Stafford_1402_Report.pdf

NatioNal Park Service U.S. DePartmeNt of the iNterior

SoUtheaSt archeological ceNter tallahaSSee, floriDa chimNeYS reviSiteD: archeological teStiNg of SelecteD Slave caBiNS at the StafforD PlaNtatioN, 9cm104 cUmBerlaND iSlaND NatioNal SeaShore, georgia

SOUTHEAST ARCHEOLOGICAL CENTER

The Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) is a support operation of the National Park Service’s Southeast Region. In assisting parks with their cultural resource management needs, SEAC facilitates long-term protection of archeological resources and compiles and utilizes the archeological information obtained from these resources. In addition to annually generating numerous archeological reports, as mandated by federal law and park operations, SEAC is the repository for over eight million artifacts that make up the Southeast Region’s research collections and contribute to its cultural database. SEAC is staffed by professional NPS archeologists and regularly employs archeology students from Florida State University and other anthropology programs throughout the Southeast.

For more information contact:

Southeast Archeological Center 2035 East Paul Dirac Drive Johnson Building, Suite 120 Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Telephone: 850-580-3011 Fax: 850-580-2884 http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/seac.htm chimNeYS reviSiteD: archeological teStiNg of SelecteD Slave caBiNS at the StafforD

PlaNtatioN, 9cm104 cUmBerlaND iSlaND

NatioNal SeaShore, cUmBerlaND iSlaND, georgia

Edited by John E. Cornelison, Jr., M.S., R.P.A.

Meredith D. Hardy, Ph.D., R.P.A.

With contributions by

John E. Cornelison, Jr., M.S., R.P.A.

Meredith D. Hardy, Ph.D., R.P.A.

Timothy J. Roberts, M.A.

Robert Hellman, M.A.

Barbara Vargo, M.A.

Brian Worthington, M.S.

Charles F. Lawson, M.S., R.P.A.

Jessica McNeil, M.A., R.P.A.

Robert Nickel, M.S

R. Steven Kidd, M.S.

SEAC Accession 1402/1844 CUIS Accession 433

Southeast Archeological Center National Park Service Tallahassee, Florida

MANAGEMENT SuMMAry i

The standing chimneys at the Stafford Plantation slave village provide a ghost-like remembrance of a distant time. The chimneys remain the only above ground indication of the enslaved people who comprised an overwhelming (twenty to one) majority of the island’s population for over half a century. With the currently declining state of the chimneys, it is only a matter of time before they will no longer remain standing as reminders of one of Cumberland Island’s most formative historic periods.

Prior to attempting a stabilization program on the standing chimneys, the park asked that archeological testing be undertaken to research the ground disturbing impacts of planned stabi-lization scaffolding. For seven weeks beginning in May 1999 and continuing for four weeks in 2003, crews from the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) conducted geophysical survey and subsurface testing at the Stafford site.

The geophysical survey began with the ex-amination of selected grids using the EM-38 ground conductivity unit and the GSM-19 Over-hauser Proton Precession Gradiometer. It was hoped that this non-destructive approach for dif-ferentiating geophysical dissimilarities would provide insight into the subsurface manifesta-tions of the cabins; however, useful results were not forthcoming. The remains of the fireboxes produced such large magnetic anomalies that the minor variations sought, such as evidence of decomposed subsurface structural components, were masked. Attempts were made to enhance the data with different filtering algorithms but to no avail. Additional geophysical survey using ground penetrating radar (GPR) was utilized during the 2003 field season. The nature of the sandy soils in the area of the chimneys was considered ideal for this device; however, no evidence of sub-surface wall lines or structural features were located. Later “ground-truthing” via excavation revealed that there was little dis-cernable evidence reflective of architectural detail in terms of either structure size or orientation still present below the ground surface, and the dearth of anomalies detected by the GPR was not due to a survey failure, but to their virtual nonexistence.

The remains of 25 structures (26 chimneys) were located at the site of the former Stafford slave village. Of these, 12 cabins were selected for archeological testing. The level of testing at each cabin varied from a few 1 x 1 m units to total excavation. The excavations allowed researchers to make some significant state-ments regarding the living conditions of the enslaved population at Stafford Plantation:

1) The cabins appear to have been of a standard size, 16 x 20 ft, single pen style, with the exception of the “hospital” and “Zabette’s” cabin.

They were wood frame structures (most likely using pine), with wooden floors, as indicated by the large number of cut nails, with a clapboard exterior and a thatch roof that made use of the islands’ plentiful palmettos. Each cabins’ chimney was constructed using clay bricks to form the firebox with the remainder of the chimney composed of tabby bricks, since tabby bricks could not withstand high temperatures.

2) The enslaved population at Stafford engaged in entrepreneurial activities outside of their assigned tasks that allowed them to accumu-late small amounts of money which they used to purchase goods not provided by Robert Stafford.

These included, but were not limited to, smoking pipes, beads, finery, and alcoholic spirits.

3) The enslaved occupants of each cabin supplemented the rations provided by Stafford with fish, shellfish, reptiles, birds, and mammals that were caught, collected, trapped, or shot. The presence of numerous wild species combined with gunflints, lead shot, and actual gun parts all testify ii

Stafford Plantation Slave Cabin Excavations to the fact that the Stafford slaves maintained a small arsenal of muskets, pistols, and rifles.

4) Several of the artifacts recovered po-tentially speak to the religious beliefs held by Stafford’s bondsmen, and in fact are possible examples of the “Africanisms” sought by Ascher and Fairbanks (1971) in their original study of the Rayfield slave village. Artifacts that fit into the category include the “ugly-face” jar fragment and colored glass beads.

At the time of the 1999 excavations, the park had not decided which chimneys were to be stabi-lized; consequently, the chimneys were evaluated and selected for testing using the criteria of standing, fallen, or leaning. It was concluded by the Principal Investigator that the standing chimneys would be the most likely candidates for stabilization as the chimneys in the other catego-ries were partially or completely destroyed and thus less likely candidates to receive stabilization.

But, since only two of the three rows of cabins at the Stafford Plantation had standing chimneys, a cabin with a fallen chimney on the easternmost row was also excavated for comparative analysis.

Prior to the beginning of unit excavations, shovel testing was undertaken across the village area to examine the nature and intrasite dis-tribution of the remnant material culture. The data that were recovered were well worth the effort, and revealed that the cabin sites are ma-terially rich and diverse. During the two field seasons an additional two cabins were excavated at Rayfield Plantation, but the latter will be discussed in separate report. The excavations at Stafford Plantation effectively mitigated the potential loss of cultural information associated with the installation of stabilization scaffold-ing around the standing chimneys and gathered a significant collection of material remains as-sociated with slave life on Cumberland Island.

maNagemeNt SUmmarY .............................................................................................................. i ackNoWleDgmeNtS ...................................................................................................................... vi liSt of figUreS ................................................................................................................................ vii liSt of taBleS ................................................................................................................................... xii chaPter 1. overvieW Ethnogenesis and Creolization, Complexity, and the Black Landscape chaPter 2. eNviroNmeNt PhysiograPhic comPonents soils Water resources Flora Fauna chaPter 3. PrehiStorY aND hiStorY introduction Prehistory history

History of Stafford Plantation the institution oF slavery

Daily Life and Market Participation chaPter 4. PrevioUS archeologY summary: archeology oF Plantations Previous archeology at cumberland island

Ascher and Fairbanks’ Investigation at Rayfield – 1969 Ehrenhard’s Investigation at Stafford 1978-1979 conclusion geoPhysical surveys

Magnetic Survey chaPter 5. geoPhYSical teStiNg EM 38 Ground Conductivity Survey Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) chaPter 6. archeological excavatioNS cabin 2 cabin 3 cabin 4 cabin 6 cabin 7 cabin 10 cabin 11/12

Contents iii cabin 13 cabin 16 cabin 17 cabin 18 cabin 24 soil samPles - Flotation shovel testing survey general construction sequence summary chaPter 7. material cUltUre ceramic Wares

Creamware Pearlware Whiteware Yellowware Redware Ironstone Slipware Tin-Enameled Wares Olive Jar Porcelain Stoneware Native American Pottery Analysis Tobacco Pipes glass artiFacts Beads metal artiFacts Lead Shot stone artiFacts Personal items

Buttons Faunal remains

Biomass Distribution of Remains botanical remains datable evidence summary chaPter 8. SPatial aNalYSiS of SelecteD artifact categorieS mean ceramic date (mcd) ceramics sPecialty items cabin 4 intra-analysis ceramic Frequencies chaPter 9. roBiNSoN’S iNDex of agreemeNt Interpretation iv chaPter 10. coNclUSioNS aND recommeNDatioNS conclusions discussion

Testing the Complexity/CAS Model section 106 recommendations recommendations For Future research aPPeNDiceS catalog oF artiFacts lists oF staFFord’s slaves mean ceramic dates For each oF the staFFord slave cabins cabin condition rePort at time oF Project results oF chi square tests For the staFFord slave village em-38 and gsm-19 results refereNceS citeD

Contents v

The authors of this report would first and foremost like to extend their thanks to the supportive staff at Cumberland Island National Seashore for their assistance in every aspect of the project from planning and logistics to housing and transportation.

We would also like to thank Ms. Lucy Ferguson for her hospitality as we worked in her backyard.

We would also like to relay our appreciation for the support we received from the regional office in Atlanta for their cooperation in this project. Thank you to Southeast Archeological Center Director David Morgan, former Directors John Ehrenhard and Bennie Keel, and former Associate Director George S. Smith for their encouragement, support, and guidance throughout the preparation of this document.

Thanks are extended to Mr. Greg Hagge, curator of the Ft. Lewis Military Museum located at Ft. Lewis, Washington, who provided invaluable assistance in determining manufacturing methods and the location of source material for the button analysis appendix.

This investigation could not have been completed without the dedicated work of the crews and volunteers, who braved summer heat, ticks, snakes, and wild pigs to uncover the stories of slave life on Cumberland Island. The 1999 field crew was composed of Principal Investigators John Cornelison and David Brewer, Tammy Cooper, Tyler Cremeens, Rolando Garza, Meredith Hardy, Kristina Hesse (from the University of Umeå, Sweden), Jeff Jones, Jason Kelly, John Kilgo, Christian Russel, Jodi Skipper, and Emily Yates.

The 2003 crew consisted of Principal Investigator John Cornelison, Jennifer Bedell, Tammy Cooper, Elizabeth Cooper, Jill Halchin, Chuck Lawson, Jessica McNeil, Heather Mustonen, Steve Kidd, and Shannon Weatherby. Robert Nichol ran the ground penetrating radar. A heartfelt thank you also goes to all the volunteers who provided many hours of field work, and to all the students who assisted with the field and the laboratory work.

Thanks to Timothy Roberts for his insightful comments and assistance with the formatting and editing of this report. Finally, thanks go to the staff at SEAC, especially to curatorial staff Audrey Trauner, Richard Vernon, former curatorial manager Bob Wilson, and Bridget Beers for all of their support and help, and to former Administrative Officer Janice Burke, former Administrative Assistant Tiffanie Bourassa, and Administrative Assistant Cheryl Brinson. Without their support none of this would have been possible.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

vi

Figure 1. SEAC archeologist digging at Cabin 18

Figure 2. Location of the Stafford slave cabins

Figure 3. Ecoregions of the U.S. Atlantic Coast. Derived from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2006 (1997). <http://www.esri.com/ metadata/esriprof80.html>

Figure 4. 1802 McKinnon map of Cumberland Island, and detail of Tract #5. Red square bounds Stafford slave village

Figure 5. ca. 1790 map of Cumberland Island, showing the location of the Staffords

Figure 6. Photo of Planters House

Figure 7. 1877 Navigation chart, from Sapelo Island to Amelia Island, Chart 157. Two rows of Stafford slave cabins highlighted. Image courtesy of NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey Historical Map and Chart Collection, http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov

Figure 8. Photograph of slaves planting sweet potatoes, James Hopkinson’s Plantation, Edisto Island, South Carolina. Photograph by H.P. Moore, 1862. Image courtesy of the New York Historical Society

Figure 9. Group of slaves going to the field, James Hopkinson’s Plantation, ca. 1862-1863. Photograph by H.P. Moore. Image courtesy of the New York Historical Society

Figure 10. Slave hospital, Adams County, Mississippi. Photograph taken by Lester Jones, Historic American Buildings Survey, February 1940

Figure 11. Master plan for Stafford village archeological testing

Figure 12. Cabin-specific sub-grid excavation plan for the Stafford Plantation slave village . . . 59

Figure 13. Map showing the location of the ground penetrating radar (GPR) grid

Figure 14. Composite map of GPR reflections from Grids 0-3 and 5

Figure 15. Composite map of near-surface FPR reflections from Grids 0-3 and 5

Figure 16. Meredith Hardy and Swedish volunteer Christina Hesse screening for artifacts . . . 65

Figure 17. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 2

Figure 18. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 3

Figure 19. Feature 1 plan map

Figure 20. Cabin 4 excavation area, with all interior units opened

Figures vii

Figure 21. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 4

Figure 22. Jetton recovered from Cabin 4, EU 6, Lv. 10. Catalog number: CUIS 39161

Figure 23. In situ blue hand-painted pearlware cup, recovered from Cabin 4

Figure 24. Plan map of excavations at Cabin 6

Figure 25. In situ bottle fragments

Figure 26. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 7

Figure 27. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 10

Figure 28. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 11/12

Figure 29. Cabin 11/12 excavation area

Figure 30. Locations of features encountered in Cabin 11/12

Figure 31. Photograph of Feature 1, Cabin 11/12

Figure 32. Selected artifacts recovered from Feature 1, Cabin 11/12. Catalog numbers: a. CUIS 38694 (charcoal), b. CUIS 38687 (iron cut nail), c. CUIS 38695 (bone), d. CUIS xxxxx (bowl), e. CUIS 38682 (annular pearlware), f. CUIS 38704 (redware),g. CUIS 38698 (blue shell edged pearlware), h. CUIS 38700 (blue hand painted pearlware), i. CUIS 38708 (lead shot), j. CUIS 38679 (clear bead), k. CUIS 38684 (glass), l. CUIS 38680 (brass button), m.

CUIS 38679 (blue glass bead), n. CUIS 38705 (iron buckle), o. CUIS 38690 (iron handle), p.

CUIS 38697 (glass), q. CUIS 38706 (iron cut nail), r. CUIS 38691 (mammal bone)

Figure 33. Map of Feature 2, Cabin 11/12

Figure 34. Artifacts recovered from Feature 2, Cabin 11/12. Catalog numbers: a. CUIS 39879 (pin),

b. CUIS 39880 (nail), c. CUIS 39876 (burned pearlware finger-painted decoration), d. CUIS 39875 (polychrome pearlware), e. CUIS 39877 (stone), f. CUIS 39874 (barnacles),g. CUIS 39881 (metal and tabby), h. CUIS 39878 (cast iron pot)

Figure 35. Map of Feature 3, Cabin 11/12

Figure 36. Selected artifacts recovered from Feature 4, Cabin 11/12. Catalog numbers: a. CUIS 46961 (ugly face ceramic), b. CUIS 46959 (glass), c. CUIS 46964 (iron fragment), d. CUIS 46963 (earthenware), e. CUIS 46966 (windowpane), f. CUIS 46962 (redware),g. CUIS 46960 (pearlware), h. CUIS 46965 (bone), i. CUIS 46950 (spoon)

Figure 37. Close-up, ugly face redware, CUIS 46961

Figure 38. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 13

Figure 39. Planview Map of features encountered in Cabin 13 EU 38 LV 7

Figure 40. Planview Map of Feature 8, Chimney 13 EU 45 LV 11

Figure 41. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 16 viii

Figure 42. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 17

Figure 43. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 18

Figure 44. Map of tabby block located just west of Cabin 18

Figure 45. Photograph of tabby block, Cabin 18

Figure 46. Plan map of excavations from Cabin 24

Figure 48. Reconstructed polychrome bowl. Catalog numbers CUIS 37565, CUIS 38699, CUIS

40283, CUIS 40312, CUIS 40748, CUIS 40775, CUIS 40841, CUIS 4085940748, CUIS

40775, CUIS 40841, CUIS 40859

Figure 47. Reconstructed pearlware cup. Catalog numbers CUIS 36328, CUIS 37799, CUIS 37910 102

Figure 49. Assorted pearlware vessel fragments. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 36753, b - CUIS 33027, c - CUIS 33662, d - CUIS 36759, e - CUIS 379511

Figure 50. Assorted whiteware vessel fragments. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 34286, b - CUIS 33923, c - CUIS 32622, d - CUIS 39182, e - CUIS 32241, f - CUIS 32556, g - CUIS 36576. . . 103

Figure 51. Assorted yellowware vessel fragments. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 37854, b - CUIS 37922, c - CUIS 40284, d - CUIS 41386, e - CUIS 35942

Figure 52. Assorted stoneware vessel fragments. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 36156, b - CUIS 41389, c - CUIS 34785

Figure 53. Assorted Native American pottery types A-CUIS 33983, B-CUIS 39809, C-CUIS 35265, D-CUIS 41633, E-CUIS 32957, F-CUIS 36482

Figure 54. Assorted decorated tobacco pipe stems. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 37206, b - CUIS 34157, c - CUIS 48405, d - CUIS 38956

Figure 55. Assorted decorated tobacco pipe bowls. Catalog numbers: a – CUIS 33835, b – CUIS 33780, c – CUIS 41669, d – CUIS 41474, e – CUIS 40687

Figure 56. Glazed tobacco pipe bowls and stems. Catalog numbers: a – CUIS 37611, b – CUIS 36021, c – CUIS 46075, d – CUIS 34000

Figure 57. Incised and possibly stamped or rouletted pipe stems. Catalog numbers: a – CUIS 37096, b – CUIS 4008633780, c – CUIS 41669, d – CUIS 41474, e – CUIS 40687

Figure 58. Figure 58. Denticulate decorated pipe bowls. Catalog numbers: a – CUIS 36982, b – CUIS 33269

Figure 59. Assorted glass bottles. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 37405, b - CUIS 36208, CUIS 36748, CUIS 41861, c - CUIS 37062

Figure 60. Examples of wire wound beads recovered from Stafford excavations. Catalog numbers: a

– CUIS 34158, b – CUIS 36360, c – CUIS 46834, d – CUIS 38659, e – CUIS 34291, f - CUIS 35327 ix

Figure 61. Examples of assorted glass beads recovered from Stafford excavations. Catalog numbers:

a – CUIS 40046, b – CUIS 36078, c – CUIS 40693, d – CUIS 47889, e – CUIS 46172, f – CUIS 33624, g - CUIS 47979

Figure 62. Examples of blue faceted beads recovered from the Stafford excavations. Catalog numbers:

a – CUIS 46364, b – CUIS 46597, c – CUIS 48072, d – CUIS 46835, e – CUIS 48328, f -

CUIS 39717

Figure 63. Examples of green, black, and colorless beads recovered from the Stafford excavations.

Catalog numbers: a – CUIS 47813, b – CUIS 47618, c – CUIS 47229, d – CUIS 45966, e – CUIS 48345, f – CUIS 47705, g – CUIS 46315, h - CUIS 46843

Figure 64. Examples of woodworking tools. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 40374, b - CUIS 40486, c - CUIS 36731, d - CUIS 41053, e - CUIS 39728

Figure 65. Examples of sewing items. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 33919, b - CUIS 33919, c - CUIS 37930, d - CUIS 41668, e - CUIS 32716, f - CUIS 37723, g - CUIS 32170, h - CUIS 36162 126

Figure 66. Eating utensils and a transfer-printed pearlware napkin ring. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 35795, b - CUIS 34483, c - CUIS 39090, d – CUIS 33582, CUIS 34778, CUIS 35740, CUIS

38027, CUIS 77679

Figure 67. Silver coin, Catalog number: CUIS 38626

Figure 68. Scatter plot of lead shot measurements

Figure 69. Strike-a-lights, gunflints, and whetstone. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 34514, b - CUIS 39113, c - CUIS 35551, d - CUIS 32458, e - CUIS 32899, f - CUIS 40829

Figure 70. Projectile points. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 35508, b - CUIS 37801, c - CUIS 37143, d

- CUIS 40044, e - CUIS 35241, f - CUIS 34947, g - CUIS 41562, h - CUIS 32432, i - CUIS 40594

Figure 71. Assorted jewelry and clothing items. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 38705, b - CUIS 40691, c - CUIS 34275, d - CUIS 33984, e - CUIS 39801, g - CUIS 35031, f - CUIS 32947 . . 132

Figure 72. Assorted buttons. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 37145, b - CUIS 36032, c - CUIS 40668, d - CUIS 37390, e - CUIS 33978, f - CUIS 34428

Figure 73. Assorted military buttons. Catalog numbers: a - CUIS 33520, b - CUIS 37509, c - CUIS 35002, d - CUIS 37264, e - CUIS 41537, f - CUIS 36012

Figure 74. Map illustrating the distribution of ceramics with mean ceramic dates across the Stafford slave village

Figure 75. Calculations of percentages of total ceramic assemblage for each of four major categories, for each cabin

Figure 76. Distribution of creamware artifacts across the Stafford slave village

Figure 77. Distribution of all ceramics across Cabin 4

Figure 78. Distribution of tobacco pipe artifacts across Cabin 4 x

Figure 79. Distribution of windowpane glass across Cabin 4

Figure 80. Distribution of glass beads across Cabin 4

Figure 81. Distribution of nails across Cabin 4

Figure 82. Seriation of historic ceramics, by cabin

Figure 61. Frequency-seriation of three major pottery types

Figure 83. Illustration of the number of connections between cabins, determined by chi square tests 182

Figure 84. Cast iron cooking pot, Catalog number CUIS 34827

Figure 85. The third row of cabin chimneys at the Stafford slave village, facing the opposite direction from the rest of the chimneys

Figure 71. EM-38 results for Stafford Slave Village

Figure 72. GSM-19 results for Stafford Slave Village xi

Table 1. Selected Botanical Species Found on Barrier Islands

Table 2. Selected Aquatic Species of Barrier Island Marsh and Estuarine Environments

Table 3. Selected Terrestrial Animal Species Found on Barrier Islands

Table 4. Artifacts Recovered from Flotation, Heavy Fraction

Table 6. Stafford Heavy Fraction Invertebrate Fauna

Table 5. Vertebrate Fauna Recovered from Flotation, Heavy Fraction

Table 7. Distribution of Faunal Remains Recovered During Flotation, Heavy Fraction

Table 8. Distribution of Objects Recovered from Flotation Samples, excepting faunal remains

Table 9. Distribution of artifacts by cabin, 1999 and 2003 excavations, Stafford Plantation slave village

Table 10. Ceramics recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 11. Total distribution of ceramic types, by cabin, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 12. Total counts of refined earthenware vessel parts, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 13. Total counts of coarse earthenware and stoneware vessel parts, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 14. Distribution of ceramic decorative colors, by cabin, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 15. Percentage of decorated historic refined earthenwares, Stafford Plantation slave village, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 16. Total distribution of tobacco pipe fragments, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 17. Distribution and subtotals of pipe stem bore diameters for Stafford Plantation slave village

Table 18. Glass artifacts recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 19. Bead typology, Stafford Plantation slave village, 1402.1 and 1844

Table 20. Munsell color table for Stafford Plantation slave village beads

Table 21. Summary of bead data, Stafford Plantation slave village, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 22. Bead manufacture technology, Stafford Plantation slave village, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Tables xii

Table 23. Summary of bead distribution, Stafford Plantation slave village, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 24. Distribution of bead color by cabin, by count, Stafford Plantation slave village, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 25. Count of beads recovered from chimneys, by level, Stafford Plantation slave village (1999 field season only)

Table 26. Count of beads recovered from chimneys, by unit, Stafford Plantation slave village (1999 field season only)

Table 27. Results of comparative of bead study

Table 28. Types of beads present

Table 29. Metal artifacts recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 30. Stone artifacts recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 31. Personal artifacts recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 32. Buttons recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 33. Button type codes used in analysis

Table 34. Distribution of shell buttons, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations

Table 35. Distribution of porcelain and glass buttons, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations

Table 36. Distribution of military and naval brass buttons, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations. ..139

Table 37. Distribution of plain brass buttons, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations

Table 38. Distribution of decorative brass buttons, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations

Table 39. Distribution of pewter buttons, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations

Table 40. Distribution of bone, ivory, and horn buttons, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations

Table 41. Distribution of buttons by cabin, 1999 Stafford slave village excavations

Table 42. Flora and fauna recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 43. Vertebrate biomass calculations with Rayfield and Stafford plantations combined

Table 44. Comparison of counts and biomass from identified vertebrate classes at Rayfield and Stafford slave cabins, 2003 excavations

Table 45. Stafford fauna, 2003 excavations. Unidentified vertebrata excluded

Table 46. Fauna recovered from Stafford slave cabins, 2003 excavations

Table 47. Mean Ceramic Date of slave cabin collections

Tables xiii

Table 48. Manufacture dates of military buttons and coins recovered from Stafford Plantation slave village, by type, 1999 and 2003 field seasons

Table 49. Provenience of artifact collections used in Robinson’s Index of Agreement

Table 50. Provenience of artifact collections used in Robinson’s Index of Agreement

Table 51. Presence/absence of functional groups, by cabin

Table 52. Index of Agreement Matrix for site proveniences

Table 53. Presence of functional groups by excavation unit

Table 54. Proveniences of collections used in IA Analysis

Table 55. Distribution of refined ceramics (after Wilkie 2001; Miller 1980, 1991)

Table 56. Number of connections (relatedness) between cabins, determined by chi square tests

Table 57. Distribution of artifacts of various domestic and procurement activities, by cabin

Table 60. Slaves purchased by Stafford, 1816 (from Bullard 1995:52; Records of Camden County, Georgia [RCCG], Deed Book K:8)

Table 61. Slaves acquired by Stafford, 1817, with the purchase of the Littlefield tract (from Bullard 1995:59; Records of Camden County, Georgia [RCCG], Deed Book K:26-27)

Table 62. Slaves purchased by Stafford, 1818 (from Bullard 1995)

Table 63. Rayfield slaves purchased by Stafford, 1833 (from Bullard 1995:72; RCCG, Deed Book M:123)

Table 64. Rayfield slaves purchased by Stafford, 1834 (from Bullard 1995:70; RCCG, Deed Book M:191)

Table 65. Cabin 2 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 66. Cabin 3 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 67. Cabin 4 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 68. Cabin 6 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 69. Cabin 7 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 70. Cabin 10 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 71. Cabin 11/12 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 72. Cabin 13 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 73. Cabin 16 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 74. Cabin 18 Mean Ceramic Dates

Table 75. Cabin 24 Mean Ceramic Dates xiv

The antebellum period on Cumberland Island could arguably be considered the most formative era leading to the island’s appearance today.

During this period, the island’s forests were felled for lumber sales and to clear land for cul-tivation. Incipient plantation activities grew until large scale slave-holding plantations dominated the island’s economy. The island’s lands were divided into parcels and later consolidated by slave-holding land owners, resulting in the majority of the island belonging to just a few individuals. Over time one of the largest land owners, Robert Stafford, came to own 8,125 acres on the island, and at the outset of the Civil War he controlled nearly one third of the entire island (Bullard 1995). The agricultural work on Stafford’s properties was encumbered upon the large number of slaves he owned. Census records indicate that in 1850, Stafford owned 348 slaves, all of whom resided on the island, primarily at the Stafford and Rayfield Plantations.

The archeological investigation of the slave cabins at Stafford Plantation (9Cm104, ASMIS # CUIS-00052) was realized through an effort to minimize the adverse effects to the historic prop-erties stemming from a plan to stabilize several of the standing chimneys threatened by collapse, as per Section 106 of the National Historic Pres-ervation Act of 1966, As Amended [16 U.S.C.

§ 470f]. In 1999, Cumberland Island National Seashore (CUIS) developed an initial plan that called for building a stabilizing box around each standing chimney, tipping the chimney back, and pouring a cement footer on which the chimney box could rest. A total of 27 chimneys, representing 26 cabins (one being a double-chimney cabin) at the Stafford Plantation and 18 chimneys at the Rayfield site were identified and recorded during the initial archeological re-connaissance in 1999 (Figure 1). This plan was eventually replaced in 2003 with one that called for a collar around the chimney stack and outrig-gers to hold the collar in place. The outriggers would be anchored into the ground around the chimneys. Both of these plans required ground disturbance, threatening the potential archeo-logical remains of the cabins’ structural compo-nents and the residual material culture associ-ated with their enslaved residents. Therefore, in order to minimize the effects of the stabiliza-tion project, the park contacted the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC), and together the two organizations developed plans to recover the threatened archeological remains, both in 1999 and 2003. The decision was made to conduct a wider, research-oriented investigation, in order to provide additional context for the data collected.

However, because the focus of the 2003 compli-ance-driven fieldwork was different than in 1999, the field methods used were adjusted accordingly.

During this project, cabin areas associated with the twelve standing chimneys were investi-gated via geophysical survey, shovel testing, and test unit excavation. The information gathered has provided the researchers a better understand-ing of the living conditions of the occupants, and helped the park interpret the story of Cumber-land Island and its rich diversity of occupants.

The archeological investigation was conducted by a SEAC crew led by Principal In-vestigator John E. Cornelison, during May and June of 1999 (SEAC Accession 1402), and in June and July of 2003 (SEAC Accession 1844).

The results of both of these field seasons, and subsequent testing and excavation of a select number of cabins at the Stafford Plantation slave village, is the subject of this report. The results of archeological testing at the Rayfield Planta-tion slave village will be presented in a separate report. Chapter 2 is an introduction to Cumber-land Island’s rich and diverse environmental settings, while Chapter 3 provides the island’s historical background, the history of Stafford Plantation itself, and a glimpse of slave life and

Chapter 1

INtrODUCtION experience on the Sea Islands. Chapter 4 is a presentation on previous archeological inves-tigations on the island, and provides a synopsis of the history of plantation and slave research and archeology along the Atlantic coast and Sea Islands of Georgia, South Carolina, and north Florida. The geophysical remote sensing surveys that were conducted as part of this project are discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 is a detailed discussion of the field excavation methods used throughout both the 1999 and 2003 field seasons.

Chapter 7 is a presentation of the material culture recovered during both field seasons, with in-depth studies and discussions of several specific artifact types: ceramics, glass beads, faunal remains, and buttons.

These artifact classes are subjected to an examination and comparison to similar materials recovered from numerous slave domestic and burial contexts in the southeastern United States, the Caribbean, and West Africa.

Chapter 8 presents the results of spatial analyses conducted on specific artifact categories.

Chapter 9 is a presenta-tion of the Robinson’s Index of Agreement (IA) that was conducted across the site, to determine the relationships both between in-dividual cabins and between the Stafford and Rayfield slave villages, both owned by Robert Stafford.

A summary of the findings and recommendations for future research is found in Chapter 10, as is an ex-amination of the recovered material culture that was potentially obtained via participation in local market systems by the slaves themselves.

These objects could also be used to infer belief systems and worldviews.

Finally, the Appendices include the artifact catalog, mean ceramic dating, chi square test results, the results from the EM-38 and GSM-19 remote sensing surveys, and lists of the slaves owned by Stafford.

Though this investiga-tion was driven by compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Pres-ervation Act, several questions emerged as research and field work commenced:

• Was Cabin 11/12 a slave hospital, or sick house?

• Can the presence and distribution of different kinds of goods – ceramics, buckles, sewing implements, metal buttons, and metal tools – illuminate differences in gender and the

Figure 1. SEAC archeologist digging at Cabin 18.

demographic composition of the slave community village?

• Is the presence and distribution of costly, non-essential goods, such as refined ceramics, tobacco pipes, and metal buttons, indicative of an internal social hierarchy, with differential social status and relations within the Stafford slave community? Is there evidence for preserved or the continued practice of African cultural traditions and beliefs? Is there evidence for covert means of communication amongst members of the slave community?

• Is there evidence for economic independence and market participation by slaves?

ethnogenesis and creolization, complexity, and the Black landscape

Consideration of the plantation as a unit of ar-cheological investigation has allowed for the study of social, political, and economic relation-ships between social classes and cultural groups, processes and means of interaction, power, economic market participation, gender, and ethnicity, as well as the interpretation of belief systems as manifested on the physical landscape, (Singleton 1985:2; 1999:15). Because of this, plantation archeology as a subfield has generated some of the fundamental and substantial theoreti-cal contributions to the field of historical arche-ology. In fact, it was in the arena of plantation archeology in which historical archeologists first began to investigate “people with no history” (Singleton 1999:1).

As European colonists traveled to the North American continent, looking for new futures, fortunes, and adventures, they encountered a multitude of communities and societies that had existed for hundreds of years. Slaves were imported from Africa to undertake the strenuous manual agricultural labor that Europeans were unwilling or unable to do themselves. The term criollo, first used to identify Europeans born in the New World, soon was adopted as a means of generating and maintaining social identity, classification of race, and political division.

However, creole has meant many things at different times, and the word itself has been creolized (Dawdy 2000a, 2000b; Stewart 2007:5).

The development of creole studies in lin-guistics and other arenas (such as historical ar-cheology), has been well described by many (Bickerton 1976, 1981; Buisseret 2000; Dawdy 2000a; Deetz 1977; Ferguson 1992; Holm 2000;

Joyner 1984; Khan 2007; Palmié 2006; Stewart 2007; Thomason and Kaufman 1991). Linguists and archeologists alike do not necessarily agree when it comes to defining causes and processes of change. There are, however, some elements and definitions that are common to various schools of thought. Originally based in studies of language and culture contact/change in New World colonial contexts, namely the Caribbean, creolization as a theory has been expanded (or, according to some, diffused) into a global realm, incorporating all cases of contact (Stewart 2007; Palmié 2007).

Creolization, in the archeological context, has been defined as “a process involving multicul-tural interaction and exchange that produces new cultural forms” (Singleton 1999:5). Creolization is not necessarily a voluntary means of culture change or transmission; it results from both hegemonic and physical pressures and exposure to a multitude of influences such as the physical environment, local historical experience, and the historical trajectories of both the dominant social group (superstrate) and a subjugated group (substrate). This kind of contact is not unidirec-tional; cultures and social groups influence each other, but the emphasis in creolization theory is on the role of the individual agent, on inequal-ity, hierarchy, and domination (Olmos and Para-visini-Gebert 2003:31). The contexts in which these forms of communication, and communities themselves, develop are critical for understand-ing the complexities of society and processes of interaction and change (Grundaker 2000).

Processes of ethnogenesis, defined as “how societies emerge and re-create themselves in history through a series of transformative episodes, during which people, cultures, and languages of diverse origins joint to create new, hybrid and original ethnic constructions” (Campbell 2001:540), account for how cultures and com-

Chapter 1 — Introduction munities interact both internally and externally.

These interactions synergistically influence, mold, and alter the developing culture and community in a kind of reinforcing or regenerative “loop.”

Lévi-Strauss’ (1974) conceptualized bricolage as the creation of new things out of a diverse array of things, whatever is at hand, recog-nizes the potential influence of many agents within a culture; these are things that are of use, and can be used again. Fennell (2011, 2007, 2003, 2000) has expanded this concept as ethnogenic bricolage, focusing on the development of social networks and identities from within the slave community.

All of these concepts highlight the processes that occurr when people of many cultural heritages “interact over time” to create new “social networks with new repertoires of key symbols, communicative domains, and cultural practices” (Fennell 2007:129).

Creolization, in the context presented here as a “process of ongoing adaptation to the diversity of the world” (Knepper 2006:79), is framed as the development of both individual and group identity through interactions between slave and master, between people in a highly strati-fied world, between many African, European, and Native American heritages (Fennell 2007:

129; Olmos and Paravisini-Gebert 2003). These processes of creation, innovation, and change were largely improvised on many scales using local environment, means of communication, and past experience. For slave-master interactions and relationships, these processes were hierarchi-cal and strongly influenced by superstrate rules, defined by social hierarchies and expressed and experienced locally. For slave-slave interactions, these processes would have been largely self-determined, locally improvised, and adaptable within the contexts of the slave community.

However, they would have emerged within broad social parameters based on cultures and tradi-tions of origin; for example, whether or not a slave came from a matrilineal versus a patrilin-eal society would potentially and significantly influence how that person interacted with others within their new community (Stevenson 2007). As forms of ethnogenesis, creolization and “uneven processes of bricolage” (Knepper 2006:74), encompass the dynamic and diachronic nature of social interaction that utilizes an amalgamation of symbols, materials, forms of communication, cuisine, and music from a variety of sources, framed and influenced by hierarchical relations.

Bricolage itself is a process that accounts for the development of slave societies and cultures from within. The meanings of these symbols are not based in the individual or individual expe-riences but in society as a whole. It is the indi-vidual experience, however, that both perpetuates older meanings and fosters new ones incorporat-ing both innovation and historical use (habitus).

The Complexity of Practice Theories of practice and complexity maintain that the activities and routines of daily life, such as growing, preparing, and serving food; making cooking vessels; building houses; etc., result in the creation and maintenance of patterns of behavior (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1979). The materials that are created as a result of these behaviors are physically deposited on the landscape over time.

The system (society, culture) shapes daily practice and activity with socially-defined rules (what is good, bad, edible, etc.). In turn, the system reproduces and changes through practice and is reinforced via the use of symbols in ritual and mundane activities. Ortner (1984:148) defines the system as “patterns of relations between categories, and of relations between relations.” This system is comprised of sets of relations — political, economic, values, and social rules — in which none take priority over the others. Societies and communities impact and are impacted by their both natural and cultural surroundings, and undergo organizational change as part of processes of adaptation and adjust-ment to environment, history, learned strategies and habits, and ever-evolving belief systems.

The concept of complexity incorporates the notion that changes in all evolving systems are based on a multiplicity of causes rather than a single cause or prime mover. All agents, whether individuals, groups, communities, or larger regional networks, are interconnect-ed so that changes in one arena affect others.

Human societies are complex systems:

they are scale-free; interconnected and interde-pendent; coevolving; and adaptive, open and dynamic (Bentley and Maschner 2003; Bentley and Maschner 2001). Societies and communi-ties that develop through processes of ethnogen-esis and creolization are defined by their own historical trajectories. Over time, experience, practice, and physical location influence and promote cultural innovation and divergence. As people migrate and are exposed to new environ-ments, new people, new experiences, their forms of social organization, their culture, and their daily practices are created, altered, and adapted.

What archeologists investigate are the social processes that resulted in the deposition of materials. In contexts in which there existed marked social hierarchies, whether in chiefdom societies or on plantations, the processes of these culture changes were different for various par-ticipants. Meaning and significance are derived from daily use, embedded in historical memory, defined by local circumstance and experience, and underlie or form behaviors (Palmié 2007).

Material Evidence for Creolized Culture and Belief Systems Slave cultures were shaped not only by the impo-sition of European-American beliefs onto those of African descent or by the simple substitution of one material culture for another. Persons enslaved created their own worldviews, with an ideology expressed symbolically through material culture.

New cultures developed in part because of social interactions that removed historical cultural dis-tinctions and social classes. Slave worldviews were also shaped by individual experience, such as participation in local, regional, and ultimate-ly, global marketplaces; slaves supplemented their provision rations by fishing, hunting, and tending gardens, and sold the surplus of their endeavors at market or bartered for items not available on the plantation (Creel 1988; Mintz and Hall 1991; Tomich 1991). Slaves purchased European-made goods, but imbued these objects with their own meanings. These goods are among the objects recovered archeologically.

Once in the Americas, these African-based identities were changed and influenced by the same elements that molded and affected the de-velopment of culture in Africa – contact, interac-tion, environment, access to goods, history, and experience. Within the slave community, indi-viduals would select and acquire particular goods that would both reflect their social identities and signal their within-group status. However, these selections were themselves defined and influ-enced by multiple sets of societal parameters, both internal (within the slave community) and external (the world of the planter and owner, global and local markets, and local and national governmental policies). Access to a greater variety of goods, especially expensive, non-essential objects, could be indicative of sets of external relations and interactions. These societies and communities, then, are not repre-sentative of a static, closed system where African traditions survived unaltered; to the contrary, they were “dynamic, creative, cultural trends of African provenance” (Creel 1988:6). These communities were also overlapping; an indi-vidual could participate in several communities.

These slave-developed systems evolved into the unique cultural traditions of the Georgia Sea Islands and coast, traditions related to (or descended from) many West and Central African belief systems while incorporating Anglo- Protestant worldviews and methods of expres-sion. Twining and Baird (1980) note that the primary role religion has played in Sea Island society has been in the retention of folklore.

…a singular situation arose in the Christian church of the Sea Islanders, whose syncretic practices relate as much to West African cer-emonial as to Euro-American Chris-tianity. The syncretized Chrisianity of the islands bears resemblance to the Africanized religious forms and ceremonials of Cuba, Haiti, and Brazil…The African aspects are more obvious in Brazilian and

Afro-Cuban groups; the European contribution is more apparent in the Sea Islands, but a certain amount of syncretism is present.

(Twining and Baird 1980:392)

There is substantial evidence to support the claim for the presence of many West and Central African beliefs and practices in the cultures of the Georgia coastal and Sea Island African-Ameri-cans, though transformed by time and a multitude of influences, with locally and regionally specific nuances and particularities (Clarke 2010; Creel 1988; WPA 1940; Guthrie 1996; Jones-Jackson 1987; Moore 1980; Thompson 1983, 1993, 2005;

Twining and Baird 1980; Voeks 1993). By the beginning of the nineteenth century the slaves of the South Carolina and Georgia Low country and Sea Islands, “aided by their numerical dominance, their plantation-based hierarchy, and their continued contact with Africa…had developed their own distinctive culture” (Berlin 1993:131).

Folklore studies have demonstrated evidence for this continuation, especially regarding language and folk practices. The Georgia Writer’s Project (WPA 1940), which began as a Works Progress Administration effort, documented many inter-views with former Sea Island and coastal South Carolina and Georgia slaves and their families. In these interviews memories and continuing beliefs in conjurers and root doctors, river baptisms, burial practices, the ability to “fly,” and other folk practices and beliefs were recorded, such as wearing a silver coin around the ankle to act as a warning signal against those trying to conjure against the wearer. The making of protective charms has been noted as a continued practice among the Dahomey in West Africa: “charms are made for every occupation and desire in life — loving, hating, buying, selling, fishing, planting…” (WPA 1940:241). Other practices recorded include beliefs in “root makers,” ghosts, and the means to keep away malevolence, such as picking up one’s own nail clippings and hair. Genovese (1974:224) noted that “the most important positive application of charms came in slave medical practice which illustrated the way in which black folk religion permeated every part of the slaves’ lives, and served their daily interests.” This reflects Magesa’s (1997) observation of the pervasiveness of religion as integral to the daily life of West African societies.

Many components of the Sea Island slaves’ religious life had corollaries in West Africa, with nuances and particularities that were locally and regionally specific (Thompson 1983, 1993, 2005;

Voeks 1993). As slaves, these peoples were forced to live together, and forced to adopt and adhere to the beliefs and customs of their owners. More often than not, these beliefs were those of white men of European Christian, in this case particular-ly, English ancestry.