that agriculture and processing activities took place in Areas 6 and 7 only, while processing took place in Areas 3 and 5, and storage occurred in Areas 1 and 6. This distribution reveals that the areas most closely affiliated with agricultural activities lie furthest from the main house complex. Areas 6 and 7 may also represent workers' settlements separated from the main house by processing areas, the nature of one of which has already been discussed. The artifacts associated with processing in Areas 3, 6, and 7 do not permit precise identification of particular activities; however, the iron pot fragments found in Area 3 may reflect the laundering activity indicated by documents to have been carried out here.

Finally, the storage activity in Areas 1 and 6 is eVidenced by the presence of unmarked lead seals, an artifact used to close sacks of merchandise for shipp,ing. These items are usually found on sites assoc~ iated with trade (No~l Hume 1969:269), suggesting that merchandise was st\!)'"betl:,fn"these s1!wo areas. In summary, all seven of the structure-based activity areas defined on the basis of archeological evidence have revealed the existence of a domestic occupation. Only the main house, Area 2, revealed evidence of a domestic occupation without additional specialized activity. Agri­ cultural activity took place in those areas furthest from the main house complex. Proces~ing occurred in four areas, including the south depen­ dency; however, only in Area 5 was the identifiable by-product of a specific activity discernab1e. Two areas where storage took place were also defined. Although it has not been possible to identify particular activities at this time, due to the initial nature of the archeological work, the existence and distribution of the general classes of activity at Middleton P1ace~are observable. The pattern of their distribution in this past settlement conforms to that predicted by the model for colonial and antebellum plantations.

-55- On the basis of the data exanrined in the fourth hypothesis it has not been possible to identify areas of spectalized production within the sample area. The areas most easily recognizable as the sites of such activity are those where technological aspects of plantation were carried out. The technological activity most closely associated with rice production is the rice mill (Gray 1932:282-283). At Middleton Place this structure is intact and recognizable as a mill on the basis of its architectu17e and location at the head of an impoundment adjacent to the Ashley River. The mill, because of its dependence on water power and its need for close p170ximity to the tidal rice fields, was situated in a, positi(l)n that satisfied both these conditions.

V~iabilityin thePlantati~n Settlement

Although the most common fO'rm of the antebellum southern plantation was a, c1uste'r Qf bUild;tngs and activities a,r(l)und asirig1erilic1eus, othe'r fo1;1'lls ha'V'e been documented. Pe'rhaps the best known alternative form is multi-nucleated, consisting of two or more spatial clusters. An example. of that formwas·obse'r'V'ed near Sa'V'annah by Frederick Law Olmsted in 1853. The p1antattonhad about 700 acres of improved rice land and abQut 200 slaves, making it close to the size of Middleton Place.

The settlement pattern consisted of Itbig house" settlements, slave settlements, and rice mill/barn settlements. ."Bighouse" settlements occu'rred on each of two p1anta,ti0ns in the cem,p1ex and included a main house, one occupied by the owner and the other by the overseer during the winter, brick cabins occup;i:ed by the house"'se't'Vants, and stables. Buildings, activities, and s'~cial status are distinctly different here than ebewhere on the p1antati<1m. The "h6)Useho1d economy is•••carried on i.n a style approp\t'iate to a wealthy, gentlemen'S 't'esidence•• , "leading one to expect a't'tifacts and a'l'chitecture associated with high status. ',Fu17thermore, the 1ifes,tY'le of the house-ser'V'ants was obse'r'V'ed by 01msted to be considerably higher than that of the field-hands (Olmsted 1953: 1841. Finally, activities associatedw1th rice farming are simply not present t.n the big house settlement, suggesting an archeological record 1l\uch c10se!r? to a Ittown residence" than a plantation.

Slave s·ett1ements we!r?e situated some dista,ncefrom the big house and were marked with quite. diffe'rent bu;tldings, activities, and social status. Dlms'ted (1953;184-185) desc'rtbes such a settlement in great detail. Frame cabtns were arranged along a wide !!oad. Each was a white­ Washed fra1l\e but1ding 42 feet long by 21 feet Wide; it was divided into. three ip00ffiS and Wfil,S occupied by 5 pe\t'sons. Chicken coops and pig pens were cons,t'ructed between the ca,btns and a small garden was present in the back yard.

-56- The third settlement nucleus on the rice plantation visited by Olmsted was a rice mill/storage complex, again spatially separated from the big house:

From the [slave] settlement, we drove to the "mill" - not a flouring mill, though I believe there is a run of stones in it - but a monster barn, with more extensive and better machinery for threshing and storing rice, driven by a steam­ engine, than I have ever seen used for grain before. Adjoining the mill-house were shops and sheds, in which blacksmiths, carpenters, and other mechanics - all slaves, belonging to Mr. X. - were at work (Olmstead 1953: 186).

Middleton Place may have been a multi-nucleated settlement at one time, as was apparently the case at other large rice p19rttations in South Carolina such as Limerick and Hampton (Purcell~1786). Worker settlements and rice processing structures have been observed in the forest west of the main house at Middleton Place, adding support to this possibility. Yet documents suggest that the plantation was quite compact and consistent with the "single-nucleus" type. Why the discrepancy? It is possible that a multi-nucleated settlement existed prior to the introduction of tidal rice farming in the 1780s. Rice fields were rather widely separated, and a dispersed settlement pattern would be consistent with the technological realities. After tidal rice farming became popular, ri.ce fi.e1ds were situated adjacent to the river and relatively close together. Rice processing activities would have taken place close to the fields, if "least cost" is a reason­ able assumption; the present location of the rice mill supports that interpretation. It is not unlikely, then, that 0ther activities and buildings would also have been clustered within the vicinity of the main house complex, a settlement pattern consistent with documentary clues and with the single-nucleus type. If this interpretation is correct, the archeological record of the test a);'ea should support the single­ nucleus n0del. Futureresea,rch Should reveal the existence of outlying settlements with considerably earlier dates, evidence of the pre-tidal farming period. If, however, the multi-nucleated settlement was maintained throughout the antebellum period, the archeological record of the test area should have the following characteristics:

1) The range of artifact types present should be quite limited, ol;iginating, fo);' the most part, in dO'JIlestic activities from a "high status" social group. Thus, high status domestic artifacts should make up m0st of the collection.

2) There should be little spatial diffe'l::'entiation in status marrkers. It is assumed that high status artifacts would be associated with the house servants quarters, as well as with the main house.

3) There should be no evidence of manUfacturing, maintenance, or rice processing activities.

-57- 4) There should befew,,-if any, secondary structures associated with the main house.

As discussed in the previous section, the archeological record at the Middle Place·sitesupportsnone of the four hypotheses. Rather, 1;n@ sii.ng:le nu@:le~s form; making upt1i'eplantation model, is supported, suggesting that the outlying settlements are not part of the tidal rice farming settlement.

Middleton Place and the Antebellum Southern Economy

The role of the plantation economy in eighteenth and nineteenth century American economic development is still hotly debated. Traditionally, the antebellum South has been viewed as an economic "baCkwater," dependent upon trade with the western and northeastern states and the British empire to maintain its lifestyle and lacking a home market that could have stimulated the emergence of local industries and services. Raw materials produced on the plantations, mainly rice and cotton, were imported directly to the no'.t'theasteit'.n states and/oit' overseas with only minimal processing (e. g., rice milling and cotton ginning). Manu- factured commodities were, in turn, ±mported rather than purchased locally. The "factor system" was especially :tmportant. Large banking houses in the Northeast and England played the 't'ole of intermediary, or "factor," between the southern plantations and the outside world, acting as "selling agent for the cotton or 't'ice purchaserr of the plantation's consumption and capital goods, and as a source 0f credit" (N0rth 1961: 126). At one time, it was thought that a large food deficit was incurred in the South and met by grain and cattle imp0rts frr0m the western states; indeed, the inteit'regional trade was considerred to be so large that iti'was,the key factor in nineteenth century economic development in America (e.g., No'.t'th 1961). The extent of the western trade has apparently been exaggerated, Casting doubt upon the "interregional trade hypothesis" (Lindstrom 1970; Fishlow 1965; Hutchi.nson and Williamson 1971; Uselding 1976; see also North 1974: 76). At the Same time, there is still a cons-i.de!t'able controversy over the subsistence self-sufficiency of the antebellum plantations. Thus, Smith (1958:134) argues that "both plantation and farm had a high deg't'ee of self-subsistence, not only with rega't'd to the production of food and feed for home consumption but i.n respect to manufactured goods as well," a point agreed upon by Hutchinson and Williamson (1971: 60n • Genovese (1962, 1974) and othe!t's, by cont't'ast, see the plantations as unable to supply its own food needs.

The it'ural cha't'acte't' of the antebellum South and the conspicuous lack of develOPment of local indust!t'ies and services, even retail trade, are agreed upon; their cause is not. One view is that the self­ sufficiency of plantations created a low demand for goods and services (North 1961, 1974). That is, food production was sufficient to support

-58- the plantation. and technological and other needs were met by activities performed by plantation craftsman. That argument receives support from the recognized labor-intensive form of rice and cotton farming (e.g., Gray 1932; Hilli-ard" 1975), requiring few tools. Furthermore, the very unequal distribution of wealth reduced consumer demand by placing it in the hands of a small group of planters (North 1974:91; Niemi 1977). A viable "middle class" simply did not exist.

An alternative explanation is based upon the argument that plantations were not self-sufficient. Genovese (1962, 1973, 1974) gives data suggesting that plantations usually contracted out for such basic activities as blacksmithing and other maintenance work, that food­ stuffs were insufficient, and that most commodities were imported. Accordingly the plantation would provide a good market for local industries and services, in contrast to North's (1974) position that plantation self-sufficiency was the key cause of their failure to develop. Genovese (1962:427) then argues that the real reason is the poverty of slaves, subsistence farmers, and poor whites and concludes that

Plantation slavery••• so limited the purchasing power of the South that it could not sustain much industry. That industry which could be raised usually lacked a home market of sufficient scope to permit large-scale operation; the resultant cost of production was often too high for success in competition with Northern firms drawing on much wider markets. Without sufficient industry to support urbanization, a general and extensive diversification of agriculture was unthinkable (Genovese 1962:4371.

The only comparative study of antebellum rice plantations in the South was done by Swan (1975), using primarily data from the manuscript census of 1860. Several conclusions are relevant to the present study. The traditional view of the rice plantation as "capital-intensive and labor-intensive, relative to land" (Swan 1975:28) is supported. Rice plantations were large, with 99% of all rice produced in South Carolina and Georgia comtng from those rice farms producing over 10,000 pounds a year, only 1/3 of all rice farms dClcumented in the census (Swan 1975: 167). Economy of scale is invoked to explain why rice plantations were so large. Input!Clutput ratios are calculated to demonstrate that a minimum threshold size had to be reached before rice farming was profit... able (Swan 1975:168-170). Smaller size farms were not profitable if they were highly specialized rice producers; however, a sizeable "middle class" of profitable farmers was based upon a diversified production system of rice, cotton, corn, pork, and slaves for sale in markets (Swan 1975:170-171). Swan argues that profitable small farmers in a rural economy constitutes a Hmiddle class" and that, therefore, the thesis that plantations stagnated the social, political, and economic deve10pment of the South because it prevented a viable middle class is questi0nable (Swan 1975:172).

Traditional views of the antebellum rice plantation also suggest

-59- "low food/labor and food/land r~tios, implying that the rice coast may have imported a large portion of its food requirements" (Swan 1975:28). That is, of course, consistent with the general interpretation that the South was not self-supporting and was dependent upon trade with the western and northeastern states and the British Empire. The 1860 census data SUppoTt that interpTetation but not to the extent that Genovese (1962) and others have argued. Hogs, milk cows, and other food animals were as abundant per acre on the Tice coast as elsewhere in South Carolina and Georgia; howeveT, gTain production to feed these animals was lower (Swan 1975:32-33), suggesting grain importation from other regions. Gray (1932:835-836) aTgues, on the other hand, that rice straw, cowpeas, and sweet potatoes weTe widely used as animal feed in coastal South Carolina, and Swan (1975:33) notes that the production of hay, peas, and beans is higheT in the rice producing counties. That suggests that non-grains weTe more important than' grains, probably both for animals and humans. Swan (1975:170) concludes that "Rice plantations were incurring net food deficits, but not of a magnitude sufficient to sustain any significant interregional trade in foodstuffs, especially in grains."

Test ImpZications Several competing explanations of the role of the antebellum plantation in southern economic development have been outlined, all partly or largely dependent upon as assumption of the extent to which the plantation was self.-suppoTting. The documentary and archeological records of Middleton Place can be used to test these alternative models by identifying the acdyities that took place and evaluating how self­ sufficient the plantation actually was. Identification of those activities related to food production other than cash crops; manufacturing of farming technology, textiles, construction materials, and other goods needed to operate a plantation; and maintenance, including blacksmithing, carpentry, and the like, is especially important. The archeological record is suited to the discovery of the diversity and range of these activities; however, the documentary record must be relied upon for an understanding of what part of the total plantation operation was supplied by in-house activities.

The Documentary Record Documentary sources that can be used to evaluate the self-sufficiency of Middleton Place aTe not abundant. Only a preliminary search and study of available records, undoubtably a biased sample, has thus far been possible. Neverrtheless, a few clues exist. Table 8 shows a collection of bills dating from the 1830 until the end of the antebellum period (MFP). The bills are not complete by any means but suggests the kinds and values of purchases that were being made. In addition information about livestock and crops being gTown on the plantation and home manufacturers can be gleaned from U.S. agrricultural censuses. Table 9 shows these items as they are listed on the 1850 and 1860 censuses (MCASC/SGDp/CD). Again, these data should be taken as clues, not as absolutes.

-60- TABLE 8

BILLS FOR SERVICES PERFORMED OR MATERIALS RECEIVED AT ANTEBELLUM: MIDDLETON PLACE (MFP)

Bill Am,ount Date New bolt for handle of Barouche $ 1.00 Feb. 16, 1838 Shoeing horses 16.75 Jan.-'May, 1839 Musket, mending lock and key 7.12 1/2 Jan.-Feb, 1834 4 horse shoes 1.50 March 1, 1842 Training mare .50 March 27, 1844 Servant's cloths 17.00 Feb. 21, 1845 Cleaning gun, etc. 5.25 Jan-Feb., 1845 Horse shoes 9.00 Jan.-May, 1846 Horse shoes 13.00 Nov. 1845-May 1846 Livery and horse 11.50 May 26, 1846 "Material" 8.75 June 25, 1846 "Material" 16.75 June 25, 1846 "MaterialI' 5.75 June 29, 1846 Walnut ball chair 15.00 Oct. 15, 1849 Corn and Oats 3.31 Jan., 1850 Miscellaneous 507.69 Jan-Feb, 1850 Corn and oats 12.60 Feb. 6, 1850 "Material" 576.12 May 21, 1850 Chain pump 7.21 July 1, 1850 Chimneys, wick, etc 14.47 July 1, 1850 Grain 87.50 Sept. 21, 1850 30 yards Brussels 38.00 Sept. 21, 1850 Crimson satin damask 44.00 Oct. 22, 1850 Staples 239.03 Nov. 7, 1850 Clothing 111.00 Jan, 1, 1852 Dry goods 15.73 Jan. 9, 1852 Dry goods 14.00 Feb. 5, 1852 12 yards gl:'een baize 6,00 March 9, 1852 Repairs to PheatQn and carr:tage March 10, 1852 Carting, laths, etc 284.12 1/2 May 10, 1852 Servants clothes 8.00 June 29, 1852 32 feet, 2 1/2 inches of belting 4.80 Nov. 3, 1853 Coats, vests, and pants 139.00 Jan. 2, 1854 Shoeing carriage horses May 28, 1855 Furnishings 285,29 June 15, 1855 Tools, etc 285.29 July 6, 1855 Fencing, na:t1s, etc 455.01 Oct. 1, 1855 Plumbing rep!3-irs. 3.25 Oct. 30, 1855 Dry goods 140.49 Nov. 27, 1855 Dry goods 498.98 Jan. 7, 1857 Groceries 445.45 Jan 8, 1875 (1 year) Dishes 25.25 Jan. 29, 1857 Gas fi.xture installation, etc. 13.75 May 29, 1857 Piano 4.00 June 30, 1857 Dry goods 13.78 Aug. 27, 1857 Dry goods 710.05 July 19, 1858 Upholstery goods 9.37 sept. 30, 1858

-61- TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)

Bill Amount Date

Gas fittings $ 2.00 Oct. 1, 1858 Dry goods 618.52 May 12, 1859 Dry goods 374.93 May 25, 1859 1 pair vases 12.00 May 26, 1859 New coach (with $150.00 credit for old coach) 650.00 Oct. 6, 1959 Upright sawmill 867.00 Dec. 12, 1959 Oil, candles, hams, smoked salmon, saltpetre 30.71 Dec. 24, 1959 Dry goods 423.04 Dec. 31, 1860 Groceries 92.27 1860 Tailor 5l.00 Jan., 1861 House repairs 57.75 Feb.-June 1861 Slaves 185.00 1861 Boat repairs 44.00 1861 Medical services 12.00 Sept. 17, 1862 Groceries 249.60 Jan. 1, 1863 (6 months) Mule and co!'n 657.50 April 16, 1863 Saddle repair and bridle 80.50 Oct. 8, 1864

The documentary record of Middleton Place, as presently available, provides some support for the Genovese model. Bills suggest that many basic services, such as shoeing of horses, were contracted out rather than performed by plantation personnel. Large purchases of clothing, groceries, and the like are also apparent, and grain is bought on occasion. That picture is partly supported by the census data. There is no evidence of household manufactures, and the range of crops raised on the plantation is limited. At the same time, it is clear that reasonably large quantities of some foodstuffs were being produced, mostly corn, peas and beans, sweet potatoes, and livestock. Swan's (1975) conclusions about the self-sufficiency of rice plantations in general are supported by the Middleton Place data. A net food deficit is suggested but not one large enough to support significant interregional trade (Swan 1975: 170). At the same time, there appears to be a greater dependency upon local and regional goods and services than Swan suggests, bringing the Middleton Place data more into line with the Genovese data.

The Archeological Record

From the earlier discussion, Middleton Place is assumed to be a single nucleus settlement after the introduction of tidal rice agriculture in 1780. The formation of most of the archeological record took place after that time. Accordingly, the activities being performed at the plantation are assumed to be within the test area, except for those, such as milling, that are directly related to rice production and occur close'!:' to the river. To the extent that this assumption is correct, the archeological record of Middleton Place also supports the Genovese model.

-62- TABLE 9

MIDDLETON PLACE PRODUCTION FROM AGRICULTURAL CENSUSES (MCASC/SGDP/CD)

Crop or Livestock 1850 Census 1860 Census

Horses 16 15 Asses and mules 4 Milch cows 100 400 Working oxen 3 4 Other cattle 1000 400 Sheep 300 160 Swine 200 400 VALUE OF ALL LIVESTOCK $12,200 $30,253 Wheat (bu.) Rye (bu.) Indian corn (bu.) 200 1500 Oats (bu.) 100 Rice (lbs) 45,000 210,000 Tobacco (lbs) Ginned cotton (bales of 400 lbs) Wool (lbs) 600 600 Peas and beans (bu) 300 500 Irish potatoes (bu) Sweet potatoes (bu) 300 3000 Barly (bu); Buckwheat (bu) Value of orchard products Wine (gal) Value of products of market gardens- Butter (lbs) 2800 3000 Cheese (lbs) Hay (tons) 2 100 Clover seeds (bu) Other grass seeds Hops (lbs) Hemp (tons) Flax (lbs) Flaxseed (bu) Silk cacoons (lbs) Maple sugar (lbs) Cane sugar (1000 lbs) Molasses (gal) Beeswax and honey (lbs) 50 Value of household manufactures Value of animals slaughtered 1000 6490

-63- Table 10 lists the activities that could be identified. The range is very limited and mostly related to the operation of a residence. There is no evidence, for example of "household manufactures" that would make the plantation self-sufficient, such as brick works, pottery kilns, textile shops, and the like. The one exception is the evidence of smithing in Area 5.

TABLE 10

ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED FROM THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RECORD OF MIDDLETON PLACE

DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES TYPE OF EVIDENCE (see Appendix) Food preparation Colono-Indian ware, faunal remains Food consumption Table wares, utensils, bottles Food procurement Weapons, net weight Clothing Buttons, buckles Clothing maintenance Thimble Smoking Clay pipe fragments, corncob pipe fragment Adornment Beads, ornaments, ceramic flower blossom Furniture Upholstery tacks, drawer pulls, knobs

Construction Activities Abandoned building debris Bricks, window glass, nails, shingles Hardware Hinges, latches, escutcheons

Animal Husbandry Carriages Upholstery tacks Shoeing Horseshoes Tack Buckles

Maintenance Activities Blacksmithing Slag Repair Tools Farm or Landscaping Mowing scythe

Storage Containers Bale seals, ceramics

Swnmary

The archeological evidence from Middleton Place has revealed that the site examined conforms in both form and function to the comparative model of plantation settlement proposed earlier. The settlement consisted of the main house flanked by two architecturally similar dependencies, with other structures arranged in regular order to the south and southwest along the same axis as the main house complex.

-64- J'he latter is identifiable as a high status living area and specialized domestic and processing act~vities were carried out in the dependencies. Other structure~based activity areas on the site reveal the presence of specialized activities as well as lower status living areas presumably occupied by slaves. As predicted in the model, those areas associated with agricultural activity are furthest from the main house complex. The only processing activity precisely identified is that of smithing. Specialized production systems at Middleton Place were not located within the sample area, but rather were placed adjacent to the tidal rice fields where they remain as intact structures.

The single nucleus settlement form has the best support in the archeological record; however, the existence of outlying settlements, not part of the sample area, suggests that the pre-tidal plantation may have been multi-nucleated. More research needs to be done on this problem.

The activity areas defined archeologically represent only the first step in the investigation of the nature of the past activities carried out at Middleton Place. The initial sampling has served not only to provide information regarding settlement pattern and function but also forms the groundwork upon which future more intensive studies of intra-site behavioral variability may be based. The delineation and understanding of this variability, in turn, will permit a more accurate interpretation of the settlement and 0f the s0ciocultural processes that effected it.

What is the role of Middleton Place in the larger region? As a plantation, Middleton Place, from preliminary examination of the archeological and documentary rec0rds, appears to have been less self­ sufficient than commonly believed. As such, it supports the Genovese model of the role of the plantation South in the economic development of the United States.

-65- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Initial archeological investigation at Middleton Place has uncovered material evidence of a past settlement associated with structures, ruins, and other visible landscape features on the site. Information regarding the condition of the site has been obtained as has data concerning the settlement's size, form, cultural affiliation, and chronological span. Perhaps most importantly, the archeology has discovered patterning in the occurrence and distribution of behaviorally significant classes of artifacts, patterning that bears directly on the layout of past activities at the site. Although information provided by this first phase of archeological work must remain general in scope, it can aid in interpretive site development as well as in the under­ standing of the plantation as a socio-economic system.

With regard to site interpretation, archeology has revealed the locations of structures or closely placed groups of structures and has roughly defined the limits of activity areas associated with them. Variation in the intensity of occurrence of artifacts clearly defines the most heavily used portions of the site from those areas avoided by past settlement. The archeological record indicates that a 10ng­ term continuous occupation has taken place at the Middleton Place site, resulting in a mixed deposit of archeological materials representing over two centuries of habitation. Most of the artifacts are confined to the colonial and antebellum periods, during which time Middleton Place was a rice plantation. The structures and activity areas defined on the basis of these artifacts also appear to be associated with this period and, as such, may be used in the interpretation of the plantation's early overall settlement form.

The function of Middleton P1~ce ~s a plantation is reflected in the archeological record. In form the settlement exhibits the U-shaped plan characteristic of plantations with the main house complex situated at the head of a drive connecting it with the nearest through road. To the side of the complex are situated domestic and specialized activity areas reflecting the occurrence of agricultural, processing, and storage activities. The specialized domestic roles of the dependencies flanking the main house are discernible in the archeological record as are the status differences of the past occupants of owner and worker living areas.

Specialized production systems were not encountered in the archeo­ logical investigations. At Middleton Place such activities were carried out away from the main cluster of plantations structures. The standing rice mill represents such an activity and lies at the head of an impound­ ment near the tidal rice fields. Other specialized production systems associated with earlier inland swamp rice cultivation, together with the living areas of those whose la.bor they augmented, are likely to have been situated apart from the main plantation complex as well, making Middleton Place a multi-nucleated plantation settlement. The existence of several settlement loci is also suggested by the somewhat limited size of the main settlement cluster.

-66- Perhaps one of the most enigmatic ~rtifacts associated with colonial settlement in southeastern North America is Colono pottery. This pottery resembles both aboriginal American and contemporary West African ware in composition and its role in colonial American culture has been poorly understood (Ferguson 1978). Recently it has become apparent that Colono ware is affiliated with colonial settlements that contain large populations of recent African descent. The presence of large amounts of this pottery at Middleton Place provides another example of this association. Although the recovered specimens were too small to provide new information regarding the physical attributes of vessel form, the distribution of Colonoware at the site indicates that it was used by lower status persons in their own living areas as well as in the kitchen of the main house, but not as a serving ware in the latter. Its occurrence in association with markedly different status contexts not only reflects the close proximity and continuous interaction of these groups on the plantation, but also points to the danger of using the presence of this artifact in the archeological record as an indicator of status without first considering the social and ethnic context of the settlement under study.

The methodology employed in the archeological investigations at Middleton Place involved the use of the technique of stratified systematic unaligned sampling which appears to offer several advantages in the explorations of extensive archeological sites. First, it permits the examination of a large area with minimum expense and the least amount of destruction to the site. Second, it allows the location and tentative identification of structures, features, and activities at the site. Third, it provides a progressively more intensive means of exploration, yielding an increase in detail relative to the size of the sample. Fourth, it offers the advantage of sampling all parts of a site, eliminating bias in favor of particular site elements and against others. This bias is inherently dangerous in the interpretation of sites occupied by complex societies, for the variety of spatially separated activities contained in such settlements may not be adequately sampled if certain areas of the site are systematically ignored. Finally, the use of stratified systematic unaligned sampling in the discovery phase of archeology yields results that may be used in the planning of future archeological resear:ch as well as in current and future site interpretive development.

Based on the initial phase of archeological investigations at Middleton Place several recommendations may be made regarding the course of future research here. This work will be concerned with the continued examination of larger activity areas, the investigation of discrete site elements such as structures, features, and activity loci, and the exploration of new areas of the stte.

1. In the next stage of research structu;re....based ~ctivities defined in the present study should be more intensively, sampled to refine the limits of structures and other cultural features and to provide a larger

-67- more complete sample of artifacts by which to examine more precisely the nature of activities carried out in the past. It is recommended that each area studied have at least 10% of its total area arcneologica11y examined.

The order in which the individual areas are investigated need not be fixed at present. Rather, priority should be based on which aspects of plantation settlement constitute the research interests of the investigator. Because of the paucity of archeological research on slave settlement areas, or indeed on plantation activity areas in general, the investigation of areas suspected to contain evidence of these activities would provide much useful information regarding this aspect of plantation life.

Visible architectural ruins are present in only tnree of the areas and their size limits tne portion of each area that can be examined during the sampling phase of archeological work. The bulk of these ruins virtually pronibits tne excavation of sample units within them without disturbing larger architectural features tnat may already be in an extremely weakened condition. Additional sampling in the areas around the structures, however, snould reveal the extent of activities associated with them and help to better define the boundaries of the settlement in these areas.

It is also recommended at this stage to extend the sample to include the area north and west of tne northern dependency in Area 1 and the area just west of the main house in Area 2. Additional exploration of these areas is necessary because of the limited extent to wnich the present investigations were able to proceed here.

2. An alternative to intensifying the examination of areas already explored at this time is to extend excavations into other parts of the site utilizing the stratified systematic unaligned technique to obtain a 1% sample of the arcneological record there. Only a small portion of the potential site area has SO far been tested and it is unlikely tnat all 0:1; the early settleTI\ent at Middleton Place nas been revealed. Additional discovery phase sampling excavations snould extend westward :l;rom the limits of the presently explored area as far as Highway 61 or until the western boundary of the settlement is clearly defined. Sampling should also be conducted southward to determine the limits of the site in this area.

Documentary reference to slave.houses south of the TI\ill pond indicates that this area, now wooded and in gardens, may contain evidence of a portion of the plantation settlement. Limited sampling excavations should be conducted here to verify its presence and to determine the form, extent, and nature of past occupation in tnis area.

Additional areas of interest would also include tne sites of production and otner specialized activities, sucn as the rice mill and tne sp'1C;i;ng house, and any activity areas discovered in the area now occupied by gardens.

-68- 3. The phase of archeological investigations that should follow intensive sampling involves the complete excavation of selected features located in previous stages of research.

The nature of these excavations must be governed by the type of feature to be examined, its size, its state of preservation, and its relative significance to the site as a sociocultural unit. Archeo­ logical investigations in this phase would be aimed at exposing large areas and their results would provide the most tangible evidence for interpretive site development. Features uncovered at this time may require extensive stabilization and/or partial reconstruction for interpretive purposes. It is anticipated that at least a full field season's work will be involved in the intensive investigation of each area.

At this time excavation of the above ground ruins should be carried out. Because of the substantial yet (ragile nature of the main house and northern dependency structures, it is recommended that the excavation of each be carried out as a separate project and that stabilization be planned and implemented in conjunction with the archeological work. (see Timmons 1976).

The archeological data gathered during this phase will aid in determining the precise form, nature, and spatial extent of the activities that took place within the individual areas. These data should prOVide information on a much finer scale than before and will result in the most accurate picture of the residue of past activities in the plantation settlement.

The selection of areas to be excavated during this phase of resea~ch may be based on criteria similar to those governing the selection of areas for the second phase work. Certainly it is desirable to consider those areas of the site representing different activity complexes as revealed tn previous phases of archeologtcal work. Differential preservation of the remains may also affect the selection of areas for intensive investigation. Of utmost importance in determining the location of future work and the design under which it is conducted are the research questions under consideration. Although it is impossible to predict precisely the form that these questions will take during this later phase of work, three general goals are anticipated to govern this phase of archeology at Middleton Place. These are: 1) the testing of hypotheses derived from the conclusions of the earlier phases of investigation, 2) the development of new hypotheses regarding the nature of intrasite vartation in the distrtbution of functionally significant archeological materials, and 3) the statement of conclusions concerning the settlement's role as a plantation in general as well as its function as a component of the economtc system of the South Carolina lowcountry.

In summary, it is recommended that archeological investigations at Middleton Place be conducted in several phases. These are designed to increase the size of the presently explored area to include the remainder

-69- of the nucleated plantation settlement. They are also intended to provide an increasingly more detailed picture of the site by concentrating on progressively more intensive examination of those areas most likely to yield information useful in the study of the early Middleton Place settlement and in its interpretation as a historical exhibit.

The employment of a multiphase plan is advantageous in that it allows choices to be made throughout the course of the work; choices as to which areas are to be investigated, when the investigations are carried out; and to what extent the archeology must proceed in order to produce the desired results. It is hoped that the use of this type of research design will permit the collection of a maximum amount of information while minimizing the expenditure of time and funds necessary to gather it.

In addition to investigating the principal settlement, archeo­ logical surveys should be carried out in the future over the remainder of the Middleton Place property to locate other settlements affiliated with the plantation as well as significant prehistoric sites in the area. Of particular interest are histo'['ic settlements associated with inland swamp rice cultivation in the eighteenth century. They represent an integral yet largely unknown segment of the early rice plantation. The study and interpretation of such dispersed settlements will add greatly to our knowledge of the plantation as an economic and social unit and should be considered in planning the future development of Middleton Place.

-70- APPUIUX A ~OII-euwtlC All'flPAt:TS , . ~ . ; ; it ; ; ; , ,! , . j , h , ~~ , , · ,. , , ! , • .!f ; , i. ; , . ::i, ~ ! ! j• . ,• " = f , .-;. j .H ; j I ! , i1 l!" b .i5 ii , , , .. i i i • • • I J• •n _. N • .. " 'n '. _. • U • .. ... '. _. ••• "• .. .. • m m •• _. .. • • .. •n 1.1.0_1 • ..• .. • ••• ..... 'Ul.....1 • "U .. • • n,.s. 13100. _. • • • • •• n.s. ClloO. _. • • .. n,.s. CI'S, _._.. • .. • IIS"S. cln. _.. .. n.s. cln. _.. lISJ60. ClloO. _.. • • 1OJ60. ClloO. _.. • .. N • lIS .... C1loO. " .., lISJ60. 13190, .....'1 •• • SJ60. Cl9O• ....., ] .. • lISJ60. Cl!O• .....14 • .. os:ltO. D:l6O. 1.0..11 • • OS:ltO. 1.l:l6O • ....., ) ...... OS:ltO. C:l6O, ....., 4 • ".. • SJ60. ISlfO. • • .S)6.(I. (1)90. "_.1.0.01 1 • .. • OH1S. DUO, .....11 • OS)lO. IHlO, e..ol 2 .. • "• OS",. DUO. •• .. OS)". 11190, "_."'vol 2 ~ ...... " • OS)". ISl~O. lA••,J • " • .. ... OS)IO. 111'0. "'vd 2 •• ... • OHIO. lIllO, Lovol ) • , '" OHIO. 11290. lAvol 2 .. • '"• OJlIO. 11290. Lovd J • .. OSHO. IlllS. "'vol 2 .. • .S"O. Il)]S. 1.00...' J " • .sno. Il.S• ...... 11 " lISIlO. U,.S. 1.00.., 2 .. .. .SUS. CIOO. _._..• • •• .. • nn. DIOO. _.. " .. .nlS. DlSO. .. • .. • .SlU. UUO. _ U• • .. U• .. 1IS11l. DUO. _.. .. _ ••• _ 1110 " nlloo. , 0-. • U .. • 1IS1.a. 0_. _.. • • • ... IISUS. cno. _.. .. U• • •• • .. 1IS1IoS, uno. • • .. 1IS1~. 0*. _.. .. •• • 1IS1~. • l.lJOO. _.. .. nIU. 0_. • ,• 1IS1U. 0_. _.. • • .. nus. 0_. .. • • • • • .., nm. ~. _ • .. • • • .. nl.a. ~". _...... • ...... nl.a. ~". .. "• .. .. nl.a. ~". •...'u.. ,. "• • .. ..., • Sl.a. lS4loO. ,_••, ..... 10 .. .. • ..• .SUO. UlOO. • • • 'lXl. 1$100• lA_' 1 ...... • • • SlXl. ISIOO• _. , ... • )lXl, • • • .. ClOO• '••'.n' • • • .. • S2)I. lSI"• • ...... • , .. • • ,no. Ull'• 1.0"_...11 .. .. • 1.00..., 2 • •• 0'210. 1]24'. .. .. • "• .. .. • • SlIO. ISll'• • " '" .'210. II29l, "_.f ..,".. 1 ...... lAvol , • • S14S. 1)44]• .. .. • u ,• ... !l'~l, • • .. .. OS'IO. • ...... Lo"",1 1 ... OJlll. Illll, "_. , '"•• " OSI]). tI211. lAv., 1 ...... '00• Ollll. Illll• ...... 1 ) • , "• , .. .11110. lIllI, ..._" • • .SUO. IlllS, lA.e! 1 ..•••.. • .. .ll~l. • • • .. Il:l20. l.o..11 .. .. • .. .ll~'. •• ... IlllO, l.o_'2 • " • "• .. " .Sl.S. 11)10, S • • • .SI]S. lUIS. ''''V'. "•• • l.o..I' • • .. lISISS. CllS• .....1 S • • .. .SU'. COU, • l.o.." ...... SIIS. l}OJ6S. ,_...,""... II , .. lISH'. CIU. • u ..• ...... 1_) • • Slll. CIIS• N "U ...... " .SlIl. UIIS. I.oo_ol_..• •••• • , •• IISllS. UI'S. _...... • ...... • .. nUl. I.SIU. • "• • • • • .. 1Il1». lSlU. ...._' ..... 1 • • IISIIO, U1U. •• ...... • m-• 1

. ~ ~ . l . ,, , .. ' 1 , j 1 . , ! , , . " ~ ~ . < , s ~ ,. , , . i ; :1!.~ jj II .. .:.: I =s ! j j i ?3 ,s,ll ! .:0:; j ". . .. " n , " J " ¥ I PH '. 1. 01 I 'H 4 01 1 .. .. ."4, 01) -" .1< ) 1 I "• PI, I 1 I , ,• PH 1 1 I U:I6S, lS14O, 1 .." " JS:I6S. lSIOO 1 " U:I6S. lSlts 1 I U:l6S. lSI'S 1 ) • IS:I6S, lSlts, 1 4 U:w.o, lSlOO 1 I n:w.o. lSlOO 1 1 u:w.o. lSlOO 1 ) ifSMO, lS2to 1 I • IUM•• lSlto 1 ) • u:w.o. lS2to 1 4 ,• UlIO. lS)t,(I, 1 2 IIS)IO. lS)t,(I 1 ) n)lO. lS)t,(I 14 nHO. lS:lto 1 I nHO.lS)tCJ 11 nns. lSIOO 1 I .. lun. lSIOO 1 I IISU). lSI" 1 I ,• nu). lSl 1 1 u nus. lSI" 1 ) .. IUIO. UJOO 1 1 nuo. UJOO 1 ) 1))10. UJto 1 I • InIO. n:to 1 ) In•• UU) 1 1 In•• usn 1 ) u u IUIO. U:I6) 1 1 IUIO. U:I6S 1 1 lun. UICIO 11 1)11). UICIO 1 1 nlU. uno 1 I lun. uno 1 I l)lIS. uno 1 ) ISUO. UlClCl 1 1 .U.... UlClCl ') .SIU. uno 1 I .SUI. uno ,) .UIO. IUCIO , I 1)110. IUCIO 1 I ISIlS. lS)SO , 1 .)1)1. I)SO , 2 IS2SS. IUlO 1 I IS"I. ts4OO ,, IUIoO. "SOlO. Lbol I • ISUO. "SOlO ...... 1 2 U U .UIoO. "SOlO. f"'~T. It >0 >0 .SlloO, lSOlO. f .., ... JO .SISO. !S100 ,I ,• ,• .SIJO. 1)'00 , I .SIJO. ISICIO. 1.<1..1 I .SIJO. IS1ClO. h 0 .Slll, IS"S ,, .SIIO, ISIOS. I.

.SlIO, Ults. r..,~.. I .SIOS. nus, I.0 - " .SIIS, ISlll, 01 I " .,US. I~S, 1. 1 I .S12S. IlOliS. f II -" .'IIS, llllS ,I "• - , nilS, ISIlS, 2-l • - • ISllS, 1S1ll, Lo..1 4 .. • Slll. lSl.S. IA••II , -"- , .SllS. OS'.I 1 I .. III IS. UUS. f 1 , '">0 .SIIO. UlIS , I. " • UliO. UJIS, l.oO..1 ] .. .. "110. Ulto, lAtvol I ,• , 1S110, IS2to. "_I 1 , ISllO, UlU. I._I I ISIJO. U'll• ..-1 I ,• • UIlO. U31S. Levol I • 1_. IlOlIS. Lo.., 1 , , I_S. Ulll 1 I • "_I. uns 1 1 _u• llOIl. lSln. Loool I " .lOIS. Uill 10 u _u .lOIS. ISlll. r II >0 ->0 ._. Ul." 1 I ._. UJU, I I .. ._. llJU, I) " nots. nlto. ~I , • • lSOIO. 1)140...... 1 1 llOlO. U''''. Loool J • nolO. 111'0. , Ll • .SOIO. UI , .., U • • lSOlJ. UIlO 1 I • , .SOIO. nlOO 1 I • , • SOIO. IUOO 1 J u ... .SCI". UllS. Looot I "SOli. lUll, Loool. J "SOlI. lUIS...... , I A!'Ff:JI~rx A _.cF;!W/!C JJIT"AC'!'S • % ! . li l ,. i h ,. ;; j· ~~ ,. . ! ;; · o- 1 L i; .. d' ~ = · G .. ; " ! h ., i'i ! , .. · 51 . ! j ::;1 · H ~ ,i :~ , Il '! i ~i , ! j j .:~ _.. •• I " •• H ! • PI' '. _.. Pit o. PI< " • oU -" '.•• -"_.• • '"PI< I. U• IU'S, -"DUO, ....'1 • IH." nIOO....." IU.S, Dlts.....1 J IS)." nit), ...." • '" IS"S, uns.....l. U' IS_, Dl00.....'1 • IS_, IllOO. IS_. Dl"".....1 ) n_, unO, ..... 2 IS_, uno, -".. ~S_, _ uno. -" ~SJto. 1))00. '--I 2 _nlo. In.o, , ....I ) • • OHIO. 1l140. Lo.d 0 OS_. tl)90. LA..II _S_. E))90. '--I 1 OSlll • • SIOO. Lovd , lIlli, ESIOO • ...... 1 , Isnl, 11l90...... 1 U "Illl. ISI90, Lo.d •1 · .Il)l, EII90• ...... 01 ) '" "1110. 1l2.0. Lo.d 1 '" ... 011l0, IS2.0, Lo.d ) .))10, ES290. 1.e..ll "\l10, ESJ90. Lo.d ) "lllO, IH)I, la.d 2 "lllO, ESHI. L.oevd ) "\l10. 1)161, la.d I Lo.., 2 " "11i0. "161, .. 1)100. _ IlU,. .~.•• nu,. Cloo.....1 1 11l8). Dno. t.o-, , • IlUS. enO.....ll .. • 11l8). uno.....'1 .. Ill~. 11>00....., , • • ISHO. lllOll.....1 • .. In". DISO.....1 1• • • IU.,. 11'10.....' 1 • nno, lUoo.....11 nl_. DlDO.....'1 •• nlll. UJIO.....I • In", DllO.....' J .. I,lll. 11)10.....' ", 1'1l'l. U4OO.....11• IS11oO, 1l41O.....', • .. "'l~. 1l41O....., , • • u U• _suo. nolO. r_,~<. It " 1'2100. nolO. r ....'~•• 20 _,UO. Uloo.....1 • • ISUO. nlOO...... ll• 1'llO, DlOO.....'I • • .silO, DlOO. P.~,~<_..... • • Illl'. CIt). • lIllO, D141. Lo..', U• • ISllO, 1l201. LA..12 " "1110, ES1.I, ~.. • " " "1110, D19I. .. n E'••I. ~''''.''.. , , "I"..1110, la••l• 1 U I., • llll, """.IlZ21. la••1 I " Ilill. Illll. 10.01 1 . lIllI, I)ZIl. 1.0••1 1 .Sl60, ESII!. LA.d I , "11'0. IU1l, '0001 2 .11.,. E))20. _. • • "1101. EH20. " " 01"1, ES120, -"_'..'.n.. 01111, .,llS. "lll, E))/)... _.. , "Sill, _ ""21. -"'oa'"". " • .,111. -'.Illll. _. " ....la•2_) "• " .'IlS. Elll'• _.. • • nils. ElUS. • nUl. U'.'. _. nus. 1l16l. • " .. nus. Il"S. -"r .., ..... • nllo. uns. _. • II\lIO. UIU. _... D~. _• IISIIO. 1ll110. D~. _.. II\no. DIU. -" .. U 11)1)0. nns. 11)1 •• DllS. -"_.. , ~'. -"_.. • , IJlll. • • .. -.-'. "Ul. .. ~ _ -'... DU'. -" .. ~'. DUS. r.~...... • .. ~'. DUI. _''''~''.. • El2.,. " El2". -. D2.S. -"roa'.... u -.lIon. DZ",. _. ..• ~IO, _ -. Ill"". • 1)010. CI.O, 'nt' 2 • nOlO, D100, 'oa'~" .. ISOIO, Dl.O. ,..,",. U • 1)0)1. ESl90, 10.., 1 .. , • 11010, .,Z.O. 1.0••1 , .. "IOlO, E12.0. Lovd 2 • " "1011, E)lll, Lovell " "lOll, 1S)}1. Lovd 2 "1011. E))}l. '--1 I "'~,;-' APPENDIX A ARTIFACT CATALOGUE

CERAMIC ARTIFACTS ""'": ... . -. I '"~ ~ ~ ... . ~ .c '" '" . . ...'" ... 0 '" '" ~ '" 0 .... "'~ . . ~ .~ ...." ,Ii...... ~ . '" ;; ~ '" .li'" E0 li·· . " ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ .... ;l~ ·" is,,,. ·• • 3 E~ E~ "8: J'l'" .il "'" c " ul · ~l '" ~~ 'iI! t,!)~..$ ~.! 1lt!)~ ... :J ! .E-S c.c .. '" '" '. ..-I~ i~ ~~ ~.z ...... Ii ~ .... '" ' "5 • ...... c :iii 0'" ~.~~g-- _l.t ..til ..'" Z ~~ J ~ ...... "'0 ...... ClSl-l ~:J ... "'"m~ ~ " " .. "'...... '" 0 .. .. o CIS ~ " .... ~! is ,. 6'~ ~.'tr.l ~:: ~~"'" ,Hi " '""~: :§:"" " ,Ii " ...... ~6 ~~8 §8~ ~ "'" "'''' · ·" :I: "'''''' " "'''' ",," .,"'''' Pit 4, Levell 1 1 Pit 4,Level 2 1 9 Pit 4, Level 3 1 1 Pit 3, Level 2 Pit l, Level 1 Pit 2, Level 1 N5365, E5140, Level 2 - N5365, E5140, Level 3 - ~ N5365, E5195, Level 2 - ,-:. N5365, E5l95, Level 3 - N5360, E5240~ Level 2 - N5360, E5240 ~ Level 3 - N5360, E5290, Level 2 - N5360, ES290~ Level 3 - N5360, E5290, Level 4 - N5380, E5340, Level 3 - 1 ." 4 N5380, E5340, Level 4 ,.;.. 13 13 N5380, E5340, LevelS.,..' 1 1 N5360, E5390, Level 2 - -, 1 N5325, E5140, Levell.,.. ~ N5325, E5l40, Level 2 - N5335 , ESl90~ Level.2 - N5335 , E5190, Level.3 - N53l0, E5240, 'Level ~2 ,.:... N53l0, E5240, Level 3'-"" N53l0, ES290~ Level 2 - N531O, E5290, Level 3- N5330, E533S" Level' 2 - !:',-, ." N5310, E5365, ~eve1 2 - N5275, E5100,· evel 1 - N5275, E5100, Level 2 - N5285 , E5l50~ Level 1'- N5285, E5150" Level 2- N5285, E5150, Level 3 -- N5260, E5200, Level 2 - N5260, E5200, Level 3 -- N5260,' E520G, Level 4 ... N5265, E525'O, Level 2 ... N5265, E525Q, Level 3 - N5280, E53aQ, Level 2 - N5280, E5300, Level 3 - N5255, E5350, Levell - t/ N5255, E5350, Level 2 - N5255, E5350, Level 3 - 1 N5295, E5400, Level 1 -,,"; N5260, E5450, Levell -';' N5260, E5450, Level 2 - 'N5260, E5450, Feature 19 N5260, E5450, Feature 20 N5230, E5100, Level 1 - N5230, E5100, Level 2 ,;. N5230, E5100, Level 3 - 1- 10 N5230, E5l00, 1 Feature 4 N5235, E5l95, Level 1 - N5235, E5l95, Level 2 - N5210, E5245, Level 1 - N52l0, E5245, Level 2 - 3 N52l0, E5245, Level 3 - 16, N52l0, E5295, Level 2 - N5245, E5445, Level 2 - N5210, E5495, Levell -

N5160, E5275, Levell - C' N5160, E5275, Level 2 - NS165, E532g, Level 1 - N5l65, E532cr~' Level, 2- N5l65, E5320, Feature 5 N5155, E5375, Level 4 - N5155 , E5375, Level 5 - N5l25, E5065, Level 1 - 13 N5l25, E5065, 17 Feature 22 N5ll5, E5llS, Levell - N5115, E5115, Levels 2-3 N5115, E5l15, Level 4 - 18 N5l35, E5l65, Level 1 - _ 1 N5l35, E5l65, Level 2 - 27 N5135, E5165, 8 Feature 7 N51l0, E5215, Levell - 4. N5110, E52l5, Level 3 - 10 N5110, E5290, Level 1 1 1 N5110, E5290, Level 2 - 5 N5l30, E53lS, Levell - 1 N5l30, ES3J.5, Level 2 - 8 N5l30, E53l5, Level 3 - N508S, E5l85, Level 1 - N5085, E5l85, Level. 2 - N5085, E5l25,. Level 1 - 1~ N5085, E5l25, 14 Feature 10 N508S, ESl25', Feature 11 NS060,E5245, Level 1 - 10 NS060, E5245, Level 2 - 18 N5060, E5245, 1 Feature 13 NS095 , E5290, Level 1 - N50l0, E5l40, Level 1 4 N50l0, E5l40, Level 2 - N~010, E5140, Feature 15 NSO.,O, E5l40, Feature 18 N5035, E5l90, Level 1 - 1 NSOI0, E5-240, Level I- 17 N5010, E5240, Level 2 - 24 N5075, ES335, Levell - N507S, E5335 , Level '2 - N5075, 'E5335, Level 3 - N5380, E5340, Level 2 - 1 N5155, E5225, Level 2 - 2 N5l55, E5225, Level 3 - 10 3 AnvPll A cUlAJlrc MlTlTAC'rS , j ,I , i j , j , ! j j~] '~ ; ! ~ • 1 i~ , H , . , ! ~ ! 1 ! .~ ~ :i:I . ~ !. ;~ .:;~ , ; ~ ;: , ] 15 ~ aJ 11: . ' . it ~:! ~ ~ , , ,, }o.'! , H ••, . i H :.~ i -1 , , ~~ . , ~1e d i! , ~~ 1~ !:: ~ .~ ~ caw ~== ~== ;;: ~ ! " ,: • .it • " F:: =: H 1 " 1 H 'H ~ .....,, , , 'H ~ .....' • 'I,~ .....'1 ,- • ••", 'H 1....., • -, 'H , .....', '1, ...... 11 • - "']6~. DlOO. -» • ", "']6~. ""0.0, -» ",]61, Din. -» "']6~, D"I.....1 J IS:MoO,_ ",• ..,.....'2 _•. IS1"'. -» •. ISno. ~I 2 1SJ60,_ IS''''. -»_.. _•. IS''''. " _•. !S,",O. -, .. .. ~I" """0. .. IHIO, 1S]40, ~-, ,- IJ:NoO, ISl"', I.e_' , , Inn, !SI"O, , , "llll, IS'''O, "-,~..'1 "ll)S, IJ''KI, ~_'1 • IlJJl, !'I'KI, ~..I ) ...... , "!J'O, """0, ~.d 1 ~1)'O, 11240, ",'O, ) IU.O, Dl"", Lo..ll " ~II'O, II''''', Lo....' 1 .11)0. lUll, , , IU'O, 11161, ""'Lo..I. , • SHI. 11.00. , • InIJ. IHOO. Lo"-,.., • • IlteJ. nuo...... , ", " lUll, UUO...... , • .. .U." UUO, ...... , J " 'S!liO. DlOO...... ' " - " 1l1lo0. UlOO...... I J • 1l1lo0. UlOO, ...... ,• ", 'UU, IU50...... , 1 .. 1l1lo'. Dno...... 1 IlteO. DJOO...... 1 1 " 'SUO, IJJOO...... , J- • • .. IlnJ. Dno...... 1 , , "'"n. DJ50...... 1 1 ,- IllSS. "'10...... '] "'19', n4OO...... ,, , IlHO, "'10. lA_' , ISHO. D4lO.....1 1 , • ..- 1l)6(l. U45a. F....uno ,. - ISHO. 11450. _,uno 20 " .nlO, IJIOO. -, , , • • suo. DlOO. -» • ",.,0. DIOO. -» • " • .. ... ""lO. D.oo. F...... • " .., ISUI. DI". -, , "• - I,nl, .. .. , 1S19'. -», " , .. .., "'210, """'...... , • • , "'210, D ••" ...... 2 .. " IJUO, n.",. -» •, ..- ..• IJ210, t"". Lo....' 2 "'2.1, 114.,. Lo",,-. , , .. ""10. U.". Lo....l 1 " " "'111, 1S12', "-, , • ..- ""100, n'lJ. ",..11 ", " '"•, ""6ll, U11J, Lo.... l1 ,• , Ill6', ISJ'O. "-, , ..• " ""61, UllO. Lovd 1 • Ill61, ISllO, FU'un ",• ISlll, nllJ. Lovd • , ISUJ, ISlll, Lo_l , , nu" 1106'. , 1~12S, 1106'. F""'...... II •, " .SllJ. ElIU, Lo.d 1 , "• , '"• '1I1~, UU'. \,0_.....1. '_1 " • nil'. ""Il'. , , .. .., •, ",", IlIlS. DI6'...... ,, " "'16~, .. , • IUS. -» • .. .. ISIU. ElIU. F...t ... 7 "• " " , "'110, ISU", '-001 I .,no, nu,...... 1 1 .. .. .SIIO. Dl"OO...... ,, " nllo. D."" ...... , • • nllO, IUU. 1.000001 , , , nuo, EllIS....., 2 • - nuo. U1U. 1.00000, J "• " "• _.~~.1.ooooo11 , lIlOtS. DIIS...... ,, , lIlOt~. D.IS. -» ", • • ", • DU'...... " • " '"• ISl2', F...... 10 • • , --. ISU,. r...,,,,,. II • •, "• "• " '".. --._. Dl.'...... " - •- , --, .. ~ ,_. D14', -» • " .. • , ,_. IS..,. F....'u. n • " .~S. """'...... 1 1 • , ,•- • ,)010. El140...... •, "• .lOlO. D'.o. 1.000001 , • .. lSOIO, DI..,. ru,u. • lSOIO. r.SI.." Fut.n .." • lSOl'. Ell"', lSOln, II''''. -" 1)010. 11240, -»-" • - ~)OIJ, Inn, Lou" " " " ~SOIl, lIllI, ",• "• OSOIl, IJllI, -»-" , .ISSO, 1l140, -» , , , NlUl, "1221, "'vol 2 , NlllS, "221. Lovd 1 ", ", " .., APPD/Jlr A .C1:1W. UUO, ...... Z " t~ " " ISUO. nno, , .... •• ", ", , 1S160. I$4SO, ,...... ro" , " 'SlJO. UIOO, ...... , , '»JO, nlOO, ...... 1 1 " " ISZ)I3, UIOO, ...... ] " " .»JO, u.oo, ~...to'" • ", , nns. ISltS...... , m " .SUS, UltS. Lo... 2 • , ,., .ll'O. IS2n. 1.<'Ywl I , 'Sl,O. ISZ41. ~l Z , .,UO. ESZ." Lonl ] ., ,.,

• SllO. tS19S• ~, , .'Z4S. nus, "-, , , • "u .. IS210. ',..9). "-, " .SUI. t'2lS, "-, " " " ", , ""611. nln, "-, "U ISI6ll, n2n. Lev•• " .SI61. UllO. Le""l , '" 1S161. Ul20. Leval 2 '" .." • S161. UJIO• ~uto"" ,, .SUl, 1S)1S. Lonl 4 " " • Slli. 1SJ71• , , , .SUS. t_S...... ""'ll • 'US. t_S• F....ton .. ~, " • Slli. UIlS• ," ", ", •"U. UIIS• ...... 10 l_l U. ,. ISIIS. tllU. Le.... ~, , " IJI1S. uns. , " " • JllS, IS.n• ~" " , '" '" IJllS. UUS. Fo..on 7 " " ISIIO. nlll. ~" " ~, " • JIIO. Ill'S• , '", '" .SIIO. ~" • .SIIO. ~" ",, -.IHll, .....11 "'UO, -. • " .SUO. ESSn, ~" " • .SUO, nsn, ~" " U ~'. ~ , ", ~,. ~"l. .. " ~" ,. -.~,. ISlll. ~" • '", ~, " ~,. U'lS. , , .lOlIS, ISUS. ~oa<...... 0 , .. .." .lOtS, ISUS. ~""'_o Il • U U2n. ~, , , " '-. ISZ.,• ~" •, ••" ISZU• ~",.uo n • '".. . U U -. ISZ90. .-,. ~" .50.0.-. ~Ioo, ~, , " .50'0. 1SI00, ~"'on U • "U '5010. tsloo. r...."n , ", .~10. " I.S"O, ~" " , , .~lS. 11190, ~" , , '~10. I.Sloo, ~ .~10. ... 11200, .....17 ", , .~IS. tlJJl, La.... ,," Hl07S. lillI, Le.o' 2 .S07S, 'llll, Lo..1 ) ISleO, tll.O, Le... 2 U .SUS, 'llll, Lo..1 2 ",'" ISUI, ISlll, Le... J " '"" APPENXDIX B

DERIVATION OF MEAN CERAMIC DATE

The mean ceramic date formula was developed as a technique by which to determine a mean date of manufacture for British ceramics found in an archeological context (South 1972: 83-84). It is based on the assumption that a ceramic type's popularity will form a uni­ modal curve through time reaching a peak between the time of its introduction and that of its discontinuance. The median date is represented by the peak in popularity. Utilizing Ivor Noel Hume's A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (1970) as a source for the median dates for the use span of each ceramic type, the mean date i (Y) for a group of ceramics present at a particular site is calculated by the following formula:

n LXi' f i Y = i=l n Lfi i=l

where: Xi = the median date of use

f i = the frequency of each ceramic type n the number of ceramic types in the sample

-77- The calculation of a mean ceramic date for the Middleton Place site is accomplished as follows:

Ceramic Type Type Median Sherd Count Product Description Date (Xi) (fj ) (Xi. • f i )

Ironstone-whiteware 1860 82 152520 Mocha 1843 2 3686 "jackfield" ware 1760 2 3520 Green Glazed Cream bodied ware 1767 4 7068 "Clouded" Wares 1755 4 7020

"Astbury" Ware 1738 1 1738 Decorated Delft 1750 117 204750 White Delft 1720 10 17200 "Finger-painted" Cream wares 1805 2 3610 "Annular" Cream wares 1798 15 26970

Overglazed Enamelled Hand Painted Cream ware 1788 5 8940 Cream ~",are 1791 618 1106838 "Finger--painted" Pearl­ ware 1805 9 16245 Embossed Pearlware 1810 1 1810 Transfer-printed Pearlware 1818 66 119988

Underglaze Polychrome Pearlware 1805 53 95665 "Annular" Pearlware 1805 292 527060 Underglaze Hand Painted Pearlware 1800 157 282600 Blue and Green Edged Pearlware 1805 74 133570 Undecorated Pear1ware 1805 384 693120

Brown Stoneware Bottles 1860 42 78120 British Brown Stoneware 1733 68 117844 Westerwa1d Stamped Stoneware 1738 20 34760 Westerwa1d Chamber Pots 1738 17 29546 Moulded White Salt Glazed Stoneware 1753 3 5259

"Scratch Blue" White Salt Glazed Stoneware 1760 5 8800 White Salt Glazed Stoneware 1763 23 40549

-78- Ceramic Type Type Median Sherd Count Product Description Date (X j ) (fi ) (Xi . fj) White Salt Glazed Plates 1758 5 8790 Slip Dipped Salt Glazed Stoneware 1745 2 3490 "Black Basaltes" Stoneware 1785 4 7140 Engine-turned Unglazed Red Stoneware 1769 5 8845

Totals 2092 3,758,061

y = 3757061 = 1795.91 = 1796 2092

-79- APPENDIX C PREHISTORIC CERAMICS

The archeological excavations at Middleton Place yielded 100 prehistoric artifacts, all of them small ceramic sherds. They are composed of brown to brown-black sand-tempered paste with occasional larger inclusions. Coil fractures occur in a number of the specimens. Because of the size of the sherds iu. is impossible to discern vessel form beyond a generally globular shape. No rims are present on any of the specimens.

Six types of exterior surface finishes maY be recognized. The most commonly applied form is simple stamping, followed by check stamping, and the specimens falling into these two categories may be classified respectively as Deptford simple stamped (Caldwell and Waring 1939:4) and Deptford bold check stamped (Caldwell and Waring 1939:1). The next common surface finish is complicated stamping. The specimens exhibit both the curvilinear and rectilinear design elements of the Chicora wares (South 1976; Ferguson n.d.). Most, if not all, appear to be Savannah complicated stamped (Caldwell and Waring 1939:11), although some may represent Pee Dee complicated stamped (Caldwell and McCann 1941:45) vessels. The other ceramics are Cape Fear wares and include, in order of popularity, Cape Fear net impressed, Cape Fear fabric impressed, and Cape Fear cordmarked (South 1976:18-19).

The presence of these ceramics at Middleton Place suggests that the site was occupied as early as '~>t'Oodland times (ca. 800 B.C.) and as recently as the late Mississippian, perhaps into the early historic period. The relatively low frequency of occurrence of prehistoric ceramics at the site and the absence of other aboriginal artifacts imply only a scattered occupation here; however, elsewhere on the plantation "Indian pottery and implimentsll weTe encountered lIfrequently near the surface" in sizable quantities dUTing the removal of phosphate rock in the post Civil War period (WIlliams Middleton to J. Francis FisheT/July 25, 1868/MFP!9-14). The spatial distribution of prehistoric ceramics at Middleton Place does not duplicate that of any class of histoTic artifact on the site. A SYMAP of its OCCUTrence (Fig. 17) reveals that the greatest concentraUon of this artifact lies directly west of the southern dependency of the main house complex. A second concentration of lesser intensity is located southwest of this. Prehistoric ceramics in small numbers have been deposited over much of the site. The occurrence of all of the specimens in mixed historic period contexts and the absence of sealed prehistoric deposits suggest that these artifacts comprised deposits at or neaT the surface that were disturbed and redeposited with the great quantity of historic material geneTated by the subsequent occupations of the Middleton Place site.

-80- ...... •...... •...... •...... •...... ,, ...... ,,, , ...... , ".., ...... "''''m"'.." ...... '''""" ...... " ...... ,...... " .. ,...... ", " ,,',"""""'''...... , ....." " ...... , ....., ...... -,..,_.--....._,_a"'. _ . ...., _...-" ..-..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~:::::! -,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~;;~::~i ... _......

••••m • , ...... "". ._...... _ __••_ ...... _N_...... "u. _ .. :::::::.':::::::::::::::::~::~:::::::::::::::::::::,.::::::: ,...... "...... :.. : :::::::::::::::::::::::::. ..:::...':::::::::::, ,...... " " h " .." ,...... ' •••• m ' ...... " '.­ 0<.­ ...... " ".. ., ..- .... '.- ...... " "".,,,.,, ,, , ,,,...... _ .. , - :::::~:~~::::::::...':::::~::~:~:.::~:.:::::~:~::::::.: ::::::: ::::.. :~;::;:::::::::;::~:::::~~~: '.'" ...... , "...... _,,_ .. -- - _ ...... " " "...... '"'.'., ,,..', , ""' " """...... " "...... " . ,

..._ _ ~ ..,. _ _ u . ... ._~ :.-. jw~~~~~i;;~~~~~ii~~~i~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ §~~~1~~1~~~~~~i~~~~.ili1ili§§~f.Jl1~~l - ...... uu..._.__ __m .:.-.,;;;;.:-;-;;;;;;;. __ '" "" ' "" , 00... " . '-' ",,,u...u. ___- :::::::::::::::::::::···'m::::::.::::::~::~~~:m,·::::;· ~'llil1:.~~tllif'"'lli:.:.tl..- , •••••••- •••••••••••, •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••, , •••••••-- .

FIGURE 17: SYMAP showing distribution of prehistoric ceramics, REcFFBENCE$

PubZ~shed $9U~aes

Antise11, Thomas 1869 Report of the chemi$t. In Repo~t of the Commissioner of Ag~iauUu:t'e fo~ the yea~ 1,868., pp. 59-77. Gc>vernment Printing Of.fice, Washington,

Architects' Emergency Committee 1933 G~eat Geo~gian houses of Ame~iaa., Vol. 1. Ka1khoff Press, New York; reprint edt Dover Publications, New York, 1970.

Baker, Steven G. 1972 Co1ono-Indian pottery from Cambridge, South Carolina, with comments on the historic Catawba pottery trade. University Of $9uth Ca~oUna., Institute of Araheo1,ogy and Anthropo1,ogy., Notebook TV (l) :3-30. Binford, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. Ame~iaan Antiquity 3(2): 203-210.

Blassingame, John W. 1972 The s1,ave aommuni~y., pZantation 1,ife in the antebeZZum South. Oxford Un:Lversity Press, New York.

Buckley, Walter 1967 Soaio1,ogy and mode~ systems theory. Prentice-Hall, Engle­ wood C1±ffs.

Caldwell, Joseph R. and Catherine 'McCann 1941 Irene mQund site, Chatham County, Georgia. University of Georgia., series in Anthropo1,ogy 1.

Caldwell, Joseph R. and Antonio J. Waring 1939 Pottery type descriptions. Southeastern ArahaeoZogiaa1, Confe~enae., News1,etter 1 (o).

Castig1ioni, Luigi Conte 1970 riaggi'o negU' $tati Uniti deU ( Ame~iaa settentriona1,e., fatto neg1,~ anni, 1785., 1786., e 1787., 3 vo1s. Stamperia di G. Mare11i, Milano.

-82- Cheves, Langdon 1900 Mi,ddleton Q:J; S<;>uth Carolina. South Caro"'li;.na Historical, and Geneal,og1;cal, Mq,gazine 1 (3): 228...262.

Cheyney, Edward Potts 1961 Eu:f'opean background of American history: 1300-1600. Collier Books, New York.

Clow, A. and N. L. Clow 1958 Ceramics from, the fi.fteenth century to the rise of the Staffordshire potteries. In A history of technol,ogy, Vol. 4: the ~ndustrial, revol,ution, c. 1750 to c. 1850, edtted by Charles Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall, and Trevor I. Williams, pp. 328-357. Oxford University Press, New York.

Colquhoun, Donald J. 1969 Geomorphology of the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. South Carol,ina State Devel,opment Board, Division of Geol,ogy, MS 15.

Cooke, C. Wythe 1936 Geology of the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. United States Department of the Interior, Geol,ogical, Survey, BuUetin 867.

Crane, Verner W. 1929 The southern frontier, 1670-1732. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor; Ann Arbor Paperbacks, 1956.

Darby, H. C. 1973 The age of the improver: 1600-1800. In A ne~ historical, geography of Engl,and, edited by H. C. Darby, pp. 302-388. University Press, Cambridge.

Dodd, William E. 1921 The cotton kingdon, a chponicl,e of the ol,d South. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Dougenik, James A. and David E. Sheehan 1976 $YMAP user's reference manual,. Harvard College, Cambridge.

Drucker, Lesley M. and Ronald W. Anthony 1978 Very Preliminary partialanalys±s of Spiers Landing artifacts. Ms.' em file, !nst±tute (O)f A'rcheol(O)gy' and Anthropology, Un±vers±ty (O)f South CaTolina.

Duttc;m, ClaTence Edward 1889 The Charleston earthquake of August 31, 1886. Ninth Annual, Report of the Uni'ted States f}eol,ogical, Survey to the Secretq,py of the Inter1;or, 1887-1888. Government Printing Office, Washington.

• -83- Early, Carville, and Ronald Hoffman 1976 Staple crops and urban development in the ,eighteenth­ century South. Perspeativesin Ameriaan history 10: 7-80.

Ferguson, Leland 1978 Looking for the "Afro-" in Colona-Indian pottery. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference on Historic Site Archaeology, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Fishlow, Albert 1965 Antebellum interregional trade reconsidered. In New views on Ameriaan eaonomia development~ edited by Ralph Andreano, pp. 187-200. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Flanders, Ralph Betts 1967 Plantation slavery in Georgia. John E. Edwards, Cos Cob, Conn.

Fogel, Robert William and Stanley L. Engerman 1974 Time of the aross~ the eaonomias of Ameriaan Negro slavery. Lit~le, Brown and Company, Boston.

Font~na, Bernard and J. Cameron Greenleaf 1962 Johnny Ward~!3 :ranch: a study in historic archaeology. The K~va 28(1.,....2).

Geertz, Clifford 1963 Agriaultural involution: the proaess of eaologiaal ahange in Indonesia. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Genovese, Eugene 1962 The significance of the slave plantation for Southern economic deve10pment. Journal of Southern History 28 (4): 422 -437.

(Editor) 1973 The slave eaonomies. Random H0use, New York.

1974 Roll~ Jordan~ Roll: The world the slaves made. Random House, New York. Gentlemanfs Magazine 1753 Poetical essay from C. W. in Carolina to E. J. at Gosport. 23:337-338.

(i;QuJ.;d, J. D. 1972 Eaonomia growth in history~ survey and analysis. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.

~84.,.... Gray, Lewis Cectl 1932 History of ag~iau~tuve in the southern United States to 1860, 2 vols. Carneg;te Institute of Washington; reprint edt Peter Smith, Gloucester, Mass., 1958.

Green, H. J. M. 1961 An analysis of archeological rubbish deposits. Araheo­ ZogiaaZ News Letters, 7(3):53.

Haggar, Reginald G. 1968 The concise encyaZopedia of aontinentaZ pottery and porceZa~n. Frederick A. Praeger, New York.

Haggett, Peter 1966 LoaationaZ anaZysis in hum~n {Jeo{Jraphy. St. Martins Press, New' Yo:rk.

Hamilton, T, M. 1964 R,ecent developments ;in the use of gunflints for dating and identification, In Diving into the past, edited by June D. Hplmquist and Ardis H. Wheeler, pp. 52-57. Minnesota Histbrical Society and the Council for Underwater Archae­ ology, St. Paul.

Hilliard, Sam Bokers 1975 The tidewater rice plantation: An indigenous adaptation to nature. Geosaienae ~nd Man 12: 57-66.

Hurst, John G. 1971 A review of archaeological research. In Deserted MedievaZ viZZages,edited by Maurice Beresford and John G. Hurst, pp. 76-144. Lutterworth P:ress, London.

Hutchinson, William K. and Samuel H. Wtl1iamson 1971 The self-sufficiency of the antebellum South: Estimates of the food supply. JournaZ of Economie Histo~ 31:591-612. Jones, Olive 1971 Some comments on the Newman d.ating key. Society for Hist..­ orica~Ara~eoZo{JY NewsZetter 4(3}: 7-13.

Ki;mbCl,ll, fiske 1922 Domestic ~rahi'tecture of the Americ~n coZonies and of the ear~y repub~ic, ChCl,~les Scribner's Sons, New York; reprint edt Dover Pub1icati.ons, New' Yc;>:rk, 1966.

Kronberg, Nathan 1971 Climate. In S()i~ survey of CnarZeston County, South CaroZina, by' E. N.Mil1er, Jr., pp. 72-74. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation service and Forest Se~vice in cooperation with South Carolina Agri­ Cultural Experimentation, Government Printing Office, Washington.

-85- Laidackel?, Sam 1954 AngZo-Amer(;ca,n chiw, Pt. 1: export chi'na made foY' the American trade. Privately published, Bristol, Pennsylvania.

Latimer, W. J., J. M. Snyder, and C. Van Duyne 1917 Soil survey of Do:rochester C(!)unty, South Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington.

Lees, William B. and Kathryn M. Kimmery-Lees 1978 Form and functi(!)n (!)f C(!)lono-Indian pottery in an historic plantation context. Paper presented at the 43l?d Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

Lewis, Kenneth E. 1976 Camden, a frontier town in eighteenth century South Carolina. Institute 9f Awche9'?P(J'f/ and Anthropology, Univewsity of South CawoZina, Anth:t'(!)poZogical Studies 2.

1978 An archeological survey of Long Bluff State Park, Darlington County, South Carolina. Institute of Archeology and Anthro­ pology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series 129.

Lindstrom, Diane 1970 Southern dependence upon interregional grain supplies: A review of the trade flows, 1840-1860. In T:lttf>:lA3tructure of the cotton economy (!)f the antebellum South, edited by W. N. Parker, pp. 101-114. Agricultural History Society, Davis Calif.

Logan, Herschel C. 1959 Cartridges, a pictoral digest of small arms ammunition. Bonanza Books, New York.

J.;.ongacl?e, William A. 1971 CUl?rent thinking in American archaeology. In Current directions in anthropology, edited by Ann Fisher. American AnthropoZogioaZ ,As8ociuti'on, Bulletin 3(3), pt. 2: 126-138.

Lorrain, Dessamae 1968 An archaeologfstts guide to nineteenth century American glass. Hist9rical Archaeology 2:35-44.

MacLeod, William Christie 1928 The American Indian frontier. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Mercer, Henry C. 1923 The dating of old houses. Bucks County Historical Society Papers 5; reprinted., Bucks County Historical Society, New Hope, Pennsylvania, 1976.

"'-86- Middleton, Nathaniel ~uss.ell, Jit'. 1929 Record. In L1,-Je in Cerro Z{;na and New EngZand dur{;ng the nineteenth aentUTY~ pp. 139-182. Privately printed, Bristol, ~hode Island,

Middleton Place Registered National Historic Landmark, Inc., and Middle­ ton Place Foundation 1976 MiddZeton PZaoe. PrivatefY printed, CHarleston.

Miller, E. N" Jp. 1971 So{;Z survey of CharZeston~ $outh CaroZina. United States Department of; Ag't'±culture, Soil Conservation Service and 'Fores,t Service in cooperation with South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Statton, Government Printing Office, Washington.

M:i::ntz, Sidney W. 1959 The plantation as' a socio-cultural type. In Plantation systems of the New World. Pan Ameriaan Uni'on~ SoaiaZ Saienae Mon(!)graphs 7: 42-49.

Mudge, Jean McClu't'e 1962 Chinese export p(!lY,1ae"lain for the Ameriaan trade~ 1785-1835. University of Delawill,re Press, New York.

News and C()urier (Charleston, S,C.) 1937 New, guest house a,nd stable constructed at famous estate harmon:i::ze tn tone with 't'es:i::dence on the Ashley River. April 12, 1937,

Newton, Mtlton B., Jr. 1971 Louistana house types, a field guide. Museum of Geoscienae~ Loui"si'a.na $tate Vn1,-vers,i'ty~ MeZanges 2;1-18,

Ntem~, Albept W~, j~. 1977 ;I:nequality, in the dist~:i::bution of slave wealth: The cotton South a,nd othep SQutherrn agricultural regions. JoumaZ of Eaonomi'o Histr;?'PY 37(3):747-754.

\1 Nl;?el Hume , J)vop 1962a An Indtan ware of the c91<;m;i..al pertod. QuarterZy BuUetin of the ,Ar'ahaeoZpg1;c:aZ Soo{;ety of Virginia 17(1):2-14.

1962b Excavations at Rosewell, Glouster County, Virginia, 1957­ 1959. Uni'ted $t{1,te$ Nati'onaZ Museum~ BuUetin 225, Contri­ but1;ons fr(!1!71 the Museum of History and TeahnoZogy~ Paper 18: 153...229.

1969 Hi'l?tori'oaZ arahae()Zqgy. Alfred A, Knopf, New York.

1970 A guide to artifaats of aoZoniaZ Ameriaa. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

-87.,.. North, Douglass C. 1961 The economic f]rQU)th of the United States" 1790-1860. Prentice­ Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.j. 1974 Growth and welfare in the American past: A new economic history. Prentice...Hal1, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Olmstead, Frederick Law 1953 The cotton kingdom" a traveZZer'8 observations on cotton and slavery in the A,merioan southern states. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

1957 A tobacco plantation in Virginia. In The plantation South" edited by Kathrine M. Jones, pp. 49-55. The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., Indianapolis.

Otto, John Soloman 1977 Artifacts and status differences -A comparison of ceramic differences from planter, overseer, and slave sites on an antebellum plantation. In Research strategies in historical archeology" edited by Stanley South, pp. 91-118. Academic Press, New York.

Pan American Union 1959 AppendiX: summaries of workshops. In Plantation systems of the New World. Social Science Monographs 7:188-196.

Petty, Julian J. 1943 The growth and distribution of population in South Carolina. South Carolina State Planning Board" Bulletin 11.

Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell 1929 Life and labor in the old South. Little, Brown and Co., Boston.

Prunty, Merle, Jr. 1955 The renaissance of the southern plantation. The Geographical Review 45(4):459-491.

Rawick, George P. 1972 The American sZave: a composite autobiography" Vol. 1: from sundown to sunup" the making of the black community. Greenwood Publishing Co., Westport, Connecticut.

Redfield, Margaret 1978 Historic houses: Middleton Place annals. Architectural Digest 35(9):104-111.

Redman, Charles L. and Patty Jo Watson 1970 Systematic intensive surface collection. American Antiquity 35(3):279-291.

-88... Roth, Rodr;ts 1961 Tea d):'inking in 18th century America: its etiquette and equipage. Vni'ted $tc;r,te$ Natf;ymq,l Mu$eum~ BuUetin 225.

Rowse, A. L. 1957 Tudor expansion: the transition from medieval to modern history. Wf;l'l1"arn and Mary CoUege Q;uarter'ly Series 3, 14 (3) : 309,...316.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37(2):156,....165.

1976 Behai/if;oral archealo(JY. Academi.c Press, New York.

1977 Toward a unified seience of the cultural past. In Research strq,tegi'es in hi'storf;cal archeology~edited by Stanley South, pp. 13-40. Academic P't'ess, New York.

Selle):'s', Leila 1934 Charle$ton bus1;ne$s on the eve of the Ameri~an Revolution. University of No'rth Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Shepa):'d, Ann.;a O. 1956 Ceramics for the a't'chae(!)logist. Carnegie Institution of Wash1;ngton~ Publ1;rxJJtirm 609.

Smith, Alfred G. 1958 Ec:onorrr{:;c re(jl(1;ius;f;ment ()f an old cotton state~ South CaroUna.. 1820,....1860. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Smith, Henry A. M. 1915 Old Charles ToWn and its vicinity, Accabee and Wappoo where indigo was first cultivated, with some adjoining places in St. Andrews Parish. South Carolina Historical and Genea­ logical Magazine 16(2):49-67.

1919 The Ashley River: Its seats and settlements. South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine 20(1):3-51 and (2):75-122.

South, Stanley 1970 Exploratory excavations at the Price house (38SPI). Uni­ versity of South Carolina.. Institute of Archeology and Anthro­ pology.. Research Manuscript Series 5.

1972 Evolution and hor±zon as rervealed in ceramic analysis in historical archaeology. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology.. Papers 6: 71---116.

-89- South, Stanley (~ont.l 1976 An archaeological aupvey of southeastern coastal North Carolina, [19607]. Un1)versity of South CaroUna~ Institute of Archeology and AnthY'opology~ Notebook VIII.

1977 Method and theoJ:lY in historical archeology. Academic Press, New York.

Swan, Dale E. 1975 The structure (md profitability of the antebeUwn rice industry: 1859. Arno Press, New York.

Thompson, Edgar T. 1959 The plantation as a, social system. In Plantation systems of the New WQrld, Pan American Union~ Soaial Saienae Mono- graphs 7; 26...37 .

Timmons, sha,ron (Editop) 1976 Preservation and aonsewvation: Principles and praatiae. Smithsoni,an rnst:;i:tution Press" Washington.

Uni,ted States Army, Copps of Engineers 1972 Provisional reconnaissance inventory of the Charleston Di'st:rict., Office (l)f tlie Chief of Engineers, Engineer Agency for iR,esoupces XnV'entories. Government Printing Office, Washington.

United States Census, ?opulation South Ca,;J::'o1i.na, 1790-1890.

Use1ding, Paul 1976 A note on the iJ'lteil7'Peg:;i:<:ma1 trade in manufactures. Journal of EC(JJn(pmfc His,towy 36(2);428~435.

Wagley, Charles a,ndMarV'in Harri:s 1955 A typology of Latin American subcu1tuil7es. American Anthro­ poZogist 57(3) ;428,...451,

Wallerstei.n, Imma,nue1 1974 The modern world system~ capitalist agriculture and the origins of the wOY'ld~economy in the sixteenth century. Aca,demic Press, New York.

Waterman, ThQrna,s· Ti1eston 1945 The mansions of 'Virgi;ni;a~ 1706-1776. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel H±l1.

Waterman, Thomas Ti1eston and Jolin A. Barrows 1969 Domestic aolonial arahitecture of tidewater Virginia. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

~90~ Wood, Serry 1951 Havi Zand-Limoge s • China Classics 2. Century House, Watkins Glen, New York.

OriginaZ Record Groups

Charleston County, Records of the Ordinary/Probate Judge Inventories, Appraisments, and Sales, 1783-1867, 15 vols. South Carolina Archives, Columbia, manuscript.

Charleston County, Records of the Ordinary/Probate Judge Wills, 1783-1868, 15 vols. South Carolina Archives, Columbia, manuscript.

Charleston County, Register of Mesne Conveyance Conveyances. Charleston, manuscript.

Colleton County, Records of the Probate Judge Inventories. Walterboro, manuscript.

Dorchester County, Register of Mesne Conveyance Conveyances. St. George, manuscript.

Greenville County, Records of the Probate Judge Wills. Greenville, manuscript.

Manuscript Census, Agriculture, South Ca:r:olina St. Geo:r:ge Dorchester Parish, Colleton District, 1850-1880. South Carolina Archives, Columbia, microfilm.

Manuscript Census, Population, South Carolina St. George Dorcheste:r Pa:rish, Calleton District, 1790­ 1880. South Carolina Archives, Columbia, microfilm.

Manuscript Census, Population, South Carolina Slave Schedules, st, George Parish, Colleton District, 1850-1860. South Carolina Archives, Columbia, micrifilm.

Middleton Family Papers Middleton Place Foundati(!)ll, Charleston, manuscript.

South Ca:rolina, Records of the Secretary of State Land Grants, Colonial Series, Copies, 1694-1776, 43 vols. South Carolina Archives, Columbia, manuscript.

Williams Middleton Papers South Caroliniana Lib:ra:ry, University of South Carolina, Columbia, manuscript.

-91- Maps

John McCrady Co. 1936 Topographic map of a portion of Middleton Gardens, Charleston, S. C. Map 53 x6l cm., scale 1:360. Charleston.

LaFarge, L. Bancel 1936 Proposed farm group for Middleton Place, Charleston, South Carolina. Map 57 x 59 em., scale 1:360. New York.

Purcell, Joseph 1786 A plan exhibit~ng the shape and form of a body of land called Limerick. Col. map 37 x 60 em., scale 1:15,840. South Carolinfana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, manuscript.

Sauthier, C. J. 1769 Plan of the town and port of Brunswick in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Map 56 x 44 em., scale 1:3,120.

United States Departmento~ Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Setiyce 1938 Vertical a.erialf photograph, ASN-3A-47, Dorchester County, South Carotlina,i Photo 24 ~ 29mm., scale 1:20,000.

'.

-92-