Group Title: antebellum barrier island plantation
Title: The antebellum barrier island plantation
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102860/00001
 Material Information
Title: The antebellum barrier island plantation
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Moore, Sue Mullins, 1954-
Copyright Date: 1981
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00102860
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - ABS1298
oclc - 07827154

Full Text


















THE ANTEBELLUM BARRIER ISLAND
PLANTATION: IN SEARCH OF AN
ARCHEOLOGICAL PATTERN









BY

SUE MULLINS MOORE


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1981



























Copyright 1981

by

Sue Mullins Moore















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This project would not have been possible without the

help and counsel of a number of people. I am particu-

larly thankful to Sea Island Foundation, which provided

not only monetary support but needed administrative and

technical assistance. I would especially thank Mr. J.D.

Benefield and Mrs. Barbara Otter. Georgia Department of

Natural Resources was our other sponsoring agency as

administrator of National Register matching funds. I

wish to thank them also.

Extensive archival work was carried out at the

Historical Society of Pennsylvania Library in Philadel-

phia, where the Butler documents are housed. I would

like to thank the staff for their extensive cooperation

and for allowing me the use of all the information.

Other archival work was done at the Georgia Historical

Society Library in Savannah; the Margaret Davis Cate

photographs are used by permission of the Society. Ann

Shellander of the Coastal History Museum on St. Simon's

also provided necessary documentary data.

The project was fortunate enough to have input from

John Anthony Scott, the editor of Fanny Kemble's journal.

I am extremely grateful for his kindness and advice.


iii










Spring 1979 field excavation labor was provided

by the University of Florida field school. I would

like to thank Beth Bennett, Dee Daugherty, Helen Doney,

Patricia Fort, Pat Gleason, Jeff Johnson, Keith McIntyre,

Tim Moore, and Jean Wollenberg. The winter 1979 survey

crew and fall 1979 excavation crew consisted of Susan

Harris, Tom DesJean and Barry Hart. Their diligence

was truly remarkable and I cannot thank them enough.

Laboratory assistance was provided by Pat Gleason. Her

aid was invaluable.

Dr. Elizabeth Wing was kind enough to allow me the

use of the Zooarcheology Collection at the Florida State

Museum. Her patience saw me through the long months of

faunal analysis, and her input has been much valued.

I would also like to thank Lydia Deakin, formerly

of the Anthropology Department, for her assistance with

the inevitable administrative problems that arose, and

for seeing me through most of my graduate career.

My colleagues, Chad Braley, Jennifer Hamilton, and

Theresa Singleton, provided me with valuable input from

their own researches, and I am very grateful to them.

I would particularly like to thank Theresa for sharing

data (and commiserations) on the Butler documents.

I would like to thank the members of my committee,

Dr. Edward S. Deevey, Dr. John K. Mahon, Dr. Jerald T.











Milanich, and Dr. Prudence Rice. Their input and patience

has been appreciated.

For my entire graduate career I have had a mentor

and friend in Dr. Charles Fairbanks. I know of no way

to properly thank him for his time and support. He has

been an inspiration throughout my work.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, James and

Mary Mullins, who saw me through this, and my husband

Tim, who married me knowing I had a dissertation to write.

He has been my critic and support during this passage.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............. .................... iii

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

LIST OF FIGURES ................................... xii

ABSTRACT ............................................ xvi

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES ................. 1

Research Area ................................ 2
Pattern Recognition in Historical Archeolo-
gy ........................................ 5
Status on the Southern Plantation Social
and Economic ............................ 9
Hypotheses and Research Design ........... 10
Other Proposed Areas of Study .......... 12
Hypotheses ................................ 14
Project Sites ........................... 16
Project Methodology ..................... 20

2. COMPARATIVE RESEARCH ........................ 30

Kingsley .................................... 30
Rayfield .................................... 34
Cannon's Point ................................ 35
Butler Island .............................. 41
Other Sites ................................. 45

3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....................... 50

The Barrier Island Cotton Plantation ...... 52
Comparison to Other Plantation Systems .... 57
Pike's Bluff .................................. 59
Sinclair .................................... 63
Butler Estate ............................... 68
Family History .......................... 68
Property History ...................... 71
Hampton Plantation .................... 72
Main Complex ...... .................. 72
Overseer's House .................... 75














Jones ................................. 76
St. Annie's .......................... 76
Production and Management on the Butler
Estate ................................ 80

4. SITE DATA ..................................... 104


Pike's Bluff ..............................
Kitchen Group Artifacts Ceramics ....
Kitchen Artifact Group Alcoholic
and Pharmaceutical Bottles ..........
Kitchen Artifact Group Food Prepara-
tion and Consumption ................
Architectural Artifact Group ..........
Activities Group ......................
Clothing Group ........................
Personal Group ........................
Tobacco Pipe Group ....................
Faunal Group ..........................
Summary ...............................
Sinclair ..................................
Kitchen Artifact Group Ceramics.....
Kitchen Artifact Group Pharmaceutical
Bottles .............................
Kitchen Artifact Group Food Prepara-
tion and Consumption ................
Architectural Artifact Group ..........
Activities Group ......................


Cabin 4.............
Tool/Storage Shed.
Road (342N,405E)...
422N,418E.........
430N,414E.........
409N382E...........
438N,421E...........
Well..............
Well ..............


Furniture Group ....
Clothing Group .....
Personal Group .....
Tobacco Pipe Group .
Faunal Group .......
Summary ............
Jones Creek Settlement
Jones Excavations -
Jones Excavations -
Jones Excavations -
Jones Excavations -
Jones Excavations -
Jones Excavations -
Jones Excavations -
Jones Excavations -


Jones Excavations Cotton Barn .......
Kitchen Artifact Group Ceramics .....
Kitchen Group Artifacts Pharmaceu-
tical Bottles .......................
Kitchen Artifacts Food Consumption
and Preparation .....................


104
106

109

109
110
111
111
112
112
113
114
114
153

155

156
157
157
158
158
159
160
161
162
163
205
207
208
209
210
210
211
212
212
214

216

218


vii


Page


CHAPTER












CHAPTER Page

Architectural Group .................. 219
Activities Group ...................... 220
Arms Group ............................ 221
Clothing Group ....................... 221
Personal Group ........................ 223
Tobacco Group ......................... 225
Faunal Group .. ....................... 226
Summary .............................. 228

5. HYPOTHESES AND PATTERNS ..................... 305

Kitchen Artifact Group ................... 307
Architecture Group ........................ 313
Artifacts ............................ 313
Housing Differences .................. 314
Activities, Arms, Clothing, Personal,
Tobacco ................................ 316
Faunal Group ............................. 317
Discussion of Hypotheses ................. 322
Hypothesis 1 ... ....................... 322
Hypothesis 2 ... ...................... 324
Hypothesis 3 ..... ..................... 325

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................... 341

APPENDIX: COMMON NAMES FOR DISCUSSED FAUNAL
SPECIES ...................................... 345

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REFERENCES ................. 348

REFERENCES CITED .... ............................ 349

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......... ....................... 362


viii

















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. A Comparison Of Artifact Profiles ............ 24

2. Computer Program Format ....................... 25

3. Biomass Formula And Constants ................. 28

4. Kingsley Ceramic Data ......................... 48

5. Statistics For Large Plantations In Louisiana 86

6. Pike's Bluff Documentary Data ................. 87

7. Probate Inventory Thomas F. Hazzard ........ 88

8. Sinclair Documentary Data .................... 90

9. Butler Estate Documentary Data ................ 91

10. Butler Estate 1815 Inventory ................ 93

11. Butler Estate Births and Deaths of Slaves ... 94

12. Butler Estate Slave Census Data ............ 95

13. Pike's Bluff Ceramic Totals ................ 115

14. Pike's Bluff Ceramic Form Data .............. 117

15. Pike's Bluff Ceramic Form Data By Type ...... 118

16. Pike's Bluff Faunal Data ................... 119

17. Pike's Bluff Faunal Data Test Squares A & B 121

18. Pike's Bluff Faunal Data Test Square C ...... 122

19. Pike's Bluff Faunal Data Test Square D ...... 123

20. Pike's Bluff Faunal Data Test Square E ...... 124

21. Pike's Bluff Artifact Profile ................ 125












Table

22. Sinclair

23. Sinclair

24. Sinclair

25. Sinclair

26. Sinclair

27. Sinclair

28. Sinclair

29. Sinclair

30. Sinclair


- Ceramic

- Ceramic

- Ceramic

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

Artifact


STotals ....................

Form Data .................

Form Data By Type .........

Data .......................

Data Kitchen Area ..........

Data Test Squares B,C,D, & E

Data Domestic Slave House ..

Data Main House ............

Profile ....................


31. Jones Ceramic Data ...........................


32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.


Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones


- Ceramic Form Data By Type ............

- Ceramic Form Data ....................


- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal

- Faunal


Data

Data

Data

Data

Data

Data

Data

Data

Data

Data

Data


Cabin 4 ..................

Cabin 4 North ............

Cabin 4 South ............

Tool/Storage Shed ........

Road Area ................

422N,418E ................

Cabin 2 ..................

430N,414E ................

409N,382E ................

438N,421E ................


45. Jones Faunal Data Well .....................


Page

164

166

167

168

171

173

174

175

176

230

233

234

235

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247












Table Page

46. Jones Artifact Profile ....................... 248

47. Comparison Of Artifact Profiles ............. 327

48. Comparison Of % Of Annular And Transfer
Printed Wares On Coastal Sites ............. 329

49. Comparison Of Sites By Ceramic Pricing Levels 330

50. Comparison Of Sites By Ceramic Form .......... 331

51. Comparison Of Sites By Housing Differences ... 332

52. Faunal Data Cannon's Point Planter ......... 333

53. Faunal Data Cannon's Point Overseer ........ 335

54. Faunal Data Cannon's Point North Slave Cabin 337

55. Comparative Domestic and Non-Domestic Animal
Use ........................................ 339


















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

1. Site Location Map .............................

2. Georgia And Florida Plantation Sites ..........

3. 1939 Photograph Of Slave Duplex At Hampton
Point .......................................

4. 1939 Photograph Of Slave Duplex At Hampton
Point Interior ............................

5. Main Plantation Complex Hampton Point
Subsidiary Structure ........................

6. Overseer's House Ruins Hampton Point ........

7. Pike's Bluff Site Plan ........................


Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff

Bluff


Main House Hearth Base ...........

Main House Hearth Base ...........

Privy ............................

Privy ............................

Privy Profile ....................

Privy Plan .......................

- Bung ...........................

- Transfer Printed Ceramics ......

- Transfer Printed Ceramics......

- Ceramics .......................

- Ceramics .......................

- Metal Artifacts ................

- Metal Artifacts ................


Page

29

49


97


99


101

103

126

128

129

131

133

134

135

137

138

139

141

143

145

147


8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.


Pike' s

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's

Pike's












Figure Page

21. Pike's Bluff Astrolabe ..................... 148

22. Pike's Bluff Bone Artifacts ............... 150

23. Sinclair Main House Plan .................... 177


24. Sinclair Main House Ruins ....................

25. Sinclair Main House Ruins ....................

26. Sinclair McIntosh Graves ...................

27. Sinclair McIntosh Graves ...................

28. Sinclair Site Plan ... ........................

29. Sinclair Test Squares B,C,D, & E Slope Area

30. Sinclair Kitchen Midden ......................

31. Sinclair Probable Slave House ................

32. Sinclair Ceramics ..........................

33. Sinclair Pharmaceutical Bottles ............

34. Sinclair Metal Artifacts ...................

35. Sinclair Bone Artifacts ....................

36. Sinclair Metal Artifacts ...................

37. Sinclair Clothing And Tobacco Artifacts ....

38. Sinclair Broad Hoe .........................


Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones

Jones


Creek Site Plan ........................

Creek Cabin 3 ..........................

Creek Cabin 3 Chimney Plan .............

Creek Cabin 4 Duplex .................

Creek Feature 5 Profile ................

- Cabin 4, Feature 5 Wall Trench.......

- Cabin 4, Feature 5 Wall Trench .......


179

181

183

185

186

188

189

190

192

193

195

197

199

201

202

249

250

251

252

253

255

257


xiii


39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.












Figure

46. Jones

47. Jones

48. Jones

49. Jones

50. Jones

51. Jones

52. Jones

53. Jones

54. Jones

55. Jones

56. Jones

57. Jones

58. Jones

59. Jones

60. Jones

61. Jones

62. Jones

63. Jones

64. Jones

65. Jones

66. Jones

67. Jones

68. Jones

69. Jones


Page

Creek Support Structure ............... 259

Creek Possible Tool Shed .............. 260

- Tool/Storage Shed ................... 262

- Tool/Storage Shed ................... 264

- Tool/Storage Shed Feature 2 .......... 266

- Road Plan ........................... 268

- Road Profile ...... .................... 269

- Road ................................ 271

Creek Feature 13 ....................... 273

Creek Feature 13 Profile .............. 274

- 409N,382E Plan ........................ 275

- 409N,382E Possible Structure ......... 277

- 438N,421E ........................... 279

- Well Pit ............................ 281

Creek Well .............................. 283

- Well Timber .......................... 285

- Well Bottom ........................... 287

Creek Cotton Barn Plan ................ 288

Creek Gin Barn ... ................... .. 289

Creek Iron Support Cotton Barn ....... 290

- Cotton Barn North Room ............... 292

- Ceramics ............................. 294

- Pharmaceutical Bottles ............... 296

- Metal Artifacts ...................... 298


xiv












Figure Page

70. Jones Metal Artifacts ...................... 300

71. Jones Arms and Fishing Artifacts .......... 302

72. Jones Personal Use Artifacts .............. 304


















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Pequirenents
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE ANTEBELLUM BARRIER ISLAND
PLANTATION: IN SEARCH OF AN
ARCHEOLOGICAL PATTERN

By

Sue Mullins Moore

June 1981

Chairman: Charles H. Fairbanks
Major Department: Anthropology

Plantation archeology,has, in recent years, focused

on the derivation of status indicators on planter, over-

seer, and slave sites. This study, by examining artifact

patterns on several plantation sites, has determined that

economic level of the site inhabitant is an equally deter-

mining factor in the material culture assemblage.

Sites of known size (based on number of slaves) are

examined and artifact profiles (patterns) are derived.

The artifact frequencies of these profiles are statis-

tically compared and it is found that as size of the

plantation increases the frequency of non-essential arti-

facts also increases. The material culture of a small

planter is seen to be very similar to that of an overseer

on a large estate. This reflects the influence of economic

position rather than social status.


xvi












Primary data were obtained from three sites exca-

vated on St. Simon's Island, Georgia. It was felt that

this research should be restricted to coastal sites,

primarily barrier island, as they operated in a single

economic system based on the cultivation of sea island

cotton. Comparative data were derived from three other

coastal sites. Artifact groups and status indicators,

previously defined by other researchers, were used in

this examination.


xvii

















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES


The study of slavery has, in recent years, gained

valuable new data from anthropologically oriented

archeological studies of plantations site (Otto 1975,

McFarlane 1975, Drucker and Anthony 1979, Singleton

1980). The plantation system of the American south has

been the subject to the biases inherent in their primary

source material. Contemporary accounts of the plantation

system often suffered from falsification and from the

fact that they were told from the perspective of the

educated white observer. The later slave narratives

suffered from the passage of time and the inability of

the informants to recall details of their day-to-day life.

By combining the evidence from the historical accounts and

contemporary documentation with that from archeology,

a more accurate and perhaps more complete picture of the

plantation system is possible.

Plantation archeology has focused primarily on

the excavation and discussion of single plantation

sites. Other than a on-to-one comparison, usually

with John Otto's (1975) work at Cannon's Point, almost












no attempts have been made to look for general patterns

within the plantation system. Because of the differences

that existed in organization and environment of the

plantations in the different cash crop regions, the focus

of this study was narrowed to one of these systems, the

barrier island cotton plantation. As most of the plantation

archeology completed has been in this region, it was clear

that the coastal situation was a fitting start. The pur-

pose of this pattern recognition, in turn, was to dis-

cover regularities in the artifact configurations re-

flective of underlying cultural processes. Specific

hypotheses will be discussed later in this chapter.


Research Area

The barrier islands situated off the coast of the

southern United States are suffering increasing pres-

sure in the form of development. Efforts to mediate

the impact of this development on the natural and cultural

resources have included considerable archeological work

on St. Simon's Island (Fig. 1). Under the auspices of

the National Park Service, Sea Island Foundation, and

the National Register of Historic Places, a great deal

of archeological information has been gathered about

life on St. Simon's during the colonial and plantation

periods.











Continuing excavations at Fort Frederica National

Monument have greatly increased the knowledge of colon-

ial Georgia and life at a military colony (Fairbanks

1956; Honerkamp 1974; Reitz 1979; and Honerkamp 1980).

In 1972, the University of Florida began a program of

excavations at Cannon's Point (owned by Sea Island

Company) on the north end of St. Simon's with funding

provided by Sea Island Foundation and the National Science

Foundation. This project produced a dissertation on the

late Archaic period of the coast (Marrinan 1975), one on

the proto-historic Guale Indians (Wallace 1975), and a

third on an antebellum plantation (Otto 1975). It also

produced two master's theses (McFarlane 1975, Martinez

1975). This work ended in 1975.

The University was asked again in 1978 to do an

archeological survey of Butler Point, also on the northern

end of the island (Mullins 1978):. The most signi-

ficant outcome of this survey was the location of the

ruins of Hampton plantation. This estate is the focus

of much of this dissertation.

Late in 1978, Sea Island Foundation initiated another

project with the University, this time for the complete

survey of Sea Island's remaining holdings on St. Simon's.

This amounted to roughly 5000 acres, or approximately one-

half of the high land on the island. Because this survey

included the known ruins of several plantations, and










some significant prehistoric sites, additional funds

were granted by the National Register of Historic

Places. A total of nine months were spent in the field,

involving the location, testing, and in some cases,

partial excavation of twenty sites. Five different

plantations were located and tested; three are the sub-

ject of this dissertation.

One of the "Golden Isles," St. Simon's is located

within the natural area referred to as the southeastern

coastal plain. This plain extends south and east from

the piedmont fall line to the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic

Ocean and the sub-tropical lower half of peninsular

Florida. It has an equitable climate with a mean winter

temperature of 43 F. and annual precipitation amounting

to approximately 53 inches (Johnson et al. 1974). It

has been noted that most of the soils are excessively

drained and have moderate to severe leaching (Long 1912:3;

Johnson et al. 1974).

St. Simon's is one of the barrier islands which were

formed during the Pleistocene and early Holocene periods

at times of lowered sea level. At that point they were

part of the mainland, the lagoon and salt marshes having

not yet formed. When submergence began upon melting

of the Pleistocene glaciers, they became islands separated

from the mainland (Hoyt 1967).











Pattern Recognition in Historical Archeology


The beginnings of the search for patterns in the

archeological record can be seen in the rise of scien-

tific or problem oriented archeology. Patterns had long

been a focus of study in anthropology (Benedict 1934;

Kroeber 1948; Steward 1955), although the concept and

use of the word was somewhat different. With Steward

can be seen the beginnings of the nomothetic-processual

approach (South 1977). There was a need to see through

superficial cultural differences and find more underlying

similarities that were reflective of similar cultural

processes.

Stanley South has been the foremost proponent of

pattern recognition in historical archeology (South

1975, 1977). South has presented several patterns, the

Brunswick Refuse Disposal pattern, the Carolina Artifact

pattern, and the Frontier pattern (South 1977).

The Brunswick Refuse Disposal pattern is distinguished

by trash deposition adjacent to structures, particularly

at doors and windows and is present on eighteenth cen-

tury British-American sites. These deposits seem to be

secondary refuse and South defines two types: 1) a low

bone-artifact ratio seen in the deposits immediately

adjacent to the structures, and 2) a high bone-artifact

ratio found in peripheral refuse deposits. South expresses











the Brunswick pattern in a law-like generalization: on

British-American sites of the eighteenth century a con-

centrated refuse deposit will be found at the points

of entrance and exit in dwellings, shops, and military

fortifications. Testing at several sites appears to

confirm South's hypothesis.

The Carolina Artifact pattern consists of a pre-

dictable frequency of certain artifact groups on sites,

dating from approximately 1730-1830. South's pattern

is based on five sites, primarily domestic. Table 1

gives the artifact groups and the mean and range of per-

centages for each. The pattern was tested on other sites

and found to largely supported, but there were some

differences. South points out that the ability to as-

certain irregularities in the pattern may be one of its

primary utilities.

When South was testing the Carolina Artifact pattern

he found several sites which would not fit the pattern

at all. From these sites the Frontier Artifact pattern

was derived. The adjusted mean and range of the arti-

fact pattern are given in Table 1.

When the Frontier pattern was compared to the

Carolina pattern, it could be seen that there was a re-

versal in the ratio of kitchen and architecture artifacts

(Table 1). The much higher ratio of kitchen artifacts

in the Carolina pattern may be explained by proximity










to supply sources, the frontier sites being much farther

from the distribution sources.

Application of South's Carolina pattern have been

made at several sites. At the Spiers Landing site in

South Carolina, the artifact frequencies of a probable

slave site were compared and found to differ significantly

in the clothing, activities and kitchen categories (Drucker

and Anthony 1979). From this evidence it was suggested

that new patterns might be necessary for non-urban or

plantation sites.

The Carolina Artifact pattern was tested at another

South Carolina slave site and a Carolina Slave Artifact

pattern was proposed (Garrow 1981). The original Caro-

lina pattern was revised to include colonowares (of pos-

sible slave manufacture) in the kitchen category rather

than activities where South had put them. This made

a significant difference in the two patterns (Table 1).

Theresa Singleton also proposed a Slave Artifact

pattern for four sites in Florida and Georgia (Singleton

1980:216). This pattern appears much more like the

Frontier pattern than the Carolina or Carolina Slave

Artifact patterns. Singleton offers no real explanation

for this except to suggest that there was a scarcity of

midden deposits in her sample which probably biased the

results.











The quantification of these patterns has been a

fundamental part of their utility in testing hypotheses

and comparison to other patterns, but it has also been

used to mask one of the primary problems in pattern recog-

nition, the neglect to go beyond the pattern to the pro-

cesses that are responsible for the patterns (see Honerkamp

1980:29). The pattern in itself is merely another parti-

cularistic description. Once the processes that create

the pattern are understood, then the differences or

similarities between patterns can be explained from a

processual viewpoint. So far, this approach has scarcely

been applied.

At this point, it is felt that it will not be possible

to derive a single pattern applicable to all barrier island

plantation sites, but the derivation of patterns specific

to individual sites or components (planter, overseer,

slave) will allow quantitative comparisons to be made.

Pattern recognition, then, will be used as a methodological

approach (Honerkamp 1980:28-29). The inability to derive

one pattern may perhaps be the most significant finding

of this study and is implied in the hypotheses stated

below. These hypotheses were designed to explore the

processes responsible for the patterns, particularly

status, both social and economic. This work will examine

status both within and between sites as it is hypothesized

that size of the plantation, and therefore the economic











status of the planter, will affect the material goods

available to a site's inhabitants.


Status on the Southern Plantation Social and Economic

Status can be described by a number of qualifiers -

age, sex, biological relationship, social class, and

economic levels (Linton in Bohannon and Glazer 1973:

187-200). Status, without one of these descriptions,

generally refers to the sum total of all the statuses

the individual occupies (Linton in Bohannon and Glazer

1973:187). Each individual, therefore, can have a number

of different statuses, none necessarily dependent on any

of the others (cf. Nash 1970:3).

Social status in southern plantation society has

been discussed extensively by historians and archeologists

(Stampp 1956; Eaton 1961; Otto 1975). Basically, ethnic

caste (black and white) divided this society into two

social strata. Blacks occupied the lowest stratum and

were lumped together, whether free or slave (Genovese

1974:398-413). Whites, regardless of economic position,

were considered to be of a higher social status. Slave

ownership, in particular, was correlated with social

prestige and political power (Wright 1970:68). Three

levels of social status can be seen within the white social

strata, "poor white", yeoman farmers and merchants, and

large planters (Stampp 1956:29;.Bonner 1965:58). Small











planters (those with fewer than 20 slaves) were considered

part of the yeoman farmer group (Bonner 1965:58). Otto

notes that even though the poorer whites were assigned

the same broad social status as the yeoman farmers and

planters, they often endured material living conditions

comparable to slaves (Otto 1975:14). This is one indi-

cation of how economic level should affect the archeo-

logical remains of a site.

Historical archeology is fortunate in that many times

status can be determined from the documents (cf. Otto

1975:12-13), rather than having to rely on material

remains as the sole indicator. Using number of slaves

owned as the most sensitive indicator of economic level

(Menn 1964, Stampp 1956:30-31) for each site in this

study, an attempt will be made to correlate and/or compare

social status with economic status. It has already been

pointed out that these are not necessarily the same

(Otto 1975:14; Nash 1970:3). It is expected that the

archeological record will demonstrate how these differ-

ences are manifested in the material culture of the plan-

tation south.

Hypotheses and Research Design

The artifact categories being considered for the

following hypotheses were modified from South's groups

(1977:95-96), and are listed below. Not all of the dif-

ferences can be addressed by the frequency derivations of

South's (or any other) pattern. To this end, certain










other qualitative and quantitative differences are

hypothesized. These are also listed below.

Recent work with South's pattern has suggested

that colonoware ceramics should be moved from the

activities group to the kitchen group (Garrow 1981).

It is also proposed that the stub-stemmed pipes be moved

from activities to tobacco pipes. A category has been

added for faunal material.

Artifact Categories

Kitchen Group
ceramics
wine bottles
case bottles
tumbler
pharmaceutical type bottle
glassware (stemmed, decanter, dishes, misc.)
tableware (cutlery, knives, forks, spoons)
kitchenware (pots, pans, pothooks, gridrion,
trivits, metal teapots, water kettles, coffee
pots, buckets, handles, kettles, colonowares,
etc.)

Architectural Group
window glass
nails
spikes
construction hardware (hinges, pintles, shutter
hooks, staples, fireplace backing plates;
lead window cames, etc.)
door lock parts (doorknobs, case lock parts,
keyhole escutcheons, lock bolts, and brackets)

Furniture Group
hardware (hinges, knobs, drawer pulls and locks,
escutcheon plates, keyhole surrounds, handles,
rollers, brass tacks, etc.)

Arms Group
musket balls, shot sprue
gunflints, gunspalls
gun parts, bullet molds











Clothing Group
buckles
buttons
thimbles
scissors
straight pins
hook and eye fasteners
bale seals
glass beads

Personal Group
coins
keys
personal items ( wig curlers, bone brushes,
mirrors, rings, signet sets, watch fobs, fob
compass, bone fan, slate pencils, spectacle
lens, tweezers, watch key, and other personables)

Tobacco Pipe Group
long and stub-stemmed pipes

Activities Group
construction tools (plane bit, files, augers,
gimlets, axe head, saws, chisels, rives,
punch, hammers, etc.)
farm tools ( hoes, rake, sickle, spade, etc)
toys (marbles, jew's harp, doll parts, etc)
fishing gear fishhookss, sinkers, gigs, harpoons)
storage items (barrel bands, brass cock, etc.)
stable and barn (stirrup, bit, harness boss,
horseshoes, wagon and buggy parts, rein eyes,
etc.)
miscellaneous hardware (rope eye thimble, bolts,
nuts, chain, andiron, tongs, case knife,
flatiron, wick trimmer, washers, etc.)
other (button manufacturing blanks, kilnwaster
furniture, silversmithing debris, etc., re-
flecting specialized activities)
Military objects (swords, insignia, bayonets,
artillery shot, and shell etc.)

Faunal Group
food bone

Other Proposed Areas of Study

Housing Differences

1. construction materials and techniques

a) larger plantations should have more substantial
structures, i.e. more tabby and brick

b) smaller plantations should have less sub-
stantial structures, less tabby and brick











2. expected durability

a) larger expect longer durability with more
maintenance

b) smaller less durability, less maintenance

3. available living space

a) larger more living space and greater range
of types

b) smaller less living space and less range
of types

4. building hardware

a) larger no difference in basic types, but
perhaps a higher proportion because of
greater maintenance

b) smaller smaller proportion because of
less maintenance

5. features available to occupants fireplaces,
porches, cooking facilities, storage areas,
wells, privies, refuse areas

a) larger more features and a greater range
of types

b) smaller fewer features, smaller range of types

Diet Differences

1. domestic plant and animal food

a) larger more consumption

b) smaller less consumption

2. non-domestic animal foods

a) larger smaller range and less consumption

b) smaller greater range and more consumption

3. food preparation facilities and techniques

a) larger more facilities, better techniques

b) smaller fewer facilities and cruder
techniques











Hypotheses

1. The artifact patterns of configurations on a

plantation site, regardless of whether it is a planter,

overseer, or slave context, will vary with size of the

plantation. These pattern variations are believed to

be a function of the planter's economic status. Larger

plantations should have greater access to preferred

goods. These differences should be reflected in the

frequencies of the artifact groups and the already men-

tioned differences in other areas. As plantation size in-

creases there should be larger quantities of kitchen

related artifacts at the expense of architectural ar-

tifacts (cf. Otto 1975:13). The other groups usually

have comparatively small frequencies, and may therefore

be difficult to assess as far as the significance of

any differences. It is tentatively proposed that: 1)

personal and tobacco group artifacts, which represent

luxury items, will increase with plantation size, and

2) activities, arms, and clothing will decrease with

increase in plantation size as they are more representative

of necessity items.

It should be pointed out, that as any system grows

larger, it becomes more complex. Applied to this study,

this translates to the larger the plantation, the more

varied the activities carried out there, resulting in

more material goods and resources available to the plantation










inhabitants. This phenomena is not unique to cultural

systems and has been extensively treated in the litera-

ture on systems theory (Von Bertalanfy 1975; Chapman 1977).

2. When large and small plantation sites are compared,

it is hypothesized that the artifact patterns within

a small site (planter, slave) will be more homogenous

than the intra-site patterns of the large site. This

hypothesis will be tested by comparing the artifact

frequencies within the prescribed categories already

discussed. It is hypothesized that differences in fre-

quency and range will be less within the small site than

a larger site. This again is proposed to be a function

of economic status of the planter. On a small plantation,

more of the money available would be directed towards

production of a crop and less towards non-necessity items

for the planter or his dependents (Flanders 1933), which

should be reflected in the material culture.

3. The artifact patterns of the domestic and field

slave are proposed to differ because of the supposed

higher status of the domestic slave (Stampp 1956:337-

338; Owens 1976:106-120). It is hypothesized that the

domestic slave will have greater access to preferred

artifacts. The same artifact categories used for hypo-

theses 1 and 2 will be used.

As a definition for the sizes of the plantations,

historical sources were consulted (Flanders 1933:128; Eaton

1961). Initially the division was three fold, large:











those over 100 slaves; medium: those with 20-100 slaves;

and small: those under 20 slaves. The vast majority

of the south's plantations fall into the small category

(Flanders 1933:129; Eaton 1961). Problems with the field

data necessitated the combination of the medium and

small categories.

The sites chosen for this study are reviewed in

the following section and in Chapter 3. John Otto's

data from Cannon's Point will be used extensively along

with the available comparable data from Kingsley and

Butler Island plantations. All are barrier island

cotton plantations, with the exception of Butler Island,

which is a coastal rice plantation, and the size of each

is known. The status indicators derived by Otto are

used in conjunction with the testing of Hypotheses 1,

2, and 3.

Project Sites

Comparative data comes from three sites (Hampton,

Sinclair, and Pike's Bluff) partially excavated during

the project. All three are antebellum plnatations located

on St. Simon's Island. Both the size of the plantations

and the size of the components excavated vary. This dis-

cussion is very brief and intended only for orientation.

A detailed documentary account will follow in Chapter

3. The sites used in the study which were excavated

prior to this research are discussed in Chapter 2.











Hampton plantation on Butler Point is the largest

plantation studied, with, at one point, more than

300 slaves. Its owner was Major Pierce Butler, one of

the original delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Hampton was probably the most prosperous of St. Simon's

estates producing the staple crop of sea island cotton.

There were four slave settlements at Hampton. One was in

the immediate vicinity of the planter's house while the

other three were scattered, one being over three miles

from the main complex. The overseer's house was, at

various times, located within the main complex and then

at one of the outlying settlements. The overseer in

the case of Hampton served more as a manager since Pierce

Butler hardly ever resided on his Georgia estate (Van-

story 1970:144).

Excavations at Hampton were conducted almost exclu-

sively at Jones, one of the outlying slave settlements.

Limited information from a previous survey is available

on the big house and the overseer's complexes. The

slave settlement excavations included work at one slave

cabin; an auxilliary structure, probably a tool shed;

a well; and a cotton barn. Several non-structural areas

were also tested. The material from Jones is expected

to yeiad data on the slave pattern. It is thought that

it will vary from Cannon's Point because of the size and

possibly management differences.











The second plantation included in the study is

Sinclair or St. Clair. It also grew sea island cotton,

though not to the scale of Hampton. Sources indicate

that between 10-50 slaves resided on this estate (Hawes

1956, U.S. Bureau of the Census 1820). It was owned

by General Lachlan McIntosh, of Revolutionary War fame,

and began operation under the management of his son Wil-

liam around 1790 (Hawes 1956). The plantation changed

hands several times before finally coming under the owner-

ship of Pierce Butler about 1820 (Vanstory 1970:156; Butler

Papers). When Fanny Kemble visited in 1839, she described

the house as being in a ruinous state (Kemble 1961:246).

It burned in 1857 (Vanstory 1970:156).

The excavations at Sinclair consisted of tests in

two midden areas, one believed to be the kitchen trash

area, the big house, and a small house that was probably

a domestic slave cabin. There were almost no surface

indications of the site, therefore the overseer's house

(if there was one) or additional structures were not lo-i

cated. The remains from these excavations should yield

data on both the domestic slave and the planter. The

slave data can be compared to try to detect differences

in the pattern of field and house slaves. The planter

site will be used in conjunction with the others of the

study to derive information on the range of planter mater-

ial culture.











The final plantation being considered is Pike's

Bluff, a small estate. There .were probably no more than

thirty slaves employed and it is believed that there was

no overseer. The owner of the plantation was a Dr.

Thomas F. Hazzard who purchased the land in 1827 (Glynn

County Superior Court 1827). His brother, William, owned

the adjacent plantation. Documentary evidence on this site

is very scanty, but the date of abandonment appears to have

been 1857 when Thomas Hazzard died. The site was used

a a military outpost during the Civil War (Heard 1938)

and was not occupied after that date.

The site today consists of looted ruins of what is

presumed to be the planter's house, a privy and several

middens. No slave cabins could be located. This may

be due to the fact that the plantation was so small and

the slave cabins much less substantial than those on

larger estates. Excavations were carried out at three of

the middens, the privy and a small test at the house.

The privy and midden provided large quantities of mater-

ial which should illuminate the life of a small planter.

The sites used for this study, then, can be ranked

in descending size as follows:

1) Hampton and Butler Island (same owner)
2) Cannon's Point
3) Kingsley
4) Sinclair
5) Pike's Bluff

This ranking should be reflected in the artifact patterns

in the manner specified by the research hypotheses.











Project Methodology

The sites chosen for excavation were located and

assessed during a survey of St. Simon's carried out

from January to March of 1979. Documentary evidence

aided in this survey location. The sites were judged

on the basis of several criteria: 1) disturbance to

the site, 2) size of the plantation during the antebellum

period, and 3) availability of documentary sources.

As it turned out, considerable exceptions had to be

made for the third criteria.

Four sites were selected for excavation, Jones,

Sinclair, Pike's Bluff and West Point. West Point

later had to be eliminated (after three weeks of testing)

because there had been too much post-bellum disturbance

which had not been evident during the survey testing. This

created a gap in the information about a small plantation.

The particular segment at West Point to be excavated

was the slave cabin area. This information was not able

to be replaced by data from another site.

In addition to the excavated sites, data were avail-

able from two previously tested plantations on St. Simon's,

Cannon's Point (Otto 1975, McFarlane 1975) and the main

complex of Hampton (Mullins 1978).

Excavation of the selected sites began in April of

1979 and continued until June. During this time period

all of the work at Jones and part of the work at Sinclair











was completed. This phase of the excavations employed

the 1979 University of Florida Field School, a total of

nine students and two field supervisors. A hiatus was

taken during the summer, during which time preliminary

analysis of the excavated material was completed. In

September of 1979, excavation began again at Sinclair

and, in addition, work was completed at Pike's Bluff.

This phase of the project employed only three experienced

archeologists (plus an occasional volunteer) and ended

in December of 1979.

The information gathered from the survey was used

to plan the sampling strategy for the excavations. Most

of the structures and some features had been located. In

view of this, placement of excavation units was non-random.

Motorized shaker screens were used for general excavation

while fine troweling was employed in the case of features.

Soil samples were taken where necessary. The screen size

used was 3/8 X 5/8 inch diamond mesh. This later was

realized to have been too large for recovery of some of

the faunal material. Hindsight would suggest the use

of 1/4 or even 1/8 inch mesh in future excavations. At

all sites detailed maps were prepared of extant structures

and any encountered features. Laboratory analysis was

done at the archeology lab at the University of Florida

and in the zooarcheology range of the Florida State Museum.











The artifacts were preliminarily cataloged and sep-

arated for any special treatment. The faunal material

was removed and taken to the museum for analysis.

Metal artifacts, when necessary, were processed for

preservation by electrolysis. Final cataloging was done

following the initial separation. Once this was completed

a system was developed to put the cataloged data into a

computer for easier data handling. Table 2 shows the

computer entry format. This data format later proved to

be too simplistic for some artifact classes, creating some

problems. In coding ceramics, South's (1977) ceramic

numbers were used. This procedure greatly increased the

rate of data handling and allowed quick and easy access

to artifact statistics.

Zooarcheological analysis consisted of identifying

the faunal species represented at each site, weighing

the recovered bone and computing the biomass for each

species. Allometric biomass computation is a relatively

new technique in zooarcheology which allows the deriva-

tion of edible meat available to a site's inhabitants

based on the bone weight recovered from the site. Table

3 gives the formula and constants used for this calcu-

lation. The provenience used for calculating biomass

depends on the researcher; in this case, the individual

field specimen; units were used. This same procedure

was used when calculating the biorass on the comparative

data from Cannon's Point.










In addition to artifact analysis, considerable

documentary research was carried out. The primary

sources are located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

and include an extremely complete documentation of

the Butler estate. Several letters concerning the Mc-

Intosh family's planting interests in Georgia were also

in the Pennsylvania Historical Society Library. Limited

information on the Wylly, Butler and McIntosh families

was found in the Georgia Historical Society Library in

Savannah. In addition, several 1930's photos of the

Butler estate on St. Simon's were found in the Margaret

Davis Cate Collection, also at the Georgia Historical

Society Library.

In Brunswick, the Glynn County seat, are located

the deeds and probate records available for St. Simon's.

While the deeds are fairly complete, the probate records

for the late eighteenth and nineteenth century are very

scarce.



















-p
4d
l) Pa

-)04








o\O

rd.

ro
43 *d









I0 -




UF)




n4 r-


E- 0 Oiq -


r 4
O 9




U

H
E-1

: do\o
0 --r-i

O 0) *






S(0







E r~-,-
Ei rcil rd







U)


-H4.













-P
d d













-H
-)
-P


O 0 CN r- cM ( --

N CN in 1- CO rC
N I)










m o N 1 OD








S0 o CC)






r- N



















( 0 (N (N








N ) (N
il 0H 4
r N N O IC O (N













SN 0 0 0 I) 0)
IC N I (N 0 N


() 4J 4-) *H Q r0 .r-4
)H H-)O
4 < i4 l U.- 4 E-4 U).
C -4 -I 4 0 o 0












TABLE 2
COMPUTER PROGRAM FORMAT


Column Number

1-3
4
5-10
11-13
14-16
17-19
20-22
23-25
26-28
29-31
32-34

35-37
38-40
41-43
44-46

47-49
50-52
53-55
56-58
57-59
60-62
63-65
66-68
69-71
72-74
75-77


Variable


Field Specimen Number, unique
Card number of case
Location, excavation unit
CERAM1 brown stoneware bottles
CERAM2 whiteware
CERAM5 Canton porcelain
CERAM6 mocha
CERAM7 overglazed porcelain
CERAM8 fingerpainted pearlware


CERAM11 -
CERAM12 -
pearlware
CERAM13 -
CERAM14 -
CERAM17 -
CERAM19 -
pearlware
CERAM20 -
CERAM22 -
CERAM27 -
CERAM28 -
CERAM29 -
CERAM35 -
CERAM38 -
CERAM40 -
CERAM56 -
CERAM65 -
CERAM71 -


transfer printed pearlware
underglazed polychrome

annular pearlware
annular creamware
underglazed blue pearlware
blue and green edged

pearlware
creamware
black basaltes
redware
Jackfield
agateware
Iberian storage jars
white stoneware
lead-glazed slipware
plain white delftware
delft apothecary jar


Field Specimen Number (same as 1)
Card Number (2)
CERAM79 brown salt-glazed stoneware
CERAM80 grey stoneware
CERAM81 transfer printed whiteware
CERAM82 white porcelain
CERAM83 spongeware
CERAM84 yelloware
CERAM85 shelledged whiteware
CERAM86 blue and tan stoneware
CERAM87 unglazed earthenware
CERAM88 polychrome whiteware
CERAM89 other


Card 2
1-3
4
5-7
8-10
11-13
14-16
17-19
20-22
23-25
26-28
29-31
32-34
35-37











Table 2 continued


Column Number


38-40
41-43
44-46
47-49
50-52
53-55
56-58
59-61
62-64
65-67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80


Card 3
1-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14-15
16
17-18
19-20
21-22
23-24
25-26
27-28
29-30
31-32
33-34


Variable


BH1 H-hinge
BH2 L-hinge
BH3 strap hinge
BH4 hinge, other
BH5 machine cut nails
BH6 wrought nails
BH7 other nails
BH8 spike
BH9 lock mechanism or part
BH10 other building hardware
OMET1 lead seal (present or absent)
OMET2 lead weight
OMET3 lead shot
OMET4 lead other
OMET5 thimbles
OMET6 brass button
OMET7 non-brass button (metal)
OMET8 cooking vessel
OMET9 silver
OMET10 brass
OMET11 iron tools
OMET12 iron other
OMET13 copper coins


Field Specimen Number (same as 1)
Card Number (3)
OMET14 copper other
OMET15 tin cans
OMET16 tin other
BS1 bone buttons
BS2 bone other
BS3 shell buttons
BS4 shell tools
BS5 shell other
PIPEB pipe bowls
BNO number of bowls
PIPES pipestems
DIA4 number 4/64ths diameter
DIA5 number 5/64ths diameter
GLASS1 dark green wine bottle
GLASS2 ale bottle glass
GLASS3 other alcoholic bottle
GLASS4 window glass
GLASS5 pharmaceutical bottle
GLASS6 drinking glass
GLASS7 buttons







27



Table 2 continued

Column Number Variable

35-36 GLASS8 beads
37-38 GLASS9 other
39 TOYS
40-44 WEIGHTC Total Ceramic Weight
45-50 WBH Total Weight Building Hardware
51-55 WOMET Total Weight Other Metal
56-58 WBS Weight of Bone and Shell
59-61 WPIPE Weight of Pipe Fragments
62-66 WGLASS Total Weight of Glass
67-69 WTOYS Total Weight of Toys
70 FLINT presence or absence












TABLE 3
BIOMASS FORMULA AND CONSTANTS


Equation: Y = ax where
x = skeletal mass
Y = biomass
a = Y intercept of log-log plot using method of least
squares and best fit line
b = slope of the line

Constants a b
Mammal 1.12 .90
Bird 1.04 .91
Turtle .51 .67
Snake 1.17 1.01
Chondrichthyes 1.68 .86
Osteichthyes .90 .81
Non-Perciformes .79 .85
Siluriformes .95 1.15
Pleuronectiformes .89 1.09
Perciformes .83 .93
Sparidae .92 .96
Sciaenidae .74 .81



































MAINLAND


Scale Miles N
0 1 2


FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
















CHAPTER 2
COMPARATIVE RESEARCH


Kingsley

The beginnings of plantation archeology can be seen

in the work at Kingsley plantation (Fig. 2). Located

on a barrier island off the coast of Florida, Kingsley

was the property of Zephaniah Kingsley, a slave importer

(May 1945:145). In 1968, excavations were conducted

at a group of slave cabins. Parts of two cabins, out

of a total group of 32 were tested in order to learn

something about the structure of the house and about pos-

sible retentions of African heritage that might be present

in a slave site (Fairbanks 1974:90). Zephaniah Kingsley

had several African wives and seemed well disposed in

the treatment of his slaves. For this reason, and be-

cause it may have been a slave importing station, it

was thought that there might very well be evidences of

African culture. Such did not prove to be the case.

These and subsequent excavations were ample proof that

slaves came with nothing and were not allowed to repro-

duce any material culture reflecting their African home.

These excavations did, nevertheless, yield information on

Afro-American material culture (housing, diet, material

possessions), a subject which had been previously unknown.










The cabins at Kingsley appeared to be single family

dwellings unlike many on the Georgia coast (cf. Singleton

1980, Mullins 1978). They were of tabby construction with

brick and tabby fireplaces. One of the cabins was notice-

ably larger than most of the others. Fairbanks suggested

that it may have been the home of the slave driver. This

structure measured 24.5 feet by 18.6 feet (7.5 X 5.7 meters)

with walls approximately seven feet high. There was the

suggestion that the interior walls were plaster coated

and that the cabin was divided into two rooms, the western

being considerably larger than the eastern. The larger

room appeared to have had a tabby floor. It is possible

that the cabin had a loft for sleeping, but this was

not evident from the archeology. The other cabin tested

appeared to be of the same construction.

The ceramics recovered gave evidence of a long period

of occupation. The most frequent type was ironstone which

is also the latest type. Brown stoneware bottles were

the next highest in frequency. Again this is a late

ceramic. The other three ceramic types listed in the

report represent a much smaller quantity, and perhaps

an earlier occupation. Table 4 gives the frequencies

and dates for these ceramics.

Fairbanks suggested that because the median dates

were so disparate, perhaps two groups of ceramics were

present. The first group had a Mean Ceramic Date earlier

than would be expected for a plantation not occupied











until 1813. It was suggested that they might represent

discards from the planter's house. Recent criticism of

the Mean Ceramic Date has suggested that it may have in-

herent biases that cause early dates (Adams and Gaw 1977:

229; Braley 1980). While this does not necessarily rule

out the possibility of planter discards, it provides another

possible explanation and calls for further exploration

of the problem. The second group, the stoneware and iron-

stone, representing the majority of the ceramics, may

well be indicative of a later re-occupation of the

cabin after Kingsley's death in 1843 (Fairbanks 1974:

79). Other evidence of re-occupation came from the pre-

sence of wire nails, not available until after 1850

(Fontana 1965:89).

Of the artifacts, glass was the most abundant.

Most of this was green bottle glass. The most interesting

fact to note is the scarcity of flat glass, indicative

of windows or mirrors. Only 28 fragments were recovered,

which suggested that the windows in the slave cabins lacked

glass and were, instead, dependent on shutters. A shutter

pinion reinforced this idea.

Tobacco pipes were another item of relative scarcity,

with only 15 fragments being recovered. They appeared

to be typical of the period of occupation. Fairbanks

suggested that the small number was not reflective of











the frequency of tobacco use and perhaps that they were

using wooden or corncob pipes (Fairbanks 1974:86).

The discussion of faunal resources was not quantified

so only a gross species list is available. It is not known

how complete this is. Only fish, cattle, pigs, raccoons,

turtles, clams, and oysters were noted. It is not known

what kind of fish and turtle were recovered.

Included in the discussion of dietary items were

artifacts concerned with subsistence. The presence of

lead shot was noted, perhaps indicative of hunting. The

presence of such artifacts contradicts the belief of

most historians about slaves access to guns. This con-

tradiction will be supported by other evidence presented

in this work. Net weights, which in many cases are per-

forated lead shot, were also present. Cooking equipment

was not well represented. A three-legged skillet and

three-legged cast iron pot suggested that cooking was

done on an open fire. One spoon, one fork, and two table

knives were also present.

The overall suggestions of the subsistence material

is that plantation supplies were being supplemented by

wild game, fish, and shellfish. This idea has been

repeatedly confirmed in later work (Otto 1975, Singleton

1980). It has been suggested recently that this may

have been necessary to insure an adequate diet (Gibbs

et al. 1980:248). Cooking was probably done by individual











families rather than central kitchens. The presence of

food bone in the fireplace reinforced this idea.

Fairbanks found that the most surprising fact about

the excavations at Kingsley was the total lack of any

African elements in the material culture assemblage,

particularly in light of Kingsley's position of slave

importer. It seems that, even with Kingsley's permissive

attitude, slaves were simply not allowed to reproduce

any part of their material African heritage.

The Kingsley excavations were the beginnings of

an effort to try to define what life was really like on

a plantation. Until that point, slave sites had been

almost totally ignored. These excavations were able

to provide information on areas not previously addressed

by historians. In some cases it contradicted the his-

torical documents. Further work was necessary before

the reliability of this new evidence could be assessed.


Rayfield

Rayfield plantation was located on Cumberland

Island, the southernmost of Georgia's barrier islands

(Fig. 2). Owned by Robert Stafford, it produced sea

island cotton as did most of the barrier island planta-

tions. Again, as at Kingsley, the excavations focused

on the slave cabins. In this case only one cabin was

tested. There were 18 cabins in all, each a single












family dwelling, arranged in two parallel rows. It was

estimated that each cabin was 18 X 18 feet (5.5 X 5.5

meters) (Ascher and Fairbanks 1971:8). The cabins were

of frame construction with a tabby and red brick chimney.

There were few artifacts recovered. Nothing diagnos-

tic can be said about the ceramics. The nails recovered

indicated that the cabin had been constructed after 1825,

a fact supported by the documentary evidence. The faunal

material was very scarce and so fragmentary that it was

impossible to identify.

While the excavations at Rayfield did not provide

any quantity of information on slave life, it did allow

the accumulation of data on the plantation system.

Information was gathered at least on the physical surround-

ings of the slaves.


Cannon's Point

Located on St. Simon's Island, Cannon's Point plan-

tation was occupied from approximately 1795 to 1860.

It was the property of John Couper and remained in the

Couper family for its entire period of production.

Couper was a Scotsman and had a great interest in agri-

culture. He was often experimenting with new crops or

techniques (Otto 1975:41). One successful experiment

was the growth and processing of olives for oil. Cannon's

Point was a large plantation averaging about 100 slaves












during its productive years. The main house was an im-

posing structure three stories high. There were two

slave settlements, one near the main house and one about

one mile south. The overseer's house was located with

the southern group.

Otto's main goal, in the work at Cannon's Point,

was to try to define status differences in the material

culture assemblages of planter, overseer, and slave

(Otto 1975). It was found that these differences were

most noticeable in the housing, ceramics, and dietary

remains. Work was also conducted by Suzanne McFarlane

at the southern group of slave cabins (McFarlane 1975).

While this work was primarily descriptive in nature, it

provided excellent information on the structure of a

slave community.

Otto found that at the planter site there were

more permanent structures as compared to lower status

sites. The buildings were built to last longer and

provide more comfort to their inhabitants. There

were also a greater diversity and number of specialized

areas available to the planter. Particularly, number

of enclosed rooms was correlated with status. While

the evidence did not support it, Otto felt that building

hardware could also be a reliable indicator, the planter

having more permanent building hardware.











The overseer existed somewhere in the middle when

living structures were examined. He had more rooms and

more living space per person than the slave but fewer

rooms than the planter. Otto found that the overseer

had more living space per person than the planter, but

felt this was entirely dependent on the make-up of the

families. Overseers were often single and this would

affect the calculations. In actuality, Otto felt that

the overseer's house at Cannon's Point was much better

than others outside of coastal Georgia. Otto hypothe-

sized that this was due in part to the fact that the

coastal plantations were more permanent than inland

plantations.

There were two types of slave cabins excavated.

The northern cabins were single family units, while the

southern group consisted of duplex cabins. The indi-

vidual units were of similar size, the northern being

17 X 20 feet (5.2 X 6 meters), and the southern 20 X 20

feet (6.2 X 6.2 meters). They were of frame construction

and probably had wooden floors. Both sets of cabins had

tabby and brick chimneys. These features describe cabins

superior to most others outside of the coastal south.

The average cabin size in the plantation south was less

than 16 X 18 feet (4.9 X 5.5 meters) (Fogel and Engerman

1974:115-116). Instead of brick chimneys, they often

had mud and stick ones (Fogel and Engerman 1974:115-116).










This propensity for better housing not only for slaves, but

for overseer and planter as well, may be because this was

one of the richest plantation areas in the south. The

crops were very specialized and often demanded high

prices. An elite plantation system developed. There was

also the presence of a very cheap building material,

tabby. Tabby is a mixture of equal parts of shell, quick-

lime, sand, and water (Gritzner 1978:9). The shell was

readily available on the coast in the form of prehistoric

shell middens. This allowed the construction of rather

permanent, solid buildings.

At Cannon's Point, there was an average of 5.4 slaves

per dwelling unit, somewhat more than the figure of 5.2

slaves per unit in the south as a whole. Otto felt that

this may indicate overcrowding in the cabins but was

not certain.

Otto found also that ceramics were indicative of

site status. In particular, ceramic decorative type and

ceramic form were found to be diagnostic on planter,

overseer, and slave sites. On slave sites it was found

that annular wares were more prevalent than on planter

sites while planter refuse had large amounts of transfer

printed ceramics which were not abundant in overseer

or slave sites. The overseer site tended to be more

like the slave site than the planter. There were also

large amounts of undecorated ceramics on the slave and










overseer sites which were not present on the planter site.

Interestingly, porcelain was not found to be diagnostic

on any of the sites.

It was found that occasionally slaves and overseers

were getting discarded ceramics from the planter. This

practice was discovered by comparing ceramic patterns

which occurred on all three sites. Several patterns were

repeated in minor quantities on the slave and overseer

sites which occurred primarily in the planter refuse. Otto

felt that the planter was purchasing ceramics in sets while

the more heterogeneous ceramic assemblage at the slave and

overseer sites indicated that they were purchasing pieces

individually or in small sets.

In addition to ceramic type, ceramic form was also

found to be correlated with site status. There was a

prevalence of bowls at slave and overseer sites, while

flatware was more common at the planter site. The plan-

ter was also found to have a greater diversity of ceramic

forms, including table, tea, storage, and chamber wares.

Slave and overseer were found to have primarily tablewares.

The final area that Otto found to be indicative of

site status was dietary remains. From the information

available at that time, it was hypothesized that planter

sites would have a higher proportion of non-domestic

animals in the diet when compared to slave and overseer

sites. Otto found that in the planter's refuse there











was much more fish and wild game. He reasoned that this

was possible because the planter was using slave labor

to obtain this part of his diet. The slaves had little

time to hunt or fish for themselves. The slave diet

showed a high proportion of domesticants, particularly

pig and cow. These were provided in the form of rations

from the planter. There was the presence of a quantity

of wild food which Otto attributed to procurement

methods which required little supervision such as traps,

snares, and trot lines.

Since Otto's work there has been devised an accurate

methodwhich transforms bone weight to edible meat (Wing

and Brown 1979:127). This was applied to Otto's data and

the results will be discussed more fully later in this

thesis.

Otto also hypothesized that the prevalence of bowls

at the slave site was related to dietary patterns. He

found that the slave was getting the poor cuts of meat

while the planter was getting good cuts such as roasts.

The poor cuts (i.e head, feet) were used in stews to make

them more palatable and go further. It was also found

that the bones were being cleaved open and added to the

stew for marrow extraction. The prevalence of hollowares

would seem to be related to this diet.

Otto's work at Cannon's Point was a milestone in

plantation archeology. It was the first comparison of











the material living conditions within the "peculiar

institution". It was a different viewpoint from the

historical accounts and provided information not pre-

viously available on the day-to-day life on the plantation.

Perhaps its major contribution is as a reference for other

studies. It was the first large scale attempt at doing

archeology in a systematic way on a plantation and created

more questions than it answered.


Butler Island

At about the same time that field work began on

the St. Simon's plantations, work also began on one of

the "sister" plantations of the study. Butler Island

and Hampton plantation were part of the same estate

belonging to the Butler family. Butler Island grew

primarily rice while Hampton was invested in the pro-

duction of sea island long staple cotton. Located near

the mouth of the Altamaha River, Butler Island was a

river delta island, connected more to the mainland than

the barrier islands. Beginning about 1820, Butler Is-

land became the major focus of the Butler estate planting

interests as it was about at this time that rice became

more profitable than the long staple cotton (Flanders

1933). The majority of the prime slave force was moved

to Butler Island and most of the plantation improvements

were made there rather than at Hampton. The St. Simon's










plantation was, however, still the main residence for

the estate manager and the Butler family. The barrier

islands were considered much more healthy than the

river delta. In was, in fact, where the ill slaves from

Butler Island were sent to recuperate.

The work at Butler Island was designed for two ob-

jectives: 1) to learn more about the slave community plan,

and 2) to compare slave life on a rice plantation to life

on the barrier island cotton plantations (Singleton 1980:

17). Theresa Singleton, who conducted this work, felt

that part of the material culture would reflect some dif-

ferences contingent upon the economic focus of the plan-

tations. But she felt as well, that the broad patterns would

be the same because of the coastal setting. Specific

hypotheses were posited to test these ideas (Singleton

1980:18-19).

The detailed documentary background of Butler Island

will not be discussed at this point as it will be reviewed

later. As already mentioned, it was part of the large

Butler estate, and was purchased about 1790. It was not

the major economic focus of the estate until about 1820

for reasons already discussed. Both cotton and rice cul-

tivation were labor intensive and required a large work

force. At its height, there were 919 slaves employed

on the estate, divided between Butler Island and Hampton.

The majority were concentrated on Butler Island, and the











site density reflects this. There were four slave settle-

ments, a main complex, where more of the machinery was

located, an overseer's house, and a cemetery. While

Butler Island slaves were primarily engaged in the produc-

tion of rice, they also processed sugar and cotton. The

slave settlements were located strategically in relation

to the agricultural fields and water courses. Singleton

notes that they were probably rather autonomous units

with infrequent mingling or visiting or the main complex.

Each settlement had its own processing facility, either

rice, sugar, or cotton.

Excavations were conducted at settlement 4, the

farthest from the main complex and least disturbed of the

sites. There was evidence of five duplex cabins, and

two technical structures believed to be a rice barn and

threshing floor. There were no wells because, according

to the documents, slaves were using water straight from

the river. There was a possible privy located near the

canal. The canal also proved to be the refuse dumping

area used by the site's inhabitants. No other trash

disposal areas were located during the excavations.

Testing was carried out on three of the duplex cabins.

One was excavated fairly completely, while the other two

had only limited testing completed. The cabins appeared

to be of frame construction with a raised wooden floor.











The chimney was H-shaped and centrally located to open to

both sides of the duplex. Most of the bricks used in the

construction of this feature were tabby, with clay bricks

being used primarily around the hearth. A fragment of

wood recovered indicated that the structures may have

been made of cypress, a very durable building material

and abundant in the river delta. Excavations indicated

that the cabins may have been larger than usual, approxi-

mately 24 X 48 feet (7.4 X 14.8 meters). From docu-

mentary sources, it was estimated that there were 5.4

occupants per dwelling unit. This is comaprable to most

estates in the south (Fogel and Engerman 1974:115).

At Butler Island the ceramics seemed to follow much

the same pattern as at Cannon's Point. There was a pre-

dominance of bowl forms. The decorative types showed a

high proportion of annular wares and low amounts of

transfer printed ceramics.

The recovered faunal material was very poorly pre-

served at Butler Island, but seemed to indicate a pat-

tern of use similar to Cannon's Point. Biomass was

not calculated for the Butler Island material. The

pattern of non-domestic animal use indicated a high

reliance on animals specific to the delta area, par-

ticularly fish and turtle.

By using the data from Butler Island, Kingsley,

and Cannon's Point, a slave artifact pattern was











proposed. The major components of this pattern were

architectural and kitchen artifacts. The other categories

of furniture, personal possessions, firearms,, tobacco

and clothing were very scarcely represented. The pat-

tern will be discussed in detail later in this thesis.

It was found from the excavations that some features

of the site may be a specific adaptation to the river

delta/marsh hahitat. In general, the community pattern

seemed to be like other tidewater plantations (Singleton

1980:220). As for the slave housing, Singleton found

little difference between the housing at Butler Island

and other slave housing within the tidewater system,

including both cotton and rice estates. While there were

some specific differences in the artifacts recovered at the

rice plantation when compared to cotton estates, the

overall pattern seemed to be much the same. The similarity

seems to be primarily due to the fact that the plantations

occupied a very similar environmental niche.


Other Sites

In the interest of completeness, several other

plantation sites will be briefly discussed in this

section.

In 1978, excavationswere conducted on a plantation

outbuilding site at King's Bay, Georgia as part of a

larger mitigation project (Johnson 1978). (Recently

additional work has been completed on other plantation










sites in the King's Bay locale (Braley n.d.).) The King

plantation was established about 1790 and operated until

about 1840.

At the outbuilding site, no evidence of structures

was apparent, but based on the recovered material re-

mains, it was believed that the site was probably of

lower status, either overseer or slave. The Cannon's

Point material was used as comparative material. The

faunal data recovered indicated a heavy reliance on

domestic species (Reitz 1978), in a pattern similar to

Otto's findings.

Also within the coastal Georgia region, the LeConte-

Woodmanston plantation was partially excavated in 1979

(Hamilton 1980). It was in operation from about 1800

to 1850. Like Butler Island, this was a rice plantation

but instead of using tidal flow, Woodmanston operated

with gravity flow, being farther up-river. The site

proved to be heavily disturbed, but remains of two

structures were located. One was believed to be a

domestic slave house. Only a robbed brick wall remained

of the second, so its function could not be determined.

Since most of the excavations were conducted within the

main complex area, it was not surprising that the

recovered ceramics were indicative of a high status

occupation. The faunal material was too fragmentary to

be diagnostic.










Recently work has also been taking place in South

Carolina. At the Spiers Landing site, John Otto's data

was used to assess the status of an undocumented site

(Drucker and Anthony 1979). The evidence indicated

a low status, probably slave, structure. The artifacts

were also compared to South's Carolina Artifact pattern

(South 1977:107). Significant differences were found in

the clothing, activities, and kitchen groups. Faunal

remains indicated a slave assemblage similar to Cannon's

Point.

Two French Huguenot plantations in South Carolina

have been recently excavated. At the Yaughan and Curri-

boo plantaitons it was found that the slaves were exper-

iencing very sparse material living conditions (Garrow

1981; Wheaton 1981). At these sites a large proportion

of the ceramics being used were colonowares. Recently

it has been suggested that rather than being of Indian

origin as previously thought, these artifacts might have

been of slave manufacture (Ferguson 1980:15). Such seems

to be the case at these two sites. By comparing the arti-

facts from these sites to the Carolina Artifact pattern,

a Carolina Slave Artifact pattern was tentatively put

forward (Garrow 1981). Differences were evident in

almost every category. South included colonowares in

the activities group, while Garrow felt these should

be placed in the kitchen class. The re-arrangement seems

to be the major cause of the disagreement.



























(N


0


U
>1
r-4




a)
N1 (




Qa)













Ld)
a c













o
o
r-l
0






















In

m
r-
r-l


ao







On
Q)














































0
a


(I
(U


















0




















C
0
r-l
r-l













o



















o


in 0 N
0 eo in



















N 0 0


0 0 m

a N H


0)

a
>1
< E
E-

o 4-

U Cd


H M








Z 4d
H 0

aM

-,
0





-d












a
r
(i)
9


































apelo


. Simon's


!lia


FIGURE 2
GEORGIA AND FLORIDA PLANTATION SITES

















CHAPTER 3
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


Asao, as the Guale Indians called the island of

St. Simon's, had been occupied for some 4000 years when

Spaniards first arrived in the early decades of the six-

teenth century. Soldiers and priests established at

least one mission there, Santo Domingo, perhaps as early

as 1604 (Floyd 1937:14). Unfriendly pressure from

Carolinians forced the Indians to leave, with final

withdrawal in 1702 when the Guale sought protection

by Spanish forts at St. Augustine and were incorporated

into Spanish affairs.

Britain, gradually pushing southward towards warmer

lands, had carried out an almost measured penetration

of territories one controlled by Spaniards. In 1733,

Georgia was founded and General Oglethorpe came to St.

Simon's with colonists to establish the fortified set-

tlement of Frederica in 1736. This overt threat could

not be lightly tolerated by the Spanish governor, but

diplomatic protests were unsuccessful in displacing the

Georgians. The Spaniards then made one military attempt

at piercing this southern outpost in 1742, but were

soundly defeated in the Battle of Bloody Marsh. This











effectively removed the Spaniards as contenders in the

southeastern coastal colonization north of present

Florida.

The British colony was largely dependent on the

garrison as a source of income. Upon the garrison's

removal in 1749, the colonists gradually disbanded and

settled on the mainland or elsewhere on the island

(Cate 1956:204; Vanstory 1970:110). During most of

the Revolutionary War the island was almost uninhabited

(Vanstory 1970:111) as most of the residents, being

patriots, fled to Florida.

After the war and return of the settlers, St. Simon's

entered the plantation era. It was well suited for the

cultivation of sea island long staple cotton, and many

fortunes were made (and lost) on this crop. Many of the

new planters came from South Carolina where the decline

in soil fertility had forced them to seek new lands

(Flanders 1933). These planters often grew not only

cotton, but rice as well, the cultivation of which had

long been established in South Carolina. They brought with

them the knowledge of plantation management, and until the

decline of cotton prices about 1855, St. Simon's pros-

pered. After this recession, life on the island was

much harder. The Civil War accelerated this decline.











The Barrier Island Cotton Plantation

Sea island cotton became available to planters

in 1786 (Flanders 1933) and was quickly adopted by grow-

ers along the rice coast. This area had been primarily

concerned with indigo and rice as staple crops, but with

the American Revolution, the bounty paid by the British

on indigo was discontinued. Rice had declined in profit

(temporarily) and therefore there was the need for a

new crop. Sea island cotton opened up new areas of the

coast where rice could not be grown, particularly the

barrier islands.

Thomas Spalding is generally credited with the intro-

duction of the long staple cotton to the southern coastal

region (Flanders 1933). At first the planting method

used yielded small crops as the plants were placed too

far apart. A planter from the Bahamas, in 1794, advised

planting much closer. When this was done on the Georgia

plantations the yield increased from 100 pounds per acre

to as much as 340 pounds per acre. The pace of planting

greatly increased after this (Flanders 1933). Average

yield was much less than 340 pounds per acre, usually about

150 pounds per acre (Flanders 1933).

The cultivation of long staple cotton was labor in-

tensive with each hand processing 3-4 acres using a hoe

and 6-7 acres using a plow (Gray 1941:737). The soil











was usually prepared in February or March, and the seed

sown in late March or April. Once they had sprouted, the

plants had to be thinned and weeded. This often had to

be done by hand. After being topped to limit upward

growth, harvesting of the cotton was begun in August and

required 10-12 pickings (Gray 1941:735). In November

processing began, the seeds being removed by roller gins

(Flanders 1933). Approximately 600 pounds per day could

be cleaned by the human, animal, or steam powered machines.

After the seeds had been carefully removed, the cotton

was hand packed, as a press damaged the fine cotton.

Prices for long staple cotton averaged about $.50

per pound during good price periods and around $.20

per pound during periods of price depression (Gray 1941:

737). These periods of depressed prices were: 1806-1815,

1826-1834, and 1840-1850. During the whole of this time,

it is estimated that it cost about $75 to produce one

350 pound bag of sea island cotton (Gray 1941:736-737).

During the periods of low prices, this would mean consid-

erable losses even with good crops.

Sea island cotton brought much higher prices than

short staple cotton, grown in the interior, because its

fibers were much finer and longer and were therefore

used in lace and very fine cloth (Eaton 1961:25-26).











Most of the planters who cultivated cotton encountered

the problem of decreased soil fertility. On the coast,

this was often solved by the use of marsh mud and crushed

shell to fertilize the fields. We know that Pierce

Butler, on St. Simon's, was using both marsh mud and manure

(King 1824). The use of fertilizer and the concomitant

maintenance of soil fertility allowed the coastal planters

to be more permanently settled than inland cotton planters,

who often had to purchase new lands and move their estates

once their soils were exhausted. It has been suggested

that this permanency on the coast was reflected in the

more substantial buildings of these plantations (Otto

1975:104). The better buildings were available not only

for the planter, but often for the slaves as well (Flanders

1933).

Planters along the coast employed the task system in

the production of both rice and cotton. This was dictated,

for rice, by the small diked rice polders, and was applied

to cotton and sugarcane fields as well. The necessity

for large amounts of hand labor in the cultivation of

these crops was also a factor in the use of the task

system (Flanders 1933). The task system was well suited

to a crop which had few acres per hand and needed careful

maintenance. The tasks could be adapted to meet the

physical abilities of individual slaves. Young children











and the aged could be put to work on the less physically

demanding jobs. Hands were classified as full, 3/4,

1/2, or 1/4. Full hands were required to work about 1/4

acreper day. Unlike the gang system, which made the slave

work from sunrise to sunset, the task system allowed the

slave free time if the tasks were completed soon enough.

Once their task was done, the rest of the time was their

own (Flanders 1933). Fanny Kemble noted that often the

slaves on the Butler estate were finished with their work

by 3:00 in the afternoon (Kemble 1961). Free time could

then be used for food procurement and other personal ac-

tivities. It has been pointed out that one of the chief

advantages of the task system was that it allowed the plan-

ter or overseer to delegate many of the routine duties

to black slave drivers (Scarborough 1966:57).

The cotton from these plantations was generally mar-

keted by the planter's factor. This person (or firm)

was responsible for getting the crop to market and trying

to receive the best prices for it. Most of the factors

for the coastal planters operated out of Charleston and

Savannah. They were not only an agent to sell the cotton,

but also acted as the planter's banker. They lent money,

gave credit, paid bills, and usually bought supplies for

the plantation (Woodman 1968). The standard commission

for one of these merchants was usually 2.5%, with the

exception of loans which were 8% (Woodman 1968). Acting











as his banker, the factor often acquired liens on the

planter's property and could therefore virtually control

the planter's business. The planter had no redress

unless the factor was grossly negligent or fraudulent.

The typical coastal plantation generally contained

900-1000 acres of land (Prunty 1955:461), with approximately

60-100 slaves. The settlement pattern consisted of an

owner's or manager's house situated near a cluster of

administration buildings and slave quarters. The slave

cabins were generally in rows forming a rectangle (Prunty

1955:465). The service buildings included tool sheds,

storage sheds for plantation food supplies, an office,

a stock barn, a blacksmith shop, and a cotton gin.

These support structures were situated not only close to

the main house, but approximately central to the cropland

and labor quarters (Prunty 1955:466).

On the coast, these buildings were often constructed

of tabby. The slave cabins usually had tabby and red

brick chimneys. As at Cannon's Point and Hampton planta-

tions, the more remote slave settlements often had an

overseer's residence. This allowed the supervision to

be more evenly distributed on the plantation.

Because these plantations needed so much labor,

the coastal area became a very dense slave-holding region

(Flanders 1933). Slaves far outnumbered white inhabitants










in the area and there was a high degree of absenteeism

among the plantation owners. Pierce Butler was an

example of such an owner. The environmental limitations

(primarily soil conditions) on the growth of sea island

cotton created an elite system of plantations along the

coast. The high prices paid for the coastal staples made

for a wealthy group of planters, much wealthier than

inland producers. This in turn created special, and perhaps,

improved conditions for those living on the coast.


Comparison to Other Plantation Systems

Of the different plantation systems (rice, long

staple cotton, short staple cotton, sugar, hemp, and

tobacco), rice, long staple cotton, and sugar were,

by far, the most elite and richest. Hemp and tobacco

were grown largely in Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee

and did not lead to large plantation enterprises (Eaton

1961:177-195). It is interesting to note that hemp,

like rice and sea island cotton, was also produced using

the task labor system (Eaton 1961:190). While there is

no statistical account, it seems that very few of the

hemp or tobacco estates were larger than 1000 acres or

had more than 100 slaves.

Short staple cotton plantations dominated the south,

extending north to Virginia and Kentucky. The vast

majority of these holdings were small, with less than











50 slaves and only a few hundred acres (Eaton 1961:30).

In 1850, only 175 out of Georgia's 38,456 slaveholders

owned more than 100 slaves; only 28 held more than 200.

In 1860, 212 owners out of 41,084 had more than 100

(Scarborough 1966). These statistics included the coastal

rice and cotton areas which probably accounted for most

of these large holdings.

In Louisiana, statistics are available on the large

plantations in three cotton growing regions (Table 5).

The largest of these was a plantation with 659 slaves

and produced a crop of 3800 bales (400 lbs. per bale)

of short staple cotton.

Along with rice and sea island cotton, sugar plan-

tations were among the largest and richest plantations.

Some were located along the Atlantic coast, but the majority

became concentrated in the Louisiana low country. The

capital investment for a sugar plantation was greater

than that for any other type (Eaton 1961:134). Because

of this and because of restricted geographical extent,

there were only 1500 sugar plantations in the south. A

profile of the large estates is given in Table 5.

Both the sugar and upland (short staple) cotton

employed the gang system of labor. The field hands

were divided into "gangs" and worked at a specific pace

by the overseer of driver. All slaves had to continue

their labor until dismissed from the field, usually at











sundown (Stampp 1956:54). This allowed the slaves little

free time. Without the necessity for the hand labor

(as on the coastal rice and cotton estates), this was

a more advantageous system for the planter.

Rice plantations were located primarily along the

coast of Georgia and South Carolina. They were the

richest of the south's plantations (Flanders 1933).

Like sugar and long staple cotton, this was primarily

due to the limited extent of suitable land. As previously

mentioned, it was very labor intensive, and required

irrigation, necessitating the task system of labor.

Along the coast on both rice and cotton plantations,

many of the planters were absentee owners, spending most

of their time in a nearby city (Flanders 1933). It was

felt that the swamp airs were unhealthy. The Butler

family, owners of Hampton plantation, visited the es-

tate infrequently and instead chose to reside in Phila-

delphia.

Pike's Bluff

In 1736, James Oglethorpe constructed several out-

posts on St. Simon's. One was at Hampton Point, one on

the south end of the island, and one just north of Fort

Frederica. The latter sentry station was put in the charge

of Richard Pike; thus the area came to be known as Pike's

Bluff (Vanstory 1970:158). The remains of an earthen











embankment and moat attest to its tenure as a military

site both for the British and later, during the Civil

War (Heard 1938).

Following the Revolutionary War, the area was granted

to General Lachlan McIntosh (Glynn County Superior

Court n.d.). There is no evidence that the land was

used during his ownership. In the early 1800s, it was

purchased by Edmund Matthews, the rector of Christ Church

(Lewis 1974; Vanstory 1970). The evidence suggests that

while Reverend Matthews may not have actually lived on

the land, he was using it as a plantation. The 1820

Census indicated that he. owned 16 slaves, most of them

of the age to be full hands (U.S. Bureau of the Census

1820). In 1823, he owned 27 slaves including four house

servants, and one mechanic (Hazzard 1974:15). He had 78

acres of cotton planted, 16 acres of corn, six acres of

potatoes and five acres of peas (Hazzard 1974:15). All

of this certainly suggests that the Pike's Bluff land

was being used, but archeologically there is little

evidence of occupation during this time.

Reverend Matthews died in 1827. No probate inventory

could be located, but in that same year the land was sold

to Thomas F. Hazzard and William Wigg Hazzard (Glynn

County Superior Court 1827). The Hazzards had come to

St. Simon's from South Carolina some time before 1818,











for in that year William W. Hazzard purchased West Point

plantation adjoining Pike's Bluff to the south (Vanstory

1970:158). William was a successful planter. In 1820,

he owned 64 slaves (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1820), and

had 107 acres of land planted, mostly in cotton (Hazzard

1974:15) (Table 6). In 1825, he was commissioned to

write a history of Glynn County. This work included

statistics on the plantations on the island (Hazzard

1974:15). Thomas Fuller Hazzard was a physician and

took up residence on Pike's Bluff plantation after it

was purchased.

In 1830, the census records for Thomas and William

Hazzard were combined (Table 6) (U.S. Bureau of the Census

1830). At the time neither was married and together they

owned 74 slaves. How many of these were actually working

on Pike's Bluff plantation is not known. It seems likely

that they two plantations had not yet separated. Both

men married before 1840 and this is probably when Thomas

took over the separate management of Pike's Bluff plan-

tation. In 1838, Thomas Hazzard had a serious quarrel

with John A. Wylly over the border between Pike's Bluff

and the Village plantation. Hazzard later shot and killed

Wylly (Brunswick Advocate 1838). He was subsequently

acquitted of manslaughter (Scott in Kemble 1961:lvii).

In 1840, William Hazzard owned 69 slaves while Thomas

owned 38 (Table 5) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1840).











Probably only 28 of Thomas Hazzard's slaves could be

classified as field hands, and not all of those were full

hands. Those under 10 or over 55 probably provided no

field work.

By 1850, William Hazzard had an estate valued at

$20,000 and had 78 slaves. Thomas' estate was worth

only $4000 and at this point he had only 33 slaves (U.S.

Bureau of the Census 1850). He and his wife Sarah had

four children. It is not known if the decline in number

of slaves represented a decline in the plantation's fortunes.

Thomas Hazzard's first wife died and in 1856 he

was married to Margaret Brockington (Glynn County Super-

ior Court 1856). In 1857, Thomas died and William was

appointed administrator of the estate (Glynn County

Probate Court 1857). A probate inventory indicates that

at this point, the estate owned 31 slaves worth $17,750

and other tangibles worth about $2300 (Table 7). No

real estate inventory was given, but 1000 acres of land

valued at $1500 was listed (Glynn County Probate Court

1857). While his estate value had increased since 1850,

the number of slaves had actually declined. Part of the

reason for the increased worth was undoubtedly due to

an increase in the price being paid for slaves (Fogel and

Engerman 1974). He may have also increased his land

holdings, since the original Pike's Bluff purchase was

only 300-400 acres (Glynn County Superior Court 1827).











In 1860, William Hazzard had an estate worth $41,000

and his dependents included at least one of Thomas' chil-

dren (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1860). At this point he

owned 54 slaves. Also listed with William is a "Peg"

Hazzard, probably Thomas' wife Margaret. She has a sep-

arate listing for 33 slaves but no estate value is given.

Both plantations were abandoned with the Civil War

and Pike's Bluff was not re-occupied. An attempt was

made to begin operations again at West Point, but it

was given up shortly (Vanstory 1970:159).

As can be seen, there is a paucity of documentary

evidence on Pike's Bluff plantation. Most of the infor-

mation comes from census records. These provide no in-

formation about the operations and day-to-day life on

the plantation. In this case the archeology proved to

be a much better record.


Sinclair

One of the few successful plantations on St. Simon's

during the colonial period was Sinclair or St. Clair (a

later corruption of the name). Granted to Archibald

Sinclair it is mentioned as being prosperous in 1745

(Vanstory 1970:155). By 1755, it seems to have been

abandoned as it was not listed on the Entry of Claims

(Vanstory 1970:155).

In July of 1768, the Sinclair tract was granted to

Donald Forbes, who sold it to Lachlan McIntosh in Decem-

ber of the same year (Glynn County Superior Court 1768;











Fortson 1972:28). As a hero of the Revolutionary War,

General Lachlan McIntosh received large grants of land

on St. Simon's and on the mainland. In one of his letters,

he instructs his son John on the management of his

Georgia lands and on how to start the plantations:

My wish and intention if practicable would
be to get young able and healthy slaves from the
ages of sixteen to at twenty five years, as soon
a date as possible sufficient to staff completely
five or six rice plantations upon the River Alta-
maha, each plantation to have about fifty working
hands, including one or two coopers, handy jobbing
carpenter, sawyers and a trusted river for each and
if that cannot be accomplished, a less number must
do.
To give you in the quantity in case such arti-
cles are imported on my own account it will be ne-
cessary to inform you that every slave will require
a good felling ax, and a broad hoe and a socket
spade and five yds of good white plains for each old
or young and some of these articles over and above
to spare in case of accident. Nails of all sorts
and strong locks for barns and c. some carpenter
and coopers tools, froes, drawing knives, crosscut
and whip saw files c. (which may be lent from one
plantation to the other) yet if all these are im-
ported, some money will be necessary here not with-
standing, before crops can be made. (McIntosh 1783)

It is assumed that his plantation on St. Simon's was simi-

larly equipped. Sinclair was left to the management of the

General's son, William. Several letters between the two

seem to indicate that approximately 12 slaves were employed

on the estate (Hawes 1956). Other information about the

plantation is not known.

William died in 1799 and was buried on the grounds

of Sinclair, as were his two children who had died earlier.











His widow was given a life estate and remained on the

plantation with eight slaves (Glynn County Superior

Court 1800). At her death, everything was to revert

to Lachlan McIntosh.

At this point, the land ownership becomes very con-

fusing. It is not known how long Martha McIntosh re-

mained on the plantation. She did remarry and evidently

tried to sell the Sinclair property but was not able to

since she did not actually own it (Glynn County Superior

Court 1809). In fact the land had been sold by the estate

of Lachlan McIntosh in 1806 to Pierce Butler (Glynn

County Superior Court 1807). The deed stipulated that

Martha McIntosh Snead would retain her life estate.

In 1810, Pierce Butler sold most of the Sinclair

lands to Alexander C. Wylly (Glynn County Superior Court

1810). Wylly lived there in the main house for two

years before moving to a house farther south on the pro-

perty (Houston-Wylly Papers 1827). Susan Wylly (a

daughter of Alexander) was born there in 1811 (Wylly

n.d.). In 1812, Wylly either sold or mortgaged the land

back to Pierce Butler because, being a British loyalist,

he. was now a prisoner of war and anticipating some finan-

cial difficulties (King 1812). Wylly had also incurred

severe debts to others on St. Simon's (Glynn County

Superior Court 1809b).











For the next ten years there was a constant struggle

between Wylly and Butler over the titles to the land.

Wylly may have still been using the land and Butler was

continually trying to foreclose on the mortgage (King

1816, 1822, 1824). Butler wished to keep 100 acres and

sell the balance and had numerous offers, but because

of the title fight could not sell. It remained in the

Butler family until 1893 (Wister Papers 1893).

From the documents, the major period of occupation

for the plantation appears to have been 1790-1820.

William McIntosh probably built the main house, whose

ruins still remain, and lived there until 1799. After

his death, his widow may have stayed on in the house.

There is no definite information about this. In 1810,

Alexander Wylly moved into the house described as a

"big rambling bungalow" (Houston-Wylly Papers 1827).

His family probably moved to another house farther south

(about one mile), which became known as the Village,

about 1812.

The Georgia Census records of 1790, 1800, and 1810

were destroyed during the War of 1812, so there is little

information about the size of either McIntosh's or Wylly's

plantation holdings. As mentioned earlier, McIntosh may

have had about 12 slaves being used at Sinclair, but

according to the McIntosh letter previously quoted,











could have had as many as 50 (McIntosh 1783). Later

census data on Wylly may be somewhat indicative of the

size of his Sinclair estate. In 1820, there were ten

white inhabitants and 32 slaves living at the Village

plantation (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1820) (Table 8).

In 1823, he had 27 slaves and 91 acres in cultivation

(Hazzard 1974). By 1830, his estate had increased to

46 slaves.

These figures seem to indicate that the size of the

estate may have increased somewhat from McIntosh to

Wylly, the main period of occupation of the plantation.

Pierce Butler, while cultivating about 100 acres of land,

never used the main house nor had any slave settlement

there (King 1824). Butler apparently may have rented

out the main house (King 1827), but not for long periods

of time. It is said that the Agriculture and Sporting

Club used the house as a meeting place (Lewis 1974;

Vanstory 1970:156), but no corroboration of this could

be found in the Butler documents. In 1835, disease struck

the slaves on Butler Island and Roswell King (Butler's

overseer) discussed moving about 50 of them into "the

old Sinclair house" (King 1835). In 1839, when Fanny Kem-

ble visited the estate, she visited Sinclair and mentions

that Major Butler had had both a house and negro set-

tlement there (Kemble 1961:246). Butler had almost

certainly not had a slave settlement there. It would have












been listed in the documents. It is possible that she

saw the ruins that date to McIntosh's or Wylly's period

of ownership. Fanny also noted that the main house was

in ruins (Kemble 1961:247). Supposedly, the remains

burned in 1857 (Vanstory 1970:156). As previously

mentioned, the land remained in the Butler family

until 1893 (Wister Papers 1893).


Butler Estate

Family History

Pierce Butler came to the United States a major

in the English army in 1766. He was the son of Sir

Richard Butler and Henrietta Percy and was related to

the House of Orange. In 1771, he married Polly Middleton,

a South Carolina heiress and settled in Charleston. He

supported the revolutionary cause, was later a delegate

to the Constitutional Convention from South Carolina

and elected for several terms as senator from the state.

In 1793, he moved a large contingent of slaves from South

Carolina to Georgia and began his coastal planting inter-

ests. He resided only periodically on the Georgia

plantations, having his permanent residence in Phila-

delphia (Scott in Kemble 1961).

Major Butler's wife died in 1790 leaving him with

one son and three daughters. His son Thomas married

a French woman and for this reason was ostracized and











almost disinherited. Sarah Butler, one of the daugh-

ters, married Dr. James Mease and had three sons who sur-

vived infancy. Major Butler's other two daughters were

Frances and Ann Eliza, twins who never married. Upon

Major Butler's death in 1822, the twins were given the

income and use of the estate until their death at which

time most went to Sarah's sons, Thomas, Butler, and John.

A clause in the will, however, stipulated that each of

the grandsons must take the surname of Butler in order

to inherit. Thomas died in 1823 and so did not live to in-

herit. Butler Mease became Pierce Butler in 1826, and

John Mease became John Butler in 1836. Pierce and John

received sole possession of the estate in 1836 when

Frances Butler died. Both had, in the meantime, married,

John to Gabriella Morris and Pierce to the famous British

Shakespearean actress Fanny Kemble (Butler Papers; Scott

in Kemble 1961).

Fanny and Pierce had met in Philadelphia, where

Pierce resided. When they married, she knew nothing

of his vast southern estate. Being a vehement abo-

litionist, she was mortified when she learned. Fanny's

journal of their visit to the Georgia estate in the winter

of 1838-39 provides one of the primary documents on

the plantation. She describes a horrifying picture of

inhumanity and the degrading conditions of slavery.

The book was published in England during the Civil










War in order to try and sway sentiment towards the

north. While Fanny portrays an accurate picture in

some respects, she tends to exaggerate and, in some cases,

incorrectly identified some situations. The information

has to be evaluated within the perspective in which she

viewed it.

Pierce and Fanny had two daughters, Sarah and Frances.

The situation between Pierce and Fanny grew continually

worse after their visit south and finally in 1848,

they were divorced. Pierce retained custody of the

children and Fanny returned to England (Butler Papers;

Scott in Kemble 1961).

Also in 1848, John Butler died in the Mexican War,

leaving his wife Gabriella as administrator of his es-

tate. They had one child, Elizabeth, who was to inherit

John's share of the estate after her mother's death.

Elizabeth had one child, but both the child and Eliza-

beth died before inheriting. This left the bulk of the

estate to Pierce and his heirs, after the death of

Gabriella (Butler Papers).

During the 1850's, Pierce began to undergo severe

financial reverses. In order to repay money to Gabriella

Butler, he was forced to sell his half of the slaves

(459 out of 919 total) in 1859, but he did retain half

of the real estate (Butler Papers).

After the Civil War, Pierce returned south with

his daughter Frances. Sarah had married Dr. Owen Wister











and continued to reside in Philadelphia. Pierce and Frances

tried to work the Georgia property on a sharecropping

basis, but had only limited success. Pierce died in

1867 at Butler Island. Frances continued to manage the

estate. In 1871, she married the Reverend James Leigh

in England, where she remained for a short period of

time. In 1873, the Leighs returned to Georgia and remained

until at least 1876. They made frequent visits to the

estate even after they moved elsewhere. The property stayed

in family hands into the 1900s (Butler Papers).


Property History

In 1758, Butler Point and the lands immediately

south (approximately 1700 acres) were granted to Henry

Ellis, then colonial governor of Georgia (Fortson 1972:23).

It does not appear that Ellis ever occupied the land and

at some point before 1774, sold it to James Graham. The

property was bought by Pierce Butler in 1774 (Georgia

Historical Society n.d.). In 1790, Butler sold the land

to James and Judith Ladison of Charleston (Glynn County

Superior Court 1790)., who sold the land back to Butler

the next year (Glynn County Superior Court 1791). The

reason for this transfer is not apparent.

Butler moved 433 slaves from South Carolina to Georgia

in 1793. Most of these seem to have been inherited

through his wife (Butler Papers 1793). While he was

never a permanent resident on the Georgia estate,

Major Butler visited almost every winter until 1810










(King 1810). Beginning in 1809, Major Butler tried to

sell his Georgia interests and continued these attempts

until his death in 1822. It seem that there were no

buyers who could meet his price (King 1810-1822).

In 1806, the Sinclair tract was added to the Butler

holdings, although as previously mentioned there were

disputes over the titles to this addition. This aqui-

sition seems to have finalized the Butler estate on St.

Simon's. Table 9 summarizes the property history.

Because of financial reverses, Pierce Butler

(younger) was forced to sell his half of the slaves

in 1859. This is reflected in Table 9. The documen-

tary data do not always separate the Butler properties

in Glynn County (St. Simon's) from that in McIntosh

County (Butler Island). I have attempted to note this

where possible. In 1894, most of the land on St. Simon's

was sold by the family (Wister Papers 1894).


Hampton Plantation

Main complex. In 1793, Major Pierce Butler began

building his St. Simon's plantation. It was to become

one of the largest in the south. The main complex of

the estate was located on the north end of Hampton Point

(or Butler Point), hence the name of the plantation.

The nuclear plantation settlement included the main house

with kitchen and storeroom, an overseer's residence with

a separate kitchen, a smokehouse, poultry house, wash










house, cotton barn, corn house, horse mill, two storehouses,

hospital, stable, and six duplex slave cabins (Wister

Papers 1815). Detailed descriptions are given in Table

10. In 1813, the main house was partially destroyed

(King 1813), and at this time at least two of the four

half-circular rooms were added (King 1913b). A drawing

of the house and the additions shows that the ground

floor was divided into ten rooms, five listed as chambers,

two parlors, a pantry, an entry and a piazza. It is not

certain if there was a second floor. There were seven

chimneys for the house, and the map is detailed enough

to locate the windows and doors (King 1813b). Major Butler

debated for some time about making the additions to his

house as he was only an infrequent visitor to the plan-

tation, but in 1814 he decided to go ahead (King 1814).

It seems likely that the house stood for only another ten

years, for in 1824, a great hurricane swept away a large

portion of the bank at Hampton, supposedly taking the

main house with it (Wylly n.d.; Cooney 1976:44).

When Fanny Kemble Butler visited in 1839, she noted

that a great amount of the bank was eroded taking a

whole orange grove with it (Kemble 1961:232). She mis-

identifies the overseer's house as being the old mansion

(Kemble 1961:228). The ruins of this structure still re-

main. It is possible that after the planter's house was

destroyed in 1824, the overseer's house was used by the

Butler family during their sporadic visits.











Ruins still remain of the stable and what local

tradition calls a sunken garden (Cooney 1976:43). This

garden structure is more likely one of the other subsi-

diary buildings named in the 1815 inventory, probably

one of the storehouses (Figure 5). The stable is al-

most certainly the one listed in the 1815 inventory as the

dimensions are the same (Mullins 1978).

There are six additional structures located approx-

imately 100 meters from the main complex. Four are of

tabby construction and are evidently the remains of du-

plex slave cabins. Figures 3 and 4 show one of these

cabins as it looked in 1939. They are of tabby construc-

tion with wooden floors. The fireplaces are of tabby

brick except for the firebox which is red bick. The other

two ruins are red brick. No function was apparent, but

it is possible that at least one was the hospital which

Fanny Kemble discusses in some detail (Kemble 1961:255).

On both the 1869 U.S.G.S. map and the 1911 soil survey

map of the county, six structures were shown in a row

in this same area. There should have been six duplex

cabins according to the 1815 inventory, so it is also

possible that the brick structures were slave cabins

built in a different fashion. This could not be deter-

mined from survey data (Mullins 1978).

In 1866, Frances Butler Leigh came to live on the

plantation with her father, Pierce (Leigh 1957). Pierce










died in 1867, but Frances still continued to try to make

a profitable planting venture. Frances lived in the

overseer's house at Butler Point and described it as a

"fair sized, comfortable building" (Leigh 1957). Frances

gave up the planting interests a short time later and in

1871, the house burned (Vanstory 1970:146).


Overseer's house. In 1839, when Fanny Kemble was

visiting the Butler estate, a new overseer's house was

being erected about one mile south of the main complex.

She called both the building and the site "witness to

an inveterate love of ugliness" (Kemble 1961:200). It

seems that this location was picked because it was centrally

located for the supervision of the slaves. At the time

of the survey in 1978, the remains of two subsidiary

structures were present as well as the standing chimney

of the overseer's house (Fig. 6). Both the 1869 U.S.G.S.

and 1911 soil survey maps show three structures, which would

include the overseer's house (U.S.G.S. 1869; Long 1912).

Whether there were other structures was not apparent

from either the archeology or documents.

It seems likely that this was one of the plantation

slave settlements. On the map in Fanny Kemble's journal

this site is identified as Jones but after considerable

documentary research, it was ascertained that this was

most likely Busson Hill, while the site identified as

Busson Hill on the map is Jones. The Butler papers never










mention Busson Hill, but Frances Butler Leigh describes

a "hill house" which was probably the overseer's house

under construction in 1839. It also seems likely that

Busson is a corruption of "bosun" or "bossun", a slang

term for the overseer. There is considerable mention

of Jones in the Butler documents and its location could

be determined accurately from a map drawn by Frances

Butler Leigh (Wister Papers 1893).


Jones. The Jones settlement, located two miles from

the main plantation complex, was constructed in 1801 (Pat-

terson 1801). The 1815 estate inventory lists one cotton

barn 60 X 40 feet, with two gins and seven other buildings

(Wister Papers 1815). No information is given about the

nature of these seven buildings. Jones remained an active

slave settlement during the plantation's lifetime and

was partially re-occupied during the post-bellum period

(Butler Papers 1877). Additional information about this

site will be discussed in Chapter 4.


St. Annie's. In 1824, Roswell King, Jr., decided

to enlarge the planting acres at Hampton, particularly

wishing to take in more marsh land which had proven to

be very fertile. To do this, it would be necessary to

build another slave settlement as the land he had in mind

was too far from the existing settlements. By December

of 1824, he had 50-60 acres ready to plant and was building










"temporary houses" (King 1824c). Trunks were built

to control water flow in the~marsh and a canal to the

highland was constructed. Later a causeway to Jones (the

nearest slave settlement) was built.

St. Annie's produced its first crop of cotton in

1825 (Butler Papers 1825). From 46 acres, 11 bales of

cotton were produced, or 80 pounds per acre. While this

is hardly the peak of production (good crops were over

200 pounds per acre), it was the best crop produced that

year by any of the settlements. In 1826 and 1827, no

crop is given for St. Annie's. No reason could be as-

certained from the documents. In the years from 1828

to 1833, St. Annie's averaged 140.25 pounds per acre,

in 1832 producing 265 pounds per acre, a remarkable

figure. No production data is available after this point.

In fact, very little information on St. Annie's exists

in the documents after this time. In a letter of 1834,

Roswell King, Jr. mentions that he has 25% hands at

St. Annie's, but we do not know the actual population since

this number is based on working ability, not number of

individuals.

The only other substantial mention of St. Annie's

comes from the journal of Fanny Kemble. Of all the slave

settlements she visited on the Butler estate, it was this

one which horrified her the most. She describes riding

over a causeway to get to it and finding there "the

wretchedest huts, and the most miserably squalid, filthy

and forlorn creatures I have yet seen" (Kemble 1961:227).










Most of the inhabitants she found were old or young,

not prime field hands.

Evidently this slave settlement was declining in

importance by this point, a decline being experienced

by the whole of Hampton plantation as the main crop

switched from cotton to rice. It is important to note

that after visiting several of the neighboring plan-

tation, Fanny notes that the cabins of St. Annie's, when

compared to their neighbors, were really "palaces"

(Kemble 1961:284). Evidently the Butler slaves enjoyed

some "advantages".

No further mention of the settlement is made in the

documents although it should be noted that the records

after this point are much less detailed. On the 1869

U.S.G.S. coastal survey map, the Busson Hill and Jones

Creek settlements are located, but no structures are

noted for St. Annie's. The causeway from Jones to St.

Annie's is present, but it stops, apparently at nothing.

The rest of our information about this site comes from

archeological survey data (Moore 1981:33).

After consulting the 1869 coastal survey map and

knowing the current location of the Jones settlement,

the survey teamwas able to plot where the St. Annie's

settlement should be. It was subsequently located on

the first try. Very little remains to indicate it was

ever there, only one brick fall. Subsequent tests and











probing could find no other structures. It is possible

that the bricks were robbed at some point. With the

partial population figure of 25 hands given in the

documents, it is certain that there must have been more

than one cabin, even if it was a duplex, as all the

other slave cabins on the estate were. Such a figure of

working hands, if comparable to the other settlements,

would indicate a population of 35-40 total (Butler

Papers 1821). If a figure of six slaves per dwelling

unit is used, which is more than average (Fogel and

Engerman 1974:115), then there should have been at least

three duplexes. In addition to the dwellings, there would

also have been support structures. One letter of King's

states that there was a cattle-driven cotton gin at

St. Annie's (King 1928) and a causeway which extends out

into the marsh indicates that there must have been a pro-

cessing/storing/loading facility at the site. There cer-

tainly were wells and possibly some sort of provision

storage structure if it follows the same pattern as Jones.

The survey tests did not recover a large quantity of

material. It is possible that the right areas were not

tested, or that they may have beendumping their trash

in the marsh. The ceramics recovered (only four sherds)

are typical of early and middle nineteenth century wares.

The only other artifacts of mention were a broad hoe and

a horse collar (or hame) used as a harness for any draft

animal. Perhaps it was used for the cattle powering

the gin.










Very little else is known about St. Annie's. What

we have is a picture of a remote slave settlement occu-

pied from 1824 until at least 1839 and probably for some

time thereafter. Fanny Kemble portrays a desolate, ne-

glected group of very old or very young slaves. What it

was like during its period of peak production is not clear.

It probably was much like the Jones Creek settlement, its

nearest neighbor.


Production and Management on the Butler Estate

The Butler estate, for most of its productive period,

was under the management of the Roswell Kings, Sr., and

Jr. Roswell King, Sr., was a surveyor from Connecticut

(Lewis 1978). How he came to work for Major Butler is

not clear but in 1802 he was hired as the plantation

manager. He kept detailed records and wrote to Major

Butler every two weeks; most of this correspondence sur-

vives. In 1816, King, Sr., decided to retire and wrote

to Major Butler about the difficulty in finding a suc-

cessor (King 1816b). Evidently King's son, Roswell, Jr.,

was decided upon. Roswell King, St., continued to sup-

ervise his son's handling of the affairs and occasionally

corresponded with Butler (King 1824b).

Roswell King, Jr., managed the estate until 1838

when he decided to retire to pursue other business

(Butler Papers 1837). He was evidently unhappy with

the lack of attention by John and Pierce Butler (King

1837). When her retired his salary was $2000 per year,










a quite considerable sum. He was also a slave holder

with 44 slaves listed in the 1830 census (U.S. Bureau of

the Census 1830).

After King left, there were evidently a number of

problems in the management of the estate and in 1841

King was persuaded to return at a salary of $2500 per

year. In addition, separate overseers were hired for

Hampton and Butler Island. Their salaries were to be

$550 per year (King 1841). This was more in line with

what other overseers in the area were getting (Otto 1975:

46-47). King remained on the estate until 1854 when he

retired for good. He noted that the slaves had been

troublesome since the visit of Fanny and Pierce in 1838.

He also indicated that the estate was losing money for

the first time in its history (King 1854).

Alexander Blue, the overseer of Butler Island, took

over from Roswell King, Jr., and managed the estate until

1860. Blue was both a land and slave owner (Glynn County

Superior Court 1856; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1860).

The overseer of Hampton was a Dr. Samuel B. Wilson,

a physician from Philadelphia and friend of the Butlers

(Blue 1848).

The Butler estate was evidently very profitable at

least until 1854. For 14 years (from 1822-1835), profit

figures of the estate are available (Butler Papers).

These profits range from about $10,000 to approximately

$50,000, certainly more than the average cotton planter.











These profits are given below:

1822 $ 9,372.60
1823 20,252.51
1824 48,372.67
1825 28,629.67
1826 34,901.08
1827 36,801.16
1828 20,970.86
1829 29,287.00
1830 42,082.22
1831 25,829.23
1832 31,675.12
1833 23,688.53
1834 28,701.39
1835 24,862.50

Cotton production during these same years (1820-1833) ranged

from 21 pounds per acre to 265 pounds per acre (Butler

Papers).

In 1806, Major Butler made a cost breakdown for his

estate:

cost of 10 negroes $ 3000
cost of land for this # 500
insurance on negroes lives 150
clothing for negroes 60
taxes on negroes 5
taxes on land 12
tools 5
overseer's wages 50
provisions 120
machinery and cattle to gin 360

Total $ 4262

He figured 25 acres of land in cotton (for these ten

slaves) and 150 pounds per acre harvest at $.30 per

pound. This would yield a return of only $1125, but

the initial outlay on slaves and land would be paid off

in several years and then there should be a large profit

margin. Major Butler also noted that if more land were











added this would increase the profits. In 1819, Major

Butler added a note saying that the price of negroes had

increasedby one-third, but land prices had remained the

same.

All of this suggests that the Butlers were not simply

uninvolved owners but shrewd businessmen (with the help

of the Kings). Major Butler realized the need to diversify

his planting interests and as cotton declined in profit,

he was able to substitute sugar and rice production.

Major Butler came to St. Simon's with approximately

300 slaves. At the time of the division of the estate in

1859, there were 919. Most of this increase was natural.

Table 11 lists the births, deaths and net increase in

the slave population on the estate. Major Butler evidently

did make some purchases since in 1803 he requested some

gold or west coast slaves from his factor (Butler Papers

1803). At this point the importation of African slaves

had not yeat been banned. Later in that same year Roswell

King, Sr., mentions that he has just brought a load of slaves

to the plantation and that there are no slaves who can

understand them (King 1803). There are no other records

for the purchase of slaves, but Major Butler may have

been buying them infrequently.

As has been mentioned, Hampton declined in importance

with the decline of cotton prices. This can be seen in

the number of slaves employed there. The Roswell Kings

(both Sr. and Jr.) made several censuses which are

reiterated in Table 12. As can be seen, in 1811 there




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - Version 2.9.9 - mvs