Citation
Burning brick

Material Information

Title:
Burning brick a study of a lowcountry industry
Creator:
Wayne, Lucy B ( Lucy Bowles ), 1947-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiv, 143 leaves : ill., photos ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Archaeology ( jstor )
Brickmaking ( jstor )
Bricks ( jstor )
Excavations ( jstor )
Kilns ( jstor )
Landscapes ( jstor )
Parishes ( jstor )
Plantations ( jstor )
River basins ( jstor )
Slavery ( jstor )
Antiquities -- South Carolina ( lcsh )
Archaeology and history -- South Carolina ( lcsh )
Architecture thesis Ph.D
Brickmaking -- South Carolina -- Wando River basin ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Architecture -- UF
History -- South Carolina ( lcsh )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1992.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-142).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lucy B. Wayne.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
001751582 ( ALEPH )
26529134 ( OCLC )
AJG4518 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












BURNING BRICK:
A STUDY OF A LOWCOUNTRY
INDUSTRY













BY


LUCY


WAYNE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY


OF FLORIDA


1992































Copyright


Lucy


1992


. Wayne















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


A dissertation


is a journey towards


knowledge.


Like


journeys


includes


visits


places


and


friends


both


familiar


and


new


Thi


study


has


been


exception;


many


places


and many people have been


encountered


this quest


knowledge.


appreciate


of the


help


have


received


from


friends,


new


and


old,


well


from


those


who


were


encountered


effort


only


briefly


acknowledge


passing


their


ass


SThese


instance


paragraphs


and


are


highlight


special


people


places


on this


journey.


One


special


benefit


this


study


was


the


time


I got


spend


Charl


eston.


have


learned


know


thi


city


and


love


beauty


grace,


pervasive


sense


of history,


and


the


helpfulness


of its


residents.


I contacted


or visited most


the


local


archives


city;


were


gracious,


even


when


they


could


not


help


would


like


thank


the


staff


members


these


organizations:


the


Charl


eston


Library


Society


, the Charleston County


Library,


the Charleston Museum,


the


College


Charleston,


the


Charleston


Preservation


Society


the


Charleston


County


Records


Mesne


Conveyance,









Preservation.


Charleston


area


residents


Mackie


Hill,


Mrs.


Robert


Whitelaw,


Oliver


Buckles,


Richard


Stuhr,


Marie


Hollings


, and


John


and


Frederick


Horlbeck


shared


their


knowledge


of brickmaking


sites


with


me.


Mrs


. Whitelaw


also


gave


permission


to use


photographs


taken at her


late husband


Charleston


Brick


Company.


Several


people


Charleston


deserve


special


thanks.


Charles


Chase,


preservation


architect


with


the


City


, and


consultant


Sarah


Fick


made


time


talk


about


this


study


and


provide


leads to


information.


Jonathan Poston


of the Historic


Charleston Foundation was supportive,


interested,


and provided


unpublished


document


bricks


Charleston.


Stephen


Snyder


and Fritz


Aichele of


the


South


Carolina


Coastal


Council


were

aeria


extremely he

1 photograph


lipful


collect


in providing

action; Fritz


access


patiently


the


Council


explained


the


different


photographs


and


enthusiastically


assisted


quest.


interest


and


concern for


historic resources


should


commended.


I could


not


have


completed


project


without


the


help


and


patience


the


staff


the


South


Carolina


Historical


Society.


amounts


Staff

time


researcher

chasing


Kathleen


Leads,


Howard


retrieving


spent


unknown


records,


and


watching


references


brickmaking.


the


process


gained


a friend.


Archivist


Peter


Bennett


spent


a day


helping









Director


Mark


Wetherington


graciously


allowed


use


materials


from


the


Society


s collections


this


document.


Duncan


Newkirk


of Newkirk


Environmental


Consultants


and


Joe


Williams


of Southeastern


Surveyors


are


very


familiar with


the


Wando


River


and


were


helpful


identifying


the


brickyard


sites


along


that


river


Joe


also


provided


the


critical


piece


of equipment


field


survey--a


boat.


travels


two


other


citi


and


important


sources


of information.


The


South


Carolina


State Archives


Columbia


historical


vital


material.


source


would


for i

like


public


records


thank


their


and

staf


state

f for


introducing


Nicholas


me to the


material


Pappas


Bill


on file


thi


Weldon


repository.


the


Colonial


Williamsburg


Foundation


spent


a cold


and


dreary


January


day


outdoors


showing


how


colonial


brickmaking


worked.


Pappas


then


took


the


extra


time


to give


this


archaeologist


tour


the archaeological


laboratory


at Williamsburg


was


delightful


and


informative


trip


thanks


these


two


gentlemen.


Many archaeologists were important sources of


information


this


project.


Paul


Brockington,


Eric


Poplin,


and


Chri


Espenshade of Brockington and Associates patiently answered my


many questions

Robert Morgan


about


the


the


brickyard


Forest


sites


Service


their


provided


proj ects


site


forms,








provided


a list


of sites


identified


based


on their waterfront


components.


Martha


Zierdan,


Julie


King,


Lynne


Lewis,


and


Jonathan


Leader


brickmaking


the


shared


their


region.


knowledge


Tippett


of the


bricks


South


and


Carolina


State Historic Preservation Office was supportive,


interested,


and


helpful


terms


resource


management


approaches


Elizabeth


Sheldon,


Jack


Elliott,


and


Olga


Caballero


provided


copies


vital


reports.


One archaeologist must be


singled


special


thanks.


Linda


Stine


started


this


journey


suggesting


the


topic.


followed


this


suggestion


with


information


and


exposure


the


research


approach


landscape


archaeology.


She


has


continued


to be supportive


and


interested


throughout


thi


project.


All


dissertations


owe


much


the


student


committee.


Mine


exception.


committee,


Earl


Starnes,


Kathleen


Deagan,

to work


Susan

with.


Tate, and Herschel

They encouraged


Shepard,

me, cri


have


ticized


been


a delight


when


was


needed


, and


made


me think


about


what


was


writing


I count


them


friends,


did


learn


never


take


long


drive


with


a member


your


committee when


they


have


just


read


your


first


draft!


Production


the


final


version


thi


document


would


not


have


been


possible


without


the


support


assistant









followed the


procedures specified by the Graduate School


while


dealing with


Last,


an author


but


suffering


certainly


from the


least,


stress


would


of deadline


like


es.


thank


partner,


Martin


Dickinson,


family


their


support,


patience,


understanding,


help.


Martin


listened


ideas,


gave


advice,


helped


with


aerials,


maps,


and


environmental


data,


and reviewed


final


result.


husband


Marty


Wayne


has


been


a treasure;


not


only


did


he provide


boating


expert


field


work,


he took


the


time


to read


and


edit


document,


and


provided


loving


support


throughout


the


process.


children,


Alex


and


Michelle,


have


kept


thi


work


in perspective


provided


a note


of humor


when


was


sorely


needed.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................ iii


LIST OF TABLES. ... ...................................


LIST OF FIGURES.................. ..................... xi

ABSTRACT...............................................x iii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION: FOOTPRINTS ON THE EARTH....... 1

Purpose of the Research...................... 1
Historic Background......................... 3
The Study Area............................... 7

2 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY............ 11

Research Framework........................... 11
Methods................. ........ 15
Review of Previous Research.................. 21

3 THE WRITTEN RECORD........................... 30

The Economic Background...................... 31
Brickmakers and Brickyards................... 48
Production and Value......................... 62

4 TO MAKE A BRICK............................ 71

5 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.................. 95

Brickyards as Archaeological Sites........... 95
The Wando River Basin Sites..................102
Changes in the Land.......................... 115










SUMMARY,


CONCLUSIONS


AND


RECOMMENDATIONS..


...121


The


Role


Future


Brickmaking


Resea


rch


in the


Lowcountry


Directions


....121
....126


REFERENCES CITED.....................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..................


* .. S *. S

* SS S S 5 ****


....131

....143















LIST


OF TABLES


Tabl


p~age


Charl


eston


strict


Agricultural


Production


1860


Census..


S* 37


Wando


Plantation


Acc


ounts


of Dr. Anthony


Toomer,


1785


. ... 39


Brickmakers


Identified


the


Charleston


Area


Between


1745


and


1860


. ....... 51


Brickmakers


Listed


the


Charleston


strict


Census


1850


.......... 61


Medway


Plantation


Shipping


Records


1852-

Boone
Page,


1853.

Hall


Brickyard


Account Book-


1847


S S S Sa S S 66


-Sample
........... 67


Boone
Total


Hall


, 1850


Yearly


Production


and


-1860


Income


..... 67


Brickyard


Sites


the


Wando


River


Basin,


South


Carolina.


....105
















LIST


OF FIGURES


Figure


Page


Wando
County


River


Basin,


, South


Charl


eston


and


Berkeley


Carolina


Brickyards
Charleston
Carolina..


within


Wando


Berke


Coun


River
ties.


Basin,
South


. ..... 10


Lexington


Kiln


Site,


Charleston


County,


South


Carolina


.. 40


Elm


Grove


Plantation


Brickyards


, Charleston


County,


South


Carolina.


Parker
South


Island


ckyard


, Charle


ston


Carolina


County,
. ... 42


Addi


son


and


Martin


Brickyards


, Berkeley


County


, South


Carolina..


.... 43


Brickyards


Identified


Owner


, 1745-


1860


Wando


River


Basin


South


Carolina


...... 52


Pug


Mill


and


Molding


Table,


Charleston


Brick


Company.


...... 77


Brickmolding,


Charl


eston


Brick


Company


...... 79


Removing


Bricks


from


the Molds


Charl


eston


Brick


Company


. .. 83


Types


of Kilns


or Clamps.......


.... 85


Kiln


Arch


Cons


truction,


Charl


eston


Brick


Company..


..... 87


Jamestown


, Virginia


Brick


Kiln


..... 89


Completed


Kiln


Openings


, Charl


eston


.. 41


.









Plan,


Kiln


at Jamestown,


Virginia....


.... 98


Plan,


County,


Jimmie


South


Green


s Lime


Kiln,


Carolina...


Berkeley
....... .... .101


Lexington


Kiln


Site


Plan,


Charleston


County,


South


Carolina..


........103


Aerial
South


Photograph,
Carolina....


Wando


River


Basin,


.. ... ...109


Shoreline
Berkeley


Deposition,


County,


South


Beres


ford


Carolina


Creek,


. .....110


Timbers
Berkeley


in Shore
County,


line
Sout


Deposit, W
h Carolina


andi
...


River,


. .111


Kiln


Arches,


Lexington


Kiln


Site,


Charleston


Brickyard
Berkeley


County,


Surface,
County, S


South


Carolina.


Beresford


South


Creek,


Carolina...


O


.....112


f13















Abstract


of Dissertation


Presented


the


Graduate


School


the


University


Requirements


of Florida


the


Degree


Partial I
of Doctor


Fulfillment of
of Philosophy


the


BURNING


A STUDY


BRICK:


OF A LOWCOUNTRY


INDUSTRY

By


Lucy


May


. Wayne

1992


Chairman:


Earl


. Starnes,


Ph.D.


Major


Department


Architecture


Between


1740


and


1860,


brickmaking


was


a viable


industry


the


Lowcountry


of South


Carolina.


This


was


particularly

Charleston.


true


Thi


Wando


study


uses


River


basin


research


northeast

approach o


landscape


archaeology


examine


document


the


role


thi


industry


within


plantations


the


region.


Landscape


archaeology


is an approach


that


looks


not


only


why


humans


occupy


a specific


site


or region,


but


also


how


they


modify


landscape


to fit


their


own


cultural


pattern,


and


turn,


how


these


modifications


affect


the


landscape


itself


through


time.


This

research


study

with a


combines


nalvsis


historic


r- -


archaeological


environmental


characteristics


I









environment;


how


the


environment


influenced


adaptation


and


how


these


adaptations


turn


affected


the


environment;


the


technologies


or processes


employed


to exploit


the


available


location


resources;


in respect


the


to that


role


the


market;


marketplace


the


historic


and


events


which


influenced


development


industry;


and


interrelationships


between


sites


The


Wando


River


basin


was


a marginal


area


for


the


usual


plantation


crops


of rice,


cotton,


indigo.


Therefore,


the


based


plantations


on divers


which


ified


were


developed


production


of other


region


products


were


, primarily


produce,


livestock,


firewood,


bricks


the


Charleston


market.


The


enactment


building


codes


Charleston


after


1740


provided


a further


impetus


development


the


brickmaking


materials


industry.


of clay


The


, sand,


presence


firewood,


the


and


necessary


water,


raw


proximity


transportation


route


and


the


availability


of slave


labor


made


brickmaking


a natural


choice.


Over


60 brickmakers


and


least


23 brickyard


sites


have


been


identified


region.


These


brickyards,


consisting


of semi-permanent


kilns,


sheds,


sand


or clay


piles


, extensive


clay


pits


, waterfront


landings,


and


slave


settlements

shoreline m


permanently


modifications


altered


and


the


creation


landscape t

of wetlands


through


the















CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


FOOTPRINTS


ON THE


EARTH


The


seeming


encouraged
efficiency
thought fo


abundance
practices
and speed


the


effects


of natural


that


resources


emphasized


of development


on the


technological


with


future


little


the


land


and


resources


(Cahn


1978


*01


They


appear


at low


tide


along


the


Wando


River--pile


after


tumbled


pile


of water-washed


brick.


The


observer


pauses


in wonder


sheer


volume


of brick


exposed


along


the


banks.


When


told


that


these


are


remains


old


brickworks,


viewer


in awe


that


so much


remains


200-year


old


activity,


and


at the


thought


that,


these


are


merely


the


discards,


the


total


output


must


have


been


tremendous.


The


wonder


may


be followed


questions:


Who


were


the


makers?


Why


were


there


so many


in this


river


basin?


Why


were


they


located


these


particular


spots?


How


were


the


bricks


made?


Where


did


the


output


And


finally,


why


did


stop?


Purpose


Research


The


answers


to these


que


stions


are


not


as simple


as the


questions


themselves.


The


objective


thi


study


document


thi


industry


, and


demonstrate


role


the


--


_











approach


interdisciplinary,


encompassing


historic


res


earch,


the


archaeological


environmental


investigation,


factors


which


and


facilitated


an examination


development


the


industry


and


were


in turn


altered


The


emphas


on describing


the


technology,


documenting


the


local


role


story


within


thi


the


industry


plantations.


, and


The


evaluating


archaeological


economic


aspect


the


study


addr


esses


the


distribution


pattern


these


sites


as well


concludes


as the


with


intrasite


patterns


an evaluation


pattern


impact


thi


analyst


industry


on the


landscape


itself.


Much


the


research


this


study


was


conducted


the


archives


of Charleston,


South


Carolina


and


South


Carolina


Lowcountry


family


records.


Comparative


data


were


obtained


from


contemporary


descriptions


of brickmaking,


technological


histories,


archaeological


studies


of brick


kilns


elsewhere


the


United


States,


contemporary


reenactments


colonial


brickmaking


Additional


economic


data


were


obtained


from


census


records


and


an excellent


regional


study


Michael


Scardaville


(1985).


Archaeological


data


the


project


region


were


obtained


from


studies


conducted


on new


developments


the


area,


including


those


the


author,


analysis


aerial











historic


descriptions,


observations


archaeologists


working


within


region.


Historic


Background


The


European


colonists


the


Americas


viewed


the


abundant


resources


the


New


World


as a source


of wealth


and


prosperity;


forests


were


down,


fields


were


cleared,


animals


were


hunted,


and


earth


was


mined


ores


(Cahn


1978:199-200;


Cronon


1983:5)


These


activities


would


forever


change


the


face


the


land,


not


only


the


form


the


structures


which


were


built,


but


also


through


the


process


of obtaining


resources


those


structures.


These


effects


are


evident


today


along


the


rivers


the


Lowcountry


of South


Carolina


where


brickyards


active


during


the


period


between


1740


and


1860


have


left


a permanent


legacy


the


form


of brick-covered


shorelines


and


extensive


wetlands


the


abandoned


clay


pits.


The


use


of brick


or clay


building


units


has


an ancient


his


tory


based


on a technology


which


remained


virtually


unchanged


until


the


Industrial


Revolution


the


mid-


nineteenth


century


Brick


considered


to be


the


oldest


man-made


building


material


(Beall


1984:2) ;


popularity


based


on its


ease


of manufacture


construction,


durability


strength,


fireproof


nature,











The


technology


began


with


the


manufacture


of sun-dried


brick


ancient


Middle


East.


the


time


the


Babylonian


empire


of Nebuchadnezzar


(604


to 562


B.C.),


the


use


of burning


and


glazing


had


been


perfected


(Graham


and


Emery


1945


:1.1,547).


The


Romans


used


brick


extensively


construction,


particularly


arches


and


domes,


but


the


techniques


and


material


were


largely


abandoned


the


Roman


coloni


of Europe,


including


England,


after


the


fall


the


Roman


Empire


(Lloyd


1925:2).


Brickmaking


and


brick


construction


were


revived


during


the


12th


and


13th


centuries


the


Low


Countries


of Europe


and


France.


From


there


was


reintroduced


southeastern


a lack


England

local b


where


building


was


actively


stone.


the


adopted


15th


because


century,


brick


was


a popular


building


material


throughout


eastern


England


with


an increase


demand


London


after


the


great


fire


1666.


Since


the


largest


single


group


early


European


settlers


North


America


came


from


thi


area


England,


likely


that


they


brought


the


technique


brickmaking


and


masonry


with


them


the


New


World.


Immigrants


from


the


Netherlands


and


France


may


also


have


brought


tradition


with


them;


fact,


the


principal


early


period


of brick


building


the


colonies


the


late











Brickmaking


occurred


wherever


suitable


clay


and


fuel


were


available.


Often,


bricks


were


made


the


site


the


building


to be constructed.


However,


transportation


was


available,


usually


via


water,


brickyards


could


established


large


scale


production


export.


Kilns


have


been


documented


historically


archaeologically


the


English


colony


of Jamestown,


Virginia,


as well


the


Spanish


settlement


of La Isabela


the


Dominican


Republic


(Harrington


1950:16


-19;


Deagan,


pers


onal


communication


1991).


Although


initially


used


primarily


chimneys


and


foundations,


the


late


17th


century


brick


buildings


were


common


in many


the


colonial


cities


, particularly


the


Mid-Atlantic


colonies


(Trindell


1968:484).


Although


the


initial


European


settlement


South


Carolina


was


the


Spanish


towns


of San


Miguel


del


Gualdape


and


Santa


Elena,


these


settlements


were


ultimately


abandoned


under


pressure


of England


from


granted


English.


land


now


In 1663


known


, King


as Carolina


Charl


to eight


Lords


Proprietors.


The


firs


t English


settlement


was


established


1670


at Charles


Towne


on the


Ashley


River.


1680


, thi


settlement


been


relocated


a more


healthful


site


on the


peninsula


between


the


Ashley


and


Cooper


Rivers.


The


new


colony


thrived,


and


the


Proprietors











established


1706


the


General


Assembly


(Scardaville


1985:31).


1682


Thomas


Newe


letters


from


South


Carolina


stated


that


"here


excellent


Brick


made,


but


little


(Salley

became


1911:181).


common


Within


in South


next


Carolina,


years,


although


brickmaking


usually


confined


to production


single


structures.


The


industry


received


an important


Charleston.


buildings


impetus


In 1713,


within


from


a series


an act


fortified


the


of major


Assembly


portion


fires


required


of Charleston


to be


of brick


1715


or stone


as a result


construction;

of complaints


this

about


act

the


was


repealed


scarcity


and


expense


of brick


(Simons


1934


:4).


When


the


disastrous


Charleston


fire


of November,


1740


destroyed


much


the


center


the


city,


the


Assembly


again


passed


an act


requiring


all


the


erected


made
Tile,


Outside
or built


of Brick
Slate,


of all


Buildings


Charles


or Stone,


Stone


or Bricks


hereafter


Town


S. and


(South


to be


to be henceforth


be covered


with


Carolina


ette


1740).


The


act


also


the


price


of bricks


the


next


ten


years


at 6 pounds


per


thousand


English


brick,


5 pounds


per


thousand


for


thousand


Carolina


the


ess


brick,


and


desirable


pounds


(and


10 shillings


smaller)


New


per


England











In order


to be economically


viable,


brickyards


required


proximity


to navigable


water,


preferably


water


which


directly


to the


Charleston


market.


The


necessary


raw


materials


of clay,


sand


temper,


and


wood


fuel


also had


to be present


Finally,


brickmaking


as practiced


prior


the


Industrial


Revolution


was


a labor


intensive


operation;


the


plantation


system


was


the


ideal


source


this


labor


in the


form


of slaves.


Although


these


requirements


were


met


along


the


numerous


rivers


in proximity


to Charle


ston,


one


area


seems


to have


supported


larger


number


of brickyards--the


Wando


River


basin


located


northeast


of Charleston.


The


Study


Area


The


basin


consists


of portions


two


counties


historic


parishes.


The


area


between


the


Wando


and


the


Atlantic


Ocean


Charleston


County


traditionally


known


as the


Church


coastal


Wando


Parish


South


Neck


was


(Figure


Carolina


historically


Unlike


described


much


the


designated


the


as Christ


area


Lowcountry


, the


Wando


Neck


could


not


support


the


cash


crops


indigo,


rice


and


cotton.


The


soil


are


poorly


drained


and


frequently


wet,


and


river


itself


is too


saline


to support


rice


cultivation


except


extreme


upper


reaches












4Vi I I


I' O ;

' II, 0 ;" i;'I
.4 SIiI~ I f:I;,' i3;i
'7 ~ ~

'r j ;i ;iNr ;






aa

:tac


icv
W-r4 l






m 3co







K3 -











(Figure


The


Wando


River


basin


s proximity


to Charleston


to development


region


as a production


area


for


the


urban


market.


Agriculture


centered


on produce


and


livestock;


thi


was


supplemented


cutting


of firewood,


timber,


and


production


of naval


stores


(Scardaville


1985:35-


As a result


surveys


made


the


course


this


study,


River


23 brickyards


and


have


tributaries;


been


identified


others


probably


along


exis


the


t but


Wando


were


not


confirmed


during


field


survey


(Figure


The


remains


these


operations


consist


of brick


-covered


banks


or wharves


, kilns,


sand


piles,


water


-filled


clay


pits,


and


the


occasional


chimney


Many


these


historic


and


archaeological


particularly


sites


within


are


the


located


Wando


in prime


Neck


development


Charleston


areas


County.


Some


have


already


been


developed


or will


the


near


future.


many


cases


, if not


all,


development


will


lead


the


removal


or destruction


of all


evidence


these


sites.


At thi


time


, although


several


the


sites


have


been


recorded


and


many


others


are


known,


little


archaeological


or historic


research


has


been


conducted


the


brickyards


themselves.


study


provides


a beginning


that


documentation


as well


as address


sing


some


the















S. *tIIiic' II I, C

'S1;r;Ir'


'C:
/7;
/0I
1/11 i
V /1
"12'l
4- I
V l lI I


jr .~ Ig .



I a~
(. I II

te



I?* I 12 O
.0r

CO Is
a i
ae-

3 o -
CO = 4
as a I
..2,. I s




gW lju l


C
*rI
H
0


Cs)
-I

ma=
mm


II












____111 I YimtrIjuh


COa
IrimC
S'Cj
*~rE



~13C

(Urn
>10)I[
us.'
mPU















CHAPTER


RESEARCH


APPROACH


AND


METHODOLOGY


S. sites


(and


settlements


interact


with


and


are


affected


processes


natural


environment


(Schiffer


1987:199).


Research


Framework


Thi


study


of Lowcountry


brickmaking


will


look


the


industry


from


the


approach


landscape


archaeology,


concept


recently


utilized


storic


archaeologists


"consider


entire


regions


that


bear


the


imprint


of a shared


set of


values"


(Deetz


1990:2).


this


approach,


lands


cape


is defined


archaeologists


as the


physical


and


spatial


manifestation


of human


interaction


with


the


environment.


interaction


is a process


of continual


evolution;


each


interaction


leaves


phys


ical


remains.


The


emphasis


in landscape


archaeology


on the


continuity


between


sites


and


through


time


(Lewis


1991;


Shapiro


and


Miller


1990:98


-99)


Landscape


archaeology


a powerful


tool


to integrate


history,


geography,


anthropology


order


to study


past


human


behavior.


It addre


sses


spatial


dimension


the










1991).


Unlike


settlement


pattern


studies


archaeology,


which


focus


on identifying


the


environmental


factors


which


influence


settlement


the


distribution


of sites


throughout


the


land,


landscape


archaeology


also


addresses


the


effects


of humans


on the


land


and


emphasizes


change


through


time:


the


evidence
different
. an
of space
and are


same


time,


the


scales


social
and


contributes


and


how


1


[archaeological]
organization of


at different
to broader


people


affected


use


(Mrozowsk


times


record


space at
in history


interpretations


think
i and


about


Beaudry


1990:189).


The


study


landscape


archaeology


addresses


adaptation


the


environment


terms


the


occupants


perception


the


environment


the


sense


of how


and


why


specific


sites


are


chosen;


the


technologies


processes


utilized


at a specific


site;


the


markets


products


and


the


location


the


cultural


remains


with


respect


to both


resources


and


those


markets;


the


interrelationships


between


individual


sites


terms


the


idea


space


as a continuous


dimension;


the


interrelationship


of historic


events


and


the


activities


documented

environment


at specific

influenced


sites;

human


how


behavior


the


(Green


natural


1991;


Crumley


1991;


Winberry


1991).











In order


to look


at historic


landscapes,


Shapiro


and


Miller


stated


that:


To learn


the


"read"


meaning
is nec


e


of a historical 1
ssary to separate


landscape


the


natural


and


human


factors


relationship.


viewed
people
process


and


human
some


has


to understand


In this


as a dynamic


and


sense


record


their


landscape


may


interactions


environment--dynamic


of environmental


long-term


events.
record c


the


destroy


interplay
Each has


r evidence


potential o
ng evidence


is a complicated


open
cause


change
between


in that


be
between
the


is a continuous


natural


potential


on the


f modifying


prevlou


accumulation


to interpretation


S


can


once


be determined


landscape,
, confusing
s events.
of effects


the


(Shapiro


events


and


leaving


and


each


Landscape
and is


chronology


and


Miller


1990:98-99)


Thi


study


identify


the


natural


resources


available


the


planters


region


as well


as the


historic


events


and


economic


aspects


which


influenced


development


industry.


Rather


than


focus


on an individual


brickyard


site,


study


takes


a regional


approach


and


looks


the


environmental


factors


which


the


proliferation


these


sites


within


the


region,


as well


the


long-term


ecological


effects


of brickmaking


on the


region.


Specifically


, thi


dissertation


demonstrates


first,


that


the


numerous


brickyards


along


Wando


River


played


major


role


economic


life


the


plantations


thi


region.


The


brickmaking


process


complemented


vegetable











indigo.


presence


as well

these p


Brickmaking


of all


as the


was


the


close


plantations


and


a natural


necessary


relationship


selection


elements


which


Charleston


based


the


existed


commercial


on the


industry,


between

community


(Zierdan


1986:37).


Second,


thi


study


addresses


the


permanent


effect


brickmaking


on the


landscape


itself;


this


effect


has


long-


term


consequences


which


are


being


felt


today


Brickmaking


altered


the


shoreline


and


adjacent


uplands,


created


permanent


wetlands


which


are


now


affecting


development


these


properties,


and


may


have


altered


the


natural


environment


in more


subtle


ways,


particularly


through


deforestation.


Thi


interdisciplinary


study


begins


with


examination


the


records


of Lowcountry


plantations


for


the


economic


within


and


the


historic


plantations


evidence

SThe


the


colonial


role

and


of brickmaking

antebellum


brickmaking


process


as described


primary


accounts,


well


contemporary


attempts


at recreating


the


craft


presented


next


order


to provide


a basis


understanding


the


exi


sting


remains


industry.


The


archaeological


and


environmental


aspects


are


addressed


through


a review


the


existing


studies


of brickmaking


sites,


a walkover











thi


study


are


designed


to provide


long-term


resource


management


guidance


these


sites.


Methods


This


study


had


genesis


research


the


Dunes


West d

During


development


Charleston


an archaeological


County


on the


survey


Wando

acre


River.

tract


the


south


side


the


river,


three


antebellum


brickyard


sites


were


located,


with


evidence


of extensive


operations.


Archival


research


one


the


plantations


within


thi


tract


the


recognition


that


the


brickyard


was


probably


primary


focus


the


antebellum


plantation


(Wayne


and


Dickinson


1990


:6-4


- 6-7).


During


a site


to Lexington


Plantation


s brickyard


with


Linda


Stine


the


South


Carolina


Historic


Preservation


Office,


Stine


mentioned


that


the


entire


Wando


River


basin


contained


numerous


brickyards


dating


to the


same


period.


She


felt


that


a study


industry


would


an important


contribution


to Lowcountry


story


that


point,


study


began.


Although


was


initially


hoped


that


the


opportunity


excavate


other


Dunes


West


brickyard


complexes


would


occur


time


to be


incorporated


study,


that


did


not


happen.


Since


was


clear


that


extensive


archaeological


excavations










combined


with


utilization


of existing


information


from


archaeological


research


region.


Thus


the


initial


research


step


was


an effort


to obtain


available


information


on known


brickyard


sites.


The


majority


this


archaeological


data


was


obtained


from


the


files


the


South


Carolina


Institute


Archaeology


and


Anthropology


Columbia.


The


data


consisted


of published


reports


as well


as a number


historic


map


references


provided


the


Institute


underwater


branch.


Additional


data


were


obtained


through


conversations


with


other


archaeologists


working


the


area,


including


staff


members


of private


consultants,


the


Forest


Service,


Carolina,


the


the


Charleston


National


Museum,


Trust


the


University


Historic


South


Preservation,


and


the


State


Historic


Preservation


Office.


The


next


step


was


an intense


review


of aerial


photographs


the


region.


Thi


effort


was


conducted


the


South


Carolina


Coastal


Council


Charleston.


Three


different


collections


were


utilized:


1:40,000


scale


infrared


aerials,


1:20


scale


aerial


, and


1:12,000


scale


aerials.


Two


features


were


sought


on the


aerial


evidence


of shoreline


modifications


such


landings,


and


wetlands


which


did


appear


natural











rest


the


basin.


The


shoreline


evidence


was


the


more


difficult


the


two


features


to identify,


since,


later


became


clear


, many


brickyards


did


have


projecting


landings


Identification


wetland


pattern


was


very


success


ful,


USGS


. minute


topographic


maps


were


marked


with


locations


of possible


brickyards


based


on these


wetland


patterns.


After


the


aerial


photography


study


was


completed,


maps


with


the


p055


ible


brickyard


locations


were


sent


to the


region


s major


environmental


consultant


and


land


surveyor


see


they


could


confirm


any


the


p055


ible


sites.


Their


information


was


utilized


during


the


field


survey


and


the


final


map


development


(Figure


The


obtaining


literature


published


survey


accounts


project


of brickmaking


focused


, as well


previous


archaeological


studi


of brickyards


in the


United


States.


soon


became


apparent


that,


while


the


literature


on brickmaking


not.


is exten


In addition,


most


sive,


archaeological


archaeological


research


information


not


public


shed


, except


as technical


reports.


a result,


the


majority


the


information


had


to be obtained


through


personal


contact


with


archaeologist


who


conducted


the


work











detail


to determine


site


plans.


Second,


plantation


diaries,


journals


, daybooks,


and


accounts


were


sought


to get


primary in

brickyards


formation

as well


on the

as the


day-to-day


economic


operation


aspects


the


these


operations.


Although


initially


confined


to the


Wando


River


basin,


became


the


clear


search


that


such


very


information


little


was


information


expanded


was


when


available.


Third,


unpublished


historic


accounts,


studies,


and


descriptions


of brickmaking


and


brick


use


in the


Lowcountry


were


sought.


Last,


published


storic


references


such


newspaper


adverti


segments,


census


data,


and


city


director


were


utilized


identify


the


brickmakers


and


determine


the


economic


impact


the


industry.


The


primary


source


historic


material


was


the


South


Carolina


Historical


Society


Charleston.


Research


thi


facility


was


conducted


through


use


the


open


catalog


well


as through


a computer


search


assisted


the


Society


archivist.


The


Society


s staff


researcher


assisted


searching


specific


references,


names,


and


documents.


advertisement


was


placed


the


Society


s journal


soliciting


information


from


members;


effort


resulted


only


one


contact.


A second


important


source


was


the


State


Archives











additional


source


of plat


maps,


as well


as deeds,


wills


and


probate


records.


Many


these


records


were


also


available


the


Charleston


County


Library.


The


general

records


libraries


historic


, and


the


references


an account


Univers


as well


of brickmaking


of Florida


as microfilmed


Florida


provided


census


the


19th


century.


Numerous


information


other


or leads


Charleston


Although


archives


most


were


these


contacted


sources


provided


little


or no specific


data


study,


they


did


prove


to be


a source


of contacts


people


who


might


have


information

potential s


or know


sources


something


were


about


contacted


sites.


letter


and


All

telephone


call


several


knew


of brickyard


sites


but


had


very


little


specific


information.


One


source,


the


Horlbeck


family,


does


apparently


have


extensive


family


records


from


the


Boone


Hall


brickyard;


access


these


records


could


not


be obtained


during


the


course


the


project.


The


initial


attempt


at completing


the


archaeological


site


survey


was


conducted


on land.


At that


time,


an effort


was


made


to vi


sit


as many


sites


as possible.


rapidly


became


clear


that


the


majority


the


sites


were


relatively


inaccessible


with


exception


those


the











A second,


successful


attempt


was


made


via


a small


outboard


boat


a two-day


field


effort.


The


initial


stops


were

with

that


at known

relevant

at high


sites

site

tide i


order


features.


might


to familiarize


was


the


immediately


be difficult


discern


searchers

apparent


sites


since


the


upland


portions


were


heavily


overgrown


and


the


shorelines


were


flooded


After


the


tide


changed,


a second


attempt


was


made.


time,


the


sites


were


very


apparent


and


the


distinguishing


site


signatures


were


noted


for


future


use.


At most


sites


which


were


encountered,


the


site


was


photographed


from


the


water


and


a landing


was


made


order


examine


the


upland


portion


the


site.


When


distinctive


upland f

surface,


featuress

these


existed


were


such


as a kiln


photographed


Field


mound

notes


or a working

were


maintained


to record


the


approximate


location,


obvious


features


, and


condition


of each


site


map,


either


navigation


chart


or a USGS


topographic


map,


was


marked


with


the


site


location.


No attempts


were


made


to delineate


the


site


boundari


or expose


features


because


the


limited


time


and


resources


available.


The


final


task


undertaken


thi


study


involved


development


of research


recommendations


these


sites.











Carolina


State


Historic


Preservation


Office,


and


members


the


University


of Florida


College


Architecture


historic


preservation


program.


Review


of Previous


Research


Previous


research


on brickmaking


fell


into


four


basic


categories:


accounts,


technological


economic


discu


documentation,


ssions


, (2)


and


historic


archaeological


studies.


Although


there


was


abundant


information


available


the


the


first


latter


two


categories,


categories,


with


and


two


a more


exceptions


limited


amount


(Atkinson


and


Elliott


1978;


Wheaton


et al. 1987)


the


previous


research


did


not


attempt


to provide


an interdi


sciplinary


or regional


approach


which


related


the


industry


the


historic,


environmental,


and


economic


events


which


development.


Brickmaking


a well-documented


trade.


There


are


historic


descriptions


dating


to the


colonial


period


from


both


Europe


and


Americas


, which


provided


the


basis


for


the


description


brickmaking


presented


this


study.


These


include


Chambers


' 1728


Cyclopaedia:


or an Universal


Dictionary


of Arts


Sciences


as well


as Neve


1726


City


and


County


Purchaser


s and


Builder


s Dictionary:


or the


Builder


s Guide.


Chambers


was


the


source


co~lete











Antebellum


brickmaking


was


recorded


Ure


his


1840


Dictionary


of Arts


. Manufacture.


and


Mines,


and


Appleton


1852


Dictionary


Machines


. Mechanics


. Enaine-Work


and


Encineerinq.


Appleton


was


source


a discussion


of clay


preparation,


while


Ure


described


clamp


and


crossdraft


kiln


construction.


First-person


accounts


of brickmaking


are


available


the


diary


of Lowcountry


planter


Charles


Graves


(1854-55),


well


an article


(1889).


Graves


Florida


' account


brickmaker


particularly


John


relevant


Crary


as a


Lowcountry


source.


It provides


an understanding


the


time


and


manpower


committed


to brickmaking


a yard


which


was


producing


brick


sale.


Crary


s article


helpful


terms


of understanding


the


functions


the


brickmaking


crew


and


their


rate


of production.


Nathaniel


Lloyd


s 1925


History


English


Brickwork


provides


work


a summary


of contemporary


brickmaking


Colonial


operation,


Williamsburg


as does


brickmaker


the


Bill


Weldon


(1990a;


1990b).


Lloyd


useful


terms


understanding


the


entire


brickmaking


process


from


obtaining


the


clay


opening


the


fired


kiln.


Weldon


s work


correlates


the


demonstration


brickmaking


at Williamsburg


with h


historic


accounts


in a step-by


-step


manner.


the











usable


bricks


Thi


information


helpful


terms


understanding


role


various


personnel


involved


brickmaking


photographs


the


plantations.


of brickmaking


His


clarify


step


the


-step


mechani


the


process.


series


of studies


the


Ceramic


Engineering


Department


of Clemson


University


document


the


nature


and


location


of good


brick


clays


Lowcountry


(Buie


1949;


Johnson


Heron


1965;


Robin


son


Johnson


1960).


These


are


very


technical


studies


which


addr


ess


shrinkage


, firing


temperatures,


color,


combinations


of soils


for


brickmaking.


They


were


used


developing


the


brickmaking


discus


sion


as well


as contributing


an understanding


as to


why


brickmaking


developed


region.


There


are


three


storic


studies


of bricks,


brickmaking,


and


brick


structures


in the


Lowcountry


written


from


the


perspective


architects


or hi


storians.


These


studies


are


critical


as sources


of historic


and


economic


data


not


readily


available


elsewhere,


as well


as an


indication


of other


possible


sources


More


important,


these


works


present


a Charleston


perspective


on thi


industry.


A brief


Gaillard


undated


Stoney


report


Henry


Lowcountry


Staats


architects


attempted


Samuel


to document










brick


Charleston


sequence


the


structures,


development


provides


of colonial


a chronological


brickmaking.


In 1934,


Harriet


Stoney


Simons


prepared


a report


colonial


brick


South


Carolina


which


summarizes


the


historic


documentary


evidence


brickmaking,


primarily


from n

Stoney


the


newspapers


and


and


Staats,


question


brick;


however,


the

her


account


Simons


use


report


books


was


(Simons


particularly


local

and r


brick


research


1934).


Like


concerned


versus

notes


with


imported


provide


digest


the


the


Charleston


printed

area,


primary

as well


information

as numerous


on brickmaking

references.


In 1978,


Marie


. Hollings


completed


a the


siS


the


University


Charleston.


of South


While


Carolina


study


on 18th


focuses


century


on the


brickwork


sources


brick


and


the


work


of brickmasons


Charleston,


does


summarize

synthesiz


the

ing


craft


the


as practiced


available


that


information


time,


on the


as well


brickmakers


within


the


region


(Hollings


1978).


Like


Simons,


Hollings


provides


information


on the


primary


sources


for


brickmaking


the


Charleston


region.


Economic


data


are


available


the


U. S.


Census


documentation


of manufacturers


as well


through


primary


records


from


Charleston


region.


None


thi











were


a study


rice


industry


(Swan


1975)


and


Michael


Scardaville

Swan p


s history


provides


a brief


Wando


summary,


Neck


(Scardaville


primarily


from


1985).


census


records,


the


status


of manufacturing


the


Lowcountry


terms


the


costs


of operation


the


value


the


products


, including


bricks.


Scardaville


s data


were


vital


the


scussion


the


agricultural


production


and


economic


history


the


Wando


Neck


study,


although


he devotes


little


or no attention


to manufactured


goods.


data


were


used


comparisons


between


the


value


the


output


brickyards


and


agricultural


production


the


region.


One


other


article,


a 1986


discussion


the


rural-urban


connection


Lowcountry,


provides


important


indications


the


close


relationship


between


Charleston


and


the


nearby


plantation


districts


(Zierden


1986)


Archaeological


studi


of brickmaking


sites


were


very


limited.


This


may


be a function


the


difficulties


involved


excavating


a kiln


as well


as the


limited


artifactual


evidence


which


can


be recovered


from


such


sites


In addition,


clamp-type


kilns


were


often


disas


sembled


and


the


bricks


used


other


structures


, leaving


little


structural


evidence


investigation.


Perhaps


as Noel


Hume


states:











purpose


to which


bricks


would


ultimately


put,


and


artifacts


the


chances


of finding


in association


with


any
are


datable
remote.


Thi


course,


manufacturing


product.
salable,


but


is true


site


whose


. Bricks


they


have


of
end


and
yet


the


excavation


product


tiles


are


to be mad


is not
complete
e into


or any
an end
e and
a house


(Noel


Hume


1975:174).


One


the


earliest


kiln


excavations


provides


some


the


most


informative


data


on the


nature


the


archaeological


excavation


Harrington


remains


the


(1950).


at these


Jamestown,


Harrington


sites.


Virginia


This

kiln s


s careful


is the


ite


description


the


remains


the


kilns


and


the


functions


the


features


crucial


to understanding


the


nature


of brickyards


archaeological


sites.


Research


the


Nance


s Ferry


site


Alabama


provides


guidance


the


correlation


of archaeological


evidence


with


storic


local


accounts


of brickmaking,


as well


additional


data


on the


nature


the


archaeological


remains


(Atkinson


and


Elliott


1978).


study


s attempt


address


the


role


the


industry


within


the


plantation


which


the


kilns


were


located


helpful


terms


comparative


data


the


Lowcountry.


Limited


excavations


have


been


conducted


other


kiln


sites


throughout


the


southeast.


Documentation


these


excavations


consists


of descriptive


information


rather


than











sites.


These


studies


include


a field


school


excavation


kiln


Alabama


(Sheldon


n.d.)


kiln


excavations


Brunswick


near


Town,


North


Williamsburg


Carolina


, Virginia


(South


(Steen


1963)


1991).


and


The


excavations


Alabama


kiln


was


probably


a one


-time


usage


site;


the


information


on thi


site


limited


to field


records


photographs.


South


excavations


at Brunswick


Town


were


exploratory


in nature,


and


the


resultant


report


a brief


descriptive


document.


Steen


s draft


report


provides


an excellent


description


the


archaeological


remains


two


brick


kilns


near


Williamsburg.


More

documented


recent


industrial


DesJean


brickmaking


Clark


sites


Tennessee


have

(1990)


been

and


Gurcke


Oregon


(1987).


The


Tennessee


study


documents


fully


mechanized


brickmaking


operation


the


early


20th


century.


Gurcke


s book


includes


an excellent


history


brickmaking


a discussion


the


types


bricks


and


kilns,


and


a review


of previous


archaeological


studies,


particularly


those


which


focused


on identification


different


brick


types


or manufacturers.


Although


these


mechanized


brickmaking


operations


are


directly


relevant


the


Lowcountry


industry,


the


studies


are


useful


for


basic


data


on the


nature


the


brickmaking


industry


and










the


location


and


nature


of specific


sites


within


the


Wando


River


basin.


secondary


In addition,


sources


ese


economic


studi


and


are


historic


useful

data,


particularly


specific


sites.


Several


brickmaking


sites


have


been


identified


within


the


Wando


River


basin,


but


thi


time,


only


one


has


been


excavated.


These


surveys


include

(Zierden


sites

1981;


within

Watts


Franci


1979) ,


two


Marion


kilns


National


on Parkers


Forest

Island


(Southerl in


et al. 1988),


three


brickyards


within


the


Dunes


West


development


(Wayne


and


Dickinson


1989;


1990),


extens


brickyard


at Boone


Hall


(Espenshade


and


Grunden


1991) ,


and


a brickyard


Darrell


Creek


. Brockington,


pers


onal


communication


1991).


The


majority


the


information


from


these


sites


consists


of descriptions


the


readily


observable


features


such


as brick-


lined


shores


, overgrown


kilns,


and


brick


rubble.


A small


brick


kiln


within


the


Longpoint


development


has


been


excavated,


but


report


was


not


yet


available


Brockington,


personal


communication


1991)


The


initial


survey


report


thi


particular


kiln


provides


an excellent


brief


storic


account


of brickmaking


as well


as a seri


possible


research


questions


concerning


the


role


thi


industry


within


the


region


(Trinkley


1987


* 5.7ec1 i


The


Boone











the


differences


between


this


brickyard


and


others


the


region


(Espenshade


and


Grunden


1991).


The


Jimmie


Green


Lime


Kiln Site


(Wheaton


et al.


1987)


contains


comparative


documentation


the


excavation


Lowcountry


site


from


closely


related


industry


lime-


burning


factors


, as well


which


information


the


on the


development


economic


that


and


storic


industry


the


Charleston


area.


summary


, although


each


these


sources


contributed


data


study


of brickmaking,


the


previous


research


rarely


offers


a synthesis


the


available


data,


nor


does


provide


the


a regional


economic


existing


approach


development


documents


address


to the


the

the


role


thi


Lowcountry


effects


the


industry


None


the


industry


the


environment,


or attempt


to provide


a multiple


resource


management


approach


these


sites
















THE


CHAPTER
WRITTEN


RECORD


They
and
with


keep
make


Union


about
a large


Army,


hands


fortune


1864


at work


at it


, cited


too


burning


brick


(Journalist


Perkerson


1952:101).


Examination


the


written


record


of Lowcountry


brickmaking


attempted


to determine


why


certain


activity


and


sites


were


selected,


what


technologies


or processes


were


utilized


brickmaking,


and


what


historic


or economic


factors


influenced


development


these


sites.


Thi


landscape


archaeology


focus


differs


from


that


plantation


archaeology,


which


has


been


conducted


extensively


the


southeastern


United


States


in recent


years


(see


Orser


1984;


1989;


Joseph


1989).


In plantation


archaeology,


the


focus


has been


on the


socio-economic


relationships


within


the


individual


plantations


and


between


neighboring


plantations,


and


on aspects


of acculturation


as evidenced


the


archaeological


remains


(Joseph


1989


* 57-


The


emphasis

these pa

1989:34-

artifact


has


tterns

36) .


been


on pattern


between

Landscape


or feature


recognition


different


social


archaeology


to the


land


look


itself,


and coi

groups

s beyond<

in terms


mparison


(Orser

d the

s of how











Although


the


written


record


Lowcountry


brickmaking


proved


to be sketchy


at best,


did


provide


evidence


the


importance


this


industry


to its


practitioners,


as well


an explanation


as to why


developed


within


the


region.


This


record


will


discussed


terms


the


factors


which


gave


rise


to this


craft;


who


made


the


bricks;


the


distribution


the


brickyards;


and


the


value


the


industry


the


brickmakers.


The


Economic


Background


In 1955,


the


geographer


Merle


Prunty


identified


six


distinguishing


characteristics


a landholding


distinguishable


a distinct di
functions, wi
hands of the
production, u
per proprieto
the South [or


[5]
orga
cent
a re
unit
apple
empl
any


distinct
nization
realized
latively
of area
ied to a
oyment a
labor sy


i

C


vis
th
own
sua
rsh
wo
ve
ref
ont


large


from
ion
manal
er;
lly
ip;
crld]
sett
lect
q


roI


large

system :
lone, b
stem is


occupance. No one
alone, characterize
six are necessary a
1955:460).


plantation


enough


e larger
labor and


ent c


lemen
ing,


usto
iali
or
tion
plan
orms
a hi
a *


system:


to be


"family" farm; [2
management
marily in the
zed agricultural
three specialties
in some area of
station tradition;
and spatial
gh degree,


or cultivating po
input of cultivati
the term "plantat
m" of labor or cap
because, viewed geo
but one element i
of the foregoing e
s the plantation;
nd interdependent


w
n
i
i
g
n
1
i
(


er; ana [b]
g power per
on" is neve
tal
raphically,
plantation
ements,
instead, all
Prunty


r


I. -


Prunty


did


not


emphasize


production


of a staple


crop;


rather,


production


V.


a specialized


crop


or crop


destined


r


u











majority


the


labor,


and


goods


are


produced


subsi


stence


and


domestic


consumption


(Singleton


1985:1-2


Adams (

factory


1987:9)


which


describes

h capital


the


plantation


investment


was


as an agricultural


represented


acquis


ition


of land


buildings,


the


means


of production


was


the


source


of dependable


labor,


and


there


was


a product


for


sale


on the


market.


The


source


labor


could


human,


animal, or machinery

indentured servants,


The

free


human

labor,


labor c

or some


would


be slaves,


combination


the


three.


In return


their


efforts


, the


labor


may


have


been


provided


with


wages,


a portion


the


crop,


housing,


food,


clothing,


or other


goods


or services.


The


southern


characterized


plantation


as a system


with


system


wide


can


also


variations


size,


products,


labor


systems,


location,


degree


diversification,


and


markets.


However,


certain


factors


remain


consistent.


First,


the


plantation


was


always,


sense,


a frontier


institution,


functioning


as a relatively


self


-sufficient


system


on the


periphery


the


world


market.


Second,


there


was


almost


always


an identifiable


element


status


differentiation,


both


within


the


individual


plantations


and


between


plantations


the


same


region.


Third,


the


settlement


pattern


reflected


centralized


control











the


individual


plantation


level,


this


settlement


pattern


was


also


affected


resource

specific


seasonality


processing,

products, t


of production,


environmental


transportationn


nature


requirements


methods,


the


storage


requirements,


defense


needs,


and


specialized


functions


within


the


system


(Adams


1987


:9-10).


Traditionally,


viewed


the


as an outgrowth


southern plantation

f the mercantilism


system


the


has

18th


been

and


early


markets


19th


such


centuries,


which


as England


the


the


industrialized


northern


United


world


States


demanded

material


raw


materials.


the


plantations


In exchange


were


supplied


these

with


raw

manufactured


products


(Zierdan


1986


:33)


Genovese


(196


:422-423


states


that


the


willingness


the


South


to participate


thi


system


directly


to a lack


industrial


development


within


that


region,


as well


as retardation


the


home


markets.


family


He points


farm


out


or yeoman


that


farm


areas


system


characterized


, a network


the


local


markets


was


developed


in response


to the


need


an outlet


farm


products,


as well


as the


availability


of cash


buy


goods.


While
with
power


the
debt,
. the


conditions


peasantry


and 1
labor
for e


is tied


limited


the


to minimal


recruitment


extensive


and


land,


purcha
market


manufacturing


burdened
sing
pre-


are


missing











and


the


barter


system.


Adams


(1987


:10)


states


that


this


barter


system


functioned


extensively


between


neighboring


plantations


in exchanges


of everything


from


wood


or seed


individual


slaves.


In Genovese


s analysis


(196


:435-436)


there


was


only


one


area


the


South


which


industrial


zation


and


a home


or urban


market


could


develop,


and


that


was


proximity


cities


having


a population


over


15,000.


There


were


only


four

Civil


cities

War:


which

New O


qualified


rleans,


thi


Mobile,


category


Savannah,


prior


and


the


Charleston.


was


this


proximity


to Charle


ston


which


defined


the


nature


the


plantation


development


within


the


Wando


River


basin.


When


South


Carolina


was


originally


settled,


the


Lords


Proprietors


sought


a staple


crop


which


would


provide


them


with

they


a lucrative

encouraged


return.

planters


In order

from Barb


to achieve


ados


thi


migrate


goal,


South


Carolina


with


their


slaves.


Initially,


thi


plan


failed


due


the


new


settlers


' preoccupation


with


producing


adequate


subsistence


themselves,


as well


as the


failure


the


tropical


crops


which


were


attempted


this


temperate


climate.


Although


tobacco


and


naval


stores


were


successfully


produced


during


this


early


period,


neither


was


a major


export.


The


main


product


the


early


years


was











As a result


reduction


the


deer


population


and


the


Yemassee


War


of 1715


, the


lucrative


deerskin


trade


came


an end


new


products


were


sought


the


settlers


Rice,


initially


introduced


the


1690s


, became


the


dominant


product


the


Lowcountry.


A fall


rice


prices


during


the


1740s


the


introduction


indigo


as a second


staple


crop.


The


two


crops


were


complementary


terms


land


use;


rice


required


flooded


lowlands,


and


indigo


was


upland


crop.


The


royal


bounty


on indigo


production


also


encouraged


development


labor


intensive


crop.


The


labor


needs


of both


products


resulted


a tremendous


growth


the


number


of slaves


in the


Lowcountry,


the


point


that


just


whites


prior


the


in this


area


Revolutionary


was


War,


to 1


the


the


ratio


time


of blacks


the


American


Revolution,


Charleston


had


become


the


dominant


port


southeast


and


center


of a network


large


plantations


(Stoney


1938:27


-29;


Scardaville


1985:33).


the


end


the


Revolutionary


War,


the


loss


the


bounty


on indigo


combined


with


foreign


competition


the


end


that


crop


as a plantation


product


the


Lowcountry


cotton,


(Stoney


particularly


1938:31)


long


was


soon


-staple


replaced


Island


variety


which


could


only


be produced


coastal


region.


Cotton










further


west.


In fact,


during


1820s


and


1830s,


there


was


a 10 percent


Carolina,


SS1SS


compared


ipp i


drop


cotton


to large


was


production


growth


followed


Alabama


a modest


South

and


resurgence


during


the


1850s


, but


South


Carolina


never


regained


early


19th


century


dominance


the


Southern


economy


(Scardaville


1985:34-35).


The


parishes


surrounding


Charleston


provide


interesting


contrast


to the


state


as a whole,


and


support


Genovese


s discussion


the


development


an urban


market


and


local


industry.


The


growing


city


required


an increased


variety


and


quantity


of subsistence


products,


which


were


soon


supplied


the


surrounding


area.


Thus,


while


these


parishes


produced


only


percent


the


state


s cotton


crop


(Table


they


produced


15.9


percent


the


state


rice


on only


.8 percent


the


improved


land


as shown


Scardaville


s examination


census


records


(1985:36


-37).


This


lowland


rice


production


increased


11.8


percent


1860,


compared

percent

provided


to a statewi

(Scardaville.

significant


decrease


1985:36-37

quantities


in rice

These


of livest


production

parishes

ock and pr


of 25.5

also


oduce


crops


which


were


sent


to the


Charleston


markets


local


consumption.


Scardaville


(1985:38)


states


that


the













37






*II
*




VII
U Irl OV 3Ooo~~
L '. N 0S 0 4 In 0 N N~ 0 0 -

E: CQUo S S r
II Iu
I~
*r IR b 6




vi 03 N 0 0e 0: i

in in N 0N

S -
C-)
Wo I *4


* I


'0 Ct N o IO n C N- 0 N to -

oo
I I
4-) ii i i t
I~I
*I IP
* IM
US
V I
00 In
11.4 n ;v\r ; :u


LO 'C -- .t
Nr te
I


Hr a, aV


*r4r 'a .
s-I 'Ucn" Ii .0 '
Ci r te i n0 n04CNis
IP Inrt- -


a, .0

C, 0)4 0. 4 0. t N r- e C 4 NO
*-0 03 0 0 -n In- CC Il\
.43 4' L to te CO N WI 1%. In tel tr VI- 0i,
CD Gi~O, N In In '0tl te N CO tC -
*r4 -L ,1 N ru 0 0 0I .,- -5 InINI
0. -t WI C 10

C I
Ir I(

0 In C NC I N .- 10 N 0'
-~~~ -1 -I ----

C-s~~~~o '' 0' 0 N .r- '
-
0~ to C In 0~ 4 0











potatoes,


sweet


potatoes,


and


corn


to support


livestock


such


as cattle


, sheep,


hogs,


and


poultry


In addition,


proximity


the


major


port


provided


an incentive


for


the


production


of naval


stores


within


the


district.


Evidence


the


importance


these


products


to the


plantations


within


the


Wando


River


basin


can


seen


examination


of ledgers


diaries


the


antebellum


period.


Ledgers


of Anthony


Toomer


, owner


Richmond


plantation


Toomer


corn,


Creek,


butter,


list


numerous


cabbages


of cords


carrots,


chickens


of wood,


, eggs


turkeys,


, spinach,


asparagus,


LVes


, artichokes,


peas,


rice,


hay,


ducks,


and


building


material


such


as brick,


lime,


and


lumber


(Table


-Toomer


1783-85)


. While


similar


records


have


not


been


these


located


other


plantations


properties


' outputs


were


within


probably


the


much


study


the


area,


same.


One

shipments


product


was


which


was


bricks;


noticeably


a three


year


important


period,


Toomer'


lists


shipments


of 195,900


bricks


to Charleston


(Toomer


1783-85)


Richmond


plantation


contains


only


one


kiln


(Wayne


and


Dickinson


1989


:5-17


- 5-18) ;


the


adjacent


Lexington


plantation


to the


northwest


has


a pair


of kilns


and


associated


brickmaking


complex


(Figure


Elm


Grove


plantation


the


east


has


two


brickyards


(Figure





















Table


Wando


Plantation


Accounts


Dr. Anthony


Toomer


1785


Product


Income


sted


Bricks


Firewood


(Oak)


Rice

Produce/livestock*


Includes


corn,


butter,
artichoke


cabbages,


spinach,
s, ducks,


carrots,


asparagus,
turkeys,


chickens,


peas
hay,


eggs,
calves,


potatoes,


pigs


Note:


Plantation


also


produced


lumber


but


not


in great


quantities


Source:


Toomer


1783-85


















[Marsh]


[Wooded Area]


Negro Houses


- Ov


erseer's


House


BRICKYARD


House


Garden


Dwelling


Kitchen


[Cemetery]


Stable


Driver's


House


0 Duck Pond


I


0 500 1000 Feet
lI fthI ii


~85
~o





























* 1 *


Marsh]


BRICKYARD


',j


'4
4'

4'
'4
4'


Old Field


Old Field


BRICKYARD


Brick Shed


Elm Grove


Dr. Daniel Legare


",4'-

























*". "*.*: *.*.:. W AN DO


-, ,-- -.: ;.. .. .. ...... ,
S*RIVER
S I 4


S


a .S


Settlement


* .-.. *
-, *


James J. Rhett's Land









Oarst


Robert Parker's
Island


Sarah Rutledge Estate


Horlbeck's Land


Brick Kiln























4-. 'I
St


/
^*- .*r--


Dr. John


Samuel Martin


U-
Ir
'I
II
U'1
SC)
"In
"C

Ili
U'


Thomas
Addison


~-,..


BRICKYARD


T. P. Addison


BRICKYARD


Landi


Marsh


Marsh


-u


MARTIN











As pointed


Genovese


(1962:436)


Charleston


was


one


the


few


locations


South


which


provided


the


market


or demand


manufactured


goods.


one


the


largest


the


South


s cities,


there


was


a particular


demand


building


material


, especially


fireproof


material


a brief


study


the


sources


brick


Charleston,


Simons


(1934


notes


that


when


occupants


the


Lowcountry


had


to import


every


manufactured


good,


is unreasonable


think


that


valuable


cargo


space


would


have


been


taken


for


brick


when


product


could


be produced


locally.


She


cites


an architect


s estimate


that


would


take


the


full


cargo


room


of nine


the


largest


vessel


available,


or 45


loads


of ballast


to import


sufficient


brick


one


structure,


the


Miles


Brewton


House


(Simons


1934:11).


Thus,


although


there


evidence


of importation


of bricks


(Rauschenberg


1991:103-104),


the


builders


of Charleston


largely


depended


on local


production


their


materials


Thi


manufacturing


enterprise


was


of sufficient


value


the


plantations,


that


when


Arnoldus


Vanderhorst


Lexington


submitted


his post-Revolutionary


War


claims


losses


to the


British


, he li


sted


building


"200


feet


long


30 for


Sheltering


Bricks"


as valued


1000


pounds.


This


half


the


value


claimed


his


dwelling


on the











the


plantation


settlement


patterns,


which


slaves


the


means


of production,


are


often


located


in proximity


to the


kilns


rather


than


to the


owner


or the


agricultural


fields


(Figures


and


The


Wando


River


basin


was


an ideal


location


the


manufacture


of brick


Charleston.


Although


brick


was


produced


along


the


rivers


which


to Charleston


(Figure


thi


industry


appears


to have


been


particularly


important


along


the


Wando.


The


lands


drained


thi


river


the


crops


Wando


the


Neck


and


Cooper


lower


Berkeley


Ashley


River


County

basins


lacked


but


the


had


cash

very


strong


tie


to the


Charleston


market


both


economically


and


logistically.


The


region


is well-suited


brick


production.


The


Wando


except

creeks.

drained


River


within

Soils


highly


saline,


small areas

within thi


flatwoods


types


inhibiting


the


region


which


are


upper

are

not


rice


reaches

primarily


production


the


poorly


particularly


suitable


crops


such


as cotton


or indigo.


However,


the


area


has


the


resources


brickmaking,


as evidenced


property


advertisement


which


appeared


1747:


To be Sold
Subscriber
on Wando R


Brick


. the


now


iver


Works,


lives,


their


Plantation
convenient


. also


being


great
excelled


where


to a good
conveniency


nt


Clay


Landing
for


close


v











In addition,


brickmaking


was


often


a winter


and


spring


occupation


which r

produce


(Gurke


resulted


farming,


1987


resource


corn


Graves


1854-55;


scheduling


raising,


which


livestock


Stoney


1938:48),


complemented


production


the


the


region.


As a result


the


combination


of available


resources,


slaves),


display


a ready


the


market,


majority


evidence


brick


and

the

kiln


a suitable

plantations


S


with


labor


the


associated


force

area

landings


along


the


streams.


one


writer


said


the


Cooper


River


brickmaking


industry:


The


extensive


sometimes


One


old


brick-making


very


lady,


advised


said


three


profitable


to have


successive


on Cooper


second


been


Mrs


dreams,


River


string t
. Frost,
turned


was


rice.


as an industry,


fortune


(Irving


and


like


1932:23).


[John]


Gordon,


made


This


statement


clearly


applies


the


planters


along


the


Wando


River.


In addition


to providing


Charleston


with


subsistence


and


construction


products,


the


plantations


the


District


served


another


important


function.


Land


and


plantations


were


excellent


investments


a business


man


s surplus


or for


the


savings


a professional
was a pleasant
agreeable care
prosperous tow


e
n


man o
goal
r for
men


r politician;


their


their
were c


old


a planter
aae and a


children.


considerable


life


So most
planters


well


(Stoney


1938


:25).


the


same


token,


dominance


of the p


lantation


products


a











they


maintained


town


houses,


and


within


the


state


(Stoney


1938


:41)


The


nearby


plantations


location


Wando


Charleston


River


basin


businessmen


who


represented


wished


acquire


the


financial


investment


and


status


without


the


problem

Charlest

Charlest


of distance

on business

on allowed


from


their


es.


those


who


ma or

same


were


source

time, p


primarily


income--their


roximity

planters


to

to


invest


plantation


Charleston


activity


businesses


such


which


complemented


as factorages,


shipping,


their


and


brickmasonry


An example


this


interrelationship


can


seen


at Lexington


Plantation:


the


Vanderhorsts,


primarily


planters,


also


owned


wharves


and


stores


in Charleston.


The


next


owner


property


was


. Willington,


who


was


primarily


a Charleston


businessman


and


newspaper


publisher


The


third


owner,


Effingham


Wagner,


was


also


involved


Charleston


commerce


activity


es.


these


owners


Lexington


owned


homes


Charleston


(Wayne


and


Dickinson


1990


:3-20


- 3-21)


Their


neighbors


were


equally


involved


Charleston


commerce:


Anthony


Toomer


of Richmond


plantation


south


eas


t of Lexington,


and


the


Horlbecks


of Boone


Hall


were


brickmasons


in Charleston


(Hollings


1978


:89,


91);


William


Hopton,


owner


property


northwest


of Lexington,


was











Charleston.

consumed or


These


i Charleston


plantations


s tables,


providedd

as well


the


foodstuffs


as the


firewood


cook


and


heat


the


houses,


and


the


materials


for


the


buildings.


At the


same


time,


the


properties


provided


investment

businessmen


opportunity


appears


a number


that


of Charleston


in an agriculturally


marginal


area


such


as the


flatwoods


of the


Wando


Neck


and


lower


Berkeley


County,


brickmaking


became


a significant


factor


the

have


economic


been


success


based


these


on production


plantations


of a diverse


which


group


seems


of products


rather


than


a single


staple


crop.


Brickmakers


and


Brickyards


indicated


the


introduction


thi


study,


the


origin


the


craft


of brickmaking


as practiced


the


Carolinas

of Europe,


the


was

and


Carolina


from


southeastern


Huguenot

s were F


France.


rench


England,


Many


Huguenots


the

the


who


Low

earl


came


Countries

y settlers

o this


region


because


the


liberal


religious


policies


the


Lords


Proprietors.


A large


Huguenot


enclave


was


established


St. Denis


Parish


(Berkeley


County),


not


far


from


the


Wando


River.


Many


these


Huguenot


emigres


had


background


the


building


trades


and


utilized


that


experience


to establish


businesses


Charleston.


The











building


and


of manufacturing


material


(Wheaton


et al.


1987


:54).


It i


important


to note,


however,


that


although


the


planters


and


businessmen


may


have


listed


themselves


brickmakers,


highly


unlikely


that


they


actually


were


involved


the


manual


labor


of making


brick.


As Eaton


points


out,


During
extent


industries
employed o
to make br


eighteenth


the
wer
n th
icks


century


ante-bellum
e carried o
e large pla
, staves, a


and


period


n by


to a lesser
household


slaves,


nations tc
nd barrels,


who
weave


were
cloth,


manufacture


nail


to boil


soap,


to do blacksmith


work,


and


even


to make


artistic


furniture


(Eaton


1966:372)


Thus,


the


role


the


named


"brickmaker"


the


Lowcountry


was


essentially


that


the


supervisor


and


instructor


Often,


the


"brickmaker"


was,


fact,


merely


the


property


owner

For e


and


xampl


an unnamed

e, in 1770


overseer


John


directed


Moore,


the


identified


manufacturing.

d as a brickmaker


Thomas


Deni


Parish,


advertised


for


overseer


who


understood


brickmaking


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1770).


Little


documentary


evidence


exists


the


unnamed


slaves


and


overseers


who


provided


labor


and


skill


for


brickmaking,


other


than


an occasional


advertisement


such


that


a slave


sale


1849


which


listed


four


female











Brickmakers


as the


first


skill


those


being


sold


(Capers


and


Huger


1849)


As a result


this


lack


documentary


information,


thi


discussion


the


brickmakers


of necessity


focuses


on those


property


owners


who


were


identified


the


written


record


as practitioners


thi


trade.


Table


provides


a list


the


people


who


were


identified


as brickmakers


Lowcountry,


as well


as the


location


their


brickyards


when


available


(Figure


The


gaps


time


reflect


the


gaps


the


written


record


as well


as the


nature


that


record.


interesting


to note


that,


in a male-dominated


society,


several


women


were


listed


as brickmakers.


least


two,


Hannah


Goodbe


and


Mrs.


Frost,


were


actively


engaged


providing


bricks


the


market


(Irving


1932


:23;


Simons


1934


:9).


The


information


on 18th


century


brickmakers


was


gathered


primarily


from


newspaper


advertisements


and


records


transactions


building


material


The


later


antebellum


information


was


based


largely


on map


references,


city


directories,


and


census


records.


The


first


reference


to brickmaking


the


Lowcountry


was


a 1664


letter


which


stated


that


there


was


a "rich


ground


a grayer


colour


, they


have


made


Brick


the


Clay,













Table


Brickmakers
Between 1745


Identified
and 1860


the


Charleston


Area


Period


Location


Ashley
Wappoo
Parnas
Cooper
Cooper
Cooper
Cooper
Cooper
Foster
Foster
Goose
Moorel
Boone
Palmet


John Cockfield
Richard Lake
Zachariah Villepontoux
Alexander van der Dussen
Thomas Wright
Nathaniel Snow
James Coachman
Hannah Goodbe
Samuel ELLiott
Benjamin and Isaac Mazyck
James and William Withers
John Moore
Peter & John Horlbeck
Peter Croft
James and Deborah Fisher
James Sandeford
Samuel Warnock
Hugh Cartwright
Mrs. (Thomas?) Lynch
William Bruce
Lionel Chalmers
John Laurens
William Hopton
Elizabeth Hill
John Hutchins


Thomas

Charles
Samuel
Joseph
John Wi
ThomasI
Anthony


Gordon
Dupont
Cantey
Cordes
Palmor
lliams
Addison
Toomer


John Daniel
Henry Gray
___ Crosby
Joseph Verree
Blaike
Peter Gaittllard Stoney
John Gordon


Frost
Edward and Samuel Mart
William Marsh
John and George Parker
John Horlbeck
James Rhett
Arnoldus Vanderhorst
_Huger
Robert and Thomas Park
John Horlbeck
Daniel Legare
T.H.I. White
John Sanders
John L. O'Hear


River
Creek
sus, B
River
River
River
River
River
Creek
Creek
Creek
and, T


Cainhoy,
Cainhoy,
Cainhoy,
Cainhoy,
Christ CI


Ashley River
ck River


homas Is


LI, Hor
Grove,
Wando
Wando
Wando
Wando
hurch P


., Beresford Creek
Creek
beck Creek




, Wando River


Wando River
Wando River
Wando River
Wando River
Wando Neck


Beresford Creek
Richmond, Toomer Creek
Christ Church Parish
Fosters Creek


Medway, Cooper River
Brickyard Plantation, Moreland,
The Grove, Cooper
Cooper River
Beresford Creek
Fairchild's Creek, Christ Church Parish
Parker's Island, Horlbeck Creek
Boone Hall, Horlbeck Creek
Palmetto Grove, Horlbeck Creek
Lexington, Wagner Creek


in


er


Parker's Island, Horlbeck Creek
Boone Hall, Horlbeck Creek
Elm Grove, Darrell Creek
Christ Church Parish
St. Thomas & St. Denis Parish
11 II II u II


1745-1760


1761-1776


1790-1830










1850-1860














- ~: .--* I, -
,IIitiit~i'i I .r11





IiI


Aii






/II- 0

P- n~ II



e :Ak















-i -l
US f4~ I


0

rl
US)

r4(T
C
S4Hl
00

00

,Q4J
0(0











(Salley


1911:181).


Within


years,


Lawson


stated


that


there


were


numerous


brick


buildings


in Charleston


with


additional


large


ones


under


construction


using


what


described


as good


brick


tile


made


locally


(Lawson


1709).


the


1740s,


when


Charleston


s building


code


required


the


use


of fireproof


materials


numerous


brickmakers


and


properties


most


could


important


identified


brickmaker


the


written


period


was


record.


probably


The


the


Huguenot,


Zachariah


Villepontoux


of Parnassus


plantation


the


Back


(Cooper)


River


Villepontoux


s bricks


were


cited


as the


standard


when


Stephen


s Parish


attempted


to order


bricks


construction


a new


chapel


1759


(Porcher


1944:165).


Charl


Villepontoux


Pinckney


had


s house


provided


1745;


194,400


Nathaniel


the


Snow,


bricks


a Mr


Dupont,


and


Hannah


Goodbe


provided


the


balance


of 81,400


bricks


(Simons


1934:8)


Villepontoux


has


also


been


identified


as the


brickmaker


St. Michael


Church


Charleston,


a supplier


the


merchant


Henry


Laurens


, and


provider


of part


brick


fortifications


for


the


city


(Hollings


1978


:20;


Rogers


1974:358


-359;


Commi


ssioners


of Fortifications


1755


-70)


In addition


to making


bricks,


Villepontoux


was


a planter,


tax


collector,


and


leader


several


charitable


religious


organizations


(Edgar


and











as Villepontoux


(Porcher


1944:160-164).


The


parish


initially


contracted


with


Samuel


Cordes


August


1759


for


120,000


bricks,


when


delivered


October


1762,


the


church


official


rejected


the


brick


as "not


being


sufficiently


burnt"


(Porcher


1944:163).


In April


1765,


the


Commissioners


the


Church


met


to examine


bricks


made


Joseph


Palmer


the


size


of Mr.


[Ville]Pontoux"


, but


also


rejected


these


since


"they


are


entirely


too


Bad,


and


are


not


164) .


Charles


Proper


In June


Cantey


Building


1766


to make


, the


150,000


a Church"


(Porcher


Commissioners


bricks


1944:163-


contracted


a size


with


equal


Villepontoux


(Porcher


1944


:165).


Since


no further


reference


is made


to bricks


the


minutes,


Cantey


was


evidently


successful


supplying


the


church


s needs.


Construction


the


many


fortifications


and


around


Charleston


during


the


mid-eighteenth


century


utilized


numerous


brickmakers,


including


Villepontoux,


James


and


William


Withers


, Thomas


Gordon,


Joseph


Verree,


Blaike,


and


Anthony


Fort,


Toomer.


Johnson,


These


and


fortifications


Broughton


Battery


included


(Commi


Dorrel


ssioners


Fortifications


1755-1770;


Council


of Safety


1903:18-23).


Toomer


also


supplied


bricks


the


Pringle


house


Charleston


(Toomer


1783-85).











"with


conveniences


making


Brick"


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1741)


year


later


, Elizabeth


Hill


and


Lionel


Chalmers


both


offered


land


on the


Wando


"very


convenient


making


Brick


or Lime"


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1742a;


1742b)


Similar


descriptions


were


used


lands


on the


Wando


River


offered


Sandeford,


1746


. and


Samuel

William


Warnock

Bruce


and


(South


1747


Carolina


James

Gazette


1746a;


1747a;


1747b)


The


property


in Chri


st Church


Parish


advertised


bricklayer


Hugh


Cartwright


on behalf


of Mrs.


Lynch


(perhaps


Mrs.


Thomas


Lynch)


included


unburnt


bricks


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1746b)


The


most


detailed


contemporary


description


of a brickyard


thi


period


came


from


the


advertisement


the


1748


the


property


James


and


Deborah


Fisher:


To be Sold,


a Plantation


on Wando-River


, near


Cainhoy,


Corn,


and


Yard


Length,


Rice


Out


containing


and


Houses,


(with


and


Indigo,
and at


large
about


Acres
with a
the La


Houses,


of Land,
Dwelling


nding


near


Breadth


proper
House,


a Good


100 f
each)


!eet
and


for
Barn


Brick


in
a good


Brick


case


burning


them.


About


feet


Length,


near


arches,


and


in Breadth,
a Division i


and


Height,


Middle,


with


large


quantity


of Wood


near


at Hand,


with


other


conveniences.


whom
Brick


are


very


Likewi


good


a number


Coopers,


Moulders;


several


Household


of slaves,


Sawyers
Furniture


among
and


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1748).


The


two


large


houses


referred


to in


this


advertisement


were


probably


drying


sheds.











1978


:17)


Van


der


Dussen


Mazyck


offered


bricks


for


sale


1745


and


1749,


while


property


being


sold


Elliott


estate


included


a large


quantity


of burnt


and


unburnt


bricks


and


til


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1745


1749a;


1778)


Two


brickmakers


were


identified


on the


Ashley


River


from


these


advertisements--John


Cockfield


and


Richard


Lake


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1747c;


1749b)


Brickmaker


John


Moore,


. of


Beres


ford


Creek


Thomas


and


St. Deni


Parish


was


identified


previously


mentioned


advertisement


an overseer


who


understood


brickmaking


(South


Carolina


ette


1770)


Moore


was


the


nephew


of brickmaker


Zachariah


Villepontoux


and


operated


both


brick


and


lime


kilns


on his


plantation


on Thomas


Island.


relationship


to Villepontoux


undoubtedly


provided


him


with


exposure


to brickmaking


(Wheaton


et al.


1987


* 4-5


In addition,


was


married


to Elizabeth


Vanderhorst


(Wheaton


et al. 1987


:59);


the


Vanderhorst


family


operated


a brickyard


at Lexington


plantation


on the


Wando


River


Besides


brickmaking,


Moore


served


the


Royal


Assembly,


the


First


Provincial


Congress,


and


as a justice


the


peace


(Wheaton


et al.


1987


:54;


Hollings


1978


:19)


William


Hopton,


owner


of a plantation


on the


Wando


River


opposite


Cainhoy,


was


an excellent


example


the











Berkeley


thi


1982:


property


231) .


shows


Examination


a brickyard


an 1819


on the


plat


plantation


map


(Wilson


1819).


At approximately


same


time


that


Hopton


owned


property


on the


Wando,


Peter


Croft


developed


plantation


Palmetto


Grove


on what


is now


Horlbeck


Creek.


Since


thi


property


contains


remains


of a brick


kiln,


is assumed


that


Croft


was


making


bricks,


although


the


kiln


could


have


been


the


work


other


long-term


landowner


the


property,


James


Rhett,


who


owned


Palmetto


Grove


from


1834


1854


(Trinkley


1987:


The


other


major


brickmakers


the


18th


century


were


Peter


and


John


Horlbeck.


The


Horlbeck


family


developed


what


would


become


longest


lasting


the


brickyards


thi


region.


bricks

Customs


tied


The


as early


House


Horlbeck


to a specific


brothers


as 1766, in

Charleston


brickyard


were


eluding


Simons

until


selling


bricks

n.d.)


the


and


for

but


early


laying


the


could


19th


not


century.


In 1817,


their


sons,


John


Henry


Horlbeck,


acquired


Boone


Hall


plantation


on what


now


Horlbeck


Creek


A deed


issued


just


prior


to this


acquisition


mentioned


a brickyard


as one


the


property


s features.


1839


, thi


brickyard


was


under


the


control


John


Horlbeck,


(Espenshade


and











(U.S.


Census


1850)


production,


plus


a reference


the


census


to the


use


of coal


, indicated


that


the


Horlbecks


may


have


been


using


steam-powered


brick-making


machinery


(Espenshade


and


Grunden


1991:15).


The


Boone


Hall


brickyard


continued


to operate


throughout


Civil


War


until


the


late


19th


century


(Espenshade


Grunden


1991) ;


thi


the


only


brickyard


the


basin


which


seems


to have


operated


after


the


Civil


War


possible


that


the


high


production


the


Horlbeck


property


forced


the


smaller


brickyards


out


of business


1860.


In 1875,


John


Horlbeck


acquired


a neighboring


brickyard


on Parker


developed


Island.


This


John


brickyard


George


was


Parker


probably


who


are


originally


listed


brickmakers


the


late


18th


century


Charleston


city


directories


(McElligott


1989).


An 1844


map


shows


the


island


and


brickyard


as the


property


of Robert


Parker


(Jones


1844).


Horlbeck


acquired


the


property


from


Parker


s son


Thomas


(Southerlin


et al.


1988:


Although


there


were


fewer


brickmakers


identified


during


the


19th


century,


they


seem


to have


had


larger


operations.


Peter


Gaillard


supplier


Stoney


brick


of Medway,


Fort


Sumter


instance,


1830


was


(Stoney


the


and


major


Staats


n.d. :10).


John


Gordon


owned


three


properties


on the


Cooper


22).











sale,


included


oxen


"used


trampling


the


clay"


plus


"the


unburnt


brick"


(Ravenel


1835)


Gordon


was


said


to have


gotten


wealthy


from


brickmaking,


inspiring


a neighbor


, Mrs.


Frost,


to do


the


same


(Irving


1932:


Another


indication


the


extent


the


brickmaking


during


thi


period


was


move


to mechanization.


The


Hugers


the


Cooper


River


investigated


a brickmaking


machine


made


Philadelphia;


although


the


machine


cost


over


$1,000.00,


Huger


indicated


would


be worth


the


money


worked


(Huger


1812) .


At least


one


plantation


the


Charl


eston


area


did


acquire


such


a machine;


now


the


collections


the


Charleston


Museum


(News


Courier


1991)


As previously


noted


, the


Horlbecks


were


probably


using


steam


power


thi


and


scale


ssibly


brickmaking


of production


machines


level


at Boone


technology


Hall.

, these


brickyards


represent


transition


to full


-fledged


manufacturing


facilities,


although


they


continued


to be


operated


as an aspect


plantations


on which


they


were


located.


Arnoldus


Vanderhorst


of Lexington


plantation


considered


brickmaking


to be


so important


that


located


slave


cabins


overseer


s house


brickyard


(Figure


valued


the


brick


shed


at thi


operation


at 1,000


pounds,











Beres


ford


Creek


remained


a center


brickmaking


during


the


19th


century


. In


addition


to John


Gordon


s and


John


Moore,


Jr.'s operations,


the


creek


served


as an outlet


for


the


brickyards


of Thomas


Addison


and


Edward


and


Samuel


Martin


(Diamond


1823)


1850,


only


nine


brickmakers


were


identified


the


project


region


(Table


but


with


the


exception


of Daniel


Legare


of Elm


Grove,


were


making


over


300,000


bricks


per


year


Two,


John


Horlbeck


and


John


Marshall,


were


making


over


a million


bricks


a year


. Census


1850).


Examination


of a plat


of Legare


s property


(Figure


does


show


two


brickyards,


but


census


record


indicates


that


only


operated


them


about


two


months


the


year


p055


ible


that


these


brickyards


originally


dated


earlier


period


of Elm


Grove


s operations.


With


the


exception


the


Boone


Hall


operation,


there


no evidence


the


continuation


the


brickyards


after


the


Civil


War


. Thi


may


be a function


of several


factors.


First,


lost


the


the


South


cheap


was


labor


economically


source


devastated


of slavery


Second,


the


War


many


and


the


plantations


in the


Lowcountry


were


destroyed


during


the


War,


lost


or abandoned


their


owners


during


the


post


-bellum


period.


Third,


industrialization


reached


the


brickmaking






















000000
0 0 0L00 0

-S. S. Ct SNS







000000
000000
000000
o~ooooo






oooooo
000000
000000
t> k ,OOtd
oooooo
00CO0 0 0
1^in in o ^o
*m9


- Cr
S~tA49


-nr ot ro


Cu'


. rO .- .-


d~b
-U


000000
000000
000000
WoOio000
(MUM-M MM
AO 0^ 4A A











Brickmaking


the


post-bellum


period


seems


to have


shifted


to large


scale


operations


the


piedmont


region


the


state


with


extensive


clay


deposits


(Johnson


and


Heron


1965:45,


47).


Proliferation


of rail


transportation


during


the


late


19th


century


facilitated


this


shift


out


the


Lowcountry.


Production


and


Value


The


extent


the


brick


production


and


the


value


these


bricks


has


been


mentioned


the


previous


discussions


the


development


the


industry


and


the


brickmakers.


Thi


section


will


summarize


that


data


and


examine


certain


items


more


closely.


When


the


Charleston


building


code


1740


required


fireproof


construction,


also


established


the


cost


for


local


bricks


at 6


pounds


per


thousand


(Edgar


1972:301).


Even


though


New


England


bricks


were


available


at the


cheaper


rate


of a little


over


pounds


per


thousand,


merchant


Robert


Pringle


stated


that


these


bricks


were


unpopular


and


didn


sell


because


their


smaller


size


(Edgar


1972:301).


The


1740


price


appears


to have


generally


held


through


most


the


18th


century,


although


there


were


occasional


variations, F

arrangements.


probablyy


based


In 1749,


one


on quality

advertiser


or special

offered a


contract


discount











the


Commi


ssioners


were


paying


between


and


12 pounds


per


thousand


bricks


(Commiss


loners


of Fortifications


1765).


The


Horlbecks


offered


bricks


at 7 pounds


per


thousand


during


the


period


from


1766


to 1767


(Horlbeck


1770) ;


however,


Stephen


s Church


brick


was


time


paying


(Porcher


only

1944


6 pounds


:160).


per

the


thousand


time


for

the


Revolutionary


thousand


War,


(Council


brick


costs


of Safety


remained


1903:18


at 6 pounds


-23)


per


1783,


soon


after


the


War


, Anthony


Toomer


seems


to have


been


selling


bricks


at approximately


After


the


pounds


establishment


per


the


thousand


United


(Toomer


States


1783-


dollar


the


late


18th


century,


brick


prices


seem


to have


stabili


at $4.00

These pr


to $7.00


ices


per


remained


thousand


effect


based

during


on the

a the


grade


antebellum


brick.

period


(Ramey


& Hughes


1839;


. S.


Census


1850;


Horlbeck


1856-


75).


difficult


to estimate


total


brick


production


the


Wando


River


basin


prior


the


information


provided


the


1850


census


report.


Some


idea


the


scale


can


drawn


from


references


to the


amounts


of brick


ordered


specific


projects.


A single


structure,


the


1745


Pinckney


house


Charleston,required


a total


of 275,800


bricks,


ordered


from


three


makers.


During


same


period,











foot


square


house


(Hollings


1978


:12).


After


the


Revolutionary


War,


Arnoldus


Vanderhorst


of Lexington


Plantation


story


claimed


brick


sses


house


of material


Charleston"


for


construction


at a value


of 2,500


pounds,


which


could


represent


over


400,000


bricks


(Vanderhorst


1780)


The


many


fortifications


continually


required


bricks;


Villepontoux


and


Goodbe


provided


94,000


between


1757


and


1758,


while


two


other


brickmakers


provided


an additional


68,600


during


the


same


period


(Simons


1934


Commi


ssioners


of Fortifications


1765)


Between


1775


and


1776,


for


the


Dorrel


Second


Fort


Council


from


Safety


three


purchased


brickmakers


40,500


(Council


bricks


of Safety


1903


:21-2


Gurcke


estimated


that


an expert


brick


molder


could


make


between


and


5,000


bricks


per


day


(Gurcke


1987


:19)


This


estimate


consistent


with


the


records


of Medway


plantation


as well


as the


description


of Florida


brickmaker


Crary


(Stoney


1852


Crary


1889)


Thus


when


Graves


indicated


was


molding


two


tabli


each


day


(Graves


1854-


55),


was


probably


producing


least


10,000


bricks


a day


Since


he molded


about


a week


at a time


and


fired


kilns


three


or four


times


in a season


(Graves


1854-55)


was


conservatively


producing


280,000


bricks


per


season











force,


since


Graves


indicates


that


other


slaves


were


cutting


wood


or manuring


fields


while


brickmaking


was


progress


(Graves


1854-55).


Based


on the


available


comparative


data,


seems


likely


that


the


Lexington


Plantation


brickmaking


complex


Wagners


Creek,


which


included


two


kilns


and


was


obviously


important


part


plantation


as evidenced


the


settlement


pattern,


could


have


been


producing


several


hundred


thousand


bricks


each


season


(Wayne


and


Dickinson


1990


* c1n


-11)


This


could


trans


late


into


more


than


000.00


per


year


income


the


planter,


without


the


investment


seed


or stock


required


agricultural


activities,


or the


risks


crop


failure


insect


damage.


Total


annual


production


figures


were


located


for


three


antebellum


br ickmakers


prior


to the


1850


census:


Anthony


Toomer,


Peter


Gaillard


Stoney,


the


Horlbecks.


Toomer


brick


production


the


three


year


period


between


1783


and


1785


totalled


195,900


bricks.


The


money


received


these


bricks


represented


approximately


25 percent


of hi


plantation


income


a single


year


(Table


2--Toomer


1783-


85).


Stoney


s Medway


plantation


shipped


594,000


bricks


the


ten


month


period


from


1852


to 1853


(Table


while


the













Table


Medway


Plantation


Shipping


Records,


1852


Number Bricks


Vessel


5/18/52
5/25/52
6/1/52
6/8/52
6/15/52
6/22/52
6/29/52
7/6/52
7/12/52
7/13/52
7/20/52
7/27/52
7/28/52
8/2/52
8/3/52

8/5/52
8/10/52

8/17/52
8/31/52
9/7/52
9/9/52
9/14/52
9/14/52
9/18/52
9/21/52
9/22/52
9/28/52
10/29/52

11/2/52

11/3/52

11/5/52

11/8/52
11/10/52

11/16/52
11/23/52

11/30/52

12/7/52
12/17/52
12/19/52
1/4/53
1/11/53
1/17/53

1/18/53
1/25/53
2/1/53
2/8/53
-k .Ar ---


12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
15,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
14,000
14,500
6,500
5,500
15,000
10,500
1,500
12,000
12,000
14,000
12,000
14,000
12,000
14,000
12,000
14,000
12,000
7,000
7,000
8,000
6,500
6,000
6,000
9,000
5,000
12,000
9,000
5,000
12.000


brown
grey
grey
grey
grey
grey
grey
grey
grey
brown


brown
grey
grey
brown
grey
grey
brown
grey
brown
grey
grey
grey
grey
grey
brown
grey
grey
brown


Mr. Fairchild's
Stoop Ann


stoop


Mr. Fairchild's
Mr. Fairchild's


Sloop Ann


Mr. FairchiLd's
Stoop Ann


Stoop Ann
Stoop Ann
Mr. Fairchild's sloop
Stoop Ann
Mr. Fairchild's sloop
Mr. Stoney's sloop Ann
Mr. Fairchild's sloop


Stoney's


stoop Ann


Fairchild's sloop


Stoney's


stoop


Fairchi d's


Fairchild's


brown
grey
brown


Mr. Stoney's


Fairchid's


stoop Ann


sloop


brown


Mr. Stoney's st
Mr. Fairchild's


stoop


brown


Stoney's
Stoney's


brown


brown
brown
brown
grey
grey
grey
brown


12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
10,000
5,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000


Slr~ I SI 1' *fEI


grey
brown
grey
grey
brown
L a -.


P. G. Stoney's

P. G. Stoney's
P. G. Stoney's
P. G. Stoney's
P. G. Stoney's
P. G. Stoney's
John Wright's


P. G. Stoney's
P. G. Stoney's
P. G. Stoney's
P. G. Stoney's
nfl P 0 a>a t.i~ ja


sloop


boat


stoop
stoop
stoop
stoop
a I An-lq


Date













Tabl


Boone


Hall


Brickyard


Account


Book,


Sample


Page,


1847


Stoop


71,269


Brown


480.261


Remarks


Landing
Place


134.320 BROUGHT FORWARD


Dec. 17

Dec. 18


Dec. 19

Dec. 20


10,000 Geiger wf


14,500


Fairfield wf


to be sold
by him
I II1


13,000

13,000


13.200


Dec. 22

Dec. 22


25.500


Howards wf


10,250

21.050


Sureef


Geigers


Fitsimmnons wf


by Buena
Vista


Dec. 24

Dec. 28


Source:


13,350

9.800


Espenshade and Grunden


Geigers


1991:16


Tabl


Boone


Hall


Yearly


Production


and


Income


Total


1850


-1860


Bricks Produced


3,127,930

3,505,968

3,278,069

3,451,696

2.693.675


1,573,014

1,832,810

1.812.520


439.545


1.557.715


1,659,123


Income


If~mnlaD


$ 18,701.01

$ 17,905.40

$ 22,558.44

$ 26,210.53

$ 21,855.75

$ 11,313.40

$ 12,856.22

$ 12.505.71


$ 3.151


$5.98

$5.11

$6.88

$7.59

$8.11


$7.19


$7.01

$6.90

$7.17

$7.07

$7.88


$ 11,009.91

$ 13,076.05


Dec.


gers


Year


1852


1853


1857

1858


1859











$3,564


and


$41,119


respectively,


assuming


a sal


price


per


thousand


. In


fact,


during


the


ten


year


between


1850


and


1860,


Boone


Hall


produced


over


24 million


bricks


valued


more


than


$170,000


(Table


Examination


the


1850


census


records


(Table


shows


that


the


nine


brickmakers


sted


these


two


parishes


were


producing


over


nine


million


bricks


1849


(the


year


the


data


were


collected)


valued


at $64,000


This


production


utili


a relatively


small


labor


force


of 288


slaves.


The


item


sted


invested


capital


represented


the


combined


value


these


slaves


the


land


use.


The


variation


the


average


monthly


cost


the


labor


was


either


reflection

represented


the


some


quality


estimation


care


the


the


owners


various

based


owners,

on the


slaves


' employment


as brickmakers


on a part-time


basi


Stoney


s Medway


plantation


day


book


1852


provided


indication


the


level


of effort


involved


a major


brickmaking


operation.


Thi


book


listed


a maximum


hands


a day


the


brickyard;


usually


the


record


indicated


either


or 12 hands


supporting


one


or two


molding


tables.


Maximum


production


from


these


two


table


appears


to have


been


10,000


bricks


a day


production


comparable


that


adverti


sed


earlier


brickmaking


machines


which


cost











summary,


brickmaking,


while


labor-intensive,


could


be conducted


number


at a high


of slaves


level


, probably


of production


on a seasonal


using


basis


a limited


at most


brickyards


The


value


the


end


product


compared


favorably


to that

1). For


of plantation


example,


cash

1850


crops

rice s


in the


old


Lowcountry

an average


(Table


price


cents


per


pound


(Smith


1985:215).


Thi


places


the


value


the


rice


production


Christ


Church


Parish


$32,803


that


year


, compared


to $34


for


bricks


Census


1850;


Scardaville


1985:37)


In St. Thomas


and


Denis


Parish


, which


produced


a greater


volume


of rice,


the


value


rice


production


1850


would


have


been


$119,041.00;


brick


value


was


estimated


$29,960.00


(U.S.


Census


1850;


Scardaville


1985


The


growth


this


industry


the


Wando


River


basin


provides


an example


importance


of diversity


within


the


plantation


system.


Archaeologist


Craig


Sheldon


has


suggested


that


planters


in agriculturally


marginal


areas


were


forced


to diversify


acquire


multiple


properties


order


to succeed.


Thi


diversification


included


providing


goods


and


services


to their


neighbors


as well


the


local


market.


He suggested


that


a group


diversified


planters


was


a vital


part


the


support


network


i










responsiveness


to a market-driven


economy


certainly


seems


describe


the


plantations


along


the


Wando


River


and


their


complex


interaction


with


the


City


of Charleston.















CHAPTER


TO MAKE


A BRICK


There


are


convenient
excellent


with


Wood


also


several


to settle


clay


being


at hand


steep


Brick
found


Landings


Works


burning


upon


round
(South


, very
, an


the


Land,


Carolina


Gazette


1742a).


The


Wando


River


plantations


had


an abundance


of all


the


elements


of brickmaking,


plus


access


to a market


via


the


river.


The


soil


area


are


underlain


a red


clay


stratum;


addition,


sand


present


the


Pleasant


and


Cainhoy


scarps


use


tempering


the


clay


The


pine-


oak


forests


provided


an abundance


of fuel,


while


the


large


slave


population


provided


labor


both


obtaining


the


raw


material


the


brickmaking.


Brickmaking


begins


with


the


clay.


A 1664


account


states


that


the


Charleston


area,


there


was


"rich


ground


a grayer


colour"


useful


brickmaking


(Carroll


1836:12


These


brick


clays


are


Pleistocene


marine


clays


deposited


ancient


lagoons


(Johnson


and


Heron


1965:50).


The


deposits


can


to 20 feet


thick


and


are


characterized


as kaolinitic


montmorillonites.


Thi


means


that


they


consist


primarily


of kaolinite


clays


with


a low










The


clay


mixed


with


montmorillonite,


the


proportion


which


increases


with


depth.


Montmorillonite


clays


are


virtually


the


opposite


of kaolinite


clays,


with


a high


water


of plastic


ity,


high


drying


and


firing


shrinkages,


high


dry


strengths,


and


maturing


temperature


es.


They


also


have


tendency


to pick


up large


amounts


of water


a humid


environment.


Although


not


useful


as a basic


raw


material,


small


quantities


montmorillonites


as an additive


improve


plastic


city


and


lower


maturity


temperatures


(Johnson


and


Heron


1965


:50-51)


Sand


the


clay


promotes


more


rapid


drying


while


iron


oxide


acts


as a flux


to produce


a harder


brick


lower


temperature


(Buie


1949


:97-98)


Lowcountry


clays


can


be divided


into


five


basic


types:


marl


clayey


sands,


sandy


clays,


rich


clays,


and


vitreous


clays


. Marl


are


generally


unsati


factory


alone


due


their


instability;


however,


small


amounts


added


to other


clays

Clayey


would

sands


increa


do not


strength


contain


and


a high


produce

enough


color


changes.


proportion


of clay


to be useful


for


brickmaking,


although


they


can


be used


sand


the


molds


and


table


Sandy


clay


probably


the


best


overall


material


face


bricks


, with


a shrinkage


rate


ess


than


four


percent


and


good


bonding


strength.


Rich


clays


have


a high


proportion


of clay


and


make


excellent











during


firing;


bricks


from


these


clays


have


good


structural


properties.


Vitreous


clays


also


make


a good


additive


other


clay


types


(Robinson


and


Johnson


1960:11-13).


The


elevations


sandy


above


clays


clayey


10 feet


on sandy


sands


are


knoll


found


ridges


the


pine


flatwoods.


They


range


color


from


a mottled


orange-


yellow-brown-white


sandy


clay


to a cream-colored


to brown


clay


Rich


clays


marls


are


found


below


10 feet


elevation


the


flat


swamplands


and


bottomlands


along


the


rivers


and


creeks.


These


clays


are


generally


dark


brown


olive-green


in color


, grading


down


to marls


(Robinson


and


Johnson


1960:9-10).


Digging


or "winning"


the


clay


is a seasonal


activity:


All
dug


clay


as to
snow.
stones


intended


the w
expose
Care


in it,


inter
it a
must


for
and


s much


working


next


earlier


as possible


taken,


to dig


there


in small


season


the


must


better,


to frost


are


pits,


and


small


and


cast


out
well


the
mix


stones
the t


o


as muc
p and


as possible,


bottom


the


and
bed


of clay


together


(Dobson


1850


(2) :97).


The


near


diary


Beaufort


a Lowcountry


stated


that


planter


from


slaves


Prince


were


William


digging


Parish


clay


during


the


period


between


February


and


April


(Graves


1854-


55) .


Thi


would


have


still


been


primarily


during


the


non-


agricultural


periods


the


year


As Stoney


stated,


planters


in the


brickmaking


areas


-


the


Lowcountry


"enj oved


~___











the


Wando


River


area,


the


clay


was


normally


dug


hand


from


shallow


pits


or trenches


, which


are


still


evidence


aerial


photographs


the


region.


The


clay


was


then


"wheeled


to a level


place.


. .it


heaped


to a depth


of several


mellowed


feet,


the


and


left


frosts,


through


which


winter


break


and


months


crumble


to be


the


lumps"


(Dobson


1850


:21)


Rain


also


washed


out


some


the


solubl


salts


during


period.


The


heaps


were


regularly


broken


and


turned


over


so that


all


portions


the


clay


were


exposed


weather


(Gurcke


1987


After


weathering,


the


clay


was


then


tempered


Tempering


consisted


of adding


water


and


other


material


such


as sand,


and


then


thoroughly


mixing


the


clay


and


temper


The


most


primitive


methods


were


to spread


out


the


clay,


the


water


temper,


then


trod


on the


mixture


using


men


or animal


until


was


pliable:


Then
narro
Workm


and


we water
w Spade
an may h


then


in good
piece o
Mould o


abou
old


temper


case


f Dough
r Frame


Earth
t five
out, w


it with


o make
such
when


well,
Inches


ith


our


a Brick
as will
lifted u


and


which


bare
on,
just


temper


broad, t
h we dig


feet
that
stick


and


not


it with


hat
it


the
down,


till


like


the


fall


it self;


. (Lloyd


1925


An alternative


method


was


use


a soak


pit,


which


rectangular


pit,


approximately


feet,


was


filled


with


the


clay


and


water


and


allowed


to soak


overnight.


Temper











possible


that


primitive


soak


without


the


Iron


wheel


was


the


method


utilized


the


Wando


River


basin


with


readily


available


slave


animal


labor.


one


advert is


ement


property


stated,


the


brickyard


included


reservoir


of water


swimming


the


cattle


that


tread


the


clay"


(South


Carolina


Gazette


1766).


A few


planters


may


have


used


pug


mill


during


the


latter


years


brickmaking


era.


pug


mill


consists


a cylindrical


barrel


containing


a revolving


shaft


with


paddles


The


clay,


sand,


water


were


put


the


top


and


kneaded


between


the


rotating


fixed


parts


the


mill


The


mixed


clay


was


then


forced


out


through


an opening


the


bottom


the


mill


(Figure


(McKee


1976:84).


Once


the


clay


had


been


prepared,


was


then


molded


formed.


Molding


completed


the


was


considered


craftsmen


to be a skilled


among


brickmakers.


process


"The


molder


usually


the


the


head


most


the


skilled


molding


worker


gang,


the


'stool


yard"


and


(Gurcke


1987


:15)


The


molder


worked


near


the


soak


pit,


at "a Table


standing


about


three


foot


high,


five


foot


and


a half


long,


and


three


foot


and


half


over"


(Lloyd


1925:34)


(Figure


He worked


with


a mold,


sand,


clay,


and


"strike"


instrument


remove


excess


clay


from


mold.


Molds































0)







1(0.






Sc


4,


I'f
*r4


CI
oar4

.r4






(0d.

0 )~





Oo

Ir4



























tb
*: Lw


,I
i c


* i *
r 4- 4
S


b *kj~bt


,* 7..t*
-a


%1*
*1 i


U'
k f! 8


imm mm mmmm
^ >^ ^tetI
7 4?' ?


I I


'U'c


AB~
>


S.Yw


'a
ti~


~~lrr
~1
",


F1,

































>1

00

00

0o
*ph
00





C
L0
B x
U,

0.0

urg
*r4
0 rt
-^-s
^5


*r4l

Cd



>l 1

)


~U
0-H
00
*r4















Aj!:tst


Fj': i.


ri


V.r

Lit


* \ L
r~m lllm I iF I I


'4- A..


IaJ


" "rd.l


m











records


indicate


that


such


molds


were


generally


made


mahogany


Hollings


, a dense,


states


durable


that


wood


molds


(Elfe


-1/2


1775;


-1/2


SCCCP


inches


1798)


were


"the


easiest


handling"


(Hollings


1978:7) ;


thi


the


approximate


size


of most


Wando


River


bricks.


Molds


were


first


dipped


"a little


Trough


that


will


hold


about


three


or four


quarts


of water"


(Lloyd


1925:34)


and


then


dusted


with


sand


prior


to filling.


A clot


"about


14-15


. of"


tempered


clay


was


formed


into


roughly


rectangular


shape


about


25 percent


larger


than


the


mold


(Lloyd


1925:31).


clot


was


then


held


over


the


mold


and


slammed


into


with


force;


the


molder


then


levelling
heaping u
he throws


Seizing, at
strike, the
at the edge


been


mould,
'lignes


be
the


the


the
into


the


mate
the
sam


handle


the


soaking,


same


time


rial in
second c
e time,
of which
wetting


passes


remove


' of


[Figure
strike,


it


that


thickness


that


He gives


as with


with
the


hand


excess


of which


ompartment.


with


his


right


is conveniently


trough
firmly


exceeds


the


a tap


a trowel,


two
with
on th


in which


across


the


hand


the


placed
t has


the


or 29


bricks s
the fla
e middle


should
t of


the


mould
other


the


to separate


and


table


places
(Lloyd


the
the


1925


two


bricks


surplus
:31).


one


from


earth


the


side


The


Graves


diary


described


"moulding"


"running"


"tables


" of


bricks


same


time


that


other


bricks


were


being


loaded


kiln


fired


(Graves


1854-55).


Crary


stated


that


a good


crew


of five


men


and


one


boy


could











wheel


dry


bricks


shed


and


a boy


to drive


the


oxen


tempering


the


clay


(Crary


1889).


Once


filled,


molds


were


taken


the


carrier


the


drying


area


where


bricks


were


turned


out


in rows


to dry


approximately


24 hours


(Figure


The


carrier


returned


the


empty


mold


to the


sand


bin


reuse


(Lloyd


1925:31)


The


surfaces


bricks


were


occasionally


smoothed


during


period


the


bricks


sometimes


turned


on edge


after


they


were


semi-dry


to provide


additional


airflow


to the


other


surfaces


When


the


bricks


were


dry


enough


to be handled,


they


were


removed


from


the


rows


and


placed


"Hacks


places


where


they


Row


them


like


Wall


two


Bricks


thick


, with


some


small


interval


betwixt


them,


to admit


the


wind


and


air


to dry


them)"


(Lloyd


1925:36)


Since


drying


required


about


two


three


weeks,


sheds


would


be used


to protect


the


hacks


from


rain


during


thi


period


(Gurcke


1987:26).


Firing


was


begun


after


the


bricks


were


dried.


The


bricks


spaces


must


be carefully


to allow


even


stacked


on edge


distribution


the


the


heat


kiln


and


with


gases.


Hollings


(1978:8)


stated


that


kilns


held


from


20,000


50,000


bricks


at each


firing.


Scove


or clamp


kilns


are


constructed


from


the


bricks


being


fired


(Ure


1840


*1a51


































>11






taoE







o w

lrl U

'-I~
0l
s-I
*r4


r4







*rI



O~r
D o
pccU












r? I'~rN
44 <4
r~/4






Ir *
r pa 1
r9it'
r", cl ?.
,F %; lg~f*Jt.


JF f
SI


- -i


1t I1 ..

'*4 1











permanent


form


of kiln,


the


Cassel


or Newcastle


type,


consisted


of a permanent


outer


wall,


base,


and


chimney


with


flues


leading


from


the


front


the


kiln


the


chimney


the


rear.


This


type


of kiln


relied


on crossdrafts


for


distribution


the


heat


(Rhodes


1968:45,


(Figure


11).


The


more


common


scove


or clamp


kilns


were


begun


with


the


construction


of a corbel


arch


or flue


running


the


length


the


kiln:


They buil
be burnt
Arches in
Brick's B
but with
they trus
project o
Place, fo
meet, and
which clo
Fuel, the
which is
'till it
to lay th
they meet
about 3 o
Width of
[Figure 1
in the Or
Eighth,
Bigness;
thousands
1726:50).


d their Cla
something 1
Kilns, viz
Breadth, &c.
this Differ
s, or span
ne beyond t
r the Wood
are bonded
ses up the
y carry up
the same th
is about 3
e Bricks. D


in
r 4
the
2].


the m
Cours
Mouth
Abov


der they
according
for they


id
e
b
e


mps
ike
. w
fo


of
the


it
r


ence,
it ov
he ot
and C
by t
Arch:
strai
ing,
Feet
rojec
die,
of Br
being
this


do in a
as the
usually


a clamp


the Bricks
Method of
a Vacancy


the
th
er,
her
oal


Fir
at i
by
, on
to


he Br
thi
ght a
uprig
high,
ting
which
icks
about
Arch
Kiln
Clam
burn


ic

t


e to
nstea
making
both
lie i
ks at
Place
both


ht at
and
over
they
in He
two
they
to 8
p is
a gr


at a time.


tha
Bui
betw
asce
d of
g th
sid
n, t
the
for
Side


both
they
inwar
will
ighth
Feet
lay t
or 1
to be
eat m


t
d


a
h
0

a


. (Neve


t
1
i
n

e


are to
ding the
xt each
d by;
Arching,
Bricks


es or the
ill they
Top,
the
s, or,
sides,
hen begin
s, till
do in
the
nd a half
e Bricks
Feet in
in
ny


The


green


brick


may


then


be covered


previously


burnt


brick


and


earth


to seal


kiln


(Gurcke


1987:32;


Weldon


1990b:24).


.h


L































-r -
rr
-r


Scove


kiln


Cassel


kiln


ec -t'~'


----


--































*rl



3
I~r4



ci -





(d rt


Oo
'JJ
-'-4




Full Text

PAGE 1

BURNING BRICK: A STUDY OF A LOWCOUNTRY INDUSTRY BY LUCY B. WAYNE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1992 m'IVERSITY OF FLO IDA LICRARIES

PAGE 2

Copyright 1992 by Lucy B. Wayne

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A dissertation is a journey towards knowledge. Like all journeys it includes visits to places and friends both familiar and new. This study has been no exception; many places and many people have been encountered in this quest for knowledge. I appreciate all of the help I have received from friends, new and old, as well as from those who were encountered only briefly in passing. These paragraphs are an effort to acknowledge their assistance and to highlight special people and places on this journey. One special benefit of this study was the time I got to spend in Charleston. I have learned to know this city and love it for its beauty, grace, pervasive sense of history, and the helpfulness of its residents. I contacted or visited most of the local archives in this city; all were gracious, even when they could not help. I would like to thank the staff members of these organizations: the Charleston Library Society, the Charleston County Library, the Charleston Museum, the College of Charleston, the Charleston Preservation Society, the Charleston County Records of Mesne Conveyance, the Charleston District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Charleston office of the National Trust for Historic iii

PAGE 4

Preservation. Charleston area residents Mackie Hill, Mrs. Robert Whitelaw, Oliver Hollings, and John and Buckles, Frederick Richard Horlbeck Stuhr, shared Marie their knowledge of brickmaking sites with me. Mrs. Whitelaw also gave permission to use photographs taken at her late husband's Charleston Brick Company. Several people in Charleston deserve special thanks. Charles Chase, preservation architect with the City, and consultant Sarah Fick made time to talk about this study and provide leads to information. Jonathan Poston of the Historic Charleston Foundation was supportive, interested, and provided an unpublished document on bricks in Charleston. Stephen Snyder and Fritz Aichele of the South Carolina Coastal Council were extremely helpful in providing access to the Council's aerial photograph collection; Fritz patiently explained the different photographs and enthusiastically assisted me in my quest. His interest and concern for historic resources should be commended. I could not have completed this project without the help and patience of the staff of the South Carolina Historical Society. Staff researcher Kathleen Howard spent unknown amounts of time chasing leads, retrieving records, and watching for references to brickmaking. In the process I gained a friend. Archivist Peter Bennett spent a day helping me conduct a computer search of the Society's holdings. iv

PAGE 5

Director Mark Wetherington graciously allowed me to use materials from the Society's collections in this document. Duncan Newkirk of Newkirk Environmental Consultants and Joe Williams of Southeastern Surveyors are very familiar with the Wando River and were helpful in identifying the brickyard sites along that river. Joe also provided the critical piece of equipment for the field survey--a boat. My travels led me to two other cities and important sources of information. The South Carolina State Archives in Columbia is a vital source for public records and state historical material. I would like to thank their staff for introducing me to the materials on file at this repository. Nicholas Pappas and Bill Weldon of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation spent a cold and dreary January day outdoors showing me how colonial brickmaking worked. Mr. Pappas then took the extra time to give this archaeologist a tour of the archaeological laboratory at Williamsburg. It was a delightful and informative trip thanks to these two gentlemen. Many archaeologists were important sources of information for this project. Paul Brockington, Eric Poplin, and Chris Espenshade of Brockington and Associates patiently answered my many questions about the brickyard sites on their projects. Robert Morgan of the Forest Service provided site forms, personal knowledge of sites, and advice David Beard of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology V

PAGE 6

provided a list of sites identified based on their waterfront components. Martha Zierdan, Julie King, Lynne Lewis, and Jonathan Leader shared their knowledge of bricks and brickmaking in the region. Lee Tippett of the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office was supportive, interested, and helpful in terms of resource management approaches. Elizabeth Sheldon, Jack Elliott, and Olga Caballero provided copies of vital reports. One archaeologist must be singled out for special thanks. Linda Stine started me on this journey by suggesting the topic. She followed this suggestion with information and exposure to the research approach of landscape archaeology. She has continued to be supportive and interested throughout this project. All dissertations owe much to the student's committee. Mine is no exception. My committee, Earl Starnes, Kathleen Deagan, Susan Tate, and Herschel Shepard, have been a delight to work with. They encouraged me, criticized when it was needed, and made me think about what I was writing. I count them all as friends, but I did learn never to take a long drive with a member of your committee when they have just read your first draft! Production of the final version of this document would not have been possible without the support of my assistant Kimberly Pelling and the staff of Pro-Image graphics. Shane Edmond, Cookie King, and Paula Ebling of Pro-Image patiently vi

PAGE 7

followed the procedures specified by the Graduate School while dealing with an author suffering from the stress of deadlines. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my partner, Martin Dickinson, and my family for their support, patience, understanding, and help. Martin listened to my ideas, gave me advice, helped with aerials, maps, and environmental data, and reviewed the final result. My husband Marty Wayne has been a treasure; not only did he provide the boating expertise for the field work, he took the time to read and edit the document, and provided loving support throughout the process. My children, Alex and Michelle, have kept this work in perspective and provided a note of humor when it was sorely needed. vii

PAGE 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................ iii LIST OF TABLES......................................... x LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi ABSTRACT xiii CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION: FOOTPRINTS ON THE EARTH ....... 1 Purpose of the Research ..................... 1 Historic Background .......................... 3 The Study Area ............................... 7 2 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ............ 11 Research Framework ........................... 11 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Review of Previous Research .................. 21 3 THE WRITTEN RECORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 The Economic Background .................. 31 Brickmakers and Brickyards ................... 48 Production and Value ....................... 62 4 TO MA.KE A BRICK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE .................. 95 Brickyards as Archaeological Sites ........... 95 The Wanda River Basin Sites .................. 102 Changes in the Land .......................... 115 viii

PAGE 9

6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 121 The Role of Brickmaking in the Lowcountry .... 121 Future Research Directions ................... 126 REFERENCES CITED ....................................... 131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................... 143 ix

PAGE 10

Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LIST OF TABLES Charleston District Agricultural Production 1860 Census .................................. 37 Wando Plantation Accounts of Dr. Anthony Toomer, 178 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 Brickmakers Identified in the Charleston Area Between 1745 and 1860 ................... 51 Brickmakers Listed in the Charleston District Census of 1850 ...................... 61 Medway Plantation Shipping Records 1852-1853.................................... 66 Boone Hall Brickyard Account Book--Sample Page, 1847 ................................... 67 Boone Hall Yearly Production and Income Totals, 1850-1860 ............................ 67 Brickyard Sites in the Wando River Basin, South Carolina ............................... 105 X

PAGE 11

Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIST OF FIGURES Wanda River Basin, Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . 8 Brickyards within the Wanda River Basin, Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Lexington Kiln Site, Charleston County, South Carolina ............................... 40 Elm Grove Plantation Brickyards, Charleston County, South Carolina ....................... 41 Parker Island Brickyard, Charleston County, South Carolina ..... ........... ............. 42 Addison and Martin Brickyards, Berkeley County, South Carolina .......... ............ 43 Brickyards Identified by Owner, 1745-1860, Wanda River Basin, South Carolina ............ 52 Pug Mill and Molding Table, Charleston Brick Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Brickmolding, Charleston Brick Company ....... 79 Removing Bricks from the Molds, Charleston Brick Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Types of Kilns or Clamps ..................... 85 Kiln Arch Construction, Charleston Brick Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 Jamestown, Virginia Brick Kiln ............... 89 Completed Kiln and Openings, Charleston Brick Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 Site Plan, Jamestown, Virginia Brickyard ..... 97 xi

PAGE 12

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plan, Kiln at Jamestown, Virginia ............ 98 Plan, Jimmie Green's Lime Kiln, Berkeley County, South carolina ................... ... 101 Lexington Kiln Site Plan, Charleston County, South Carolina ....................... 103 Aerial Photograph, Wando River Basin, South Carolina .............................. 109 Shoreline Deposition, Beresford Creek, Berkeley County, South Carolina ............. 110 Timbers in Shoreline Deposit, Wando River, Berkeley County, South Carolina .............. 111 Kiln Arches, Lexington Kiln Site, Charleston County, South Carolina ............ 112 Brickyard Surface, Beresford Creek, Berkeley County, South Carolina ............. 113 xii

PAGE 13

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BURNING BRICK: A STUDY OF A LOWCOUNTRY INDUSTRY By Lucy B. Wayne May 1992 Chairman: Earl M. Starnes, Ph.D. Major Department: Architecture Between 1740 and 1860, brickmaking was a viable industry in the Lowcountry of South Carolina. This was particularly true of the Wando River basin northeast of Charleston. This study uses the research approach of landscape archaeology to examine and document the role of this industry within the plantations of the region. Landscape archaeology is an approach that looks not only at why humans occupy a specific site or region, but also at how they modify the landscape to fit their own cultural pattern, and in turn, how these modifications affect the landscape itself through timft. This study combines historic and archaeological research with analysis of the environmental characteristics of the region to meet its objectives and look at this industry in terms of: (1) the occupants' perception of the xiii

PAGE 14

environment; (2) how the environment influenced adaptation and how these adaptations in turn affected the environment; (3) the technologies or processes employed to exploit the available resources; (4) the role of the marketplace and location in respect to that market; (5) the historic events which influenced development of this industry; and (6) interrelationships between sites. The Wando River basin was a marginal area for the usual plantation crops of rice, cotton, and indigo. Therefore, the plantations which were developed in this region were based on diversified production of other products, primarily produce, livestock, firewood, and bricks for the Charleston market. The enactment of building codes in Charleston after 1740 provided a further impetus for development of the brickmaking industry The presence of the necessary raw materials of clay, sand, firewood, and water, proximity to a transportation route, and the availability of slave labor made brickmaking a natural choice. Over 60 brickmakers and at least 23 brickyard sites have been identified in this region. These brickyards, consisting of semi-permanent kilns, sheds, sand or clay piles, extensive clay pits, waterfront landings, and slave settlements permanently altered the landscape through shoreline modifications and creation of wetlands in the relic claypits. These alterations remain as evidence of the significance of this industry in the region. xiv

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: FOOTPRINTS ON THE EARTH The seeming abundance of natural resources encouraged practices that emphasized technological efficiency and speed of development with little thought for the effects on the future of the land and resources (Cahn 1978:201). They appear at low tide along the Wanda River--pile after tumbled pile of water-washed brick. The observer pauses in wonder at the sheer volume of brick exposed along the banks. When told that these are the remains of old brickworks, the viewer is in awe that so much remains of a 200-year old activity, and at the thought that, if these are merely the discards, the total output must have been tremendous. The wonder may be followed by questions: Who were the makers? Why were there so many in this river basin? Why were they located at these particular spots? How were the bricks made? Where did the output go? And, finally, why did it stop? Purpose of the Research The answers to these questions are not as simple as the questions themselves. The objective of this study is to document this industry, and demonstrate its role in the plantation economy of the Wanda River basin of South Carolina during the period between 1740 and 1860. The 1

PAGE 16

2 approach is interdisciplinary, encompassing historic research, archaeological investigation, and an examination of the environmental factors which facilitated development of the industry and were in turn altered by it. The emphasis is on describing the technology, documenting the local history of this industry, and evaluating its economic role within the plantations. The archaeological aspect of the study addresses the distribution pattern of these sites as well as the intrasite patterns. This pattern analysis concludes with an evaluation of the impact of this industry on the landscape itself. Much of the research for this study was conducted in the archives of Charleston, South Carolina and in South Carolina Lowcountry family records. Comparative data were obtained from contemporary descriptions of brickmaking, technological histories, archaeological studies of brick kilns elsewhere in the United States, and contemporary reenactments of colonial brickmaking. Additional economic data were obtained from census records and an excellent regional study by Michael Scardaville (1985). Archaeological data for the project region were obtained from studies conducted on new developments in the area, including those by the author, analysis of aerial photographs, and a field survey of the Wando River and its tributaries. Environmental data were culled from geological studies, soil surveys, topographic maps, aerial photographs,

PAGE 17

3 historic descriptions, and observations by archaeologists working within the region. Historic Background The European colonists of the Americas viewed the abundant resources of the New World as a source of wealth and prosperity; forests were cut down, fields were cleared, animals were hunted, and the earth was mined for ores (Cahn 1978:199-200; Cronon 1983:5). These activities would forever change the face of the land, not only in the form of the structures which were built, but also through the process of obtaining the resources for those structures. These effects are evident today along the rivers of the Lowcountry of South Carolina where brickyards active during the period between 1740 and 1860 have left a permanent legacy in the form of brick-covered shorelines and extensive wetlands in the abandoned clay pits. The use of brick or clay building units has an ancient history based on a technology which remained virtually unchanged until the Industrial Revolution of the mid nineteenth century. Brick is considered to be the oldest man-made building material (Beall 1984:2); its popularity is based on its ease of manufacture and construction, its durability and strength, its fireproof nature, its adaptability to many forms and variations in construction, and its attractiveness (Saylor 1943:8-10).

PAGE 18

4 The technology began with the manufacture of sun-dried brick in the ancient Middle East. By the time of the Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar (604 to 562 B.C.), the use of burning and glazing had been perfected (Graham and Emery 1945:1 1,547). The Romans used brick extensively in construction, particularly for arches and domes, but the techniques and materials were largely abandoned in the Roman colonies of Europe, including England, after the fall of the Roman Empire {Lloyd 1925:2). Brickmaking and brick construction were revived during the 12th and 13th centuries in the Low Countries of Europe and in France. From there it was reintroduced to southeastern England where it was actively adopted because of a lack of local building stone. By the 15th century, brick was a popular building material throughout eastern England, with an increase in demand in London after the great fire of 1666. Since the largest single group of early European settlers in North America came from this area of England, it is likely that they brought the technique of brickmaking and masonry with them to the New World. Immigrants from the Netherlands and France may also have brought this tradition with them; in fact, the principal early period of brick building in the colonies in the late 17th century corresponds to the influx of French Huguenot settlers {Trindell 1968:486). A large group of these Huguenots settled in the South Carolina Lowcountry.

PAGE 19

5 Brickmaking occurred wherever suitable clay and fuel were available. Often, the bricks were made at the site of the building to be constructed. However, if transportation was available, usually via water, brickyards could be established for large scale production and export. Kilns have been documented historically and archaeologically at the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia, as well as in the Spanish settlement of La Isabela in the Dominican Republic (Harrington 1950:16-19; K. Deagan, personal communication 1991). Although initially used primarily for chimneys and foundations, by the late 17th century brick buildings were common in many of the colonial cities, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic colonies (Trindell 1968:484). Although the initial European settlement in South Carolina was at the Spanish towns of San Miguel del Gualdape and Santa Elena, these settlements were ultimately abandoned under pressure from the English. In 1663, King Charles II of England granted the land now known as Carolina to eight Lords Proprietors. The first English settlement was established in 1670 at Charles Towne on the Ashley River. By 1680, this settlement had been relocated to a more healthful site on the peninsula between the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. The new colony thrived, and the Proprietors established four counties, Berkeley, Craven, Colleton, and Granville, as the chief political units. These divisions would later be supplanted by the Anglican parishes

PAGE 20

6 established in 1706 by the General Assembly (Scardaville 1985:31). By 1682, Thomas Newe's letters from South Carolina stated that ''here is excellent Brick made, but little of it" (Salley 1911:181). Within the next 20 years, brickmaking became common in South Carolina, although usually confined to production for single structures. The industry received an important impetus from a series of major fires in Charleston. In 1713, an act of the Assembly required all buildings within the fortified portion of Charleston to be of brick or stone construction; this act was repealed in 1715 as a result of complaints about the scarcity and expense of brick (Simons 1934:4). When the disastrous Charleston fire of November, 1740 destroyed much of the center of the city, the Assembly again passed an act requiring all the Outside of all Buildings hereafter to be erected or built in Charles Town to be henceforth made of Brick or Stone, ... and be covered with Tile, Slate, Stone or Bricks (South Carolina Gazette 1740). The act also set the price of bricks for the next ten years at 6 pounds per thousand for English brick, 5 pounds per thousand for Carolina brick, and 3 pounds 10 shillings per thousand for the less desirable (and smaller) New England bricks (Stoney and Staats n.d.:4). This act was probably instrumental in promoting the establishment of thriving brickyards in the region surrounding Charleston.

PAGE 21

7 In order to be economically viable, the brickyards required proximity to navigable water, preferably water which led directly to the Charleston market The necessary raw materials of clay, sand for temper, and wood for fuel also had to be present. Finally, brickmaking as practiced prior to the Industrial Revolution was a labor intensive operation; the plantation system was the ideal source for this labor in the form of slaves. Although all of these requirements were met along the numerous rivers in proximity to Charleston, one area seems to have supported a larger number of brickyards--the Wando River basin located northeast of Charleston. The Study Area The basin consists of portions of two counties or historic parishes. The area between the Wando and the Atlantic Ocean in Charleston County is traditionally known as the Wando Neck and was historically designated as Christ Church Parish (Figure 1). Unlike much of the area of coastal South Carolina described as the Lowcountry, the Wando Neck could not support the cash crops of indigo, rice and cotton. The soils are poorly drained and frequently wet, and the river itself is too saline to support rice cultivation except at the extreme upper reaches of its tributaries. A similar situation exists along the northern and western shoreline of the Wando River in the neighboring parish of St. Thomas and St. Denis in Berkeley County

PAGE 22

Figure 1. ~ ------Wando River Basin, Berkeley Counties, Charleston and South Carolina ~..:_ : : ..: : .-ti~l ,,.,.__ -r--: 1 co

PAGE 23

9 (Figure 1). The Wando River basin's proximity to Charleston led to development of this region as a production area for the urban market. Agriculture centered on produce and livestock; this was supplemented by cutting of firewood, timber, and production of naval stores (Scardaville 1985:3542) As a result of surveys made in the course of this study, 23 brickyards have been identified along the Wando River and its tributaries; others probably exist but were not confirmed during the field survey (Figure 2). The remains of these operations consist of brick-covered banks or wharves, kilns, sand piles, water-filled clay pits, and the occasional chimney. Many of these historic and archaeological sites are located in prime development areas, particularly within the Wando Neck in Charleston County. Some have already been developed or will be in the near future. In many cases, if not all, this development will lead to the removal or destruction of all evidence of these sites. At this time, although several of the sites have been recorded and many others are known, little archaeological or historic research has been conducted on the brickyards themselves. This study provides a beginning for that documentation as well as addressing some of the problems associated with dealing with this type of industrial site in terms of both archaeology and long-term resource management.

PAGE 24

Figure 2. Brickyards Within the Wando River Basin, Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina t-' 0

PAGE 25

. ; CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ... sites (and settlements) interact with and are affected by processes of the natural environment (Schiffer 1987:199) Research Framework This study of Lowcountry brickmaking will look at the industry from the approach of landscape archaeology, a concept recently utilized by historic archaeologists to "consider entire regions that bear the imprint of a shared set of values" (Deetz 1990:2). In this approach, a landscape is defined by archaeologists as the physical and spatial manifestation of human interaction with the environment. This interaction is a process of continual evolution; each interaction leaves physical remains. The emphasis in landscape archaeology is on the continuity between sites and through time (Lewis 1991; Shapiro and Miller 1990:98-99). Landscape archaeology is a powerful tool to integrate history, geography, and anthropology in order to study past human behavior. It addresses the spatial dimension of the human interrelationship with the environment through the integration of both natural and cultural factors (Green 11

PAGE 26

12 1991). Unlike settlement pattern studies in archaeology, which focus on identifying the environmental factors which influence settlement and the distribution of sites throughout the land, landscape archaeology also addresses the effects of humans on the land and emphasizes change through time: At the same time, this [archaeological] record is evidence of the social organization of space at different scales and at different times in history ... and contributes to broader interpretations of space and how people use it, think about it, and are affected by it (Mrozowski and Beaudry 1990:189). The study of landscape archaeology addresses adaptation to the environment in terms of: (1) the occupants' perception of the environment in the sense of how and why specific sites are chosen; (2) the technologies or processes utilized at a specific site; (3) the markets for products and the location of the cultural remains with respect to both resources and those markets; (4) the interrelationships between individual sites in terms of the idea of space as a continuous dimension; (5) the interrelationship of historic events and the activities documented at specific sites; and (6) how the natural environment influenced human behavior (Green 1991; Crumley 1991; Winberry 1991). A complete account of a historical landscape must therefore take into account its evanescent qualities and the differences in the ways it was experienced .... we must start with what we know and proceed gingerly to what we think we understand (Upton 1990:71).

PAGE 27

13 In order to look at historic landscapes, Shapiro and Miller stated that: To learn the meaning of a historical landscape, to "read" it, it is necessary to separate the natural and human factors and to understand their relationship. In this sense landscape may be viewed as a dynamic record of interactions between people and the environment--dynamic in that the process of environmental change is a continuous and long-term interplay between natural events and human events. Each has the potential of leaving some record or evidence on the landscape, and each has the potential of modifying, confusing, or destroying evidence of previous events. Landscape is a complicated accumulation of effects and is open to interpretation once the chronology of causes can be determined (Shapiro and Miller 1990: 98-99) This study identifies the natural resources available to the planters in the region as well as the historic events and economic aspects which influenced the development of this industry. Rather than focus on an individual brickyard site, the study takes a regional approach and looks at the environmental factors which led to the proliferation of these sites within the region, as well as the long-term ecological effects of brickmaking on the region. Specifically, this dissertation demonstrates first, that the numerous brickyards along the Wando River played a major role in the economic life of the plantations of this region. The brickmaking process complemented vegetable farming, stock raising, logging, and naval stores, and helped fill the niche which existed due to the inability of the region to produce marketable amounts of rice, cotton, or

PAGE 28

14 indigo. Brickmaking was a natural selection based on the presence of all of the necessary elements for the industry, as well as the close relationship which existed between these plantations and the Charleston commercial community (Zierdan 1986:37). Second, this study addresses the permanent effect of brickmaking on the landscape itself; this effect has long term consequences which are being felt today. Brickmaking altered the shoreline and adjacent uplands, created permanent wetlands which are now affecting development of these properties, and may have altered the natural environment in more subtle ways, particularly through deforestation. This interdisciplinary study begins with an examination of the records of Lowcountry plantations for the economic and historic evidence of the role of brickmaking within the plantations. The colonial and antebellum brickmaking process as described in primary accounts, as well as in contemporary attempts at recreating the craft is presented next in order to provide a basis for understanding the existing remains of the industry. The archaeological and environmental aspects are addressed through a review of the existing studies of brickmaking sites, a walkover examination of identifiable sites, and examination of aerial photographs of the region, as well as use of published environmental data. The future research recommendations of

PAGE 29

15 this study are designed to provide long-term resource management guidance for these sites. Methods This study had its genesis in research for the Dunes West development in Charleston County on the Wando River. During an archaeological survey of this 4,800 acre tract on the south side of the river, three antebellum brickyard sites were located, all with evidence of extensive operations. Archival research for one of the plantations within this tract led to the recognition that the brickyard was probably the primary focus of the antebellum plantation (Wayne and Dickinson 1990:6-4 6-7). During a site visit to Lexington Plantation's brickyard with Linda Stine of the South Carolina Historic Preservation Office, Dr. Stine mentioned that the entire Wando River basin contained numerous brickyards dating to the same period. She felt that a study of this industry would be an important contribution to Lowcountry history. At that point, this study began. Although it was initially hoped that the opportunity to excavate other Dunes West brickyard complexes would occur in time to be incorporated in this study, that did not happen. Since it was clear that extensive archaeological excavations would not be possible, the decision was made to rely heavily on historic data, shifting the archaeological emphasis to a broader attempt to locate as many sites as possible,

PAGE 30

16 combined with utilization of existing information from archaeological research in the region. Thus the initial research step was an effort to obtain all available information on known brickyard sites. The majority of this archaeological data was obtained from the files of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology in Columbia. The data consisted of published reports as well as a number of historic map references provided by the Institute's underwater branch. Additional data were obtained through conversations with other archaeologists working in the area, including staff members of private consultants, the Forest Service, the Charleston Museum, the University of South Carolina, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Office. The next step was an intensive review of aerial photographs of the region. This effort was conducted at the South Carolina Coastal Council in Charleston. Three different collections were utilized: 1:40,000 scale infrared aerials, 1:20,000 scale aerials, and 1:12,000 scale aerials. Two features were sought on the aerials: (1) evidence of shoreline modifications such as landings, and (2) wetlands which did not appear to be natural in configuration or location. Investigation began with the known brickyard sites in order to define the site signatures, and then progressed to an examination of the

PAGE 31

17 rest of the basin. The shoreline evidence was the more difficult of the two features to identify, since, as it later became clear, many of the brickyards did not have projecting landings. Identification of the wetland pattern was very successful, and USGS 7.5. minute topographic maps were marked with the locations of possible brickyards based on these wetland patterns. After the aerial photography study was completed, maps with the possible brickyard locations were sent to the region's major environmental consultant and land surveyor, to see if they could confirm any of the possible sites. Their information was utilized during the field survey and in the final map development (Figure 2). The literature survey for the project focused on obtaining published accounts of brickmaking, as well as previous archaeological studies of brickyards in the United States. It soon became apparent that, while the literature on brickmaking is extensive, the archaeological research is not. In addition, most of the archaeological information is not published, except as technical reports. As a result, the majority of the information had to be obtained through personal contact with the archaeologists who conducted the work. The historic research was oriented towards several specific foci. First, historic maps were sought showing the brickyards in the region, particularly those with sufficient

PAGE 32

18 detail to determine the site plans. Second, plantation diaries, journals, daybooks, and accounts were sought to get primary information on the day-to-day operation of the brickyards as well as the economic aspects of these operations. Although initially confined to the Wando River basin, the search for such information was expanded when it became clear that very little information was available. Third, unpublished historic accounts, studies, and descriptions of brickmaking and brick use in the Lowcountry were sought. Last, published historic references such as newspaper advertisements, census data, and city directories were utilized to identify the brickmakers and determine the economic impact of the industry. The primary source for historic material was the South Carolina Historical Society in Charleston. Research at this facility was conducted through use of the open catalog as well as through a computer search assisted by the Society's archivist. The Society's staff researcher assisted in searching for specific references, names, and documents. An advertisement was placed in the Society's journal soliciting information from members; this effort resulted in only one contact. A second important source was the State Archives in Columbia, South Carolina, which provided both historic maps and census records for the region. The local Charleston County archives, the Records of Mesne Conveyance, was an

PAGE 33

19 additional source of plat maps, as well as deeds, wills, and probate records. Many of these records were also available at the Charleston County Library. The libraries of the University of Florida provided general historic references as well as microfilmed census records, and an account of brickmaking in Florida in the 19th century. Numerous other Charleston archives were contacted for information or leads. Although most of these sources provided little or no specific data for this study, they did prove to be a source of contacts for people who might have information or know something about the sites. All potential sources were contacted by letter and telephone calls; several knew of brickyard sites but had very little specific information. One source, the Horlbeck family, does apparently have extensive family records from the Boone Hall brickyard; access to these records could not be obtained during the course of the project. The initial attempt at completing the archaeological site survey was conducted on land. At that time, an effort was made to visit as many of the sites as possible. It rapidly became clear that the majority of the sites were relatively inaccessible with the exception of those at the Longpoint, Brickyard Plantation, and Dunes West Phase I development tracts in Charleston County.

PAGE 34

20 A second, successful attempt was made via a small outboard boat in a two-day field effort. The initial stops were at known sites in order to familiarize the searchers with relevant site features. It was immediately apparent that at high tide it might be difficult to discern sites, since the upland portions were heavily overgrown and the shorelines were flooded. After the tide changed, a second attempt was made. This time, the sites were very apparent, and the distinguishing site signatures were noted for future use. At most sites which were encountered, the site was photographed from the water and a landing was made in order to examine the upland portion of the site. When distinctive upland features existed, such as a kiln mound or a working surface, these were photographed. Field notes were maintained to record the approximate location, obvious features, and condition of each site. A map, either a navigation chart or a USGS topographic map, was marked with the site location. No attempts were made to delineate the site boundaries or expose features because of the limited time and resources available. The final task undertaken for this study involved development of research recommendations for these sites. These recommendations were based on previous experience in cultural resource management as well as on conversations with other archaeologists working in the region, the South

PAGE 35

21 Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, and members of the University of Florida College of Architecture historic preservation program. Review of Previous Research Previous research on brickmaking fell into four basic categories: (1) technological discussions, (2) historic accounts, (3) economic documentation, and (4) archaeological studies. Although there was abundant information available in the first two categories, and a more limited amount in the latter categories, with two exceptions (Atkinson and Elliott 1978; Wheaton et al. 1987) the previous research did not attempt to provide an interdisciplinary or regional approach which related the industry to the historic, environmental, and economic events which led to its development. Brickmaking is a well-documented trade. There are historic descriptions dating to the colonial period from both Europe and the Americas, which provided the basis for the description of brickmaking presented in this study. These include Chambers' 1728 Cyclopaedia: or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences as well as Neve's 1726 City and County Purchaser's and Builder's Dictionary: or the Complete Builder's Guide. Chambers was the source for a description of the firing process, while Neve discussed the construction of a clamp kiln as well as the various grades of brick.

PAGE 36

22 Antebellum brickmaking was recorded by Ure in his 1840 Dictionary of Arts, Manufacture, and Mines, and by Appleton in his 1852 Dictionary of Machines, Mechanics, Engine-Work and Engineering. Appleton was the source for a discussion of clay preparation, while Ure described clamp and crossdraft kiln construction. First-person accounts of brickmaking are available in the diary of Lowcountry planter Charles Graves (1854-55), as well as in an article by Florida brickmaker John Crary (1889). Graves' account is particularly relevant as a Lowcountry source. It provides an understanding of the time and manpower committed to brickmaking at a yard which was producing brick for sale. Crary's article is helpful in terms of understanding the functions of the brickmaking crew and their rate of production. Nathaniel Lloyd's 1925 History of English Brickwork provides a summary of the brickmaking operation, as does the work of contemporary Colonial Williamsburg brickmaker Bill Weldon (1990a; 1990b). Lloyd is useful in terms of understanding the entire brickmaking process from obtaining the clay to opening the fired kiln. Weldon's work correlates the demonstration brickmaking at Williamsburg with historic accounts in a step-by-step manner. In the course of this discussion, he identifies some of the problems encountered in brickmaking and discusses the importance of experience or knowledge in order to produce

PAGE 37

23 usable bricks. This information is helpful in terms of understanding the role of the various personnel involved in brickmaking at the plantations. His step-by-step photographs of brickmaking clarify the mechanics of the process. A series of studies by the Ceramic Engineering Department of Clemson University document the nature and location of good brick clays in the Lowcountry (Buie 1949; Johnson and Heron 1965; Robinson and Johnson 1960). These are very technical studies which address shrinkage, firing temperatures, color, and combinations of soils for brickmaking. They were used in developing the brickmaking discussion as well as contributing to an understanding as to why brickmaking developed in this region. There are three historic studies of bricks, brickmaking, and brick structures in the Lowcountry written from the perspective of architects or historians. These studies are critical as sources of historic and economic data not readily available elsewhere, as well as an indication of other possible sources More important, these works present a Charleston perspective on this industry. A brief undated report by Lowcountry architects Samuel Gaillard Stoney and Henry P. Staats attempted to document the sources of brick in various Charleston structures {Stoney and Staats n.d.). Although this report is primarily concerned with determining the extent of the use of imported

PAGE 38

24 brick in Charleston structures, it provides a chronological sequence for the development of colonial brickmaking. In 1934, Harriet Stoney Simons prepared a report on colonial brick in South Carolina which summarizes the historic documentary evidence for brickmaking, primarily from newspapers and account books (Simons 1934). Like Stoney and Staats, Simons was particularly concerned with the question of the use of local brick versus imported brick; however, her report and research notes provide a digest of the printed primary information on brickmaking in the Charleston area, as well as numerous references. In 1978, Marie F. Hollings completed a thesis at the University of South Carolina on 18th century brickwork in Charleston. While this study focuses on the sources of brick and the work of brickmasons in Charleston, it does summarize the craft as practiced at that time, as well as synthesizing the available information on the brickmakers within the region (Hollings 1978). Like Simons, Hollings provides information on the primary sources for brickmaking in the Charleston region. Economic data are available in the U.S. Census documentation of manufacturers as well as through primary records from the Charleston region. None of this information had been correlated for brickmaking, other than what appears in the previously mentioned studies. The only regional economic studies which were helpful to this project

PAGE 39

25 were a study of the rice industry (Swan 1975) and Michael Scardaville's history of the Wanda Neck (Scardaville 1985). Swan provides a brief summary, primarily from census records, of the status of manufacturing in the Lowcountry in terms of the costs of operation and the value of the products, including bricks. Scardaville's data were vital to the discussion of the agricultural production and economic history of the Wanda Neck in this study, although he devotes little or no attention to manufactured goods. His data were used for the comparisons between the value of the output of the brickyards and the agricultural production of the region. One other article, a 1986 discussion of the rural-urban connection in the Lowcountry, provides important indications of the close relationship between Charleston and the nearby plantation districts (Zierden 1986). Archaeological studies of brickmaking sites were very limited. This may be a function of the difficulties involved in excavating a kiln as well as the limited artifactual evidence which can be recovered from such sites. In addition, clamp-type kilns were often disassembled and the bricks used in other structures, leaving little structural evidence for investigation. Perhaps as Noel Hume states: There is little that can usefully be said about the archaeological relics of brickmaking other than to add my personal opinion that, of all the features one could find, a brick kiln or clamp is probably one of the most arduous to excavate and the least interesting. It tells nothing about the

PAGE 40

26 purpose to which the bricks would ultimately be put, and the chances of finding any datable artifacts in association with it are remote. This, of course, is true of the excavation of any manufacturing site whose end product is not an end product .. Bricks and tiles are complete and salable, but they have yet to be made into a house (Noel Hume 1975:174). One of the earliest kiln excavations provides some of the most informative data on the nature of the archaeological remains at these sites. This is the excavation of the Jamestown, Virginia kiln site by J. C. Harrington (1950). Harrington's careful description of the remains of the kilns and the functions of the features is crucial to understanding the nature of brickyards as archaeological sites. Research at the Nance's Ferry site in Alabama provides guidance in the correlation of archaeological evidence with historic local accounts of brickmaking, as well as additional data on the nature of the archaeological remains (Atkinson and Elliott 1978). This study's attempt to address the role of the industry within the plantation on which the kilns were located is helpful in terms of comparative data for the Lowcountry. Limited excavations have been conducted at other kiln sites throughout the southeast Documentation for these excavations consists of descriptive information rather than interpretation of the role of the kiln within the historic sites or periods. All of these studies are useful in terms of defining the nature of the brickyards as archaeological

PAGE 41

27 sites. These studies include a field school excavation of a kiln in Alabama (Sheldon n.d.), kiln excavations at Brunswick Town, North Carolina (South 1963), and excavations near Williamsburg, Virginia (Steen 1991). The Alabama kiln was probably a one-time usage site; the information on this site is limited to field records and photographs. South's excavations at Brunswick Town were exploratory in nature, and the resultant report is a brief descriptive document. Steen's draft report provides an excellent description of the archaeological remains at two brick kilns near Williamsburg. More recent industrial brickmaking sites have been documented by DesJean and Clark in Tennessee (1990) and by Gurcke in Oregon (1987). The Tennessee study documents a fully mechanized brickmaking operation of the early 20th century. Gurcke's book includes an excellent history of brickmaking, a discussion of the types of bricks and kilns, and a review of previous archaeological studies, particularly those which focused on identification of different brick types or manufacturers. Although these mechanized brickmaking operations are not directly relevant to the Lowcountry industry, the studies are useful for basic data on the nature of the brickmaking industry and its evolution. Archaeological studies within the Lowcountry consist primarily of survey level data which provide information on

PAGE 42

28 the location and nature of specific sites within the Wando River basin. In addition, these studies are useful secondary sources for economic and historic data, particularly for specific sites. Several brickmaking sites have been identified within the Wando River basin, but at this time, only one has been excavated. These surveys include sites within the Francis Marion National Forest (Zierden 1981; Watts 1979), two kilns on Parkers Island (Southerlin et al. 1988), three brickyards within the Dunes West development (Wayne and Dickinson 1989; 1990), an extensive brickyard at Boone Hall (Espenshade and Grunden 1991), and a brickyard at Darrell Creek (P. Brockington, personal communication 1991). The majority of the information from these sites consists of descriptions of the readily observable features such as brick-lined shores, overgrown kilns, and brick rubble. A small brick kiln within the Longpoint development has been excavated, but the report was not yet available (P. Brockington, personal communication 1991). The initial survey report for this particular kiln provides an excellent brief historic account of brickmaking as well as a series of possible research questions concerning the role of this industry within the region (Trinkley 1987:57-61). The Boone Hall survey provides a limited amount of information on the economic records of that operation, as well as an indication

PAGE 43

29 of the differences between this brickyard and others in the region (Espenshade and Grunden 1991). The Jimmie Green Lime Kiln Site (Wheaton et al. 1987) contains comparative documentation for the excavation of a Lowcountry site from the closely related industry of lime burning, as well as information on the economic and historic factors which led to the development of that industry in the Charleston area. In summary, although each of these sources contributed data to this study of brickmaking, the previous research rarely offers a synthesis of the available data, nor does it provide a regional approach to the role of this industry in the economic development of the Lowcountry. None of the existing documents address the effects of the industry on the environment, or attempt to provide a multiple resource management approach for these sites.

PAGE 44

CHAPTER 3 THE WRITTEN RECORD They keep about 400 hands at work burning brick and make a large fortune at it too (Journalist with Union Army, 1864, cited in Perkerson 1952:101). Examination of the written record of Lowcountry brickmaking attempted to determine why certain activities and sites were selected, what technologies or processes were utilized for brickmaking, and what historic or economic factors influenced development of these sites. This landscape archaeology focus differs from that of plantation archaeology, which has been conducted extensively in the southeastern United States in recent years (see Orser 1984; 1989; Joseph 1989). In plantation archaeology, the focus has been on the socio-economic relationships within the individual plantations and between neighboring plantations, and on aspects of acculturation as evidenced in the archaeological remains (Joseph 1989:57-58). The emphasis has been on pattern recognition and comparison of these patterns between different social groups (Orser 1989:34-36). Landscape archaeology looks beyond the artifact or feature to the land itself, in terms of how people use it and modify it, and what these actions say about the culture (Deetz 1990:1-4). 30

PAGE 45

31 Although the written record for Lowcountry brickmaking proved to be sketchy at best, it did provide evidence of the importance of this industry to its practitioners, as well as an explanation as to why it developed within the region. This record will be discussed in terms of : (1) the factors which gave rise to this craft; (2) who made the bricks; (3) the distribution of the brickyards; and (4) the value of the industry to the brickmakers. The Economic Background In 1955, the geographer Merle Prunty identified six distinguishing characteristics of the plantation system: [1] a landholding large enough to be distinguishable from the larger "family" farm; [2] a distinct division of labor and management functions, with management customarily in the hands of the owner; [3) specialized agricultural production, usually with two or three specialties per proprietorship; [4) location in some area of the South [or world] with a plantation tradition; [5) distinctive settlement forms and spatial organization reflecting, to a high degree, centralized control of cultivating power; and [6] a relatively large input of cultivating power per unit of area .... the term "plantation" is never applied to a "system" of labor or capital employment alone, because, viewed geographically any labor system is but one element in plantation occupance. No one of the foregoing elements, alone, characterizes the plantation; instead all six are necessary and interdependent (Prunty 1955:460). Prunty did not emphasize production of a staple crop; rather, production of a specialized crop or crops destined for cash sale was the important criteria (Orser 1984:1) This system contrasts with the farm, which is generally defined as an operation in which a family supplies the

PAGE 46

32 majority of the labor, and goods are produced for subsistence and domestic consumption (Singleton 1985:1-2). Adams (1987:9) describes the plantation as an agricultural factory in which capital investment was represented by acquisition of land and buildings, the means of production was the source of dependable labor, and there was a product for sale on the market. The source of labor could be human, animal, or machinery. The human labor could be slaves, indentured servants, free labor, or some combination of the three. In return for their efforts, the labor may have been provided with wages, a portion of the crop, housing, food, clothing, or other goods or services. The southern plantation system can also be characterized as a system with wide variations in size, products, labor systems, location, degree of diversification, and markets. However, certain factors remain consistent. First, the plantation was always, in a sense, a frontier institution, functioning as a relatively self-sufficient system on the periphery of the world market. Second, there was almost always an identifiable element of status differentiation, both within the individual plantations and between plantations in the same region. Third, the settlement pattern reflected centralized control over the means of production, whether this was the workers themselves in the antebellum plantation, or the tools, animals, machines, and seeds in the tenant farm system. At

PAGE 47

33 the individual plantation level, this settlement pattern was also affected by seasonality of production, nature of resource processing, environmental requirements of the specific products, transportation methods, storage requirements, defense needs, and any specialized functions within the system (Adams 1987:9-10). Traditionally, the southern plantation system has been viewed as an outgrowth of the mercantilism of the 18th and early 19th centuries, in which the industrialized world markets such as England and the northern United States demanded raw materials. In exchange for these raw materials, the plantations were supplied with manufactured products (Zierdan 1986:33). Genovese (1962:422-423) states that the willingness of the South to participate in this system led directly to a lack of industrial development within that region, as well as retardation of the home markets. He points out that in areas characterized by the family farm or yeoman farm system, a network of local markets was developed in response to the need for an outlet for farm products, as well as the availability of cash to buy goods. While the peasantry is tied to the land, burdened with debt, and limited to minimal purchasing power, the labor recruitment and market pre conditions for extensive manufacturing are missing (Genovese 1962:423). In the South, only the planters had expendable cash to any extent, and even they relied heavily on credit against crops

PAGE 48

34 and the barter system. Adams (1987:10) states that this barter system functioned extensively between neighboring plantations in exchanges of everything from wood or seed to individual slaves. In Genovese's analysis (1962:435-436), there was only one area of the South in which industrialization and a home or urban market could develop, and that was in proximity to cities having a population of over 15,000. There were only four cities which qualified in this category prior to the Civil War: New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, and Charleston. It was this proximity to Charleston which defined the nature of the plantation development within the Wando River basin. When South Carolina was originally settled, the Lords Proprietors sought a staple crop which would provide them with a lucrative return. In order to achieve this goal, they encouraged planters from Barbados to migrate to South Carolina with their slaves. Initially, this plan failed due to the new settlers' preoccupation with producing adequate subsistence for themselves, as well as the failure of the tropical crops which were attempted in this temperate climate. Although tobacco and naval stores were successfully produced during this early period, neither was a major export. The main product of the early years was deer skins acquired through the Indian trade (Stoney 1938:20; Scardaville 1985:32).

PAGE 49

35 As a result of the reduction of the deer population and the Yemassee War of 1715, the lucrative deerskin trade came to an end and new products were sought by the settlers. Rice, initially introduced in the 1690s, became the dominant product of the Lowcountry. A fall in rice prices during the 1740s led to the introduction of indigo as a second staple crop. The two crops were complementary in terms of land use; rice required the flooded lowlands, and indigo was an upland crop. The royal bounty on indigo production also encouraged development of this labor intensive crop. The labor needs of both products resulted in a tremendous growth in the number of slaves in the Lowcountry, to the point that just prior to the Revolutionary War, the ratio of blacks to whites in this area was 15 to 1. By the time of the American Revolution, Charleston had become the dominant port in the southeast and the center of a network of large plantations (Stoney 1938:27-29; Scardaville 1985:33). At the end of the Revolutionary War, the loss of the bounty on indigo combined with foreign competition led to the end of that crop as a plantation product in the Lowcountry (Stoney 1938:31). It was soon replaced by cotton, particularly the long-staple Sea Island variety which could only be produced in the coastal region. Cotton and rice would continue to dominate the plantation economy of the region until the Civil War, although cotton never achieved the prominence in this region that it would acquire

PAGE 50

36 further west. In fact, during the 1820s and 1830s, there was a 10 percent drop in cotton production in South Carolina, compared to large growth in Alabama and Mississippi. This was followed by a modest resurgence during the 1850s, but South Carolina never regained its early 19th century dominance of the Southern economy (Scardaville 1985:34-35). The parishes surrounding Charleston provide an interesting contrast to the state as a whole, and support Genovese's discussion of the development of an urban market and local industry. The growing city required an increased variety and quantity of subsistence products, which were soon supplied by the surrounding area. Thus, while these parishes produced only 1.8 percent of the state's cotton crop (Table l}, they produced 15.9 percent of the state's rice on only 2.8 percent of the improved land as shown in Scardaville's examination of census records (1985:36-37). This lowland rice production increased 11.8 percent in 1860, compared to a statewide decrease in rice production of 25.5 percent (Scardaville. 1985:36-37). These parishes also provided significant quantities of livestock and produce crops which were sent to the Charleston markets for local consumption. Scardaville (1985:38) states that the Charleston district produced 56.7 percent of all the commercially-grown vegetables in South Carolina on only 3 percent of the state's improved acreage. This included

PAGE 51

Table 1. Charleston District Agricultural Production, 1860 Census Category South Charleston % State Christ % District St. Thomas % District Carolina District Church & St. D enis (All parishes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Acres Im p roved 11,623,859 127,194 2.8 12, 8 14 10. 1 6,263 4.9 Value of $23,934,465 $912,399 3.8 $78,176 8.6 $ 42,460 4.7 Livest o ck Value of $6,072,822 $185,304 3.1 $5,270 2.8 $ 3, 145 1. 7 Animals Slaughtered Value of $ 213,989 $ 5,009 2.3 $1,035 20.7 $ 0 0.0 Orchard Products Value of $1,873,458 $106,213 56.7 $ 4,006 3.8 $ 0 0.0 Market Produce w ....J Indian Corn 15,065,606 383,316 2.5 37, 115 9.7 20,575 5.4 (bushels) Oats (bushels) 936,974 13,757 1.5 2,825 20.5 900 6.5 Rice (pounds) 119,100,528 18,899,512 15.9 180,000 1 .0 2,193,502 11.6 Ginned cotton 35,412 6,381 1.8 111 1. 7 220 3.4 (400 lb. bales) Wool (pounds) 427,102 19,381 4.5 3,484 18.0 1, 100 5.7 Peas & Beans 1,728,074 52,546 3.0 5,870 11.2 1,685 3.2 (bushels) Irish Potatoes 226,735 28, 144 12.4 915 3.3 0 0.0 (bushels) Sweet Potatoes 4,115,688 323,042 7.8 42,300 13.1 25,335 7.8 (bushels) Butter (pounds) 3,177,934 54,068 1. 7 3,240 6.0 1,100 2.0 Hay (tons) 87,587 13,551 15.5 464 3.4 278 2. 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: U.S. Census 1850 as compiled by Scardaville 1985:36

PAGE 52

38 potatoes, sweet potatoes, and corn to support livestock such as cattle, sheep, hogs, and poultry. In addition, proximity to the major port provided an incentive for the production of naval stores within the district. Evidence of the importance of these products to the plantations within the Wando River basin can be seen in an examination of ledgers and diaries of the antebellum period. Ledgers of Anthony Toomer, owner of Richmond plantation on Toomer Creek, list numerous sales of cords of wood, turkeys, corn, butter, cabbages, carrots, chickens, eggs, spinach, asparagus, calves, artichokes, peas, rice, hay, ducks, and building materials such as brick, lime, and lumber (Table 2-Toomer 1783-85). While similar records have not been located for other properties within the study area, these plantations' outputs were probably much the same. One product which was noticeably important in Toomer's shipments was bricks; in a three year period, he lists shipments of 195,900 bricks to Charleston (Toomer 1783-85). Richmond plantation contains only one kiln (Wayne and Dickinson 1989:5-17 5-18); the adjacent Lexington plantation to the northwest has a pair of kilns and an associated brickmaking complex (Figure 3). Elm Grove plantation to the east has two brickyards (Figure 4); similar brickyards are recorded for many of the properties along the Wando and its tributaries (Figures 5 and 6).

PAGE 53

39 Table 2. Wando Plantation Accounts of Dr. Anthony Toomer, 1785 Product Income Listed Bricks Firewood (Oak) Rice Produce/livestock* 52 12 8 104 14 34 14 21 11 2 Includes: corn, cabbages, carrots, butter, spinach, asparagus, artichokes, ducks, turkeys, pigs chickens, eggs, peas, calves, hay, potatoes, Note: Plantation also produced lumber, but not in great quantities Source: Toomer 1783-85

PAGE 54

I O L~--50 ~ 0 ~~~ 1 ~ 000 I I I I I \ \ Feet I Figure 3. 40 [Wooded Ar ea] [Cemetery] SOURCE Counenay 1828 Lexington Kiln Site, Charleston County, South Carolina

PAGE 55

Q) : ~ ~ i : ro I C, ~ i 0 : I c \ I i Kiln 4 1 WAN DQ R IVER . . . .. -:: :-: : ..:. -..... -: : :-_.:_ : . .. : Elm Grove l [Marsh] .J, O l d Fiel d D r. Daniel Legare Q) C C co CD SOURC E P ayne. 1857 Figure 4. Elm Grove Plantation Brickyards Charleston County, South Carolina

PAGE 56

42 .. . .. : : ~ ... O RIVER James J. Rhett's Land Robert Parker's Island O\)o 0 .. 0 Horlbeck's Land 0 O Brick Kiln 1 Sarah Rutledge Estate / I SOU R C E : Jones, 1844 Figure 5. Parker Island Brickyard Charleston County, South Carolina

PAGE 57

43 Samue l Mart i n :"{': I,. I I / I I I , I I , , I I I I ,, , I I , , , I I Q) I I :, 11 C I I a, I I:::,. : ,' q:: I I I I Thomas Add i son I I I ( Dr John \ Poyas \ \ \ \ \ T P Addison SOURC E : D i amo n d 1 823 Figure 6. Addison and Martin Brickyards Berkeley County, South Carolina

PAGE 58

44 As pointed out by Genovese (1962:436), Charleston was one of the few locations in the South which provided the market or demand for manufactured goods. As one of the largest of the South's cities, there was a particular demand for building materials, especially fireproof materials. In a brief study of the sources for brick in Charleston, Simons (1934:3) notes that when the occupants of the Lowcountry had to import every manufactured good, it is unreasonable to think that valuable cargo space would have been taken for brick when this product could be produced locally. She cites an architect's estimate that it would take the full cargo room of nine of the largest vessels available, or 45 loads of ballast to import sufficient brick for one structure, the Miles Brewton House (Simons 1934:11). Thus, although there is evidence of importation of bricks (Rauschenberg 1991:103-104), the builders of Charleston largely depended on local production for their materials. This manufacturing enterprise was of sufficient value to the plantations, that when Arnoldus Vanderhorst of Lexington submitted his post-Revolutionary War claims for his losses to the British, he listed his building 11 200 feet long by 30 for Sheltering Bricks" as valued at 1000 pounds. This is half the value claimed for his dwelling on the Vanderhorst Kiawah Island cotton plantation (Vanderhorst 1780). His claims do not specifically cite bricks as a loss. The importance of this industry is also evidenced by

PAGE 59

45 the plantation settlement patterns, in which slaves, the means of production, are often located in proximity to the kilns rather than to the owner or the agricultural fields (Figures 3 and 5). The Wando River basin was an ideal location for the manufacture of brick for Charleston. Although brick was produced along all of the rivers which led to Charleston (Figure l}, this industry appears to have been particularly important along the Wando. The lands drained by this river in the Wando Neck and lower Berkeley County lacked the cash crops of the Cooper and Ashley River basins, but had a very strong tie to the Charleston market both economically and logistically. The region is well-suited for brick production. The Wando River is highly saline, inhibiting rice production except within small areas at the upper reaches of the creeks. Soils within this region are primarily poorly drained flatwoods types which are not particularly suitable for crops such as cotton or indigo. However, the area has all of the resources for brickmaking, as evidenced by a property advertisement which appeared in 1747: To be Sold ... the Plantation where the Subscriber now lives, convenient to a good Landing on Wando River ... also great conveniency for Brick Works, there being excellent Clay close to the Landing with Plenty of Wood at Hand for burning ... William Bruce (South Carolina Gazette 1747a).

PAGE 60

46 In addition, brickmaking was often a winter and spring occupation (Gurke 1987:5; Graves 1854-55; Stoney 1938:48), which resulted in resource scheduling which complemented the produce farming, corn raising, livestock production of the region. As a result of the combination of available resources, a ready market, and a suitable labor force (slaves), the majority of the plantations in the area display evidence of brick kilns with associated landings along the streams. As one writer said of the Cooper River brickmaking industry: The extensive brick-making on Cooper River was sometimes a very profitable second string to rice. One old lady, said to have been Mrs. Frost, advised by three successive dreams, turned to it as an industry, and like [John] Gordon, made a fortune (Irving 1932:23). This statement clearly applies to the planters along the Wando River. In addition to providing Charleston with subsistence and construction products, the plantations in the District served another important function. Land and plantations were excellent investments for a business man's surplus or for the savings of a professional man or politician; a planter's life was a pleasant goal for their old age and an agreeable career for their children. So most prosperous town men were considerable planters as well (Stoney 1938:25). By the same token, the dominance of the plantation products in the region's economy gave the planters tremendous political influence and leadership in both the city where

PAGE 61

47 they maintained town houses, and within the state (Stoney 1938:41). The plantations of the Wando River basin represented a nearby location for Charleston businessmen who wished to acquire the financial investment and status without the problem of distance from their major source of income--their Charleston businesses. At the same time, proximity to Charleston allowed those who were primarily planters to invest in Charleston businesses which complemented their plantation activities, such as factorages, shipping, and brickmasonry. An example of this interrelationship can be seen at Lexington Plantation : the Vanderhorsts, primarily planters, also owned wharves and stores in Charleston. The next owner of this property was A. S. Willington, who was primarily a Charleston businessman and newspaper publisher. The third owner, Effingham Wagner, was also involved in Charleston commercial activities. All of these owners of Lexington owned homes in Charleston (Wayne and Dickinson 1990:3-20 3-21). Their neighbors were equally involved in Charleston commerce: Anthony Toomer of Richmond plantation southeast of Lexington, and the Horlbecks of Boone Hall were brickmasons in Charleston (Hollings 1978 : 89, 91); William Hopton, owner of the property northwest of Lexington, was a lawyer (Gregorie 1950:604). Thus, in the Wando River basin, a picture develops of plantations with close economic and social ties to nearby

PAGE 62

48 Charleston. These plantations provided the foodstuffs consumed on Charleston's tables, as well as the firewood to cook it and heat the houses, and the materials for the buildings. At the same time, the properties provided an investment opportunity for a number of Charleston businessmen. It appears that in an agriculturally marginal area such as the flatwoods of the Wando Neck and lower Berkeley County, brickmaking became a significant factor in the economic success of these plantations, which seems to have been based on production of a diverse group of products rather than a single staple crop Brickmakers and Brickyards As indicated in the introduction to this study, the origin of the craft of brickmaking as practiced in the Carolinas was from southeastern England, the Low Countries of Europe, and Huguenot France. Many of the early settlers of the Carolinas were French Huguenots who came to this region because of the liberal religious policies of the Lords Proprietors. A large Huguenot enclave was established in st. Denis Parish (Berkeley County), not far from the Wando River. Many of these Huguenot emigres had a background in the building trades and utilized that experience to establish businesses in Charleston. The landed families of the Lowcountry intermarried, providing an additional opportunity to disseminate the knowledge of

PAGE 63

49 building and of manufacturing materials (Wheaton et al. 1987:54). It is important to note, however, that although the planters and businessmen may have listed themselves as brickmakers, it is highly unlikely that they actually were involved in the manual labor of making brick. As Eaton points out, During the eighteenth century and to a lesser extent in the ante-bellum period, household industries were carried on by slaves, who were employed on the large plantations to weave cloth, to make bricks, staves, and barrels, to manufacture nails, to boil soap, to do blacksmith work, and even to make artistic furniture (Eaton 1966:372). Thus, the role of the named "brickmaker" in the Lowcountry was essentially that of the supervisor and instructor. Often, the "brickmaker" was, in fact, merely the property owner and an unnamed overseer directed the manufacturing. For example, in 1770, John Moore, identified as a brickmaker in st. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, advertised for an overseer who understood brickmaking (South Carolina Gazette 1770). Little documentary evidence exists for the unnamed slaves and overseers who provided the labor and skill for brickmaking, other than an occasional advertisement such as that for a slave sale in 1849 which listed four female slaves as "brick stowers" (Capers and Huger 1849). This same advertisement provides evidence of the importance of this skill in its heading, which lists "Several

PAGE 64

50 Brickmakers ... as the first skill of those being sold (Capers and Huger 1849). As a result of this lack of documentary information, this discussion of the brickmakers of necessity focuses on those property owners who were identified in the written record as practitioners of this trade. Table 3 provides a list of the people who were identified as brickmakers in the Lowcountry, as well as the location of their brickyards when available (Figure 7). The gaps in time reflect the gaps in the written record as well as the nature of that record. It is interesting to note that, in a male-dominated society, several women were listed as brickmakers. At least two, Hannah Goodbe and Mrs. Frost, were actively engaged in providing bricks to the market (Irving 1932:23; Simons 1934:9). The information on 18th century brickmakers was gathered primarily from newspaper advertisements and records of transactions for building materials. The later antebellum information was based largely on map references, city directories, and census records. The first reference to brickmaking in the Lowcountry was in a 1664 letter which stated that there was a "rich ground of a grayer colour, they have made Brick of the Clay, which proves very good" (Carroll 1836:12). Apparently, little brick was being made, however, since a 1682 letter stated "tho here is excellent Brick made, but little of it"

PAGE 65

Table 3. Period 1745-1760 1761-1776 1790-1830 1850-1860 Sources: 51 Brickmakers Identified Between 1745 and 1860 in the Charleston Name John Cockfield Richard Lake Zachariah Villepontoux Alexander van der Dussen Thomas llright Nathaniel Snow James Coachman Hannah Goodbe Samuel Elliott Benjamin and Isaac Mazyck James and llilliam llithers John Moore Peter & John Horlbeck Peter Croft James and Deborah Fisher James Sandeford Samuel llarnock Hugh Cartwright Mrs. (Thomas?) Lynch Iii l l i am Bruce Lionel Chalmers John Laurens llilliam Hopton Elizabeth Hill John Hutchins Thomas Gordon Dupont Charles Cantey Samuel Cordes Joseph Palmer John Iii l l i ams Thomas Addison Anthony Toomer John Daniel Henry Gray ___ Crosby Joseph Verree Blaike Peter Gaillard Stoney John Gordon Frost Edward and Samuel Martin llilliam Marsh John and George Parker John Horlbeck James Rhett Arnoldus Vanderhorst ___ Huger Robert and Thomas Parker John Horlbeck Daniel Legare T.H I. llhite John Sanders John L. O'Hear John Marshall J. B. Gordon J. Venning G. Thompson Location Ashley R i ver llappoo Creek, Ashley R i ver Parnassus, Back R i ver Cooper River Cooper River Cooper River Cooper River Cooper River Foster Creek Foster Creek Goose Creek Mooreland, Thomas Is., Beresford Creek Boone Hall, Horlbeck Creek Palmetto Grove, Horlbeck Creek Cainhoy, llando River Cainhoy, llando River Cainhoy, llando River Cainhoy, llando River Christ Church Parish, llando River llando River llando River llando River llando River llando Neck Beresford Creek Richmond, Toomer Creek Christ Church Parish Fosters Creek Medway, Cooper River Brickyard Plantation, Moreland, The Grove, Cooper Cooper River Beresford Creek Fairchild's Creek, Christ Church Parish Parker's Island, Horlbeck Creek Boone Hall, Horlbeck Creek Palmetto Grove, Horlbeck Creek Lexington, llagner Creek Parker's Island, Horlbeck Creek Boone Hall, Horlbeck Creek Elm Grove, Darrell Creek Christ Church Parish St. Thomas & St. Denis Parish II II II II II II II II II It II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II Area SCG 1741-1778; Commissioners of Fortifications 1755-70; Council of Safety 1903:18-23; Hollings 1978; Irving 1932:23; Huger 1812; Simons 1934; n.d.; Stoney and Staats n.d.; Ravenel 1835; Hill igan 1790; Mears & Turnbull 1859; McEl l igott 1989; U.S. Census 1850; Porcher 1944:160-164; Horlbeck 1770; Trinkley 1987:23-28; llayne and Dickinson 1989:327 3-29; Rauschenberg 1991:105, 110

PAGE 66

Figure Brickyards Identified by Owner, 1745-1860, Wando River Basin, South Carolina I SLAN D -. Ul N

PAGE 67

53 (Salley 1911:181). Within 20 years, Lawson stated that there were numerous brick buildings in Charleston with additional large ones under construction using what he described as good brick and tile made locally (Lawson 1709). By the 1740s, when Charleston's building code required the use of fireproof materials, numerous brickmakers and properties could be identified in the written record. The most important brickmaker of this period was probably the Huguenot, Zachariah Villepontoux of Parnassus plantation on the Back (Cooper) River. Villepontoux's bricks were cited as the standard when st. Stephen's Parish attempted to order bricks for construction of a new chapel in 1759 (Porcher 1944:165). Villepontoux had provided 194,400 of the bricks for Charles Pinckney's house in 1745; Nathaniel Snow, a Mr. Dupont, and Hannah Goodbe provided the balance of 81,400 bricks (Simons 1934:8). Villepontoux has also been identified as the brickmaker for St. Michaels Church in Charleston, a supplier to the merchant Henry Laurens, and provider of part of the brick for fortifications for the city (Hollings 1978:20; Rogers 1974:358-359; Commissioners of Fortifications 1755-70). In addition to making bricks, Villepontoux was a planter, tax collector, and leader of several charitable and religious organizations (Edgar and Bailey 1977:690-691). St. Stephen's Parish records were the source for the names of other brickmakers who were not quite as successful

PAGE 68

54 as Villepontoux (Porcher 1944:160-164). The parish initially contracted with Samuel Cordes in August of 1759 for 120,000 bricks, but when delivered in October of 1762, the church officials rejected the brick as "not being sufficiently burnt" (Porcher 1944:163). In April of 1765, the Commissioners of the Church met to examine bricks made by Joseph Palmer "by the size of Mr. [Ville]Pontoux", but also rejected these since "they are entirely too Bad, and are not Proper for Building a Church" (Porcher 1944:163164). In June of 1766, the Commissioners contracted with Charles Cantey to make 150,000 bricks of a size equal to Villepontoux's (Porcher 1944:165). Since no further reference is made to bricks in the minutes, Mr. Cantey was evidently successful in supplying the church's needs. Construction of the many fortifications in and around Charleston during the mid-eighteenth century utilized numerous brickmakers, including Villepontoux, James and William Withers, Thomas Gordon, Joseph Verree, Mr. Blaike, and Anthony Toomer. These fort~fications included Darrel's Fort, Ft. Johnson, and Broughton Battery (Commissioners of Fortifications 1755-1770; Council of Safety 1903:18-23). Toomer also supplied bricks for the Pringle house in Charleston (Toomer 1783-85). Advertisements for property in the South Carolina Gazette provided many names of brickmakers during the 1740s. John Laurens offered a tract of land on the Wanda River

PAGE 69

55 ''with conveniences for making Brick" (South Carolina Gazette 1741). A year later, Elizabeth Hill and Lionel Chalmers both offered land on the Wanda "very convenient for making Brick or Lime" (South Carolina Gazette 1742a; 1742b). Similar descriptions were used for lands on the Wanda River offered in 1746 by Samuel Warnock and in 1747 by James Sandeford, Sr. and William Bruce (South Carolina Gazette 1746a; 1747a; 1747b). The property in Christ Church Parish advertised by bricklayer Hugh Cartwright on behalf of Mrs. Lynch (perhaps Mrs Thomas Lynch) included unburnt bricks (South Carolina Gazette 1746b). The most detailed contemporary description of a brickyard for this period came from the advertisement for the 1748 sale of the property of James and Deborah Fisher: To be Sold, a Plantation on Wanda-River, near Cainhoy, containing 500 Acres of Land, proper for Corn, Rice and Indigo, with a Dwelling House, Barn and Out Houses, and at the Landing a Good Brick Yard (with 2 large Houses, near 100 feet in Length, and about 30 in Breadth each) and a good Brick case for burning them. About 45 feet in Length, near 20 in Breadth, and 9 in Height, with 12 arches, and a Division in the Middle, a large quantity of Wood near at Hand, with other conveniences. Likewise a number of slaves, among whom are very good Coopers, several Sawyers and Brick Moulders; and also Household Furniture ... (South Carolina Gazette 1748). The two large houses referred to in this advertisement were probably drying sheds. Other Cooper River brickmakers identified by the advertisements were Alexander van der Dussen, Benjamin Mazyck, Samuel Elliott, and Thomas Wright (Hollings

PAGE 70

56 1978:17). Van der Dussen and Mazyck offered bricks for sale in 1745 and 1749, while the property being sold by Elliott's estate included a large quantity of burnt and unburnt bricks and tiles (South Carolina Gazette 1745; 1749a; 1778). Two brickmakers were identified on the Ashley River from these advertisements--John Cockfield and Richard Lake (South Carolina Gazette 1747c; 1749b). Brickmaker John Moore, Jr. of Beresford Creek in st. Thomas and St. Denis Parish was identified by his previously mentioned advertisement for an overseer who understood brickmaking (South Carolina Gazette 1770). Moore was the nephew of brickmaker Zachariah Villepontoux and operated both brick and lime kilns on his plantation on Thomas Island. His relationship to Villepontoux undoubtedly provided him with exposure to brickmaking (Wheaton et al. 1987:54-55). In addition, he was married to Elizabeth Vanderhorst (Wheaton et al. 1987:59); the Vanderhorst family operated a brickyard at Lexington plantation on the Wando River. Besides brickmaking, Moore served in the Royal Assembly, the First Provincial Congress, and as a justice of the peace (Wheaton et al. 1987:54; Hollings 1978:19). William Hopton, owner of a plantation on the Wando River opposite Cainhoy, was an excellent example of the Charleston businessman who also made bricks. Hopton was a well-known Charleston attorney and merchant who referred to his property on the Wando as "Starvegut Hall'' (Berkeley and

PAGE 71

57 Berkeley 1982:231). Examination of an 1819 plat map for this property shows a brickyard on the plantation (Wilson 1819). At approximately the same time that Hopton owned property on the Wando, Peter Croft developed his plantation Palmetto Grove on what is now Horlbeck Creek. Since this property contains the remains of a brick kiln, it is assumed that Croft was making bricks, although the kiln could have been the work of the other long-term landowner of the property, James Rhett, who owned Palmetto Grove from 1834 to 1854 (Trinkley 1987:26). The other major brickmakers of the 18th century were Peter and John Horlbeck. The Horlbeck family developed what would become the longest lasting of the brickyards in this region. The Horlbeck brothers were selling and laying bricks as early as 1766, including bricks for the U. S. Customs House in Charleston (Simons n.d.), but could not be tied to a specific brickyard until the early 19th century. In 1817, their sons, John and Henry Horlbeck, acquired Boone Hall plantation on what is now Horlbeck Creek. A deed issued just prior to this acquisition mentioned a brickyard as one of the property's features. By 1839, this brickyard was under the control of John Horlbeck, Jr. (Espenshade and Grunden 1991:14). Within ten years, the Boone Hall brickyard claimed production of 4,000,000 bricks per year using 85 slaves

PAGE 72

58 (U S. Census 1850). This production, plus a reference in the census to the use of coal, indicated that the Horlbecks may have been using steam-powered brick-making machinery (Espenshade and Grunden 1991:15). The Boone Hall brickyard continued to operate throughout the Civil War up until the late 19th century (Espenshade and Grunden 1991); this is the only brickyard in the basin which seems to have operated after the Civil War. It is possible that the high production of the Horlbeck property forced the smaller brickyards out of business by 1860. In 1875, John Horlbeck acquired a neighboring brickyard on Parker Island. This brickyard was probably originally developed by John and George Parker who are listed as brickmakers in the late 18th century Charleston city directories (McElligott 1989). An 1844 map shows the island and its brickyard as the property of Robert Parker (Jones 1844). Horlbeck acquired the property from Parker's son Thomas (Southerlin et al. 1988:22). Although there were fewer brickmakers identified during the 19th century, they seem to have had larger operations. Peter Gaillard Stoney of Medway, for instance, was the major supplier of brick for Fort Sumter in 1830 (Stoney and Staats n.d.:10). John Gordon owned three properties on the Cooper River and its tributaries: Brickyard Plantation, Moreland, and the Grove on Beresford Creek. He was apparently making bricks at all of these, and when he offered the Grove for

PAGE 73

59 sale, he included 11 oxen "used for trampling the clay'' plus "the unburnt brick'' (Ravenel 1835). Gordon was said to have gotten wealthy from brickmaking, inspiring a neighbor, Mrs. Frost, to do the same (Irving 1932:23). Another indication of the extent of the brickmaking during this period was the move to mechanization. The Hugers of the Cooper River investigated a brickmaking machine made in Philadelphia; although the machine cost over $1,000.00, Huger indicated it would be worth the money if it worked (Huger 1812). At least one plantation in the Charleston area did acquire such a machine; it is now in the collections of the Charleston Museum (News & Courier 1991). As previously noted, the Horlbecks were probably using steam power and possibly brickmaking machines at Boone Hall. At this scale of production and level of technology, these brickyards represent the transition to full-fledged manufacturing facilities, although they continued to be operated as an aspect of the plantations on which they were located. Arnoldus Vanderhorst of Lexington plantation considered brickmaking to be so important that he located his slave cabins and overseer's house at the brickyard (Figure 3). He valued the brick shed at this operation at 1,000 pounds, half the value of his dwelling on Kiawah Island (Vanderhorst 1780). This operation boasted two kilns and a double landing with a slip (Courtenay 1828).

PAGE 74

60 Beresford Creek remained a center for brickmaking during the 19th century. In addition to John Gordon's and John Moore, Jr.'s operations, the creek served as an outlet for the brickyards of Thomas Addison and Edward and Samuel Martin (Diamond 1823). By 1850, only nine brickmakers were identified in the project region (Table 4), but with the exception of Daniel Legare of Elm Grove, all were making over 300,000 bricks per year. Two, John Horlbeck and John Marshall, were making over a million bricks a year (U.S. Census 1850). Examination of a plat of Legare's property (Figure 4) does show two brickyards, but the census record indicates that he only operated them about two months of the year. It is possible that these brickyards originally dated to an earlier period of Elm Grove's operations. With the exception of the Boone Hall operation, there is no evidence for the continuation of the brickyards after the Civil War. This may be a function of several factors. First, the South was economically devastated by the War and lost the cheap labor source of slavery. Second, many of the plantations in the Lowcountry were destroyed during the War, or lost or abandoned by their owners during the post-bellum period. Third, industrialization reached the brickmaking industry, resulting in enormous production increases at lower labor costs and with a better product. As a result brickyards using hand molding could not compete.

PAGE 75

Table 4. Brickrnakers Listed in the Charleston District Census of 185 0 Name Capital Invested CHRIST CHURCH PARISH Daniel Legare $ 7,000 John Horlbeck $75,000 T. H. I. IJhite $17,500 ST. THOMAS & ST. DENIS PARISH John Sanders $28,000 John L. O' Hear $20,000 John Marshall $45,000 J. B. Gordon $30,000 J. Venning $30,000 G. ThOfll)son $10,000 TOTALS $262,500 Raw Materials Kind, Qty., Value pine 70 cords $ 135 wood 3,500 cords $5,250 coal 200 tons $1,400 wood 600 cords $ 900 Hands Employed Male Female 7 7 (about 2 months) 50 35 13 17 (6 months) 15 15 11 11 30 20 15 12 13 10 7 161 127 Average Monthly Cost of Labor Male Female $ 7 $ 5 $ 50 $ 75 $ 91 $ 60 $105 $ 75 $ 77 $ 55 $210 $100 $105 $ 60 $ 91 $ 50 $ 49 $785 $480 Quantities 70,000 4,000,000 700,000 700,000 580,000 1,500,000 600,000 600,000 300,000 9,050,000 Value $ 560 $28,000 $ 5,600 $4,900 $ 4,060 $10,500 $4,200 $ 4,200 $ 2, 100 $64,120 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: U.S. Census 1850 O'I ....

PAGE 76

62 Brickmaking in the post-bellum period seems to have shifted to large scale operations in the piedmont region of the state with its extensive clay deposits (Johnson and Heron 1965:45, 47). Proliferation of rail transportation during the late 19th century facilitated this shift out of the Lowcountry. Production and Value The extent of the brick production and the value of these bricks has been mentioned in the previous discussions of the development of the industry and the brickmakers. This section will summarize that data and examine certain items more closely. When the Charleston building code of 1740 required fireproof construction, it also established the cost for local bricks at 6 pounds per thousand (Edgar 1972:301). Even though New England bricks were available at the cheaper rate of a little over 3 pounds per thousand, merchant Robert Pringle stated that these bricks were unpopular and didn't sell because of their smaller size (Edgar 1972:301). The 1740 price appears to have generally held through most of the 18th century, although there were occasional variations, probably based on quality or special contract arrangements. In 1749, one advertiser offered a discount price of 4 pounds per thousand for quantities over 10,000 bricks (South Carolina Gazette 1749c). During the building of the fortifications around Charleston in the late 1750s,

PAGE 77

63 the Commissioners were paying between 5 and 12 pounds per thousand for bricks (Commissioners of Fortifications 1765). The Horlbecks offered bricks at 7 pounds per thousand during the period from 1766 to 1767 (Horlbeck 1770); however, St. Stephen's Church was paying only 6 pounds per thousand for brick at this time (Porcher 1944:160). At the time of the Revolutionary War, brick costs remained at 6 pounds per thousand (Council of Safety 1903:18-23). But in 1783, soon after the War, Anthony Toomer seems to have been selling his bricks at approximately 2 pounds per thousand (Toomer 178385) After the establishment of the United States dollar in the late 18th century, brick prices seem to have stabilized at $4.00 to $7.00 per thousand based on the grade of brick. These prices remained in effect during the antebellum period (Ramey & Hughes 1839; u. s. Census 1850; Horlbeck 1856-75). It is difficult to estimate the total brick production in the Wando River basin prior to the information provided in the 1850 census report. Some idea of the scale can be drawn from references to the amounts of brick ordered for specific projects. A single structure, the 1745 Pinckney house in Charleston,required a total of 275,800 bricks, ordered from three makers. During this same period, Zachariah Villepontoux provided almost 417,000 bricks for St. Michael's Church (Simons 1934:9). Hollings stated that it took about 100,000 bricks for a two-story, forty-five

PAGE 78

64 foot square house (Hollings 1978:12). After the Revolutionary War, Arnoldus Vanderhorst of Lexington Plantation claimed losses of materials for construction of a 11 3 story brick house in Charleston" at a value of 2,500 pounds, which could represent over 400,000 bricks (Vanderhorst 1780). The many fortifications continually required bricks; Villepontoux and Goodbe provided 94,000 between 1757 and 1758, while two other brickmakers provided an additional 68,600 during the same period (Simons 1934:8; Commissioners of Fortifications 1765). Between 1775 and 1776, the Second Council of Safety purchased 40,500 bricks for Dorrels Fort from three brickmakers (Council of Safety 1903:21-23). Gurcke estimated that an expert brick molder could make between 3,000 and 5,000 bricks per day (Gurcke 1987:19). This estimate is consistent with the records of Medway plantation as well as the description of Florida brickmaker Crary (Stoney 1852; Crary 1889). Thus, when Graves indicated he was molding two tables each day (Graves 185455), he was probably producing at least 10,000 bricks a day. Since he molded for about a week at a time and fired his kilns three or four times in a season (Graves 1854-55), he was conservatively producing 280,000 bricks per season. At even the lowest value during that period, $4.00 per thousand, this would yield $1,120.00 a season from an activity that evidently occupied only part of the labor

PAGE 79

65 force, since Graves indicates that other slaves were cutting wood or manuring fields while brickmaking was in progress (Graves 1854-55). Based on the available comparative data it seems likely that the Lexington Plantation brickmaking complex on Wagners Creek, which included two kilns and was obviously an important part of the plantation as evidenced by the settlement pattern, could have been producing several hundred thousand bricks each season (Wayne and Dickinson 1990:6-10 6-11) This could translate into more than $2,000.00 per year income for the planter, without the investment in seed or stock required for agricultural activities, or the risks of crop failure or insect damage. Total annual production figures were located for three antebellum brickmakers prior to the 1850 census: Anthony Toomer, Peter Gaillard Stoney, and the Horlbecks. Toomer's brick production for the three year period between 1783 and 1785 totalled 195,900 bricks. The money received for these bricks represented approximately 25 percent of his plantation's income for a single year (Table 2--Toomer 178385) Stoney's Medway plantation shipped 594,000 bricks in the ten month period from 1852 to 1853 (Table 5), while the Horlbecks shipped 158,150 bricks during a single week in 1847 (Table 6). If production was maintained at these levels all year, that would provide a brick value of

PAGE 80

66 Table 5. Medway Plantation Shipping Records, 1852-53 Date Number Bricks Type Vessel 5/18/52 12,000 brown 5/25/52 12,000 grey 6/1/52 12,000 grey 6/8/52 12,000 grey 6/15/52 12,000 grey 6/22/52 12,000 grey 6/29/52 12,000 grey 7/6/52 12,000 grey 7/12/52 15,000 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 7/13/52 12,000 brown Sloop Ann 7/20/52 12,000 grey 7/27/52 12,000 grey 7/28/52 14,000 brown Mr. Fairchi Id's sloop 8/2/52 14,500 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 8/3/52 6,500 grey Sloop Ann 5,500 brown 8/5/52 15,000 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 8/10/52 10,500 grey Sloop Ann 1,500 brown 8/17/52 12,000 grey Sloop Ann 8/31/52 12,000 brown Sloop Ann 9/7/52 14,000 grey Mr. Fairchi Id's sloop 9/9/52 12,000 grey Sloop Ann 9/14/52 14,0DD grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 9/14/52 12,000 grey Mr. Stoneys sloop Ann 9/18/52 14,000 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 9/21/52 12,000 brown Mr. Stoneys sloop Ann 9/22/52 14,000 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 9/28/52 12,000 grey Mr. Stoney's sloop 10/29/52 7,000 brown Mr. Fairchild's sloop 7,000 grey 11/2/52 8,000 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 6,500 brown 11/3/52 6,000 grey Mr. Stoneys sloop Ann 6,000 brown 11/5/52 9,000 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 5,000 brown 11/8/52 12,000 grey Mr. Stoneys sloop 11/10/52 9,000 grey Mr. Fairchild's sloop 5,000 brown 11/16/52 12,000 grey Mr. Stoneys sloop 11/23/52 6,000 grey Mr. Stoneys sloop 6,000 brown 11/30/52 9,500 grey P. G. Stoneys sloop 2,500 brown 12/7/52 12,000 brown P. G. Stoneys sloop 12/17/52 12,000 brown P. G. Stoney's sloop 12/19/52 12,000 grey P. G. Stoney's sloop 1/4/53 12,000 grey P. G. Stoneys sloop 1/11/53 12,000 grey P. G. Stoney's sloop 1/17/53 10,000 brown John Wright's boat 5,000 grey 1/18/53 12,000 brown P. G. Stoneys sloop 1/25/53 12,000 grey P. G. Stoney's sloop 2/1/53 12,000 grey P. G. Stoneys sloop 2/8/53 12,000 brown P. G. Stoneys sloop 2/15/53 12,000 brown P. G. Stoney's sloop Totals 177,000 brown 417,000 grey 594,000 Source: Stoney 1852

PAGE 81

Table 6. 1847 Oec. 17 Dec. 18 Dec. 19 Dec. 20 Dec. 20 Dec. 22 Dec. 22 Dec. 24 Dec. 28 67 Boone Hall Brickyard Account Book, Sample Page, 1847 Sloop Grey Load 71,269 107 108 109 110 111 13,200 112 113 25,500 114 13,350 115 9,800 Brown Red 480,261 134,320 10,000 14,500 13,000 13,000 10,250 21,050 Landing Place BROUGHT FORIJARO Geiger wf Fairfield wf II II Howards wf Geigers wf Fitsimmons wf Geigers wf Geigers wf Remarks to be sold by him II II II II II II by Sureef boat by Buena Vista ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Espenshade and Grunden 1991:16 Table 7. Boone Hall Yearly Production and Income Totals, 1850-1860 Year Bricks Produced Income Irrore,11000 1850 3,127,930 $18,701.01 $5.98 1851 3,505,968 $17,905.40 $5.11 1852 3,278,069 $ 22,558.44 $6.88 1853 3,451,696 $ 26,210.53 $7.59 1854 2,693,675 $ 21,855.75 $8.11 1855 1,573,014 $ 11,313.40 $7.19 1856 1,832,810 $12,856.22 $7.01 1857 1,812,520 $ 12,505.71 $6.90 1858 439,545 $ 3,151.52 $7.17 1859 1,557,715 $11,009.91 $7.07 1860 1,659, 123 $13,076.05 $7.88 TOTALS 24,932,065 $171,143.94 $6.86 Highest production, income, or income/1000 Source: Espenshade and Grunden 1991:17

PAGE 82

68 $3,564.00 and $41,119.00 respectively, assuming a sale price of $5.00 per thousand. In fact, during the ten years between 1850 and 1860, Boone Hall produced over 24 million bricks valued at more than $170,000.00 (Table 7). Examination of the 1850 census records (Table 4) shows that the nine brickmakers listed in these two parishes were producing over nine million bricks in 1849 (the year the data were collected), valued at $64,000.00. This production utilized a relatively small labor force of 288 slaves. The item listed as invested capital represented the combined value of these slaves and the land in use. The variation in the average monthly cost for the labor was either a reflection of the quality of care by the various owners, or represented some estimation by the owners based on the slaves' employment as brickmakers on a part-time basis. Stoney's Medway plantation day book for 1852 provided an indication of the level of effort involved in a major brickmaking operation. This book listed a maximum of 18 hands a day in the brickyard; usually the record indicated either 6 or 12 hands supporting one or two molding tables. Maximum production from these two tables appears to have been 10,000 bricks a day. This production is comparable to that advertised earlier for brickmaking machines which cost $4,000.00 (City Gazette 1797). Activities included molding, stowing the case (kiln), hauling wood, carting clay, and unloading the kiln (Stoney 1852).

PAGE 83

69 In summary, brickmaking, while labor-intensive, could be conducted at a high level of production using a limited number of slaves, probably on a seasonal basis at most brickyards. The value of the end product compared favorably to that of plantation cash crops in the Lowcountry (Table 1). For example, in 1850 rice sold at an average price of 3.4 cents per pound (Smith 1985:215). This places the value of the rice production for Christ Church Parish at $32,803.00 in that year, compared to $34,160.00 for bricks (U.S. Census 1850; Scardaville 1985:37). In St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, which produced a greater volume of rice, the value of the rice production in 1850 would have been $119,041.00; brick value was estimated at $29,960.00 (U.S. Census 1850; Scardaville 1985:37). The growth of this industry in the Wando River basin provides an example of the importance of diversity within the plantation system. Archaeologist Craig Sheldon has suggested that planters in agriculturally marginal areas were forced to diversify and to acquire multiple properties in order to succeed. This diversification included providing goods and services to their neighbors as well as to the local market. He suggested that a group of diversified planters was a vital part of the support network which facilitated the development of the large specialized plantations which concentrated on staple cash crops (C. Sheldon 1990, personal communication). Diversity and

PAGE 84

70 responsiveness to a market-driven economy certainly seems to describe the plantations along the Wando River and their complex interaction with the City of Charleston.

PAGE 85

CHAPTER 4 TO MAKE A BRICK There are also several steep Landings, very convenient to settle Brick Works upon, an excellent clay being found all round the Land, with Wood at hand for burning (South Carolina Gazette 1742a). The Wando River plantations had an abundance of all of the elements of brickmaking, plus access to a market via the river. The soils of the area are underlain by a red clay stratum; in addition, sand is present in the Mt. Pleasant and Cainhoy scarps for use in tempering the clay. The pine oak forests provided an abundance of fuel, while the large slave population provided the labor both for obtaining the raw materials and for the brickmaking. Brickmaking begins with the clay. A 1664 account states that in the Charleston area, there was a "rich ground of a grayer colour" useful for brickmaking (Carroll 1836:12). These brick clays are Pleistocene marine clays deposited in ancient lagoons (Johnson and Heron 1965:50). The deposits can be up to 20 feet thick and are characterized as kaolinitic montmorillonites. This means that they consist primarily of kaolinite clays with a low water of plasticity, low shrinkage, low to medium drying strength, and require a medium to high maturing temperature. 71

PAGE 86

72 The clay is mixed with montmorillonite, the proportion of which increases with depth. Montmorillonite clays are virtually the opposite of kaolinite clays, with a high water of plasticity, high drying and firing shrinkages, high dry strengths, and low maturing temperatures. They also have a tendency to pick up large amounts of water in a humid environment. Although not useful as a basic raw material, small quantities of montmorillonites as an additive improve plasticity and lower maturity temperatures (Johnson and Heron 1965:50-51). Sand in the clay promotes more rapid drying while iron oxide acts as a flux to produce a harder brick at a lower temperature (Buie 1949:97-98). Lowcountry clays can be divided into five basic types: marls, clayey sands, sandy clays, rich clays, and vitreous clays. Marls are generally unsatisfactory alone due to their instability; however, small amounts added to other clays would increase strength and produce color changes. Clayey sands do not contain a high enough proportion of clay to be useful for brickmaking, although they can be used to sand the molds and table. Sandy clay is probably the best overall material for face bricks, with a shrinkage rate of less than four percent and good bonding strength. Rich clays have a high proportion of clay and make excellent bricks. Since this type of clay has a slow drying time with high shrinkage, it requires expert skills to produce good brick. Vitreous clays produce a glassy or glazed surface

PAGE 87

73 during firing; bricks from these clays have good structural properties. Vitreous clays also make a good additive to other clay types (Robinson and Johnson 1960:11-13). The sandy clays and clayey sands are found at elevations above 10 feet on sandy knolls and ridges in the pine flatwoods. They range in color from a mottled orange yellow-brown-white sandy clay to a cream-colored to brown clay. Rich clays and marls are found below 10 feet in elevation in the flat swamplands and bottomlands along the rivers and creeks. These clays are generally dark brown to olive-green in color, grading down to marls (Robinson and Johnson 1960:9-10). Digging or "winning" the clay is a seasonal activity: All clay intended for working next season must be dug in the winter, and the earlier the better, so as to expose it as much as possible to frost and snow. Care must be taken, if there are small stones in it, to dig it in small pits, and cast out the stones as much as possible, and also to well mix the top and bottom of the bed of clay together (Dobson 1850 (2):97). The diary of a Lowcountry planter from Prince William Parish near Beaufort stated that his slaves were digging clay during the period between February and April (Graves 185455). This would have still been primarily during the non agricultural periods of the year. As Stoney stated, planters in the brickmaking areas of the Lowcountry "enjoyed a sound economic mixture of agriculture and industry by making rice while the weather was hot and brick when it was cold" {Stoney 1938:48).

PAGE 88

74 In the Wando River area, the clay was normally dug by hand from shallow pits or trenches, which are still in evidence in aerial photographs of the region. The clay was then "wheeled to a level place ... it is heaped up to a depth of several feet, and left through the winter months to be mellowed by the frosts, which break up and crumble the lumps" (Dobson 1850 (1) :21). Rain also washed out some of the soluble salts during this period. The heaps were regularly broken up and turned over so that all portions of the clay were exposed to the weather (Gurcke 1987:7). After weathering, the clay was then tempered. Tempering consisted of adding water and other materials, such as sand, and then thoroughly mixing the clay and temper. The most primitive methods were to spread out the clay, mix in the water and temper, and then trod on the mixture using men or animals until it was pliable: Then we water the Earth well, and temper it with a narrow Spade about five Inches broad, that the Workman may hold out, with which we dig it down, and then temper it with our bare feet till it is in good case to make a Brick on, that is, like a piece of Dough such as will just stick in the Mould or Frame when lifted up, and not fall off of it self; ... (Lloyd 1925:34). An alternative method was to use a soak pit, in which a rectangular pit, approximately 4 x 6 feet, was filled with the clay and water and allowed to soak overnight. Temper was added and mixed the next day. A more elaborate soak pit might be boardor brick-lined with an animal powered iron wheel to mix the clay and temper (Gurcke 1987:7). It is

PAGE 89

75 possible that the primitive soak pit without the iron wheel was the method utilized in the Wando River basin with its readily available slave and animal labor. As one advertisement for property stated, the brickyard included "a reservoir of water for swimming the cattle that tread the clay'' (South Carolina Gazette 1766) A few planters may have used pug mills during the latter years of the brickmaking era. A pug mill consists of a cylindrical barrel containing a revolving shaft with paddles. The clay, sand and water were put in the top and kneaded between the rotating and fixed parts of the mill. The mixed clay was then forced out through an opening in the bottom of the mill (Figure 8) (McKee 1976:84). Once the clay had been prepared, it was then molded or formed. Molding was considered to be a skilled process completed by the craftsmen among the brickmakers. "The molder is the head of the molding gang, or 'stool', and is usually the most skilled worker in the yard" (Gurcke 1987:15). The molder worked near the soak pit, at "a Table standing about three foot high, five foot and a half long, and three foot and half over" (Lloyd 1925:34) (Figure 9). He worked with a mold, sand, clay, and a ''strike" or instrument to remove excess clay from the mold. Molds or "Frames'' were made of wood in the chosen size, and could be constructed for multiple bricks. Charleston cabinetmakers'

PAGE 90

Figure 8. Pug Mill and Molding Table Charleston Brick Company Photograph courtesy South Carolina Historical Society, Whitelaw Collection

PAGE 91

77

PAGE 92

Figure 9. Brickmolding Charleston Brick Company Photograph courtesy South Carolina Historical Society, Whitelaw Collection

PAGE 93

'79

PAGE 94

80 records indicate that such molds were generally made of mahogany, a dense, durable wood (Elfe 1775; SCCCP 1798). Hollings states that molds 9 x 4-1/2 x 2-1/2 inches were "the easiest for handling'' (Hollings 1978:7); this is the approximate size of most of the Wando River bricks. Molds were first dipped in "a little Trough that will hold about three or four quarts of water" (Lloyd 1925:34), and then dusted with sand prior to filling. A clot of "about 14-15 lbs. of" tempered clay was formed into a roughly rectangular shape about 25 percent larger than the mold (Lloyd 1925:31). This clot was then held over the mold and slammed into it with force; the molder then levelling it at the same time with his hand by heaping up the material in it, the excess of which he throws into the second compartment .... Seizing, at the same time, with his right hand the strike, the handle of which is conveniently placed at the edge of the wetting trough in which it has been soaking, he passes it firmly across the mould, to remove all that exceeds the 28 or 29 'lignes' of thickness that the two bricks should be [Figure 9]. He gives a tap with the flat of the strike, as with a trowel, on the middle of the mould to separate the two bricks one from the other and places the surplus earth by his side on the table (Lloyd 1925:31). The Graves diary described "moulding" or "running" "tables" of bricks at the same time that other bricks were being loaded in the kiln and fired (Graves 1854-55). Crary stated that a good crew of five men and one boy could produce 9,000 bricks per day using a six-brick mold. The crew consisted of the molder, a carrier, a digger, a man to

PAGE 95

81 wheel dry bricks to the shed, and a boy to drive the oxen for tempering the clay (Crary 1889). Once filled, the molds were taken by the carrier to the drying area where the bricks were turned out in rows to dry for approximately 24 hours (Figure 10). The carrier returned the empty mold to the sand bin for reuse (Lloyd 1925:31). The surfaces of the bricks were occasionally smoothed during this period and the bricks sometimes turned on edge after they were semi-dry to provide additional airflow to the other surfaces. When the bricks were dry enough to be handled, they were removed from the rows and placed in "Hacks (or places where they Row them up, like a Wall of two Bricks thick, with some small intervals betwixt them, to admit the wind and air to dry them)" (Lloyd 1925:36). Since drying required about two to three weeks, sheds would be used to protect the hacks from rain during this period (Gurcke 1987:26). Firing was begun after the bricks were dried. The bricks must be carefully stacked on edge in the kiln with spaces to allow for even distribution of the heat and gases. Hollings (1978:8) stated that kilns held from 20,000 to 50,000 bricks at each firing. Scove or clamp kilns are constructed from the bricks being fired (Ure 1840:185). These may have been the most common kilns along the Wando River since they were the simplest to construct. A more

PAGE 96

Figure 10. Removing Bricks from the Molds Charleston Brick Company Photograph courtesy South Carolina Historical Society, Whitelaw Collection

PAGE 97

83

PAGE 98

84 permanent form of kiln, the Cassel or Newcastle type, consisted of a permanent outer wall, base, and chimney with flues leading from the front of the kiln to the chimney in the rear This type of kiln relied on crossdrafts for distribution of the heat (Rhodes 1968:45, 47) (Figure 11). The more common scove or clamp kilns were begun with the construction of a corbel arch or flue running the length of the kiln: They build their Clamps of the Bricks that are to be burnt something like the Method of Building the Arches in Kilns, viz. with a Vacancy betwixt each Brick's Breadth, &c for the Fire to ascend by; but with this Difference, that instead of Arching, they truss, or span it over, by making the Bricks project one beyond the other, on both sides of the Place, for the Wood and Coal to lie in, till they meet, and are bonded by the Bricks at the Top, which closes up the Arch: this Place for the Fuel they carry up straight at both Sides, or, which is the same thing, upright at both sides, 'till it is about 3 Feet high, and they then begin to lay the Bricks, projecting over inwards, till they meet in the middle, which they will do in about 3 or 4 Course of Bricks in Heighth, the Width of the Mouth being about two Feet and a half [Figure 12]. Above this Arch they lay the Bricks in the Order they do in a Kiln to 8 or 10 Feet in Heighth, according as the Clamp is to be in Bigness; for they usually burn a great many thousands in a clamp at a time ... (Neve 1726:50) The green brick may then be covered by previously burnt brick and earth to seal the kiln (Gurcke 1987:32; Weldon 1990b: 24) Gurcke described a clamp kiln as a series of walls of brick, about 60 bricks long by 3 bricks thick by 24 to 30

PAGE 99

85 Scove kiln Cassel kiln >1 ----------. -.! ..' SOURC E Rhodes 196 8 Figure 11. Types of Kilns or Clamps

PAGE 100

Figure 12. Kiln Arch Construction Charleston Brick Company Photograph courtesy South Carolina Historical Society, Whitelaw Collection

PAGE 101

87

PAGE 102

88 bricks high. An upright of bricks was placed in the center of the clamp; this upright decreased in width towards the top of the kiln. As a result the clamp sloped inwards towards this upright. "Live holes" about 7 by 9 inches in size were placed along the length of the clamp for the fires. Once ignited, the holes were closed and the clamp left to burn. Gurcke said that firing could require three to six weeks and may have involved the use of charcoal rather than raw wood (Gurcke 1987:29, 32). Weldon indicated that only four to seven days were required for firing (Weldon 1990b:24). A more permanent type of clamp kiln similar to that excavated in 1950 in Jamestown, Virginia may have been common along the Wanda River (Harrington 1950:23). This type of kiln had permanent outer walls with arched openings at one end. The walls were placed on a previously prepared level area, possibly excavated below grade (Figure 13). The bricks in the walls were usually mortared with soft loam or clay rather than lime mortar in order to avoid damage during firing. The kiln may have been surrounded by a system of drains to keep the ground dry. There may also have been side openings in the kiln for ease of access. Within the kiln, the arched openings or fireboxes continued straight through to the back wall with hard packed clay floors. Between these areas previously fired bricks were laid on edge in rows two to three bricks wide as a base for the

PAGE 103

89 Otcrctll tiCII of nnch l, i/11 /1 <:;1rnc/11rc / () ~ fm111 1/,c fm111 Ill' 1111rtl1. ,i,lc al cr11111'/c1io11 of e,cu1 e11io11. 01 er,,// tic11 of 11rich "''" '' fl /rrm, tire cur al c1111111fct11111 of nc,11 011011. SOURCE : Harrington 1950 Figure 13. Jamestown, Virginia Brick Kiln

PAGE 104

90 green bricks. This raised the green bricks to avoid absorption of too much moisture from the ground. The green bricks were placed in layers with openings between bricks; the layers gradually formed a corbelled arch or vault over the fireboxes. The outer layer of bricks was closely placed with no openings. Once the kiln was stacked or loaded, it was often covered with clay, or "scoved", to contain the heat. Fires were placed inside the arched openings and burned until the bricks were suitably baked (Harrington 1950:26-27). Once the clamp had been constructed, cords of wood were placed between the rows of brick and fires were set "to dry the Ware, with a gentle, even Heat or Fire; which Fire they continue till the Ware is pretty dry", which was determined when the smoke changed from a whitish color to black (Neve 1726:49). After the smoke changed color, smaller ''faggots" of wood or straw were fed into the fire in order to complete the actual "burning" of the brick. At this point the mouth of the fire chambers might be partially blocked with a "shinlog" to contain the heat (Neve 1726:49) (Figure 14). The fires were fed till they make the Kiln and its Arches look white with Heat, and the Fire begins to appear at the Top of the Kiln, and the Kiln and Arches below begin to change from white to a greyish Colour; then ... they slacken the Fire for some Time, viz. for about 1/2 an Hour, or an Hour, as they think fit, that the Fire, or Heat, may ascend to the Top of the Kiln, by the Motion of the Air in at the Mouth, and also that the lower Ware may settle and cool, and not be burnt more than that

PAGE 105

Figure 14. Completed Kiln and Openings Charleston Brick Company Photograph courtesy South Carolina Historical Society, Whitelaw Collection

PAGE 107

93 above it. Thus they continue to do, heating and slacking alternately, till the Ware be thorough burnt, which it will be ... in about 48 Hours. (Neve 1726:49). According to contemporary accounts, firing could last from two to ten days (Harrington 1950:34). Graves' diary indicates that he fired his kiln for approximately six days (Graves 1854-55). Once firing was completed and the kiln cooled, the bricks were removed, sorted, and loaded on barges or boats for shipment. Waster bricks or brick bats (poorly fired or broken bricks) were tossed aside or reused for kiln construction. Wasters were also common in the slave cabins along the Wando River (Wayne and Dickinson 1990:9-4) and were apparently used for road or waterfront fill at times (Graves 1854-55). Once unloaded, the "black dirt of the brick floors" was apparently removed and spread in the fields (Graves 1854-55). Bricks were classified according to quality, which was based primarily on their degree of firing. The softest bricks, used only as wall fill, were called soakers because they readily absorbed moisture (Hollings 1978:9). Clinkers were the hardest bricks, located closest to the fire; these bricks "have, as it were a Gloss on them, which proceeds from the Saltpetre inherent in them, which by the Violence of the Fire, runs and glazes them" (Neve 1726:51). Standard bricks were the next layer between clinkers and the outer bricks. These were the primary construction bricks. "Samel" or "sandel" bricks were the poorest bricks, which

PAGE 108

94 probably correspond to the soakers described by Hollings: "those which lie on the outsides of the Kilns and Clamps where the Salt-peter is not digested for want of due heat" (Neve 1726:51). These bricks were soft and easily broken (Neve 1726:51). Neve also observed "that whilst Bricks are burning, those on the windy side of the Clamp, are the worst of all" (Neve 1726:51). In the Lowcountry, bricks were apparently also classified according to color (Hollings 1978:11). Several accounts refer to shipping grey bricks or brown bricks from kilns (Graves 1854-55; Stoney 1852; Horlbeck 1856-75); Carolina grey was apparently the preferred type, although they were not in actuality grey in color, but red-brown (Hollings 1978:11). The brickyards along the Wando River sometimes produced other products such as tiles for flooring or roofing, as at Boone Hall Plantation (Baldwin and Baldwin 1985:67; Stoney 1932:xiv-xv; Rauschenberg 1991:105-108). It is also possible that the kilns may have been utilized for firing plantation-made pottery. A few bricks have been located in the Lowcountry with maker's marks or brickyard symbols pressed into the wet clay (J. Leader 1991, personal communication), but this has not been noted as yet at the Wando River brickyards.

PAGE 109

CHAPTER 5 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Here and there, where a wide meander cuts into the yellow soil of the mainland, there will be smoking kilns, and near them piles of warm red or brown tile and brick, ready to be carried to town, or a landing where everything will come to life at the whistle of the approaching steamer (Stoney 1932:xiv-xv). Today the brickyards of the Wando River exist only as archaeological sites. Since research on these sites has been largely limited to survey level data, it is necessary to look at excavations elsewhere in order to understand the configuration and nature of these remains. Fortunately, several well-documented excavations have been completed in the southeastern United States. Brickyards as Archaeological Sites It must be acknowledged that in one sense Noel Hurne (1975:174) was correct in his lack of enthusiasm for brick kiln excavations--they do rarely yield a significant number of identifiable artifacts other than bricks. In many cases the artifacts are so few and fragmentary that they are not even helpful in terms of dating a site. Excavation of a brick kiln primarily provides information on the 95

PAGE 110

96 configuration of the kiln itself. This information may be helpful in determining the level of sophistication of the operation as well as the level of production. Specialized chemical analyses of the clay, bricks, and ash may provide guidance as to the sources of bricks for specific structures. Underwater archaeology may yield information on vessels used to ship the bricks as well as on waterfront construction methods. But one of the most informative parts of a brickyard complex would undoubtedly be any associated worker housing areas. The earliest, and possibly the best, archaeological excavation of a brick kiln was completed by J. c. Harrington at Jamestown, Virginia in 1950 (Harrington 1950). Harrington totally excavated a 17th century kiln associated with the Jamestown settlement. His site plan shows typical brickyard features: the kiln, drainage ditches, a clay pit, and a well (Figure 15). His careful excavation of the kiln revealed a semi permanent unmortared brick outer wall approximately 14 inches in width encompassing an area roughly 24.5 by 19 feet in size (Figure 16). This enclosure was placed on an excavated, prepared clay surface. The wider front wall (34 inches) contained five segmental arched openings for firing the kiln. These openings ranged in width from 20.5 to 23.5 inches and were approximately 20 to 26 inches high. Ash covered the floor of the firing chambers and extended out

PAGE 111

..: . . .CJ.. .1', \ ..., ,!,. _,..,,.,!!, c.; -~J : . :. : .!> p : ( ;':; 1 r' \ \ \ \ -. ,, fur~, : -~ : -... 1..&L lt... -::-.-..:. v d l ,i,!,.. i.. / ~f7 -. : . . ,,, , .; \ I..?.. """.,. ,, _,.., . . : . _. ,, I I E~af...,.,...h / .__..,th.~ .::.~ : : :: . r : _:;.:{. 1 ,I 1 \ .i.,. / J,. ... ,Ii. .: 1 OU ... _, 1 1\ I \ -. .i,. / "" t . I;, 1 1 I / .!}. .!t. ... 'IL:, _5 ., L_ I .,..-~, \ --------->":o.c -~1Wi\ :: 0c r" : : ,. k : L :?? :< :\T}ft l: 1 ~i ~ :, :, j\, :)s: ~ 1f!l t /C/ : =c" .. .. :.c;_, ":.J .. _. :j-Ii.:-. c:c. '--'' -"~ -; : \ \ -'11 \ I I ; .:::: < f\-:t \ 2\---------------,, ~_._ : ~-'--'-'-------------/: (~ ] i < )t1 \\// \ . j ..L;_ ., Cl , 1 1 :: r::,:: : -' ,, 1 , 1 : .. 1 :::: I , \ \ I :: I_ :: . . 1\ 1 .. :.. . : .. 1 I \ .... \ I I .. . .... .. . I .,.I I \ \ '1. \ I fer 1:r k.molung had baen ,..m.,,;,.d ;,, thi a r ea fo o "'"'t~u~ . J '\ \ \ "' \ Clay ic dcp.'h of :) feet. : : . I t ( I I 1>,h:.h rnor-.ng \ \ I '1 .. 1 : : : : boundary of propcr{y \ \ / .' :. which 1ir1c1c. 1o.1n t.\ \ I ----------=--~-:-=, .-: .j .. :; ) 00 woa loc.a+.d \ ..,. rK ~ -:-:-.-.-:-c, : . : .. .. . .. I . I : i '\.-A--1 \ ,. \ f '.':l C L c LC::c :,.:"C:..::"' 0 -'-' j O J f ; : '.: j \i I \ \ I 1: : .._:1, o;~. G,,-drw,i~ -: -.:--: : ~ ~I I \ \ \ ,. . -""'9 OT I I \ 1 :,.-:::: 1 fr-on of l \ 1 : : : .: : : 1 ,I ..t . : .. -:-,:-~ \ ;i :.: ;::'.-: ; ':"'. :; : -. :... :.-_.:~ ~ , ,,,,_ ( ;iiii, ilJ ______ }m 1 :;_ \ -/ < ~ -:-)-::.\:::-> \ f \ \ ----------------~ ... .._. ... .. . I \ \ , I : : ::~ '.'" I I : :.: ::: . : : I \ \ __________________ ] ___ _j j__ _____ J : '~[----------.. ~ ~ 1 \-~, ':\ ~w -[ fAplor-atary .-ench II -. } . '"'V, 1 j \ '-' i '~, .-: \ \ r--------7 I \ \\~ ~\ '. ------------7 ~ '. --------------,---\\ j j I !Irick. kiln ) ; !~ j \ I (llruc+ur,e IC>? I \ \ I I i \ \ I ,u. i+-.o ... '-"--" d.f....1-.ly _..,..., _.., lhc. bndc. pb,t _.. .,;__ th;. mop 0 0 IO ..fo PCT AR.CHE.OLOGICAL f.')(PLOllATIONS IN VIWHTY Of bR.ICK KILN (sn.t>CTUR. IOZ) Figure 15. Site Plan, Jamestown, Virginia Brickyard SO UR C E : H amnglon 1950 J.Ctt. \D -.J

PAGE 112

98 1--------------24'-s-------------~ L~GU>D E.orlh baked bv fE1l] heat of k. i ln fires ~t~f',t':Oh~ a~ ll.E.CONSTltUC.lED POICTION OF INTER.Ice. OF FROIJT WALL 0 -PLAN llrd, bench set in cloy bed 0 ftel 5 RECCNSTIUJCTE.t> SECTION lHROUGH P01lllON Of KILN Will~ llRICK CH'-R.Gl IN PU.CE l s SOURCE : Harring t on 1950 Figure 16. Plan, Kiln at Jamestown, Virginia

PAGE 113

99 the openings onto a reddened fired-clay surface. The firing chambers extended the depth of the kiln The bricks to be fired were stacked on edge in a herringbone pattern on permanent benches or bases between the firing chambers in order to allow the heat to circulate through the kiln. These bases were three bricks in width, laid end-to-end without mortar. The unfired bricks were placed on the benches and, beginning at the fifth layer, corbelled to form an arch or vault over the firing chambers Based on smoke stains on the outer wall, Harrington estimated that the firing chambers were seven bricks high (Harrington 1950:2528) A 1963 test excavation of 18th century remains at Brunswick Town, North Carolina, revealed a similar construction pattern (South 1963:3-4). In addition, this excavation indicated that the kiln had been rebuilt at least twice over previous clamps and was evidently used to burn lime during its final firing. The preliminary report on two 18th century kilns excavated near Williamsburg, Virginia, indicated that the remains were very similar to those documented at other kiln sites (Steen 1991:10-11). This report also demonstrated the difficulties in identifying the remains of associated activity areas or structures near the kilns. The author explained this in terms of the one-time usage of the site as well as the limited equipment and facilities necessary for

PAGE 114

100 brickmaking (Steen 1991:13). Most brickyards contained few structures other than the kilns; the remainder consisted of post-construction drying sheds, or shelters for the kiln or molding table. Such structures leave little evidence beyond the postholes noted at the only excavated kiln in the Wando River basin (Steen 1991:7). The Nance's Ferry excavations in Alabama documented both lime and brick kiln construction at a 19th century site (Atkinson and Elliott 1978). Unlike brick kilns, the lime kiln contained a single firing chamber plus the foundation of what would probably have been a domed or shaft-type structure (Atkinson and Elliott 1978:23). This site contained the remains of five brick kilns, all similar in construction to the earlier 17th century structure at Jamestown. The archaeologists interpreted the remains as those of temporary, single-use scove or clamp kilns containing 4 to 8 firing chambers (Atkinson and Elliott 1978:77). The report of this excavation is particularly useful to other archaeologists because it juxtaposes photographs of standing kilns with the archaeological remains. Although the remains excavated at the Jimmie Green site in Berkeley County, South Carolina were interpreted as being those of a lime kiln (Wheaton et al. 1987:113), examination of the plans indicates a strong resemblance to the brick kilns recorded at Jamestown and Nance's Ferry (Figure 17).

PAGE 115

0 ct ~. -, \_) D Excavated Area Rubble Figure 17 101 Magnet i c N o rlh / ON 40E ': []:' : .,--.,--' L . 0 1 0 SOURCE : Wheaton et al. 1 987 Plan Jimmie Green's Lime Kiln Berkeley County South Carol in a

PAGE 116

102 Since this plantation also contained a documented brickyard, it is probable that this kiln represented reuse of a former brick kiln for lime burning such as South found at Brunswick Town (South 1963:3). As the authors themselves noted, the kiln's configuration was unlike that of other documented lime-making operations (Wheaton et al. 1987:159-163). Review of the previous excavations clearly confirms that the primary archaeological feature at a brickyard site would be the kiln itself. This feature should contain an unmortared outer wall built on a prepared surface, a series of firing chambers--perhaps with the ash remains of the last firing, and the remains of the benches used to support the bricks to be fired. In some cases, the kilns may contain poorly fired bricks abandoned by the operators after the last firing. The Wanda River Basin Sites The typical brickyard site examined in the Wanda River basin consisted of a brick rubble-covered shoreline or landing, one or more overgrown kiln mounds--sometimes with visible arches, sand or clay piles, and a series of extensive clay pits (Figure 18). At least one site, on Parker Island, contained an intact brick chimney, indicating the possible presence of a more sophisticated Cassel or updraft kiln (Southerlin et al. 1988:28). Soak pits were tentatively identified at the Toomer brickyard site on Toomer Creek (Wayne 1989).

PAGE 117

LEGEND EE TOPOGRAPHIC ElfVATION [gJ 1828 STRUCTURE (approx i mate localions ; Counenay 1828 ) I BRICK SCATTERS OR FOUNDATIONS 8 SITE BOUNDARY D SITE COMPONENT BOUNDARIES WETlANDS ( CI.AY PITS) [}J MARSH ;::::========== = ~,;,, o 25 50 75 100 Me t ers l111d111tlt11tl111tl SCALE J. j lL ,I ,I .... J .I,, ,l ,l< l I I :J.. Jc JL I I I .I.. / / / .!lo. u '...., ,, .... "'\ / -'?..,,,,,.,.,,,....... :i. i I I I ,,.. .,, / ,,,.__ ... ,:,,,;.,, .... (/~ .., ...._ I 'I, ,,:;:.:;;'/.,. ..... / .,,-,,,,,,!,.. / / ,~ -~,,,,,.,... ..... j,, ~..:';:'"' .,,,. --8 ---....... -""" ,t, .l< ,l< .J.. I.. i'. .i~ ,, / i\ I I I I I I I \ ' ' I I __ I /'---) I Figure 18 Lexington Kiln Site Plan Charleston County South Caroli n a ..J.. .,l l< J, __ .,NEGRO HOUS ES 1828 I I ~' , .,..;.I -._,,%.,, /;., ... ,; / 1 ,-::-.,. 8 7 -f, ,,, ,:,,:,/ ,,.. #' ,,,,~ ~o .;.> ,,,; .:fl' 1 1 'o :.:::-"'
PAGE 118

104 The majority of the identified sites utilized the existing shorelines as landings and simply covered them with brick rubble to provide a hard surface. In at least three cases, however, finger piers or landings were constructed jutting out into the marshes or stream. These piers consisted of a clay, brick rubble and timber structure with sloping rubble-covered sides and a flattened brick rubble surface. At Lexington plantation and at the Toomer kiln site, there were two piers or causeways with a slip between them (Figure 18--Wayne and Dickinson 1990:8-5; 1989:5-17; Beard 1990:6). At the brickyard site opposite channel marker 30, the brick rubble forms a distinct point on the north shore of the river. The historic maps (Figures 3 to 6), and surveys of six sites indicated that many of the brickyard complexes encompassed associated slave and/or overseer housing (Southerlin et al. 1988:28; Espenshade and Grunden 1991:37; Wayne and Dickinson 1989:5-6, 5-8, 5-18). In at least one case, Lexington Plantation, the long period of operation of this brickyard resulted in the encroachment of the clay pits on these structures (Wayne and Dickinson 1990:8-1). Twenty-three brickyard sites have been identified within the Wando River basin (Figure 2; Table 8). Another dozen are probable based on examination of the aerial photographs and topographic maps. On the aerial photographs, the primary indicator for sites was the regular

PAGE 119

Table 8. Brickyard Sites in the Wando River Basin, South Carolina State Site# Name Charleston County 38Ch1407 38Ch1086 38Ch1400 38Ch1027 38Ch1031 38Ch1075 & 38Ch1078 38Ch876 Berkeley County Elm Grove Toomer Brickyard Lexington Kiln Starve Gut Hall Parker Island Parker Island Horlbeck Creek Boone Hall Brickyard Palmetto Grove Paradise Island Thomas Island Beresford Creek #1 Location Two sites on Darrell Creek east bank, East bank of Toomer Creek, Dunes West, East bank of Wagner Creek, Dunes West, South bank of Wando River, Dunes West West end Parker Is. East end Parker Is. East bank of creek opposite Parker Is. Brickyard Plantation Horlbeck Creek, Longpoint Development Horlbeck Creek, West end Paradise Is. Wando River, Beresford Creek West bank of creek north of Thomas Is. Description One site has large kiln mound and brick covered shoreline; second site not visited Intact kiln mound with visible arches, brick covered landing, associated dwellings extensive clay pits Did contain two kilns, clay pile, sand pile, double landings, associated dwellings extensive clay pits Two kiln mounds, associated dwellings, brick shoreline, clay pits Brick scatter, kiln foundation, clay and sand piles, brick piles Intact kiln with chimney, brick piles, pit, kiln ruins, brick-lined depressions, dwelling area Brick mounds adjacent to road, brick along creek bank, clay pits Brickyard includes boiler chimney, commissary, wells, kiln loci, brick covered shoreline, slag deposit, two large lakes; associated slave area with cabins, industrial structure Brick rubble on bank and extending inland 130 feet, kiln mound, clay pits Brick shore deposition; report of visible arches; downed trees from Hurricane Hugo Not examined Brick covered shoreline, partial kiln extensive wasters Condition and/or Threats Good condition; developnent threat Good condition; potential development tract Kilns bulldozed, landings intact; site has been dcx:umented by archaeologists Good condition; potential development tract Subject to development Subject to development preservation recommended May have been impacted by defunct development To be mitigated by archaeologists Mitigated by archaeological excavation Condition not determined; possible development threat Unknown Appears to be threatened by inrninent development .... 0 Ul

PAGE 120

Table 8--continued State Site# 38Bk379 38Bk402 Sources: Name Beresford Creek #2 Addison Brickyards (3) Marker 3D Brickyard Nelliefield Creek Cemetery Creek O'Hare Point New House Fogerty Creek Old House Creek Location North bank of creek West bank Sanders Creek West of channel marker 30, Wando R. North of Marker 30 site, Wando R. North side of junction of creek and Wando River Northeast of O'Hare Point on Wando River North shore of Wando River northeast of O'Hare Point site, Head of creek in Francis Marion Forest Head of creek in Francis Marion Forest Description Brick covered shoreline, landing area, brick working surfaces, possible kiln walls Steep brick covered banks, some eroding intact kiln mound Extensive brick shoreline deposition with exposed timbers, brick upland surfacing Brick shoreline deposition, kiln loci, two large clay pit/lakes Brick covered shoreline, brick in road surface Brick covered shoreline, upland not examined Brick covered shoreline, kiln probably gone One or more kilns, multiple clay pits, brick landing Kiln, two clay pits, brick shoreline Condition and/or Threats ---------------Good condition merits further study Good condition, some erosion threat Good condition further study merits Probably protected at this point in time Possibly impacted by later construction Unknown Probably no longer exists in significant form due to existing development Reported in good condition, no present threats Cm:Htion uiknowi, no present threats Wayne and Dickinson 1989:5-2, 5-6, 5-17 5-18; 1990:4-4, 8-1 8-2, 8-5 8-9; Trinkley 1987:43, 57; Espenshade and Grunden 1991:28, 30, 33, 37; Southerlin et al. 1988:2, 25, 27-28; Watts 1979 I-' 0 O'I

PAGE 121

107 shaped, clustered wetlands which are the result of the clay extraction (Figure 19). In at least two cases, at Boone Hall and at Nelliefield Creek, these clay pits have become large tidal lakes. A secondary indicator, not present at all sites, was the shoreline modifications, particularly those which resulted in a landing or projection of the shoreline into the stream. Identification of brickyard sites on topographic maps and from a boat relied on a similar set of signatures. In both cases, the key indicator was an area where the uplands met navigable water with little or no intervening marsh. Vegetation in such areas consisted of upland species such as palms, oaks, pines, and particularly cedars. At low tide, these areas were readily identifiable by the brick rubble along the shore (Figure 20). At least one site also contained timber shoreline stabilization perpendicular to the water's edge (Figure 21). Location of the sites from the land was hampered by the relatively thick vegetation and lack of road access in most locations. When encountered, however, there was little doubt about the nature of the site due to the extensive brick rubble. The kilns themselves appear as mounds up to five or six feet in height and of varying outer dimensions. Close examination of these mounds may reveal arched openings or outer walls (Figure 22). Areas adjacent to the mounds may have flat, brick-covered work surfaces (Figure 23)

PAGE 122

Figure 19. Aerial Photograph, Wando River Basin (USDA 1941) A. Landings B. Claypits

PAGE 123

109

PAGE 124

Figure 20. 110 Shoreline Deposition, Beresford Creek, Berkeley County, South Carolina

PAGE 125

111 Figure 21. Timbers in Shoreline Deposit, Wando River, Berkeley County, South Carolina

PAGE 126

Figure 22 112 Kiln Arches Lexington Kiln Site, Charleston County, South Carolina

PAGE 127

Figure 23. 113 Brickyard Surface, Beresford Creek, Berkeley County, South Carolina

PAGE 128

114 Site location was correlated with deep water access, clay or loam soils, and ground which was higher than the adjacent marshes. It should be noted, however, that some of the kiln sites were on land which would not normally be considered particularly desirable in terms of relative elevation. As a result, the brickyards probably had to have networks of drainage ditches in addition to the brick rubble used as fill. The brickyard sites appeared to stop at the point at which the Wando River was able to support large scale rice cultivation (Figure 2). This may indicate that where rice was profitable on the Wando, it was not necessary to diversify, although on the nearby Cooper River, brickyards like those at Medway plantation coexisted with large rice plantations (Stoney 1938:48). The occurrence of all of the identified sites on deep water, and the shoreline modifications underscores the importance to the brickmakers of being able to ship the product to a market. If these kilns had been established to provide bricks solely for the individual plantations, proximity to the structures to be built would have been the criteria, rather than proximity to water. In addition, these sites were much too large to have been utilized on a one-time basis. Examination of the existing plantation structures or remains of previous structures indicated that the majority were not of brick construction, with the exception of the foundations. In fact, many of these

PAGE 129

115 foundations consisted of broken or waster bricks, further evidence that the best products were sold rather than utilized on site. Changes in the Land The archaeological remains of the brickyards provide mute testimony as to the way in which the occupants regarded the natural resources of the region, as well as how these resources were exploited. As Deetz stated, a landscape shows how the terrain has been "modified according to a set of cultural plans" (Deetz 1990:2). When the Europeans arrived in the New World, they did not find a virgin wilderness. The Native American occupants had already impacted the land to an extent through the use of fire and by clearing patches of forest for horticulture (Cowdrey 1983:17). These impacts were minor, however, compared to what the new occupants would do. To the early Europeans and the entrepreneurs of the 18th and 19th centuries, the New World with its vast resources was a land to be exploited, conquered, and transformed (Cronon 1983:5; Cowdrey 1983:28). These newcomers quickly began to assess and catalogue the available resources (cf. Lawson 1709). Although the poorly drained pine flatwoods of the Wando Neck and lower Berkeley County were recognized as poor agricultural lands, their other capabilities were noted. As one writer stated,

PAGE 130

116 the soil "Foundation (was) generally clay, good for Bricks" (Carroll 1836:95). According to the soil surveys for Charleston and Berkeley Counties (USDA 1971; 1980), the sites identified as brickyards are consistently located on loamy soils with a high clay content, particularly Wadmalaw fine sandy loam (USDA 1971), Meggett loam, and Wahee loam (USDA 1980). Natural vegetation on these poorly drained soils is primarily pine flatwoods, a community dominated by loblolly and slash pines. The best drained areas support a mixed pine and hardwood forest. Small, intermittent wetland areas are located in depressions within these woods; these wetlands contain species such as sweetgums, sawpalmetto, gallberries, blueberries, pitcher-plants, sundews, and similar water-tolerant species (Shelford 1974:76). The shores of the rivers and streams contain extensive tidal marshes; where deep water cuts close to the shore, the marshes are narrow or non-existent. Changes in the land began with clay extraction. The natural forest was cut down and the clay and sand were excavated. This extraction resulted in large, steep-sided pits, often many feet in depth. For example, those at the Lexington Kiln site in Charleston County encompass over five acres and are at least three feet deep (Wayne and Dickinson 1990:8-9), while the two large pits at Boone Hall encompass approximately six acres and are even deeper (USGS 1971).

PAGE 131

117 In this low-lying land, the clay-lined pits soon filled with water, forming lakes or ponds. Over time, natural succession vegetated these waterbodies. If there is sufficient connection to the tidal river, the vegetation is typical of natural tidal marshes within the basin, consisting of a variety of saltwater-tolerant grasses and rushes (Sandifer et al. 1980:277). More often, there is little or no connection to the river and the wetlands support freshwater vegetation. These plants can include the aquatic species, emergent rushes and grasses, shrub-scrub wetlands, and forested wetlands (Sandifer et al. 1980:315). Observation of the relic clay pits along Toomer and Wagner Creeks indicated a combination of all of these types of wetlands depending on the extent of the standing water. As brickmaking progressed, additional deforestation probably occurred to provide fuel for the kiln. This deforestation would have altered the natural vegetation patterns for long periods of time, although this cannot be documented from the literature or observation of the existing sites. Removal of the pine and hardwoods from the natural forests would lead to succession of various scrub species and eventually, if no other use was made of the land, reforestation. The deforestation and claypits altered the natural environment by increasing habitat diversity and introducing extensive freshwater wetlands in the previous upland

PAGE 132

118 environment. These comparatively deep wetlands tend to retain water in periods of low rainfall, providing a further benefit for wildlife in the area. At the same time, construction of landings and deposition of brick along the shoreline replaced the natural edge habitat with a rock-like substrate, introducing additional diversity at the water's edge. In addition to altering the vegetation patterns, brickmaking affected the topography of the sites, both through the clay pits and through construction of kilns, clay and sand piles, landings, and at some sites, drainage ditches. These deposits are readily observable at all of the existing brickyard sites in the form of tree-covered brick, sand or clay mounds which can be 6 to 8 feet high and up to 20 feet long. Shoreline deposits were often limited to deposition of bricks along the natural shoreline, as at Boone Hall and along Darrell Creek, but there were also more elaborate landings of wood, clay, and brick rubble such as those at the Lexington and Toomer kiln sites. In some cases, dredging of channels was undertaken to insure continued access to deep water; this was particularly true along the smaller creeks such as Old House Creek and Fogerty Creek in Berkeley County. After the brickyards were abandoned, the alterations to the landscape remained as essentially permanent features. Although the kilns may have been levelled by later

PAGE 133

119 occupants, the brick surfacing or fill is often a foot or more thick; this deposition is probably rarely removable in its entirety. The Boone Hall brickyard is an excellent example, where the kilns themselves have been dismantled, but the ground still contains an extensive brick deposit. A similar situation exists on the opposite shore of the Wando River at Nelliefield Creek. The most important permanent changes were those along the shore and the clay pit wetlands. All of the observed brickyard sites contain extensive shoreline deposits; aerial photographs and site visits indicate that all contain clay pits distinguished by their geometric shapes, steep sides, and clustered pattern. While these changes have been beneficial in terms of promoting habitat diversity, they are a problem for developers. Modification or restoration of these shoreline deposits and extensive freshwater wetlands is presently severely restricted by both logistics and coastal regulations. Thus the actions of the brickmakers have left an essentially permanent mark on the landscape. These landscape changes provide a statement of cultural identity for the brickmakers (Deetz 1990:2); they are a testimony to the credo of exploitation of the environment for a profit. The extent of the alterations in essence defines the level of success of the industry--the larger and longer-lasting

PAGE 134

120 the brickyard, the greater the impact on the natural environment.

PAGE 135

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS So, in creating a landscape through making it useful to them, the settlers at the same time were making a powerful cultural statement, latently symbolic, that impresses to this day (Deetz 1990:1). The Role of Brickmaking in the Lowcountry This study uses the research approach of landscape archaeology to examine and document the role of brickmaking within the Wanda River basin of South Carolina. Landscape archaeology is an approach which looks not only at why humans occupy a specific site or region, but also at how they modify the landscape to fit their own cultural pattern, and in turn, how these modifications affect the landscape through time. As Deetz says: People, then, use the landscape, shaped in a planned and ordered manner, for purposes ranging from food production through formal design of the environment to the more or less explicit statement of their position in the world (Deetz 1990:3). Landscape archaeology looks beyond the individual artifact or feature to the entire site or even to groups of sites. This dissertation combines historic and archaeological research with analysis of the environmental characteristics of the region to meet its objectives and look at this specific group of sites in terms of: 121

PAGE 136

122 1. The brickmakers' perception of the environment; 2. How the environment influenced adaptation and how these adaptations in turn affected the environment; 3. The technologies or processes which were employed by the brickmakers in order to exploit the available resources; 4. The role of the marketplace and the location of the property with respect to that market; 5. The historic events which affected activities within this region; and 6. The interrelationship between the sites. The European colonists perceived the New World in terms of commodities (Cronon 1983:166). They began almost immediately to catalog the resources available and devise ways to exploit those resources. The clay deposits in the South Carolina Lowcountry were identified at an early date as being suitable for brickmaking (Lawson 1709; Carroll 1836:12). Because there was a perception that the land was vast and the resources limitless, little concern was given to the affects of environmental exploitation. The land was something to be mastered and altered to suit a cultural mindset (Cronon 1983:169). The process of adaptation was influenced by both environmental and historic factors. Indigo, rice, and cotton were the major cash crops of the South Carolina Lowcountry; the Wando River basin did not lend itself to production of any of these commodities at a profitable level. What it did have in abundance was clay, wood for

PAGE 137

123 fuel, slave labor, and access to a market. Location was critical to development of the brickmaking industry in this region and is the key to the interrelationship between these sites. Brickmaking has been documented throughout the southeastern United States, but it is often limited to production of small quantities of brick for on-site consumption (cf. Sheldon n.d.). It was proximity to the urban center of Charleston and that city's demand for fireproof construction materials that provided the impetus for the development of the brickmaking industry in the Lowcountry. It is clear from examination of the brickyard sites that they were placed to provide access to the river so that the product could be efficiently transported to Charleston. Further, there is little evidence for extensive use of bricks on the plantations which contain brickyards; certainly not at the scale at which brickmaking was conducted in this region. Between 1740 and 1860, there were over 60 brickmakers operating in the vicinity of Charleston, almost half of them on the Wando River or its tributaries. Each brickmaker produced thousands of marketable bricks in a year, most of which went to the City for construction of houses, churches, commercial buildings, and fortifications. In some cases this production represented a third or more of the yearly income of the plantations, surpassing the

PAGE 138

124 Lowcountry cash crop staple of rice in Christ Church Parish. Unlike agriculture, brickmaking was not subject to the problems of fertility, disease, or insect infestation, and only rarely to the effects of weather. The technology employed for this industry was basic and required a relatively low level of manpower and technical skills. Brickmaking as practiced in this region consisted primarily of manual excavation of clay, hand molding of the bricks, and firing the product in a simple kiln which was constructed of the bricks to be fired. It was not until the latter years of the brickmaking era that mechanization was utilized, and then only at the larger brickyards such as Boone Hall. The low level of technology, lack of mechanization, and heavy reliance on manual labor were important factors in the demise of brickmaking in this region. Brickmaking was conducted by slaves. The Civil War not only brought financial ruin and physical devastation to the Lowcountry, it ended slave labor. Without this cheap labor source and without mechanization, the brickmakers could not compete with brickmaking operations using machine-molding and continuous kilns. Even the low cost water transportation would be supplanted by the railroads. After 1865, brickmaking was essentially abandoned in this region and shifted to the Piedmont region of the state with its abundant, high quality clay resources.

PAGE 139

125 This industry did leave an indelible mark on the region. Perhaps it can be said that 'the handy work of Man has insted [sic] of improving destroy'd the works of Nature and made it a detestable place' (Cowdrey 1983:67). Brickmaking certainly altered the vegetation, the topography, the drainage, and even the topsoil within the production areas. As Mrozowski and Beaudry (1990:190) state: Very often human action can be the mechanism that sets in motion ecological processes, such as succession, in an environment like the urban garden--processes generated and controlled by people. Brickmaking is a classic example of man's exploitation of the natural resources without regard to the long-term effects of that exploitation. Brickmaking altered the landscape through the very nature of the process. It was essentially an extractive process; in these low-lying lands, such extraction inevitably left water-filled basins which were subject to natural succession. In addition, the process, as practiced during the period and in this region, resulted in a large volume of non-saleable goods. The practical brickmakers used these wasters to further alter the natural landscape to benefit their activities by building up the shorelines and filling in the low-lying areas surrounding the production centers.

PAGE 140

126 The processes of succession are not complete at the brickyards of the Wando River basin. As Lewis said, the interaction between man and his environment is a process of continual evolution (Lewis 1991). Today the brickyards are subject not only to natural succession, but also to a new generation of man-made effects. While abandoned brickyards slowly decay through the effects of wind, water, and vegetation, the growth of the nearby urban area may bring a sudden and final end to their presence in the basin. Future Research Directions The clock is running for a large proportion of the 23 or more brickyard sites in the Wando River basin. Growth and development in the region surrounding Charleston are increasing. The impending opening of the new Mark Clark Expressway will provide access to areas of Berkeley County which have previously been relatively inaccessible. The Wando Neck in Charleston County has already experienced extensive growth; with the new highway this will only increase. Several major residential and commercial developments are already in progress or in the planning stages at this time. All are located on the old plantation properties; many contain brickyard sites. Legal restrictions on development of historic or archaeological sites are limited. The only effective existing regulations are those which exist under the coastal zone management laws. Often, these regulations apply only

PAGE 141

127 to major developments; individual properties can usually be altered without restriction except in the case of wetlands or waterfront activities. Although the wetlands on the old brickyard sites are the most pervasive and best protected feature, they are not the most significant in terms of archaeological or historic research. Future research at these sites must focus on the adjacent uplands. This research should follow a program which has specific goals and priorities. Deetz says the cultural landscape is the largest and most pervasive artifact with which ... archaeologists must deal, yet much remains to be done, and much thinking about the ways to do it must be indulged (Deetz 1990:4). The following recommendations are an initial step towards dealing with the landscape of brickmaking. These recommendations are based on the results of this study as well as visits to many of the sites. The first objective should be identification and documentation. Although many of these sites are known and readily observable from the water, the majority have not been officially recorded for the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. Given the number of sites and the regional distribution, it may be appropriate to establish a project to record all of the basin's brickyards at one time. This would facilitate evaluation of the condition, research potential, and significance of the sites

PAGE 142

128 by providing a complete set of comparative data on a regional basis. Documentation should minimally include delineation of the site size and identification of apparent features such as kilns, clay pits, landings, clay or sand piles, and particularly associated worker housing areas. It should be noted that, while housing was located in the vicinity of the brickyards, it may not have been immediately adjacent to the production areas. Site plans and photographs of major features should be included in the documentation. A title search sufficient to identify the probable brickmaker should be completed for each site. The second objective should be an evaluation of which sites merit future protection or research in terms of significance and eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The archaeological excavation of brickmaking operations may not be particularly interesting or rewarding. In many cases, the only result is documentation of the kiln construction. It may be appropriate, however, to excavate at least a sample of the better preserved sites, particularly those threatened by development. The research goals of this excavation would be to: (1) determine the type of kiln utilized; (2) determine the size of the kiln in order to estimate the possible production volume; (3) identify details of the operation such as the type of wood used for firing and the nature of

PAGE 143

129 the structures associated with the kiln; and (4) obtain appropriate samples for technological analysis of the bricks to address questions concerning the sources of bricks for specific structures in the Charleston historic district The final objective centers on the question of interpretation. Brickmaking was an important and vital industry in the Lowcountry. At this time, it is also a little known industry. It would be very appropriate to utilize a well-preserved brickyard site as an interpretative tool to inform the public of the role of this industry in the region, as well as the role of the African-Americans who actually produced the thousands of bricks. In addition, Charleston is a major center for historic tourism; the presence of an historic industrial site near the city could provide a source of funding for long-term management of the resource. Selection of the site should be based on its integrity and its potential for interpretation. Accessibility is also a factor. Although it is possible that one of the large developments which contains a brickyard site might be persuaded to pursue interpretation, it may be more appropriate for a local or state agency or organization to acquire a site for that purpose. Development of an interpretative site would warrant archaeological study of the site as well as possible reconstruction of the facilities, particularly the kiln.

PAGE 144

130 Colonial Williamsburg has very successfully established a demonstration brickyard as one of their interpretative features (Weldon 1990a; 1990b). Such a living history demonstration could be very effective at a historic brickyard site in the Wando region. The historic brickyards of the Wando River basin are an excellent example of a regional response to a market demand as well as evidence of the diversity of the southern plantation system. They provide strong evidence of the close ties between the planters of this region and the nearby city of Charleston. They also provide an example of the adaptive response of man to the environment in which he finds himself and the effects of this adaptation on the landscape itself. They form a regional historic resource which should not be ignored or lost without a record.

PAGE 145

REFERENCES CITED Adams, William Hampton 1987 Plantation Archaeology: An Overview. In Historical Archaeology of Plantations at Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia, William Hampton Adams, editor, pp. 9-22 Reports of Investigations 5, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Act of Assembly 1740 South Carolina Gazette. Notice. Advertisement for Overseer 1770 South Carolina Gazette. Placed by John Moore August 14, 1770. Advertisements for Sale of Bricks 1745 South Carolina Gazette. Alexander van der Dussen, July 1, 1745. 1749a South Carolina Gazette. Benjamin Mazyck, February 15, 1749. 1749c South Carolina Gazette. John Hutchins, 1749. Advertisements for Sale of Lands 1741 South Carolina Gazette. Lands of John Laurens, July 16, 1741. 1742a South Carolina Gazette. Lands of Lionel Chalmers, June 14, 1742. 1742b South Carolina Gazette. Lands of Elizabeth Hill, February 20, 1742. 1746a South Carolina Gazette. Lands of Samuel Warnock, October 11, 1746. 1746b South Carolina Gazette. Lands of Mrs. Lynch, February 1, 1746. 1747a South Carolina Gazette. Lands of William Bruce, March 2, 1747. 131

PAGE 146

132 1747b South Carolina Gazette. Lands of James Sandeford, December 14, 1747. 1747c South Carolina Gazette. Lands of John Cockfield, October 17, 1747. 1748 South Carolina Gazette. Lands of Deborah Fisher, November 21, 1748. 1749b South Carolina Gazette. Lands of Richard Lake, January 20, 1749. 1766 South Carolina Gazette. Lands of John Daniel, October 2, 1766. 1778 South Carolina Gazette. Lands and bricks of Samuel Elliott, August 27, 1778. Appleton, D. 1852 Dictionary of Machines, Mechanics, Enoine-Work and Engineering. D. Appleton, New York, NY. Atkinson, James R. and Jack D. Elliott, Jr. 1978 Nance's Ferry: A 19th Century Brick and Lime Making Site. Department of Anthropology, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS. Baldwin, William P., Jr. and Agnes L. Baldwin 1985 Plantations of the Low Country. Legacy Publications, Greensboro, NC. Beall, Christine A. 1984 Masonry Design and Detailing. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Beard, David V. 1990 Reconnaissance Survey Report: Underwater Archaeological Investigations of the Lexington Plantation Kiln Site Causeway in Wagner Creek, Charleston County, South Carolina. Ms. on file, South Carolina Coastal Council, Charleston, SC. Berkeley, Edmund and Dorothy Smith Berkeley 1982 The Life and Travels of John Bartram. University Presses of Florida, Tallahassee. Brick Machines 1797 City Gazette and Daily Advertiser. Advertisement, March 11, 1797.

PAGE 147

133 Buie, B. F. 1949 Industrial Minerals and Rocks. In South Carolina Raw Materials, H. E. Shiver, B. F. Buie, Inman F. Eldridge. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Cahn, Robert 1978 Footprints on the Planet: A Search for an Environmental Ethic. Universe Books, New York, NY. Capers & Huger 1849 List of 72 Rice Field Negroes. William Ravenel Papers, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Carroll, Bartholomew Rivers, compiler 1836 Historical Collections of South Carolina. Harper & Bros., New York, NY. Chambers, E. 1728 Cyclopaedia: or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. J. and J. Knapton, London, England. Commissioners of Fortifications 1755-70 Journal of the Commissioners of Fortifications. Cited in research notes of Harriet Stoney Simons. Ms. on file, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Council of Safety 1903 Papers of the Second Council of Safety of the Revolutionary Party in South Carolina, November 1775March 1776. South Carolina Historical and Geneological Magazine 4(1) :13-25. Courtenay, James 1828 Lexington, The Property of A. Mccrady Plat Map Collection 6137. Conveyance, Charleston County, SC. Cowdrey, Albert E. s. Willington, Esq. Register of Mesne 1983 This Land, This South: An Environmental History. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Crary, Albert E. 1889 An Incredible Feat: 25,000 Bricks in One Day by One Molder. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Convention of the National Brick Manufacturers Association, Philadelphia, PA. Ms. on file at P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

PAGE 148

134 Cronon, William 1983 Changes in the Land: Indians. Colonists. and the Ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York, NY. Crumley, Carole L. 1991 Panel Discussion South Carolina Historic Landscapes Symposium, Sept. 13, 1991, Columbia, SC. Deetz, James 1990 Prologue: Earth Patterns: William M. Kelso University Press Landscapes as Cultural Statements. Essays in Landscape Archaeology, and Rachel Most, editors, pp. 1-4. of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. DesJean Torn and Karen Clark In 1990 A History of Southern Clay Manufacturing Company at Robbins, Tennessee. Report on file, U. s. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, TN Diamond, John 1823 The Plat of 500 Acres of High Land in st. Thomas Parish, Formerly Called Addison's Ferry. Mccrady Plat Map Collection 4353. Register of Mesne Conveyance, Charleston County, SC. Dobson, Edward 1850 A Rudimentary Treatise on the Manufacture of Bricks and Tiles; Containing an Outline of the Principles of Brickrnaking, and Detailed Accounts of the Various Processes Employed in the Making of Bricks and Tiles in Different Parts of England. 1971 reprint, edited by Francis Celoria. Journal of Ceramic History 5. George Street Press, Stafford, England Eaton, Clement 1966 A History of the Old South. The Macmillan Company, New York, NY. Edgar, Walter B., editor 1972 The Letterbook of Robert Pringle, Volume II. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Edgar, Walter B. and N. Louise Bailey, editors 1977 Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives. Volume 2. The Commons House of Assembly. 1692-1775 University of South Carolina Press, Columbia SC. Elfe, Thomas 1775 Account Book. South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC.

PAGE 149

135 Espenshade, Christopher T. and Ramona Grunden 1991 Archaeological Survey of the Brickyard Plantation Tract, Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Genovese, Eugene D. 1962 The Significance Economic Development. 28:422-437. of the Plantation for Southern Journal of Southern History Graham, Frank D. and Thomas J. Emery 1945 Audel's Masons and Builders Guide #1. Theo. Audel & Co.--Publishers, New York, NY. Graves, Charles 1854-55 Plantation diary. Planter, Prince William Parish, Granville County, SC. Ms. on file, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Green, Stanton W. 1991 Panel Discussion. South Carolina Historic Landscapes Symposium, Sept. 13, 1991, Columbia, sc. Gregorie, Anne King, editor 1950 Records of the Court of Chancery of South Carolina, 1671-1729. The American Historical Association, Washington, DC. Gurcke, Karl 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking. University of Idaho Press, Moscow. Harrington, J. c. 1950 Seventeenth Century Brickmaking and Tilemaking at Jamestown, Virginia. The Virainia Magazine of History and Biography 58(1):16-39. Hilligan, Jacob C. 1790 The Charleston Directory and Revenue System. T. B. Bowen, Charleston, SC. Hollings, Marie F. 1978 Brickwork of Charleston to 1780. M.A. thesis, Department of History, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. Horlbeck Brothers 1770 Papers. Cited in Research Notes of Harriet Stoney Simons. Collections of the South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC.

PAGE 150

136 1856-75 Day Book. Ms. on file, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Huger, Sarah E. 1812 Letter to Mrs. Daniel Horry. Pinckney-Lowndes Papers, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Irving, John B., M.D. 1932 A Day on the Cooper River. 1969 reprint. R. L. Bryn Co., Columbia, SC. Johnson, Henry S., Jr. and S. Duncan Heron, Jr. 1965 Brick Raw Material Resources of South Carolina. Geologic Notes 9(3) :45-52. Jones, Thomas 1844 Survey map of Parker Island. Microfilm on file, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, SC. Joseph, J. W. 1989 Pattern and Process in the Plantation Archaeology of the Lowcountry of Georgia and South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 23(1) :55-68. Lawson, John 1709 A New Voyage to the Carolinas. 1967 edition. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Lewis, Kenneth E. 1991 Panel Discussion. South Carolina Historic Landscapes Symposium, Sept. 13, 1991, Columbia, SC. Links in a Chain 1991 News & Courier. September 11, 1991. Charleston, SC. Lloyd, Nathaniel 1925 A History of English Brickwork. H. Greville Montgomery, London, England. McElligott, Carroll Ainsworth 1989 Charleston Residents 1782-1794. Heritage Books, Inc., Bowie, MD. McKee, Harley J. 1976 Brick and Stone: Handicraft to Machine. In Building Early America, Charles E. Peterson, editor, pp. 74-84. Chilton Book Company, Radnor, PA.

PAGE 151

137 Mears & Turnbull, compilers 1859 The Charleston Directory. Walker Evans & Co., Printers, Charleston, SC. Mrozowski, Stephen A. and Mary C. Beaudry 1990 Archaeology and the Landscape of Corporate Ideology. In Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology, William M. Kelso and Rachel Most, editors, pp. 189-208. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Neve, Richard 1726 The City and County Purchaser's and Builder's Dictionary: or the Complete Builder's Guide. 1969 reprint. Augustus M. Kelley, Publishers, New York, NY. Noel Hume, Ivor 1975 Historical Archaeology. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, NY. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 1984 The Past Ten Years of Plantation Archaeology in the Southeastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1) :1-12. 1989 On Plantations and Patterns. Historical Archaeology 23(2) :28-40. Payne, Robert 1857 Plan of a Part of Elm Grove Plantation Situate on the South Side of Wando River, Christ Church Parish. Deed Book A, Page 145, Records of Mesne Conveyance, Charleston County, SC. Perkerson, Medora Field 1952 White Columns of Georgia. Rinehart, New York. Porcher, Anne Allston, editor 1944 Minutes of the Vestry of St. Stephen's Parish, South Carolina. The South Carolina Historical and Geneological Magazine 45:157-172. Prunty, Merle, Jr. 1955 The Renaissance of the Southern Plantation. The Geographic Review 65(4) :459-491. Ramey & Hughes 1839 Ledgers. Carters, brickmakers, and farmers, Pottersville, SC. Ms. on file, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC.

PAGE 152

138 Rauschenberg, Bradford L. 1991 Brick and Tile Manufacturing in the South Carolina Low Country, 1750-1800. Journal of Southern Decorative Arts 17(2) :103-113. Ravenel, Edmund 1835 Notes Relating to the Purchase of the Grove Plantation in St. Thomas's from Col. John Gordon, Feby 1835. William Ravenel Papers, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Rhodes, Daniel 1968 Kilns Design. Construction. and Operation. Chilton Book Company, Philadelphia, PA. Robinson, Gilbert C. and H. s. Johnson, Jr. 1960 Brick Clays of Medway Plantation, Berkeley County, SC. Geologic Notes 4(20):8-18. Rogers, George C., Jr., editor 1974 The Papers of Henry Laurens. 1763-1765, Volume IV. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Salley, A. S Jr. 1911 Letters of Thomas Newe, 1682. Narratives of Early Carolina. C. Scribner's Sons, New York, NY. Sandifer, Paul A John V. Miglarese, Dale R. Calder, John J. Manzi, and Lee A Barclay 1980 Ecological Characterization of the Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia. Volume III: Biological Features of the Characterization Area. Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, SC. Saylor, Henry H. 1943 Brick--An Appreciation. In Principles of Brick Engineering, Harry C. Plummer and Leslie J. Reardon, pp. 8-10. Structural Clay Products Institute, Washington, DC. scardaville, Michael 1985 II. Historical Background. In Rural Settlement in the Charleston Bay Area: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Sites in the Mark Clark Expressway Corridor, Paul Brockington, Michael Scardaville, Patrick H. Garrow, David Singer, Linda France, and Cheryl Holt, pp. 24-78. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.

PAGE 153

139 Shapiro, Gary and James J. Miller 1990 The Seventeenth-Century Landscape of San Luis de Talimali: Three Scales of Analysis. In Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology, William M. Kelso and Rachel Most, editors, pp. 89-101. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Sheldon, Elizabeth n.d. Field notes, brick kiln excavations, Alabama. Ms. on file, Site, Inc., Wetumpka, AL. Shelford, Victor E. 1974 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. Simons, Harriett Stoney n.d. Research notes. Ms. on file, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. 1934 Brick in Provincial South Carolina, with Particular Reference to the Period 1740-1750. Ms. on file, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Singleton, Theresa A. 1985 The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL. Smith, Julia Floyd 1985 Slavery and Rice Culture in Low Country Georgia, 1750-1860. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. South, Stanley 1963 Exploratory Excavation of a Brick Kiln at Town Creek, Brunswick County, NC. Ms. on file, North Carolina State Dept. of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC. South Carolina Court of Common Pleas (SCCCP) 1798 Judgment Rolls 657a. South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, SC. South Carolina Dept. of Highways & Public Transportation (SCDHPT) 1978a General Highway Map, Berkeley County, South Carolina. Columbia, SC. 1978b General Highway Map, Charleston County, South Carolina. Columbia, SC.

PAGE 154

140 Southerlin, B. G., Christopher T. Espenshade and Paul E. Brockington, Jr. 1988 Archaeological Survey of Parker Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Atlanta, GA. Steen, Carl 1991 A Report on the 1989-1990 Excavations on the Bassett Hall Woods Golf Course Tract. Ms. on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA. Stoney, John 1852 Overseer's Day Book for Medway Plantation, Berkeley County. Stoney Family Papers, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Stoney, Louisa Cheves 1932 Introduction. In A Dav B. Irving, M.D., pp. xiv-xv. Co., Columbia, SC. Stoney, Samuel Gaillard on the Cooper River, John 1969 reprint. R. L. Bryn 1938 Plantations of the Carolina Low Country. Carolina Art Association, Charleston, SC. Stoney, Samuel Gaillard and Henry P. Staats n.d. Comments on Old Charleston Brickwork. Ms. prepared for Historic Charleston Foundation and the Southern Brick & Tile Manufacturers Association. Ms. on file, Historic Charleston Foundation, Charleston, SC. Swan, Dale Evans 1975 The Structure and Profitability of the Antebellum Rice Industry 1859. Dissertations in American Economic History, Arno Press, New York, NY. Toomer, Anthony 1783-85 Plantation Accounts of Anthony Toomer, Esq. Vanderhorst Collections, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Trindell, Roger T. 1968 Building in Brick in Early America. The Geographical Review 58(3):484-487. Trinkley, Michael 1987 An Archaeological Survey of Longpoint Development: Charleston County, South Carolina: Palmetto Grove Plantation. Chicora Foundation, Inc. Research Series 8, Columbia, SC.

PAGE 155

141 U. S. Census 1850 Products of Industry in the County of Charleston. Census of Manufactures Schedule 5. Microfilm on file, South Carolina Archives, Columbia, SC. U. s. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1941 Aerial photograph CDV-3A-77. Original on file, Dunes West, Mt. Pleasant, SC. 1971 Soil Survey of Charleston County. South Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, Charleston, SC. 1980 Soil Survey of Berkeley County. South Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, Charleston, SC. U. S. Geological Survey 1971 Fort Moultrie, South Carolina 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map. Upton, Dell 1990 Imagining the Early Virginia Landscape. Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology, Kelso and Rachel Most, editors, pp. 71-86. Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Ure, Andrew In Earth William M. University 1840 Dictionary of Arts. Manufacture. and Mines. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Logrnans, London, England. Vanderhorst, Arnoldus 1780 Losses of Arnoldus Vanderhorst by the British. Vanderhorst Collections, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, SC. Watts, J. 1979 Site survey records, Francis Marion National Forest. Forms on file, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, McClellanville, SC. Wayne, Lucy B. 1989 Field notes, archaeological survey, Dunes West, Charleston County, SC. Ms. on file, SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville, FL. Wayne, Lucy B. and Martin F. Dickinson 1989 Archaeological Survey. Dunes West Development. Charleston County. SC. Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc., Gainesville, FL.

PAGE 156

142 1990 Four Men's Ramble: Archaeology in the Wando Neck. Charleston County. South Carolina. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville, FL. Weldon, Bill 1990a The Arts and Mysteries of the Colonial Brickmaker. Colonial Williamsburg. The Journal of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation 12(4):7-15. 1990b The Brickmaker's Year. The Colonial Williamsburg Historic Trades Annual 2:1-40. Wheaton, Thomas R., Jr., Mary Beth Reed and Mary Elizabeth Gantt 1987 The Jimmie Green Lime Kiln Site. Berkeley County. South Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Atlanta, GA. Wilson, John 1819 Plat of Plantation Situated on Wando River and in Christ Church Parish and Belonging to James Gregorie. Mccrady Plat Map Collection 6091. Records of Mesne Conveyance, Charleston County, SC. Winberry, John J. 1991 Panel Discussion. South Carolina Historic Landscapes Symposium, Sept. 13, 1991, Columbia, SC. Zierdan, Martha 1981 Preliminary Management Report: Archaeological Survey of Compartment 117, Francis Marion National Forest. Ms. on file, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Columbia, SC. 1986 The Rural-Urban Connection in the Lowcountry. South Carolina Antiquities 18(1-2) :33-40.

PAGE 157

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lucy Bowles Wayne was born in Virginia in 1947. After attending schools throughout the country as the child of an Air Force father, she graduated from Robert E. Lee High School in Staunton, Virginia, in 1965. Four years later, she received a Bachelor of Arts in art history from Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia. After marriage, six years of working, and two children, Lucy returned to graduate school at the University of Florida. In 1981, she received a Master of Arts in anthropology, specializing in archaeology. Since completing this degree, Lucy has worked as a consulting archaeologist and is co owner of a firm specializing in archaeological and historical studies. 143

PAGE 158

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adeq t, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of ilosophy. Earl M. s~ rnes, Chair Professor of Urban and Regional Planning I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degre GO h y _ Susan D. Tate Associate Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Associate Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ka ,~ i :J ~o/ tr\ Professor of Anthropology This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Architecture and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May, 1992 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 159

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA I I I II IIIIII Ill I l l lllll l llll I I IIIIII I III II lll l 1 11111 1 111111111111 3 1262 08556 7138


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ERPO9NRIZ_OQDPCK INGEST_TIME 2011-08-09T16:03:26Z PACKAGE AA00002096_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES