PLACE N RETURN BOX m remove this checkout from your "cord.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on at More data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative ActlorVEqunl Opportunity Imam
Wanna-9.1

 

A“ ‘
V.“

ONLY THE NECESSITIES: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF
TENANCY AND CERAMIC ACQUISITION

By

Virginia Carol Ellenburg

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology

1997

.3

ABSTRACT

ONLY THE NECESSITIES: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF
TENANCY AND CERAMIC ACQUISITION

BY

Virginia Carol Ellenburg

There is an association between the nature of
postbellum plantation tenancy and the use of ceramics by
plantation tenants in the American South. This thesis argues
that this link can be demonstrated archaeologically. In
order to explore that connection, the ceramic assemblage
from a tenant site at Old Town Plantation in Georgia was
examined in the context of a model of ceramic acquisition
and use. This model was based on information known about the
nature of tenancy and associated consumer behavior as well
as the nature of ceramic assemblages from tenant sites
located on plantations in South Carolina and Mississippi.
The Old Town data were examined on the basis of attribute
analysis and the results of these were used to define the
link between the attributes of ceramic assemblages
associated with tenant sites and the nature of the behaviors

responsible for ceramic acquisition by tenants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................ V
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ........................................ 6
DISCIPLINARY BACKGROUND .............................. 6
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY .......................... 6
PLANTATION ARCHAEOLOGY .......................... 7
TENANT PLANTATION ARCHAEOLOGY ................... 8
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ IO
THEORETICAL ORIENTATION ............................. 11
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, SOCIOECONOMICS, AND
PATTERNING ..................................... ll
CERAMICS AND STATUS ASSOCIATIONS ............... 17

CHAPTER 3

THE NATURE OF TENANCY .................................... 22
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE TENANT PLANTATION ..... 23
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING TENANT LIFESTYLE ..... 26

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .................. 4O
ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ............................ 4O
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................... 42

COLONIAL ERA ................................... 43
ANTEBELLUM ERA ................................. 46
POSTBELLUM ERA ................................. 51
THE CONVICT LEASE SYSTEM .................. 52
TENANT FARMING ............................ 58

CHAPTER 5

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................ 67
SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY ........................... 67
EXCAVATION .......................................... 71
METHODS OF CERAMIC ANALYSIS ......................... 74

MEAN CERAMIC DATE .............................. 75

iii

CERAMIC TYPE ANALYSIS .......................... 79

CERAMIC FUNCTION ANALYSIS ...................... 81
CERAMIC DECORATION ANALYSIS .................... 82
CERAMIC FORM AND MNI ANALYSIS .................. 83
SUMMARY ........................................ 84

CHAPTER 6
RESEARCH INTERPRETATION .................................. 85
HYPOTHESIS 1 ........................................ 85
CERAMIC TYPE ANALYSIS .......................... 87
CERAMIC FUNCTION ANALYSIS ...................... 88
CERAMIC DECORATION ANALYSIS .................... 89
CERAMIC FORM AND MNI ANALYSIS .................. 92
SUMMARY ........................................ 95
HYPOTHESIS 2 ........................................ 96
CERAMIC TYPE ANALYSIS .......................... 97
CERAMIC FUNCTION ANALYSIS ...................... 99
CERAMIC DECORATION ANALYSIS ................... 100
CERAMIC FORM AND MNI ANALYSIS ................. 102
CERAMICS AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR ................ 105
SUMMARY ....................................... 106

CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................. 108
LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................... 113

iv

 

 

 

m-

p-

..

 

-‘
p.
-A

~

”5,

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

10-

11-

12—

13-

14-

LIST OF TABLES

Mean Ceramic Date For GSUJFlA ................... 76
Distribution of Ceramic Types ................... 87
Distribution of Ceramic Function Types .......... 89
Distribution of Ceramic Decorative Techniques...90
Distribution of Ceramic Decorative Categories...9l
Ceramic Vessel Forms ............................ 94
Identified Ceramic Vessel Forms ................. 94

Compared Distribution of Ceramic Types, by Sherd
Count ........................................... 98

Compared Distribution of Ceramic Function Types...
............................................... 100

Similarity Matrix for Ceramic Artifact Function...

............................................... 100
Distribution of Decoration Categories, by Sherd...
............................................... 101
Distribution of Decoration Categories, by Vessel..
............................................... 101
Distribution of Ceramic Vessel Forms ........... 104
Similarity Matrix For Ceramic Vessel Form ...... 104

 

arti

and

 

arChg

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Tenant plantations were one of the most common
agrarian units in the American South during the period
between the end of the Civil War and World War II. However,
little is known about tenant farmers and their material
culture despite the fact that they constituted a large
portion of Southern rural society. This thesis seeks to
improve that situation through the archaeological
investigation of a tenant housesite at Old Town Plantation,
located in Jefferson County, Georgia.

Archaeology is an important discipline that can be
used to discover information about past cultures. Culture
consists of a system of learned knowledge and beliefs which
members of a society or group of people share. "Artifacts
are the physical manifestations of culture. By means of
artifacts, people are studied by the archaeologist in the
hope that general statements can be made about those people
and about their culture" (Adams 1980:25).

One aspect of culture that has been studied by

archaeologists is social stratification. The identification

1

 

 

 

('3

 

 

 

2

of artifact groups or artifact attributes that may indicate
class or status is an important part of archaeological
investigation. Many archaeologists have endeavored to
determine if and how socioeconomic status is reflected by
the archaeological record. That this determination is
considered possible is most concisely stated by James Deetz
(1973:20): "Depending on an individual's place within the
socioeconomic scale, the artifacts with which he furnishes
his household will vary in quantity and quality". This
kind of research may be best conducted in historical
archaeology because of the added historical and social
information available with the use of historical documents.
The plantation is one kind of settlement whose remains
easily lend themselves to the investigation of the material
associations of social groups. That is because distinctly
different social groups are known to have lived and worked
on plantations (Adams and Boling 1982:59). These plantation
groups were linked to the organization of production and
based on occupation within the labor hierarchy. Therefore,
plantation status ranking was based on occupation and had
social and economic ramifications (Stine 1990:38).
Individual households which existed on a plantation were
part of a larger cultural system that imposed uniformity

within and contrast between social groups. It is believed

3

that these different social groups would have had different
lifeways, and therefore different material cultures. These
differences in material culture of social groups should be
visible in the archaeological record (South 1977:86-88).

This study will take into account the tenant
plantation cultural system of which the site and
archaeological deposits are a reflection. Then reasoned
arguments will be used to structure testable propositions
about the expected content of the ceramic artifact
assemblage. Ceramic artifacts will be the concentration of
this study because ceramics are a good class of artifacts
to use for addressing status-related research questions.
Ceramics have long been at the center of investigation by
archaeologists because ceramics are durable, widely used,
and "potential sources of valuable information for
analyzing and interpreting historical period lifeways"
(Majewski and O'Brien 1987:99). Ceramics are useful in
addressing issues related to status because ceramic items
have sociotechnic attributes which can be related to status
(Spencer-Wood 1987c).

The goal of this thesis is to demonstrate that tenants
were an impoverished occupation—based cultural group,
united in a socioeconomic stratum which had distinct

consumer behaviors regarding ceramics. Because of this,

4

their behavior may be examined through the context of
ceramic acquisition and use. The primary argument is that a
link between the nature of tenancy and ceramic acquisition
exists and can be demonstrated archaeologically. The end
objective is to characterize possible status—related
ceramic acquisition behaviors.

In order to achieve this goal, the following steps
will be undertaken:(1)identify the nature of tenancy,
(2)identify the possible archaeological ceramic attributes
which can be associated with the impoverished nature of
postbellum plantation tenancy, and (3)propose consumer
behavior, based on the nature of tenancy and the consumer
behavior associated with it, which was responsible for the
ceramic artifact assemblages found at tenant sites. This
study will explore possible status-related behavior
patterns through the examination of the relationship
between archaeological ceramic patterns and documentary
indications of the tenant socioeconomic group.

Before the attempt is made to fulfill the above goals
and purposes, it will be helpful to present the
organization of the following study. Chapter 2 details the
research framework. Included are discussions concerning
disciplinary background and theoretical orientation.

Chapter 3 develops a model of tenant lifestyle using

5

documentary evidence. Plantation social stratification and
socioeconomic status of tenants are discussed. Chapter 4
provides a general environmental and historical background
of Old Town Plantation. This information will place the
site which was excavated into historical and cultural
context. The archaeological investigation conducted at Old
Town Plantation is examined in Chapter 5. This includes
information concerning site background, description,
excavation, and a presentation of ceramic analysis
procedures. Chapter 6 consists of the research
interpretation. The hypotheses are presented and assessed.
The final conclusions are discussed in Chapter 7. This
includes a review of the thesis procedures and findings, an
assessment of research conclusions, and recommendations for

future research.

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

The following chapter is an examination of the
disciplinary background, research methodology, and
theoretical orientation of this thesis. Several different
fields and methods of research were drawn from in order to
pursue the study at Old Town Plantation. Each of the
following areas of scholarship contributed to the design
and purpose of this study. It is believed that the
explanation of these topics is necessary for the proper
understanding of the foundation of the current
archaeological inquiry.

DISCIPLINARY BACKGROUND
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

This thesis is based, at the broadest level, in the
discipline of historical archaeology. Historical
archaeology is "the study of human behavior through
material remains, for which written history in some way
affects its interpretation" (Deagan 1982:153). Therefore,

historical archaeology combines the use of both

7

archaeological and historical resources for research
concerning human cultures.
PLANTATION ARCHAEOLOGY

A plantation refers to "an agricultural enterprise in
which a number of workers of a subordinate class work
together to produce a crop for someone else to be sold in a
market" (Degler 1979:11). Because the research at Old Town
was a practice of historical archaeology at a plantation,
it can be placed into the subfield of plantation
archaeology. Plantation archaeology involves the
investigation of sites located on former plantations. This
subfield has emerged only recently as a distinct area of
inquiry within historical archaeology. However, the study
of plantations has become an important part of historical
archaeology. Moreover, historical archaeology has made
significant contributions to the scholastic examination of
plantations which could not have been made through any
other means. "Plantation archaeology provides the best
means for providing tangible information about the material
culture used at southern plantations and provides evidence
for the historical and cultural life on ... plantations"

(Orser 1988:14). Therefore, it is necessary to discuss

8

plantation archaeology as the context for the research at
Old Town.

The majority of archaeological research involving
plantations has centered upon antebellum plantations in the
American South. Specialized issues which have been written
about are slave lifestyle, the regularities of plantation
remains, and the differences between artifact assemblages
of owners and their slaves.

TENANT PLANTATION ARCHAEOLOGY

One area of research which has expanded the
understanding of plantation society beyond the era of
slavery is the study of tenant plantations. A tenant
plantation can be defined as "a continuous tract of land of
considerable area under the general supervision or control
of a single individual or firm, all or part of such tract
being divided into ... smaller tracts, which are leased to
tenants" (Coulter 1913:878). This type of tenant plantation
was widespread across the South from the end of the Civil
War until the beginning of World War II. The tenant
plantation was part of a plantation framework that required
a subservient workforce and provided means by which
planters kept their labor force under control. The
distribution of wealth and power was unequal among

inhabitants of a tenant plantation because of the differing

9

relationships they maintained to the mode of production.
The result was a social and economic gap between the
planters and tenants. The tenant plantation occupance form
was significant because of its widespread use during the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Although the literature concerning postbellum
plantations is appreciable, two publications are
predominant in the body of literature and are cornerstones
for the background research of this thesis. In the 1980

report entitled Waverly Plantation: Ethnoarchaeology of a

 

Tenant Farming Community, William Hampton Adams discussed

 

investigations which had been conducted at Waverly
Plantation in Mississippi (Adams 1980). The research at
Waverly was a practice of ethnoarchaeology - the study of a
community using combined historical, archaeological and
ethnographic data- and was the first intensive
archaeological exploration of a tenant plantation. The
research of Charles Orser at Millwood Plantation (Orser
1988) also focused on a tenant plantation. Orser's work,
The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation, was
important because the investigation focused upon a Piedmont
plantation located in South Carolina and provided data for
geographical variation. Orser illustrated the material

basis of a tenant planation through the examination of

10

settlement patterns, labor arrangements, and social
relationships between planter and tenants.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

It is documented that Old Town Plantation experienced
a period of occupation during which tenant farmers
comprised the majority of the residents and the labor
force. Also, archaeological remains that are likely to have
been produced as a result of their presence were present
within the plantation boundaries. The lives of tenant
farmers therefore could be examined with the methods of
historical archaeology. In order to guide research
investigations, two hypotheses were formulated for testing.
These hypotheses focused upon the socioeconomic character
of tenants and its relationship to material culture. It is
hoped that the examination of these hypotheses with the use
of archaeology will confirm expectations regarding the
social and economic character of tenants in order to
increase knowledge known about their behavior. The
hypotheses developed for testing were:

Hypothesis 1: Tenant farmers were an impoverished
socioeconomic group. The artifact
assemblage from the tenant site at
Old Town Plantation will reflect

This impoverished nature of tenant
culture.

11

Hypothesis 2: Tenant farmers were a cohesive
group, united into a single
culture which regulated consumer
behaviors. The artifact
assemblage from the tenant site
at Old Town will be similar to
artifact assemblages from other
tenant sites.

A basic assumption behind these hypotheses is that
there are classes of artifacts that are sensitive
indicators of social position. Also important is the
assumption that there exists patterned regularity within
the archaeological record that reflects regularities in
behavior. In order to test the hypotheses, data will be
needed which will relate to the socioeconomic character of
tenancy. The hypotheses will be addressed using several
concepts utilized within the field of historical
archaeology. These concepts will be
discussed below within the explanation of theoretical
orientation.

THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, SOCIOECONOMICS AND PATTERNING

Historical materialism is a theoretical orientation
which is comprised of a complex body of thought. The
historical materialist model of society is composed of

three parts: the economic base, the political structure,

and the social ideologies. Although historical materialism

O

12

is not economic determinism, it assumes that the economic
base constitutes the footing for all else in society and
that human production is of primary importance in history
(Orser 1988z7). Production includes most of the tangible
actions and products of people including modes of
production, relations of production, means of production,
and mode of distribution. Production is significant because
the social and economic status of people are often
determined by their position in a hierarchy of production.

According to this perspective, the concentration of
energy, resources and means of production is the main
causal factor of social stratification. Social
stratification is "a heuristic concept pertaining to the
hierarchical ordering of the members of a society into
strata according to several criteria of rank" (Tumin
1970:14). It has a variety of meanings related to power,
social status, and economic class. The concentration of
power involved in social stratification "tends to become
fixed as socioeconomic status levels within a society"
(South 1988:25).

Socioeconomic status indicates the relationship
between economic and social position associated with
economic role, particularly occupation. The historical

materialist framework is connected to socioeconomic status

13

because it is primarily concerned with explaining economic
differentiations in terms of relationship to production
(Spencer-Wood 1987:13). Occupational category is considered
the most objective measure of class and status differences
(Edwards 1939; Reissman 1959:144; Hodges 1964:95).

The individuals who belong to a particular occupation
category constitute a single cultural subgroup. That is
because members of "occupational categories share a level
of income, social interaction, leisure time, shared
knowledge, and values" (Spencer-Wood 1987:324)(See Barth
and Watson 1967:394, Engel et al. 1978:116). Therefore, the
members of a particular occupation form a united group
which has standards of social and economic behavior.

Many scholars from a variety of disciplines agree that
occupational categories are important factors involved in
the formation of social and economic behaviors. Studies in
the United States found that status is best indicated by
occupational category in a factor analysis of nineteen
status-related variables (Kahl and Davis 1955). Historians
(e.g., Hershberg and Dockhorn 1976; Katz 1972), economists
(Engel et al. 1978; Martineau 1958), and sociologists
(Hodges 1964; Reismann 1959) have all considered occupation
to be the most objective indicator of socioeconomic status.

This multidiscipliary agreement suports the archaeologists

14

(e.g., Spencer-Wood 1984, 1987; Branstner and Martin 1987;
Orser 1987) who have used occupation to denote affiliation
in a socioeconomic group. Occupation has also been
considered the major determinant of wealth and accompanying
status-related behavior (Spencer-Wood 1987:324). "Economic
anthropologists (See Douglas and Isherwood 1979:25,116-
119), as well as economists (See Dusenberry 1971) and
sociologists (See Warner et a1. 1960:168-169) consider
income or wealth, usually determined by occupation, as the
major factor limiting consumer choices" (Spencer-Wood
1987:325). The consumer behaviors of an occupational group
are patterned within the group and differ from other
occupational groups.

Overall, historical materialism supports the
connection between occupation, as the primary indicator of
socioeconomic status, and the consumer behavior of members
included in the cultural subgroup of an occupational
category. This supposition has been supported by scholars
from the disciplines of anthropology, archaeology,
economics, history, and sociology.

Consumer behavior is responsible for the consumption
of material culture. Therefore, because the consumer
behaviors of occupational groups are regulated, the

material culture should be also. The material culture of

15

past societies forms the basis of the archaeological
record. As a result, the archaeological record should
consist of patterned material culture which was a product
of the regulated behavior of a cultural subgroup.
Archaeological data should link material culture to
consumer behavior and the socioeconomic status of
occupational subgroups.

The idea that archaeological deposits should exhibit a
certain patterned regularity underlies much of
archaeological research. In historical archaeology, the
idea was first explored in detail by Stanley South (1977).
South wrote that members of past cultures lived their lives
in culturally patterned ways. He maintained that this basic
anthropological concept should be visible in the
archaeological record.

The idea that the patterns of culture are visible in
the archaeological record led to the further postulation
that "the socioeconomic status—related processes leave
their indelible mark within the archaeological record"
(South 1988:25). Additionally, this means that
stratification should have direct material correlates in
the archaeological record. The ultimate objective of
examining the patterning in material culture is to reveal

patterns of human activity that can be used "to gain

l6

insight into the behavior patterns of the people
responsible for the archaeological record" (South
1977:327).

Efforts have been made to examine the connection
between archaeological data and consumer behavior
distinctions among and within socioeconomic groups. It has
been suggested that "there are some systemic connections
between patterns in the archaeological data and pattern of
participation in consumer behaviors of cultural subgroups"
(Spencer-Wood 1987:1). In archaeology, the main interest is
the association between the socioeconomic status of past
occupants of a site and the procurement and ownership of
goods. The kind of material possessions acquired by people
are affected by their socioeconomic status. Furthermore,
"research in anthropological archaeology and on
consumer behavior both find strong relationships between
economic roles, social stratification, and types of
material culture owned by households or excavated from
sites" (Spencer—Wood 1987:2) (See Warner et al. 1960:123;
Laumann and House 1970:327-328; Hoffman 1974:36).

In archaeology, the study of socioeconomic status has
been approached from many angles. However, the most common
method is the direct analysis of "the range of artifacts

from a given site... or a particular class of artifacts"

17

(Lewis 1985:122). There is a growing body of research in
historical archaeology that has been concerned with the
analyses of artifact attributes that have been related to
economic roles and behavioral distinctions among
socioeconomic strata (e.g., Drucker 1981; Deagan 1982;
Geismar 1982; Schultz and Gust 1983; Otto 1984; Garrow et
al. 1983; Singer 1985; Orser 1988; Joseph 1991). Many
historical archaeologists have also related archaeological
ceramic assemblages to occupational status (e.g. De Cunzo
1982; Heberling 1985; Raffa 1983)

In conclusion, historical materialism can be used as a
framework "to analyze relationships between aspects of
production represented by occupational roles, and
variations in archaeological patterns". When applied
through archaeology, this framework can "link production,
through occupation ... to consumption patterns" (Spencer—
Wood 1987:12).

CERAMICS AND STATUS ASSOCIATIONS

In order to address the research hypotheses, the
ceramic class of artifacts will be examined in detail.
Although it is possible for other classes of artifacts to
reveal information regarding status, ceramics are an
effective class of artifacts for this purpose. The study of

ceramics has been important in historical archaeology, and

18

there have been many studies that have concentrated on an
analysis of historic-period ceramics (e.g., Miller and
Stone 1970; Price 1979; G. Miller 1980, 1991; Adams and
Boling 1991). Ceramics have been used in archaeological
analysis for many reasons. Ceramic items are widely used
and durable, and can serve as temporal or economic markers.
Many studies, such as those by John Otto (1975, 1977, 1984)
have emphasized the role of ceramics in reflecting social
phenomena. "The importance of ceramic studies in signaling
social distinctions in past societies can be demonstrated
by the use of ceramic data in addressing social hypotheses"
(Orser et al. 1987:523—524).

One of the most important uses of ceramic data is the
search for evidence of socioeconomic strata in the
archaeological record. Ceramic materials have been used by
archaeologists for this purpose for many years. In fact,
"ceramics as an indicator of socioeconomic status is
probably the most thoroughly studied artifact class" (Lewis
1985:133).

The most influential investigation involving the use
of ceramics to search for socioeconomic evidence in the
remains of a plantation was conducted by John Solomon Otto.
In his analysis of the ceramics from Cannon's Point

Plantation, a late-eighteenth cotton plantation located on

 

 

11.1mm.»
...: ..url

19

St. Simon's Island, Georgia, Otto found that ceramics used
by slaves, overseers, and planters were distinctly linked
with these socioeconomic groups. Otto (1977) discovered
that both ceramic type, vessel form and decoration were
related to socioeconomic groups. Otto's trailblazing work
was valuable and many archaeologists have followed,
validated, and expanded upon his concepts (e.g., Handler
and Lange 1978; Drucker 1981; Spencer-Wood 1984,1987c;
Adams and Boling 1991).

According to the historical materialist framework, the
division of labor and relations of ownership form the
relations of production. The occupational position within
the mode of production- the way in which people produce
items such as food, clothing, shelter, and cash crops— is a
measure of wealth and correlating socioeconomic status and
is determined by the relations of production. It follows
that the choices that consumers make should be influenced
by their socioeconomic status level. This idea has been
studied by historical archaeologists. Some historical
archaeologists have investigated "the degree of
correspondence between occupation, as a primary documentary
indication of socioeconomic status, and the relative

quality and price of ceramics that consumers decide to buy

20

and subsequently discard or lose" (Spencer-Wood
1987:323)(See DeCunzo 1982, Dyson 1982, Geismar 1982, Orser
1987).

It is expected that, in general, the value of
archaeological ceramic assemblages will reflect the
connection between socioeconomic status and consumer
choices. This is expected because ceramics include types
that can display status and because ceramic items are
produced in a wide array of choices, with a variety of
qualities and prices. "Historical archaeologists can test
these expectations by contrasting and comparing the results
obtained with methods for measuring socioeconomic status"
(Spencer-Wood 1987:326).

Many methods have been used to examine ceramics
artifacts for evidence of socioeconomic correlates.
However, the most valuable has been the analysis of various
attributes within the ceramic artifact group. It has been
suggested that the ceramic artifact class can be seen as
status related only when it is carefully analyzed for the
various attributes within that class (Lewis 1985:138).

Because the goal is to distinguish the connections
between ceramic archaeological data and socioeconomic
status, only the sociotechnic attributes of artifacts that

can be expected to relate to status should be analyzed

21

(Spencer-Wood 1987:15). Sociotechnic artifacts are
artifacts which function primarily within the social
subsystem of culture. A variety of strategies has been used
to study the sociotechnic attributes of ceramics. These
include the examination of ceramic type, decoration, form,
function, and cost.

The results of ceramic analysis from various sites can
be compared and contrasted in order to elucidate possible
patterns of content. These patterns of content usually are
observed by "calculating frequencies and percentages of
ceramic taxa, whether these are based on ware, decoration,
function or value" (Majewksi and O'Brien 1987:174). If
sites of known similar socioeconomic status have similar
ceramic patterns of content, then hypotheses can be
proposed about the consumer behavior of the former sites'
inhabitants. The role that consumer behavior plays in the
deposition of ceramics with certain attributes has been
studied often by archaeologists. For example, Miller (1974)
and Geismar (1982) have suggested that piecemeal
accumulation of ceramic items may reflect the buying habits
of economically marginal people, based on the recovery of

ceramic assemblages with mismatched vessels.

 

CHAPTER 3

THE NATURE OF TENANCY

This chapter presents a review of the documentary
sources relating to the socioeconomic status of tenants. A
model of tenant lifestyle is developed in order to provide
a cultural context for interpreting material culture. It is
expected that the model of tenant lifestyle will specify
the nature of the artifact assemblages which are expected
at tenant sites.

The use of historical or ethnographic data to build a
cultural framework for a particular group is a common
practice in historical archaeology. Lewis Binford has
suggested that lifeways be reconstructed by using
archaeological patterns to test hypotheses of expectations
generated from ethnographically derived cultural
constructs. Binford (1968:13—14) has advocated this
scientific methodology to connect archaeological patterns
with behavioral correlates. However, ethnographic data is
not always available for analysis. In such cases, Mark

Leone (1987) has suggested that historical archaeologists

22

23

use documentary data as Binford used ethnographic data to
construct an organizational framework of cultural behavior.
This chapter follows the directions suggested by Binford
and Leone and seeks to integrate information about tenant
lifestyle from all types of sources which are available.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE TENANT PLANTATION

Because it is the objective of this work to explore
tenant lifestyle on postbellum plantations, it is necessary
to explain the definition of tenant and the organization of
the society which gave rise to tenancy. The word tenant
refers to any person who farms and labors on land owned by
another and pays rent in cash or a share of the crops
(Adams 1980:338). It can be surmised from this definition
that a tenant on a postbellum plantation was, at least in
some part, socially separated from and economically
dependent on the landowner. That disadvantaged relationship
between tenant and landowner is one of the effects caused
by the social stratification of the postbellum plantation
in the southern United States.

The term tenant is an occupational ranking that refers
to the group of people which performed a particular
function in postbellum plantation society. However, the

term tenant has more connotations beyond mere occupation.

24

"Occupational categories can be viewed as signposts to
economic strata within a specific culture. Occupations
often have status implications, as well, because jobs tend
to have certain associated privileges" (Stine 1990:38).
This was certainly true on postbellum plantations.

In the late 19th through the early 20th centuries,
postbellum plantation society was based on a strict
hierarchical order of social stratification. The main
factor involved in ranking was plantation occupation. The
result was a 'social ladder' that had rungs from low status
to high status positions. The rankings on the social ladder
had material ramifications. Surveys conducted among
twentieth—century plantation tenants reflect the material
hierarchy of the agricultural ladder (e.g., Boeger and
Goldenweiser 1916:1; Woofter et al. 1936:86-87).

The 'social ladder' and the management characteristics
of a postbellum plantation were essentially those
maintained from the antebellum period. Although the exact
nature of the hierarchical structure varied, it played a
persistent role in shaping, organizing, and maintaining
power-management relationships in the face of change
(Prunty 1955:490-491). At the top of that 'social ladder'
were the landlords, many of who were the same men who had

been slaveholders before the Civil War. The landlord was

25

the individual who was the owner of the plantation. The
landlords had managers to supervise and tenants to work
their land. These landlords had the largest income and
therefore it is assumed that they could accumulate a
greater amount and diversity of material possessions which
were beyond basic necessities.

The managers which landlords employed filled an
occupational position in between that of the owner himself
and the tenants. Therefore, they probably had a comparable
position in the social hierarchy. However, it is not known
what level of economic status or material wealth the
postbellum plantation overseer attained (Orser et al.
1987:682). Even so, it can be said that the overseer
probably had better housing and a higher quality of
material goods than the tenants at the same plantation.
This is because the overseer would have had more
economically valued skills and would have received larger
wages for his work than tenants.

In postbellum plantation society, tenants fulfilled
the same function as laborers on plantations that slaves
had earlier. Therefore, tenants were at the bottom rungs of
the stratified plantation society. The tenant was any
individual who leased a tract of land on a plantation and

paid for its use with a share of the crops, or a fixed

 

 

 

‘ I final. ._ r .4 HS Pr
5. . 7 III!!!

26

amount of money, or cotton, or of other products (Coulter
1913:879). The two basic categories of tenants were the
sharecropper and the tenant renter. Each kind of tenancy
was determined on the basis of the arrangement the tenant
made with the landlord. "Each arrangement was based.. on
economics, ... where the landlord is paid in money or
labor, for the use of his land, buildings, implements, and
so forth" (Orser 1987:128). Basically, sharecroppers had to
pay the landlord part of the crop they produced; tenant
renters had to pay a fixed rent in either crops or cash.
The labor arrangements on a single plantation varied.
Tenants with all different kinds of tenure could live on a
single plantation at the same time because each made his
arrangement with the landlord individually.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING TENANT LIFESTYLE

It is difficult to portray the lives of tenants and
sharecroppers because they are not very visible in the
documentary record. This is true of all types of
documentary evidence. Although little documentation is
available which describes detailed characteristics of farm
tenant's material conditions, "this kind of information is
essential to the archaeologist's correct identification and
functional interpretation of the artifacts recovered"

(Holland 1990:67).

27

Several studies were conducted concerning tenant
farmers in the 1930's, and 1940's (e.g., Thomas 1934;
Woofter et al. 1936; Schuyler 1938; Hagwood 1939; Agee and
Evans 1941; Raper 1941). These studies were devoted to
socioeconomic evaluations of tenant farming. Most portrayed
the tenant farmer as "an exploited, impoverished being who
lived hand to mouth and was oppressed by the landowner"
(Adams 1980:355).

The best record of tenant life comes from James Agee

and Walker Evans. Their book, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men

 

(1941), presented a description of the daily life of tenant
farmers. The two men gathered a tremendous amount of
information and provided insight about tenant life, homes,
and possessions. Agee and Evans provided almost 100 pages
of detailed, descriptive observations of tenancy. Although
their descriptions reflected a restricted sample of three
families, and therefore contain an inherent bias, "these
descriptions are still intensely valuable to understanding
the archaeological record" (Trinkley 1983:32). The
information has little statistical utility, but is still
useful because of its extensive detail.

The material aspect of tenant life most often written
about is housing. An early account of tenant housing was

detailed by W.O. Atwater and Charles D. Woods. The two

28

investigated the housing of tenants in Alabama in 1895 and
1896. They noted that the houses were small simple
buildings with shingle or board roofs, built on posts, with
floorboards widely spaced apart. The houses had glassless
windows covered with shutters, one fireplace, and a
storeroom connected on one side (Atwater and Woods 1897:16-
17).

In 1936, the Works Progress Administration published a

monograph entitled Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton

 

Plantation. Regarding the housing conditions of tenants,

 

this monograph revealed that:

"The houses furnished are among the poorest
in the Nation. Unpainted four room shacks
predominate. Screening is the exception

and sanitation is primitive" (Woofter et al.
1936:xxvii-xxviii).

The simplicity of tenant housing was conveyed by Ed
Brown, a black former tenant farmer in Georgia. He
described his home as "just a shell of a house, not sealed
in any way ... had a chimney goin up from a fireplace
openin on to two rooms." The house had "shutters of upright
boards" instead of glass windows (Maguire 1975:37-38).

Agee and Evans (1941) provided a detailed description

of three tenant homes. Their account showed that none of

the houses inhabited by the three families were adequate

 

 

 

‘

 

29

and that the homes of all three families were similar. They

concluded that all tenant houses have:

"pretty strongly in common these
characteristics: wood unpainted and weathered
or once whitewashed and weathered; raised off
the ground so that earth and daylight

are clear under the whole of them; one

of two or three of the simplest conceivable
designs; the outbuildings small and low
beyond proportion to a 'farm'; the house

very clearly an enlarged crate or box,
scarcely modified to human use; in the

whole establishment the look of the utmost
possible extreme of flimsiness and nudity"
(Agee and Evans 1941:205-206).

The unsubstantial nature of tenant housing has been
repeated and confirmed by many scholars. It can be safely
concluded that "the homes of tenant farmers, of whatever
tenure class, were simple structures" (Orser 1988:94). The
assessment by George Brown Tindall is a good overall
depiction of tenant housing:

"home [for the tenant] was a dilapidated,
unpainted, weatherbeaten frame cabin ... on
rock or brick pilings — unceiled, unscreened,
covered with a leaky roof" (Tindall 1967:114).

The information which is known about tenant house
interiors and furnishings mirrors the descriptions of the
meager house structures. Atwater and Woods (1897:17)

described the interior of a tenants's home. They noted that

30

there was a bedstead, a corn shuck mattress, a wooden
cupboard, a wooden chest, a simple pine table, and a few
homemade chairs. The Bureau of Home Economics survey of
farm housing of 1934 also provides information about
housing interiors (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1934:11-
17). Its figures support the descriptions given by others
about the general lack of home furnishings and conveniences
in tenant farmhouses.

When sociologist Margaret Hagwood examined the houses
of tenant farm houses in the 1930's, she found that the
inside of the homes could be characterized by a lack of
color and drabness and that the furnishings could be easily
listed. Hagwood wrote that she usually found a table, a
food safe, one or two beds, a dresser, a few chairs, and
perhaps a closet or cabinet for dishes (Hagwood 1939:96-
97).

E.A. Schuyler conducted a study of tenant housing
facilities during the 1930's. In his 1938 study, Schuyler
questioned tenant housewives about the home conveniences
they had. Very few families had such luxuries as indoor
toilets, running water, washing machines, or refrigeration
facilities. His figures revealed that the ownership of
large amounts of home furnishings or conveniences was not a

reality for southern tenant families.

31

Again, Agee and Evans provide the most detailed
descriptions of the interior of tenant housing. They list
the furnishing in one home as including: a small trunk, a
broken hickory—bottom chair, two beds, an old mirror, two
pine tables, and a small wood stove. All of the furniture
observed in tenants homes was described as plain, wooden
and in poor condition (Agee and Evans 1941:191-192,159-
160).

All of the evidence which was reviewed indicates that
the furnishings of southern tenants' homes were neither
extensive nor expensive. Most tenant homes were modestly
and sparsely furnished. "Given the poor quality of the
houses themselves, the quality of the furnishings is not
surprising. Furniture was an expensive luxury that most
plantation inhabitants could not afford" (Orser 1988:128).
Modern conveniences were also luxuries which tenants also
could not obtain because of their expense.

Personal possessions- the common, mundane items used
in daily living- were used frequently and were lost or
discarded more often than large home furnishing items.
Therefore, these items are a major source of information
for historical archaeologists. Unfortunately, personal

items are rarely described in documentary sources. A few

32
scattered references do appear in the works of scholars of
the 1930's, and 1940's.

Again, Agee and Evans's study of tenant families is
one notable exception. Their observations provide an
important detailed guide to the personal possessions of
tenant families. The following descriptions were drawn from
the listings of one tenant home. In one bedroom the
contents of a trunk are described:

"In this trunk: an old slightly soiled
cotton slip; a little boy's stiff cheap
gray cap; a baby's dress; a gray—white
knit shoe for a baby; a pair of ten-cent
hard thin... blue socks, worn through at
the heels...[and]... the eyes of a doll"
(Agee and Evans 1941:160).

The contents of bureau drawers are also listed. This
included schoolbooks, pieces of used wrapping paper, pieces
of string, matches, and nails. The contents of a table
drawer were six baby dresses, a handmade cloth cat, a hat,
an empty talcum powder box, a child's glove, a piece of
newspaper, a broken button, a hook and eye, and a needle
(Agee and Evans 1941:161-169).

On the bedroom mantle, Agee and Evans found a
cardboard box of face powder, a jar of menthol salve, a

spool of thread, a cracked and broken shaving mug

(containing a brush, a few rusty nails, a button, three

33

matches, and a piece of soap), a comb missing teeth, some
rhinestones, a nailfile and a small mirror (Agee and Evans
1941:172). Several items were found inside of a shallow
closet. This included dresses, overalls, and children's
clothing hung on nails, a pile of dirty laundry on the
floor, ragged and dirty patchwork quilts on a shelf, folded
pallets for children, and several worn pairs of shoes (Agee
and Evans 1941:173-174).

Lastly, Agee and Evans described the items present in
the lean-to kitchen. This includes a rusting iron stove, a
woodbox, a dishpan, a coffeepot and kettle, a few pots hung
on nails, a skillet, a churn and dasher, assorted cheap
utensils with bent tines and raw edges, and a broom. The
condition of the broom is further described in detail:

"The broom is of the cheap thirty-to-
forty cent kind and is nearly new, but do
not be misled: the old one, still held in
limbo because nothing is thrown away, was
well used" (Agee and Evans 1941:180).

The evidence from Agee and Evans indicates that like
the structure, the possessions of tenant farmers were
sparse and in poor condition. Although a few other sources
provide some information, the descriptions of Agee and

Evans were presented here because of the detailed nature of

their comments.

34

Because ceramic artifacts are the focus of this
thesis, the documentary evidence concerning the use of
ceramic materials is important. As with other material
possessions, very few descriptions of ceramics are
available in the documentary record. Once more, Agee and
Evans provide a rare account of a tenant's ceramic

collection:

"Almost no two of the plates, or cups,

or glasses, or saucers are of the same
size or pattern.... One of the cups is
thin, blue, Woolworth's imitation of
willow plate: the handle is gone; two
others are thick and white, of the sort
used in lunchwagons, but of lower quality,
flinty, and a little like sandstone at
their brims; one of these is chipped;

the fourth is a taller cup of the same
sort, with a thready split running its
full height. Two of the plates are full
dinner size, ... another is translucent
white of the size between saucer and
dinnerplate; another, ... [is] netted with
brown cracklings...The food will be

served ... in part out of two shallow

soup plates and a small thick white platter"
(Agee and Evans 1941:181-182).

Another important source of information about tenant
ceramic use comes from interviews with former tenants. In
her study of tenant acquisition of ceramics at May

Plantation in Louisiana, Claudia Holland (1990) learned

from interviews that the dishes bought by tenants were:

 

 

 

.1 1.1%
..u . , TIE:

 

35

"the cheapest kind of plates, cups,
saucers,...Plain, white ceramic dishes
were the prevalent type...Decorated dishes
were used when company visited and for
special occasions... Dishes were bought

as needed... People did not buy dishes to
match, necessarily, so various styles were
mixed together" (Holland 1990:67).

The descriptions offered by Agee and Evans and Holland
suggest that tenants purchased or acquired their ceramics
as individual pieces and not as sets. This resulted in a
mixed collection of various styles, with undecorated items
being the most common. The majority of ceramics was of a
cheap quality and was used as long as possible, regardless
of damage.

Overall, the documentary evidence concerning all
aspects of tenant lifestyle supports the conclusion that
tenant farmers were an impoverished cultural group. This
contention has been repeated by both historians and
archaeologists. For example, archaeologists David Anderson
and Joe Joseph (1988:494) stated that "tenancy and poverty
were equivalent for the majority of tenant farmers."

Concerning tenants, Agee and Evans noted that "they
seldom buy anything new"... and... "they live in a steady
shame and insult of discomforts, insecurities, and
inferiorities, piecing these together into whatever

semblance of comfortable living they can, and the whole of

36

it is a stark nakedness of makeshifts and the lack of
means" (Agee and Evans 194l:133,210). They summarized the

poverty of the tenant farmer, stating:

"The housing, furniture ... and the eating
implements are all at or very near the
bottom of their scale: broken, insecure,
uncomfortable" (Agee and Evans 1969:210).

As landless farmers, tenants were economically and
socially disadvantaged and constituted the lowest class of
postbellum plantation society. The standard of living of
tenants was low; "materially they were on the fringe and
their participation in the market economy was low. Systems
of credit entered into by the tenant with planters and
merchants perpetuated their poverty" (Orser et al.
1987:682).

Tenants had to purchase the necessities of life with
the cash they had after settling with the owners. In most
cases, the amount of cash tenants had left was quite small.
In general, tenant farmers did not have the net income
necessary to acquire or accumulate material possessions
beyond what was absolutely required. Most likely, tenant
farmers were not inclined to buy new goods because the

merchants and landowners had a monopoly of credit, which

enabled them to control the economic life of the tenants

37

(Ransom and Sutch 1977:1). The control landlords had over
their tenants varied; the personal wealth, attitudes, and
benevolence of the landlord could seriously affect tenants
either for good or ill.

While scholars agree that tenants were impoverished,
it must also be remembered that tenants were "human beings
with a distinct culture" (Adams 1980:355). All tenants
shared a common identity based upon the fact that none of
them owned their main means of production- the land.
Evidence has also shown that tenants had:(1)a dependant
relationship with the landlord, (2) a lack of social
prestige,(3) inadequate housing, (4) few personal
possessions, and (5) a low economic worth.

It is recognized that there were variations in race
and labor arrangements within the tenant class. However, it
is believed that these factors were secondary
considerations in relation to the occupational category to
which all tenants belonged. This supposition has been
supported by several scholars who have examined postbellum
tenant culture.

In 1941, Arthur Raper studied the housing of tenants
in Greene and Macon counties, Georgia. He reported the
important fact that housing was more similar within the

tenant class than according to race. Raper (1941:20) wrote

 

 

 

 

38

"plantation owners do not have tenant houses for whites and
tenant houses for Negroes - they have tenant houses".

Archaeologists have also supported this position.
Orser et al. (1987:682) wrote that "race does not appear to
be a determining factor of social class differences between
tenants"... and..."white tenants apparently did not enjoy
any meaningful economic advantage over blacks". Therefore,
regardless of their race, tenants rarely realized profits
at the end of the year (Flynt 1979:46).

The general economic conditions with which tenants
lived are expected to have crosscut racial and tenure lines
of tenant farmers, resulting in a "universal pattern of
poverty" or a "culture of poverty" (Lewis 1966; Kelly and
Kelly 1980:140; Trinkley 1983:31). Because economic factors
are considered as paramount, it is necessary to combine
"the various types and groups of tenants into a broad
tenant class" (Holland 1990:69).

In conclusion, members of the tenant class were
socially and economically disadvantaged. This position was
reflected in their simple housing and meager material
possessions. The impoverished tenant material culture was
evidence of the small amount of capital available to them.
This impoverished culture should have archaeological

correlates because it will directly affect the tenants's

39

ability to purchase consumer goods. Therefore, an
impoverished artifact assemblage is expected at tenant

sites.

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The purpose of this chapter is to present the
environmental and historical background of Old Town
Plantation. The information included in this section will
allow the plantation to be placed in its proper
geographical and historical context. This data will provide
the framework necessary for the proper understanding of the
tenant period occupation of Old Town Plantation and the
archaeological deposits which it produced.

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

Old Town Plantation is located in the east-central
portion of Georgia, along the eastern banks of the Ogeechee
river in Jefferson County. The county has a land area of
339,936 acres and is in the Southern Coastal Plain major
land resource area (Paulk 1994:1). The city of Augusta is
located approximately sixty miles Northeast of the
plantation and the small town of Louisville is nine miles

to the North.

40

41

The climate of Jefferson County is mild. It receives
an average rainfall of 44.48 inches, with an average mean
winter temperature of 49 degrees and an average mean summer
temperature of 80 degrees (Paulk 1994:2—3). The warm
climate facilitates agricultural production, with an
average frost free season of about eight months.

Old Town Plantation, as a physical entity, is bounded
on the west by the Ogeechee river. The eastern boundary is
roughly formed by Georgia State Highway 17. The northern
limits are formed by a dirt road and the southern limits
are formed by other agricultural property. The land
comprising the approximately 3,714 acres of the plantation
contains a wide variety of physiographic features. These
include swamps and wetlands, cultivated fields, pastures,
and large planted pine stands. Two creeks run across the
property and give rise to tributaries and natural springs.
Elevations range from a low of 200 feet MSL along the
Ogeechee to a high of 300 feet MSL at the top of small
upland ridges. Because it contains a wide variety of
potential habitats, Old Town supports abundant and diverse
wildlife communities. The wildlife includes many species
which can be used as game, including deer, fish, waterfowl,

and other birds.

42

There are a wide variety of soils on the plantation
acreage, as expected with its diverse physiography.
However, the soil types which relate to the present study
belong to the Faceville series. These are well drained
soils located on gentle slopes of ridgetops or hillsides in
the Southern Coastal Plain which have a sandy or loamy
surface layer, a sandy subsurface layer and a loamy or
clayey subsoil (Paulk 1994:81). The sandy loam areas are
high in natural fertility and organic matter content.
Therefore, these areas are suited to agricultural
production. In fact, those soils are by definition, prime
farmland acreage (Paulk 1994:109). The long growing season,
the availability of numerous native food sources and
productive agricultural soils have undoubtedly made the
area attractive for settlement throughout the past.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Old Town's two centuries of existence reflect in
microcosm the story of much of the rural South. The many
variations of occupation types through time are
representative of a widespread pattern exhibited throughout
the region. From backcountry expansion to major cash crop
production, slow decline and finally recent stability, the
story of Old Town has a familiar structure to scholars who

study the South.

43
COLONIAL ERA

In the early eighteenth century, the area around the
Ogeechee river was still inhabited by Native Americans. The
white settlement of the area proceeded slowly as settlers
moved north from coastal towns. Many Native Americans were
pushed westward with the advance of the coming Europeans.
Still, in the eighteenth century, the region was a volatile
place, embroiled with frequent conflict.

George Galphin was an Irish trader on the southern
frontier during this treacherous period. He had left
Ireland in 1737 for America in order to make his fortune.
He first settled in Charleston and then moved into the
backcountry in order to begin trade with groups of Native
Americans. By 1741 he was already in business, trading with
the Creeks (Georgia Historical Society Collections, Item
ten, p.123-124).

Galphin made substantial profits and began
accumulating property in 1747 along the Savannah River at
Silver Bluff near the site of a former Yuchi Indian town
(Journal of the South Carolina Council 1747:49). Along many
of the major rivers in Georgia, Native Americans had
settled on the bluffs above the waterways. A number of

those old sites were known by early European settlers as

 

44

old towns or old fields. Former Native American settlements
were often chosen as locations for new towns and
settlements because of their desirable elevation and close
proximity to the rivers which were lifelines to coastal
ports.

In 1765 Galphin obtained a warrant for 1400 acres
"lying at Great Ogeechee to include Spring Creek... at the
Old Settlement" (Colonial Records of the State of Georgia
IX, p.420-421). Galphin applied to the council for a final
grant and Governor James Wright signed it on March 3, 1767.
This area was then known as Ogeechee Old Town. The Yuchi
trail, a Creek trading path, connected Silver Bluff to Old
Town. The site of Old Town on the East side of the Ogeechee
river was, like Silver Bluff, a deserted Yuchi village
(Georgia Historical Society Collections III, pp.61-63).

Galphin settled at Old Town and established a trading
store, a mill, and a large cowpens operation. Galphin's
store and mill served the Ogeechee river area and proved
extremely profitable (Sheftall 1980:24). Galphin's cowpens
included herds of black cattle that grazed on both sides of
the Ogeechee for miles around the settlement (Woodward
1859:105). He kept slaves at the cowpens to tend the pens

and round up the cattle.

45

One good description of Galphin's cowpens exists. John
Bartram, a renowned botanist, toured Georgia in 1765 and
visited the operation as a guest. He found the settlement:

"located near a fine large spring of
good water...little...surrounded with
piney poorish ground, which affords, by
its extent of 6 miles around, more or
less tolerable pasture both winter &
summer" (Bartram 1958[1791]:26).

Galphin recruited settlers in a nearby township and
became a prominent trader on the frontier. As a result, he
later became a negotiator with the local Creeks (Colonial
Records of Georgia IX, p.114-115 and XII, p.148-54).
Galphin used his early advantage and knowledge of the area
and parlayed it into social and political clout. As the
Revolutionary War threatened his region, Galphin became
more influential in political matters of the backcountry
area as a rebel supporter.

In May of 1780, Tory soldiers recaptured the city of
Augusta and troops moved on to Old Town. There, Galphin was
taken prisoner (Colonial Records of Georgia XV, p.590-591).
Although he was soon paroled, Galphin's health began to
fail. On December 1, 1780, George Galphin died at his home

at Silver Bluff (Thomas Galphin Family Bible, Galphin

Genealogical File).

46

When his fate had become more uncertain because of
illness, Galphin had made final decisions about his estate.
In February 1775, Galphin divided his property between his
children (Charleston County Deed Books GGGGG:504-506;
HHHHHzll; ZZZZZ:133). George Galphin's son John inherited
Old Town, along with slaves, horses, and cattle.
ANTEBELLUM ERA

John Galphin kept Old Town until 1786. It was then
that Robert Forsyth of Augusta bought the tract as an
investment. He owned the property for eight years, but did
little to maintain the place. Forsyth was murdered in 1794,
and the land was inherited by his son John. John Forsyth
and his wife moved to Old Town in 1804, to be close to the
nearby town of Louisville, which was then the capital of
Georgia.

John Forsyth's settlement at Old Town began its
antebellum plantation occupance form. The distinctive
plantation settlement pattern consisted of the owner's
house, with a clustering of service buildings and slave
quarters nearby (Prunty 1955:463—466). There is detailed
record of John Forsyth's settlement plans at Old Town. On
November 14, 1803, he entered into an agreement with a
builder to construct a plantation layout, the first at Old

Town. The contract was for the following:

47

"One framed House twenty eight feet
long and eighteen broad, with covered
piazzas on each side, eight feet wide
to be rough lined for papering &
finished in a workmanlike manner,

One stable, carriage house and barn
under one roof, covered with board
thirty-six feet long and sixteen wide,
of hewed down logs; one kitchen twenty-
four feet long and fourteen wide, made
of hewed down logs, and covered with
boards, two small houses twelve feet by
fourteen each, for a smoke house and
dairy, the latter floored, and both
covered with shingles..." (Jefferson
County Superior Court Records 1803-
1809:332-335).

In 1807, Forsyth advertised Old Town for sale in the
local paper, the Louisville Gazette and Republican

Trumpeter (May 15, 1807). However, there was a dispute with

 

the heirs of George Galphin over the rightful ownership of
the land. The case was tried in Jefferson county superior
court and the judge ruled against Forsyth (Augusta
Chronicle and Gazette of the State July 15, 1807). The land
was not in the hands of the Galphin family for long. It was
sold again in 1809 in order to pay off debts (Columbian
Museum and Savannah Advertiser September 25, 1809).
Christopher Fitzsimmons of Charleston, South Carolina
purchased Old Town in 1809. The Fitzsimmons family was
wealthy, having made a fortune in the shipping business.

They dealt primarily with the shipping of goods across the

48

Atlantic, especially rum and cotton (passim, Christopher
Fitzsimmons Letterbooks).

When Christopher Fitzsimmons bought Old Town, he
immediately set out to exploit its natural resources. He
hired an overseer and used slaves and mules to turn the
land into an extensive cotton plantation. He not only
developed the land as a cotton plantation, but also milled
timber and began to quarry fossiliferous chert called
buhrstone (Ibid). He took some of the quarried buhrstones
and accented his grounds with walls and terraces. The
Fitzsimmons residence was built on the south side of Spring
creek and the land beside the house sloped down to a
spring, which was also ringed with buhrstones (Sheftall
1980:112). Christopher's family used Old Town as a vacation
residence only, beginning in 1811. In their absence, the
plantation was managed by the overseer.

Christopher Fitzsimmons died on July 28, 1825 and was
buried in a family cemetery near Augusta. Paul, his eldest
son, inherited Old Town (Christopher Fitzsimmons Loose
Estate Papers). Paul served as the head of the family for
only fifteen years. On September 28, 1840, he died at
Windsor Springs, another of his plantations which was

located near Augusta (Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel

 

September 29, 1840).

49

Because his children were minors, the estate remained
undivided for eight years. Then in December of 1849, the
eldest son Owen inherited Old Town. Soon thereafter, Owen
moved to the plantation with his new wife. They settled
near the old spring which his grandfather Christopher had

lined with buhrstones (South Carolina Magazine X:179).

 

During the era in which Owen was at Old Town, the
economy of the South matured. Cotton was the most important
agricultural crop and slavery was the accepted economic
system. Although the returns from Old Town were great, Owen
feared soil depletion and began searching for a new
plantation to buy (Letter in Hampton Papers). In August of

1857, Owen advertised to sell Old Town:

"For Sale: Old Town, that valuable
plantation situated in Jefferson
county... contains 4192 acres... The
place is well watered being intercepted
by Dry and Spring creeks, the latter
affording an abundant supply of water
for ginning, grinding, and sawing. The
improvements are substantial and well
built and consist of a comfortable
dwelling with eight rooms and all
necessary outbuildings, an overseer's
house, sixteen double framed negro
houses with brick chimneys, commodious
stables and barns, gin house,... grist
and saw mills. This is one of the best
improved and most desirable plantations
in Middle Georgia, both on account of
the convenient location and quality of
land..." (Savannah Morning News August
1, 1857).

 

50

The Fitzsimmons family owned Old Town for three
generations, spanning the entire antebellum period of the
South. During the family's ownership, Old Town prospered
within the antebellum plantation occupance form (Prunty
1955). When Christopher Fitzsimmons bought the tract as an
investment, cotton had never been planted within its
confines. When his grandson sold it fifty years later, it
was one of the most productive cotton plantations in all of
Georgia (Sheftall 1980:102).

On April 26, 1862, Owen Fitzsimmons signed the deed
transferring his lands to business partners Linton Stephens
and William Simpson. Linton Stephens was a lawyer and the
brother of Alexander Stephens, the future Vice-President of
the Confederacy. William Simpson was a planter and owned a
mercantile business. Whatever plans these men had for Old
Town were not to come into fruition. The Civil War soon
interrupted the economic security of the area.

Stephens and Simpson were occupied with the activities
of the Confederacy and only a maintenance labor force was
kept at the Jefferson County plantation (passim, Jefferson
County Tax Digests). After 1864, this effort was
undermined. During General Sherman's march to the sea
through Georgia, land and property was laid waste. Although

there is no information about Union troops coming to Old

51

Town, it is known that some forces did pass near the town
of Louisville. Whatever the case, financial destruction was
the result.
POSTBELLUM ERA

In 1866, Simpson and Stephens tried to recoup some of
their losses. A Jefferson County resident was allowed to
buy the land on bond and try his hand at sharecropping.
Unfortunately, the four year venture failed. In 1870, the
land reverted back to Stephens and Simpson (passim,
Jefferson County Tax Digests, 1866-1870). "Although records
during the early 1870's are incomplete, the two men appear
to have rented portions of the property and allowed most of
Old Town to lie fallow" (Sheftall 1980:134). Linton
Stephens died in 1872, and the future for Simpson was not
promising (Northen 1910:43).

Fortunately, Simpson had a friend who was interested
in taking Old Town off of his hands. In 1876, William D.
Grant of Atlanta began renting the plantation for use in a
convict labor endeavor (Jefferson County Tax Digests,
1876). Grant had been involved in the domain of convict
labor since 1869 and was interested in expanding his
holdings. After the Civil War, Grant had founded a
construction company whose majority of capital went to the

railroad construction business (Knight 1922:2981). Grant

52

further expanded his interests in brickmaking, agriculture,
and other industries. The convicts which Grant used proved
to be the crux of his success.

THE CONVICT LEASE SYSTEM

With the rental of Old Town, Grant brought the
plantation into the convict lease system of Georgia.
Georgia's penal system had been completely disrupted when
General Tecumseh Sherman invaded Georgia in the Summer of
1864. The buildings of the penitentiary were burned to
ruins and the convicts either fled or were discharged
(Confederate Records of the State of Georgia IV:831). After
civil government was restored in Georgia, the provisional
legislatures faced the task of rebuilding the prison system
(Carter 1964:35).

In December, 1866, the Georgia legislature passed an
act "to regulate the manner in which the penitentiary shall
be managed and to provide for the farming out of the same"
(Georgia Laws 1866:153). This act authorized the governor
to advertise for proposals for a contract which would
relieve the state of the penitentiary and the convicts. The
act legalized the practice of convict leasing in Georgia,
although the practice was not unique to Georgia during that

time.

53

Over the next decade, various acts were passed to make
leases for a longer period of time. The act of 1876
provided that "convicts be leased for not less than 20
years to one or more companies" (Zimmerman 1947:65). The
act of 1876 also allowed the Governor to turn over the
convicts to the highest bidder. The convicts were to be
worked on the railroads, canals, quarries, mines and farms
which belonged to the leasing companies (Georgia Laws
1876:41—42). In accordance with this law, the convicts were
divided into three shares and were leased out by the
Governor to Georgia Penitentiary Companies Number One, Two,
and Three. Company Number Three was made up of Thomas
Alexander, William D. Grant, William W. Simpson, John D.

Murphy, and William H. Howell (Georgia Senate Journal

 

1881:365-366).

It was with the formation of this partnership that
Grant first began to rent Old Town from William Simpson.
After two years, the venture must have proved a financial
success. In 1878, Grant bought the plantation and soon
brought over 200 prisoners to begin reestablishing the
cotton plantation (Jefferson County Deed Book D:136-139).
Although the labor force had changed, the settlement
pattern and management structure remained much the same.

The structures were still clustered around the main house

54

and the laborers were housed in quarters. After operations
began in 1878, a committee appointed by the Jefferson
County Grand Jury made an initial inspection of Grant's
camp. It was reported that the place was neatly kept, and
that there were barracks for the 206 prisoners, the guards

and the overseers (Report of the Principal Keeper of the

 

Georgia Penitentiary [RPKGP], 1878-1880).

 

Grant was a businessman with extensive holdings.
Therefore, he needed someone to oversee the management of
Old Town operations for him. For that job he hired Thomas
Jefferson James. A native of Jones county, Georgia, James
had served as a Captain in the Confederate army during the
Civil War. In 1873, he began to work for Grant at a brick
plant on the Chatahoochee river near Atlanta (Northen
1910:335). James quickly worked his way up through the
ranks at Grant's operation. He went from an unskilled
worker to a manager in approximately five years.

James used the convict labor force under his control
to the fullest advantage and for the largest profit. In the
summer of 1879, James took a fourth of his men to the local
town of Louisville to begin work on the Louisville Branch

railroad (News and Farmer October 2, 1879). Later that

 

year, a reporter from the Louisville paper wrote about the

55

operations at Old Town. The newspaper published a good

description of his findings:

"A great deal of grain has been made on
the place and a great deal of stock
raised. Captain James has what might be
termed a dairy farm, although he may
not however honor it with the title it
possibly deserves. About 60 gallons of
milk is taken each day. He has from 50
to 80 pounds of butter each week to
sell, the most of it being disposed of
in the surrounding country, being
delivered at his quarters. He has a
splendid spring house in which to keep
milk and butter. Most of the milk is
consumed by the laborers"

The reporter then discussed other activities:

"He tans his own leather — makes up all
the clothing and shoes on the place...
He has already gathered about 600 bales
of cotton with the confident prospect
of about 200 more... Capt. James' stock
are in good condition and his wagons
are made at home as well as plows. He
has a good grist and flouring mill,
with saw mill and orchard on the place.
Altogether, Old Town is a model farm"
(News and Farmer October 30, 1879).

 

The operations at Old Town were rather extensive. The
1880 census shows that in addition to James, there was an
assistant, a physician, a bookkeeper, two overseers, three
night guards, 19 day guards, plus six wives and 18

children. Also, there were 217 prisoners, of whom eight

56

were black females and eleven were white males. The
remainder were black males (United States Census Population
Schedule, 1880). The agricultural census also provided
proof of a large operation. W.D. Grant and Co. was listed
as having 2700 acres of improved land and a total value of
all farm production as $45,875 (United States Census
Agricultural Schedule, 1880).

On June 30, 1881, James was married to a local woman.
After their marriage, the couple set up housekeeping at Old

Town (News and Farmer July 21, 1881). In August of 1881,

 

James bought one—third interest in Old Town from Grant
(Jefferson County Deed Book E:339). After that, James began
to give more attention into the development of the lands of
the plantation. Under his supervision, a new house and
various outbuildings were constructed, and orchards were
developed. James also had a dairyhouse built by the spring
which Christopher Fitzsimmons had ringed with stones years

before (News and Farmer July 1,1880).

 

By 1886, the Penitentiary Company Number Three was
divided into four parts. Thomas Jefferson James controlled
one part; his convicts worked on the Georgia Midland
Railroad and farming at Old Town (RPKGP 1884-1886:67). By
that time, James was using convicts at several other camps

for railroad construction. Only 45 prisoners were still at

57

the plantation. The Principal Keeper reported that the
individuals which were "not stout or healthy, from any
cause, and who are not considered able for public works,
such as railroading, etc., are sent to this, the home camp,
and are engaged in farm 1abor"(Ibid).

In May of 1888, James bought the rest of the interest
in the property (Jefferson County Deed Book AA:163). By
that time, he owned another plantation in Emanuel county.
James had purchased it in 1884, and he had moved some of
the convicts there to work with the construction of a

railroad and farming (News and Farmer July 1, 1976). After

 

that point, James began diverting his finances away from
Old Town. By 1888, for example, he maintained only one-
eighth interest in Penitentiary Company Number Three ,
having sold the rest of his share. In that year, the camp
at Old Town was reported as having only fifteen or twenty
women and feeble male convicts (RPKGP 1886-1888). However,
until 1890, James kept some convicts at Old Town to
maintain farming operations (RPKGP 1888-1890). After he
left Jefferson County, James continued using convict labor
for farming and sawmilling near his new home at Adrian, in

Emanuel county (RPKGP 1893—1894z4-5).

58

TENANT FARM I NG

James L. Dickey, an Atlanta businessman, offered to
buy Old Town in 1891. Thomas James consented and the
plantation was sold on July lst of that year (Jefferson
County Deed Book BB:80). Dickey replaced the convict labor
with tenant farmers, but failed to make significant
profits. Therefore, after four years of ownership, Dickey
decided to look for a buyer for the Jefferson County land.
His connections with the railroad industry brought him in
contact with Hugh Moss Comer, the president of the Central
of Georgia Railroad.

In 1896, Comer bought Old Town from Dickey, and
subsequently became the next owner of the plantation
(Jefferson County Deed Book EE:423—427). Comer was wealthy
and prominent; he had made his money from both cotton and
railroads. Comer turned the daily control of Old Town over
to his son, Hugh Jr. Within the next few years, a new
center for plantation management was built next to a new
road connecting Louisville to Savannah. "Every owner since
George Galphin had used a sloping plateau just south of
Spring creek as the nucleus of plantations operations. John
Forsyth built the first house on this spot in 1803, and
Captain James still used the same area for his home many

decades later" (Sheftall 1980:154). Therefore, the junior

59

Comer had broken new ground by relocating his settlement
base. Several new buildings were constructed, including a
main residence, an overseer's house, smokehouse, barns,
sheds, and almost sixty tenant houses— each for two
families.

The Comer ownership began the period during which Old
Town was settled with a postbellum fragmented occupance
form (Prunty 1955:466). This form appeared in the South at
the close of the Reconstruction period and became
widespread thereafter. Certain spatial attributes of this
form were distinct from those of the antebellum plantation.
The settlement was dispersed throughout the plantation
acreage, with cropland divided into subunits. Two subtypes
of this form were the cropper and tenant-renter. In the
cropper subtype, the barns and service buildings were
clustered near the landlord's or manager's house. The
nucleus of support buildings were not present in the
tenant-renter form. Instead, each tenant had his own
service buildings and tools (Prunty 1955:466-475). The two
types of fragmented occupance forms occurred both
separately and together at the same time on postbellum
plantations. It is uncertain what the exact occupance form
was at Old Town during the postbellum period. However, it

is probable that at least part of the tenants occupied the

6O

plantation land following the sharecropper form. This
conclusion is supported because several barns, tool sheds,
and other service buildings were clustered near the main
residence, the tenant houses were occupied by two families
each, and because Comer family letters of correspondence
often refer to the plantation's tools, work animals, animal
feed, seed, and fertilizer as being supplied to the tenants
(passim, Braxton Bragg Comer Papers).

Hugh Comer sold Old Town to his son in 1899, just a
few months before the father's death (Jefferson county deed
book EE:672). Hugh Jr. was married in 1901 and spent
several years traveling before returning to Georgia to

settle in September of 1904 (News and Farmer September 29,

 

1904). Much work had been conducted while Hugh was away.
Under the overseer's supervision, cotton and corn was
harvested and a herd of cattle was raised. The main
residence and outbuildings were completed and work was
underway on a three—room library (Sheftall:1978).

Although many improvements had been made to Old Town,
problems soon arose. Hugh knew little about farm operations
and depended on his managerial staff to advise him. His
first overseer remained with him until 1905. Unfortunately,

a less reliable overseer was then hired and he continued to

61

affect Old Town operations until the last year of the Comer

ownership (News and Farmer March 30, 1905).

 

In 1908, a group of Statesboro, Georgia businessmen
expressed interest in the possibility of routing a new
railroad across Old Town lands. Hugh agreed to the plan for
a deed giving a 100-foot wide right-of-way to the railway.
The proposed railroad bed was cut, but the project ran out

of capital before any tracks were laid (News and Farmer

 

July 1, 1976).

In that same year, Hugh's younger brother John and his
cousin Fletcher showed interest in purchasing the
plantation. On September 20, 1908 Old Town was passed to
John D. Comer of Savannah and Fletcher Comer of Alabama for

$80,000. The deed included the 4,386 acres of land, and:

"all the equipment on said Old Town
plantation, consisting of mules,
horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, goats,
poultry, farming implements of every
kind and character, including buggies,
(carriages, and carts, rents and profits
and all contracts and all notes
appertaining to the place, all
furniture, both household and kitchen,
book cases, and everything upon said
place..." (Jefferson County Deed Book
GG:330).

The new Comers bought Old Town as partners. John was

the youngest child of Hugh Comer Sr. and had no experience

62

in agriculture. Fletcher Comer, on the other hand, had
managed a family plantation for his father Braxton Bragg
Comer who was the Governor of Alabama (Lathrop n.d.:110).
The terms of the agreement included the stipulation that
Fletcher would live at Old Town to manage the property and
John would visit periodically while living in Savannah
(Lathrop n.d.:165).

When Fletcher Comer and his family came to live at Old
Town, they brought with them some black tenant families
from Alabama to replace those that had left the plantation
(F.C. to B.B.C., December 15, 1909, B.B.C. Governorship
Papers). Fletcher gave the workers the option to sharecrop
or rent. In addition, he also employed wage laborers.

On October 18, 1909, John Comer married a local woman
and they also moved to Old Town to set up housekeeping

(Augusta Chronicle October 18, 1909). Within a short time,

 

a second house was built for the newlyweds. However, John
was not a long time resident at the plantation. In 1911, he
moved to Macon, Georgia to work for his father at the Bibb
Manufacturing Company. When John left, Fletcher bought out
his cousin's half of the plantation.

Fletcher tried for almost five more years to make Old
Town solvent, but he accumulated large debts. In order to

save his son from financial ruin, Governor Braxton Bragg

63
Comer bought Old Town and paid off all his debts in 1915.
Fletcher remained on the plantation and served as manager
for his father. Governor Comer owned Old Town for three
years, until 1918 (B.B.C. to F.C. November 18, 1918:B.B.C.
papers).

During that time, he wrote to his son frequently and
communicated his wishes concerning crops, business, and
family affairs. It is in those letters that the problems
with the plantation were revealed. Governor Comer was in
complete financial control of his son and made most of the
decisions for the plantation. The contents of the following
letter is an excellent example of the information contained
in the majority of the correspondence. The letters tell of
a son who was heavily directed by his father and who relied
greatly on those who worked for him.

"I am enclosing your check for $664.00
plus $125.00 to meet the pay roll as
stated plus your salary.... Do not
grind up more than thirty days feed at
a time of your velvet beans, and you
will have to mix very thoroughly with
your corn and use some salt to make
your mules eat it. Affectionately,
Dad" (B.B.C. to F.C., January 27,
1917).

In 1918, Governor Comer decided to sell Old Town

because of increasing debts and mismanagement by Fletcher.

64

The plantation was sold to a cotton warehouse company and
the land passed out of the hands of the Comer family
(Sheftall:1977). This decision, as most others concerning
the plantation was made by Fletcher's father. The following
letter excerpts reveal the circumstances of the sale.
"Gentlemen,...I am selling the place and he

[Fletcher] will move from Old Town" (B.B.C.
to Armour Fertilizer Co., November 18, 1818)

"My dear Fletcher,...Old Town is one of the

prettiest places in the state and a damn

fine plantation. I am sure you are somewhat

sorry to leave and have it pass to other

hands..."(B.B.C. to F.C., December 30, 1918)

The boll weevil reached Georgia soon after Governor
Comer had sold Old Town. As a result of the destruction of
the cotton crops, there was agricultural failure and the
purchaser defaulted on his payments after just one year
(Sheftall 1980:183). The lands were eventually leased to
the Carolina Land and Tobacco Company which harvested
tobacco for a few years. It was a widespread practice to
lease plantation lands to large companies in the South
during this period. "By the late 1920's ... landowners were
leasing land to ... companies" (Brooks 1991:80). Timber and

tobacco harvesting became a viable alternative to other

cash crops.

65

After B.B. Comer died in 1927, Old Town was sold to

Lewis W. Dye of Burke County, Georgia (News and Farmer

 

July 1, 1976). Dye managed to keep from defaulting on his
payments, but he scaled down the plantation operations.
During the 1930's, in addition to the approximately 50
tenant families, there were also an overseer and a miller
at Old Town. The land was straight farmed with mules.
Besides subsistence food crops, only cotton and corn were
grown. Lewis Dye continued to be an absentee landlord.
However, his son Wayne served as the overseer during 1936
and 1937. A commissary was set up in the old library which
Hugh Comer Jr. had built; it was used by both the tenant
families and some surrounding neighbors (Sheftall:1977).
Over the next two decades, Dye's operations at Old
Town continued to be reduced. More tenants left the
plantation every year. Many factors contributed to the
decline in the number of tenants. The availability of
modern machinery after World War II eliminated the need for
large quantities of workers. Also, many black families
moved North or to nearby cities to find employment at mills
or factories. In the late 1940's, the few employees that
remained at the plantation became skilled enough at using
machinery and received wages in order to purchase homes of

their own (Sheftall 1980:185).

66

Finally, George E. Crouch Sr. and his son George Jr.
purchased the plantation in 1953. At that time, most of the
buildings at the plantation were abandoned and in
disrepair. The Crouches partially restored many of those
buildings in the decades following. After the death of his
father, George Crouch Jr. moved to Old Town and made the
plantation his permanent home. After Crouch Jr. died, his
wife Martha and their son remained at the plantation. In
the years since, Martha has remarried and continued the

preservation efforts.

CHAPTER 5

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the
research which was conducted at GSUJFlA, a tenant housesite
located at Old Town Plantation. This chapter is divided
into discussions of site location and history, excavation
methods, and ceramic analysis.

SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY

The location of the tenant house remains was a cluster
of tress on a small hilltop, near a flowing spring. Its
boundaries were the remnant of the 1908 railroad cut on the
west, an agricultural field on the south, and dirt access
roads on the north and east sides.

The general location of the site was used as the
center of plantation operations by several owners of Old
Town. However, the exact location was not built upon until
1881, when Thomas James had a house constructed for himself
at Old Town while it was used as a convict labor farm. The
house was built along with a dairyhouse near a spring

ringed with stones (News and Farmer July 21, 1881; Sheftall

 

67

68
1980:154). James and his wife only lived in the house

intermittently for a few years. Although he acquired all
interest in Old Town in 1888, he moved permanently to
another plantation in Emanuel County that same year (RPKGP
1888-1890). He had owned that plantation since 1884 and had

lived there when not at Old Town (News and Farmer July 1,

 

1976). James finally sold Old Town in 1891 (Jefferson
County Deed Book BB:80). Therefore, the site which was
excavated was impacted by the James occupation for no more
than ten years.

There is no specific documentary record for the site
after James sold Old Town. When the Comer family bought the
plantation in 1896, a new center for operations was
constructed in another location, near a new road which
connected Louisville and Savannah. The Comers then used the
plantation for tenant farming. The locations of the
owner's, overseer's and miller's houses were in distinctly
different areas of the plantation land than the excavated
site. It can therefore be assumed that other domestic
structures on the acreage, including the remains of those
excavated, were used for tenant housing.

Two interviews were conducted during 1977 and 1978 by

John Sheftall as part of historical research regarding Old

69

Town. Transcripts of those interviews provide a few clues
regarding the possible occupants of the former James house.
On July 23, 1978, Mr. Sloan McKay was interviewed. His
father, Asbury McKay, worked at Old Town during 1903 and
1904. In addition to his farming, the elder McKay served as
livestock tender. Sloan McKay related in his 1978 interview
that his family "lived near the springhead, at the ... old
James settlement". This description seems to indicate that
the McKay family lived at the former James house.

Mr. Charles Shelton was interviewed on July 12, 1977.
Shelton was the last miller at Old Town; he lived and
worked there from 1933 to 1937. From the statements made in
his interview, it can be surmised that the house was
probably abandoned by the time he was employed. Shelton
sketched a map that referred to the structure as the "old
James house". Also, on the map, the only residences he
included were the main house, the overseer's house, his own
house, and the old James house. The abandoned convict
barracks were included in the map as well. No tenant houses
were referred to.

It is possible that the house was abandoned as a
tenant residence around 1927. This is the year in which
Lewis Dye bought Old Town from the Comers. It is known that

he decreased the size of plantation operations and had

70

fewer tenants than the Comer family. Also, by 1927, the
structure was forty-six years old. Many other, newer tenant
houses were available for occupation. Therefore, it is
quite possible that the former James house was no longer
used. The house is not visible on 1941 air photos of
Jefferson County (United States Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service:1941). This evidence indicates a
clear end date of occupation for the house.

From the information contained in the interviews, it
can be speculated that the house which existed at the site
was most probably occupied between 1881 and 1927, and
perhaps as late as 1941. The impact caused by the
occupation by James is thought to be relatively light
because of the fact that he was only a part-time resident
of the plantation for less than a decade. After 1891,
residents with various tenure positions within the tenant
class probably lived at the site. The house was likely
occupied on the basis of its availability and the
conditions of the plantation at the time, not specific
tenure status or racial affiliation. The fact that tenant
farmers in general moved often would also have affected the
past of the site (Ely and Galpin 1919; Brannen 1924; Raper
1936; Woofter et al. 1936; Schuyler 1938). These facts,

along with the dearth of documentary records, makes it

71

impossible to determine the exact tenants who lived at the
site or the period of their residence. However, from the
evidence which is known, it can be concluded that the site
was a tenant residence for the majority of its existence.
EXCAVATION

The primary goal of the archaeological fieldwork was
to gather material data pertaining to socioeconomic status.
The need to obtain this data required the recovery of
ceramic artifacts which could be used for socioeconomic
analysis and for intersite comparison. Ceramic artifacts
can provide information about several aspects of society
and economy in the postbellum South.

These aspects can include such things as economic
status, social standing, ethnicity, consumer choice, and
purchasing power. The subsequent fieldwork was guided with
procedures which would allow ceramics to be obtained in
order to address the research problems. This included
directing excavations in areas which were deemed likely to
yield a sufficient sample of ceramic artifacts in both
number and scope.

When these remains of site GSUJFlA were discovered, a
chimney fall, pier stones, barbed wire, osage orange
bushes, and iris beds were present. In order to explore the

greatest extent of the structural remains, one meter wide

72

trenches were excavated bisecting the site. This was
achieved by the layout of contiguous one by two meter
units. Also, additional one by one, one by two, and two by
two meter units were placed at judgmentally selected areas.
Particular attention was given to areas which were believed
to be possible entrance or exit areas around the former
house. Those locations are areas where ceramic artifacts
may have been used, lost, broken, or discarded (South
1977:48). Other areas explored included possible privy,
trash pit, outbuilding, and backyard activity locations. It
was hoped that those areas would contain ceramic artifacts
which could reveal information regarding ceramic use.

Units were laid out on a modified mercator grid system
and were placed in relation to a permanent site datum which
was established with a transit. A total of forty three
square meters were excavated at the site. This included
units placed both inside and outside of the house remains
and units in the yard areas of the house.

All units were excavated by hand in arbitrary 10 cm
levels to the top of the sterile clay hardpan. This
procedure was consistently practiced unless natural strata
or features were apparent. During excavation, it was
discovered that the soil consisted of an undifferentiated

matrix. Therefore, it was concluded that all levels should

73

be treated as one unless other conditions indicated a need
to do otherwise. The soil had apparently been vertically
mixed, although the method of this mixing is unknown.
Historic and prehistoric artifacts were discovered
throughout all depths of the deposits above the

sterile subsoil. The age of an artifact did not necessarily
determine the vertical depth of its location.

Vertical control was established by the use of a laser
level and measurements were taken from all corners and the
center of each unit. All recovered soils were manually
sifted through 1/4" mesh screens attached to tripods. Soil
descriptions conformed to the Munsell Soil Color Charts.
Whenever needed, features, soil stains, artifact clusters,
brick falls, and surface scatters were recorded with plan
and profile maps, and with photographs.

During excavation, all artifacts found were placed in
plastic bags or vials as needed. These bags were labeled as
to provenience and were numbered sequentially. The
artifacts were then cleaned and placed in new, identically
marked bags. Finally, all artifacts were catalogued and
marked for future analysis.

Five features were recorded during excavation of the
site. Each was numbered, described, mapped, photographed

and excavated separately from the general soil matrix.

74

Unfortunately, only one of the features found could be
positively identified regarding function. This was a post
hole containing one nail, found in the backyard area of the
housesite. It is hypothesized that this was the remains of
some type of outbuilding, but nothing diagnostic was found
to make a firm conclusion.

The excavated trenches exposed the probable extent of
the house and several clues about its structure and demise.
For example, some units revealed the possible location of
windows while others were important for the lack of
artifacts and soil compaction, showing the extent of the
house supports. Units at the end of one of the trenches
showed a large variety and density of artifacts and produced
a possible drip line. This, along with other clues, gave
the best indication for the location of the back entrance
area of the house. Evidence was also discovered which
indicated that the house had experienced a fire. Many
artifacts which were found had been burned or melted, and
charred wood was present.

METHODS OF CERAMIC ANALYSIS

Several kinds of ceramic analysis were conducted using

the Old Town data. These kinds of analysis were used to

address the research hypotheses, through the examination of

75

ceramic attributes. A description of these kinds of
analysis is discussed below.
MEAN CERAMIC DATE

The most common method which uses historic ceramics
for dating purposes was originated by Stanley South (1972,
1977). South demonstrated how the known manufacturing dates
of ceramics could be used to derive a mean date for the
total ceramic collection by computing the median dates of
the ceramic types present. It is useful to know the mean
ceramic date of an assemblage because the date can help to
identify the mean date and date range during which a site
was most likely occupied.

The computation of the mean ceramic date of a
collection involves the multiplication of the ceramic type
frequency (f) by the median manufacture date of the
ceramics (x). The mean ceramic date is derived by dividing
the product of f(x) by the sum of f (South 1977:217-218).

The mean ceramic date formula has been used
successfully by historical archaeologists since its
introduction. It was decided to use the formula in this
ceramic analysis in order to discover a possible mean
ceramic date. In all, fourteen different types of ceramics
were used as the raw data for the computation of the mean

ceramic date (Table 1). Not all of the ceramics listed in

76

Table 1- Mean Ceramic Date for GSUJFlA

CERAMIC

COARSE EARTHENWARE

Unglazed

PORCELAIN
Undecorated
Blue Painted
Decal Decorated

Gold Banded

STONEWARE
Albany
Alkaline
Blue Glazed
Bristol
Brown

Modern
Salt—Glazed
Unidentified

WHITEWARE
Undecorated
Annular

Decal

Edge Molded

Flow Blue

Gold Banded

Hand Painted
Shell Edged
Transfer Printed

YELLOWARE
Annular

TOTAL SHERDS

TOTAL DATEABLE

MEAN CERAMIC DATE

MEDIAN
DATE

1921.5
1920.5

1892.
1855.
1921.
1892.
1852.
1920.
1885.
1845.
1887.

LfiOU‘IUWU'IUTUWOU'I

1881.0

TOTAL
SHERDS

U)

12

27
118

15

73

32

465

841

DATEABLE

SHERDS

12

465

549

PRODUCT

1921.

5

23046.0

880012.
11130.
32665.
26495.

1852.
17284.
1885.
5535.
35929.

1881.

1893.

COUTUWUWOU'IOU'I

77

the table were used in the final mean date computation
because no reliable data is available regarding
manufacturing dates for some types of ceramics. Also, four
types of ceramics were not used in the calculation because
it was believed that those types had been deposited as
general "smear of early material" deriving from a much
earlier previous occupation near the house site (Trinkley
et al. 1993:176). These types included nine sherds of
undecorated pearlware; and one sherd each of blue hand
painted pearlware, blue shell edged pearlware, Jackfield
redware, and black basalt stoneware. Five sherds which were
deemed burned and unidentifiable were also left out of the
analysis.

The mean ceramic date derived using this formula was
1893.69. This date appears to be early for the site. This
may be clarified by a few explanations. William Adams
(1980:534) has written that a there is a "time lag"
regarding the deposition of ceramics into the
archaeological record of tenant occupations. He has
suggested that ceramics will tend to "date 20... years
earlier than the archaeological context in which they are
found (particularly in rural areas among poor farmers)".
This adjustment to compensate for time lag has been used by

other historical archaeologists including Orser (1988). If

78

20 years are added to the mean ceramic date derived from
the formula, the result is 1913.69. This would closely
correspond to the mean occupation date of 1911 which is
derived using historic sources (the median date of 1881 and
1941).

Another problem would impact the mean ceramic date
derived for the Old Town site. The main type of datable
ceramic (82.74%), undecorated whiteware/ironstone, has a
very long period of manufacture (at least 121 years).
Therefore, the date is not likely as accurate as it could
be, "given the long period of whiteware use and the
difficulty in establishing appropriate mean date for many
of the ceramics present" (Trinkley et al. 1993:174). For
example, the dates of 1820 to 1881 are used although it is
known the site was not occupied before 1881. The median
date used is 1892.5, even though it is also known that the
majority of the site's occupation was after this date.

For the Old Town site, the terminal date used in the
date range for whiteware/ironstone was 1941. This date was
based on the latest possible known date of the site
occupation. The 1941 air photos show that the structure was
gone, and therefore no one was living at the site. Because

this type of ceramic is still currently manufactured, there

79

is simply a lack of a better end date (Orser et al.
1987:526).
CERAMIC TYPE ANALYSIS

The relative frequencies of ceramics types have been
of interest to historical archaeologists for many years.
The examination of the presence and relative frequencies of
ceramic types present in an assemblage is conducted in
order to understand the distribution of ceramics at a site.
It has been assumed that the relative occurrence of various
ceramic types offer insight into the economic position of
the inhabitants of the sites (Garrow et al. 1983:89; Orser
et al. 1987:716).

All refined earthenwares can be divided into major
types based on certain defining physical characteristics,
which are linked to behavioral criteria. The four major
types are:(1)fine earthenware, (2)coarse earthenware,
(3)porcelain, and (4)stoneware. The definition of each of
these categories is discussed below (See Adams
1980:Appendix 7; Orser et al. 1987:709-710).
1.Fine earthenware

This type of ceramics includes those which have clear
glazes and either undecorated or decorated surfaces.

Usually, fine earthenwares are used as tablewares.

80

2.Coarse earthenware

This group of ceramics is soft and porous and is
variously glazed. The bodies are usually not white, and
often are unglazed. Coarse earthenwares are generally used
for utilitarian purposes.
3.Porcelain

This variety of ceramics is hard, vitreous, usually
thin bodied, and fired at a high temperature. Porcelains
can be undecorated or decorated in a variety of methods.
4.Stoneware

This type of ceramics also has a high firing
temperature and usually is thick bodied. Stonewares are
produced in a variety of glazes and decorations and are
used for utilitarian purposes.

The frequencies in which these four types of ceramics
occur are important. High percentages of coarse
earthenwares and stonewares can be regarded as indicators
of the domestic production and/or storage of food. This can
be interpreted as a manifestation of low status, because of
its link to the inability to purchase many ready-made foods
or the need to store homemade goods (Trinkley and Caballero
1983b:62). Conversely, high percentages of porcelains can
sometimes be regarded as indications of high status. This

is because porcelains were more expensive than other types

81

of ceramics and were usually used for special items such as
teacups, saucers and teapots (Henry and Garrow 1982:120-
135).
CERAMIC FUNCT ION ANALYS I S

Fine earthenwares and porcelains are generally
considered to be tablewares; items which are used for food
presentation or consumption. Coarse earthenwares and
stonewares are considered to be utilitarian items; used for
the storage, processing or preparation of food (Adams and
Boling 1991:64). The analysis of ceramic function can
reveal much the same information as ceramic types analysis.
The two categories, tablewares and utilitarian wares, are
defined by the purpose for which the ceramic items were
meant to be used and by what types of activities were
taking place at the site at which the ceramics were found.
Tablewares indicate that activities relating to food
service and consumption were taking place, while
utilitarian items indicate that either food storage,
processing or preparation had occurred. This relates to
status because it is believed that low status individuals
would have been involved in activities which required
utilitarian ceramics more often than high status
individuals (Worthy 1982:355; Trinkley and Caballero

1983b:62; Adams and Boling 1991:64-66). Therefore, the

82

relative frequency of tablewares to utilitarian wares can
be an indicator of socioeconomic standing (Orser et al.
1987:722).

CERAMIC DECORATION ANALYSIS

Ceramic decoration has often been used to analyze
status in the archaeological record. Cost distinctions can
be made on the basis of the type of decoration applied to a
ceramic. The materials and amount of labor are determining
factors in the cost of the finished ceramic product.
Generally, the simpler the decoration, the cheaper the
ceramic (Taylor 1950:35; Worthy 1982:340; Trinkley and
Caballero l983b:76; Brooks 1987:177). The analysis of
ceramic decoration is relevant to the study of postbellum
period ceramics because "decorative types... were the major
classification used during the 19th century [and that]
classification will reflect economic classes" (Miller
1991:51).

In his detailed analysis of ceramic price during the
first half of the nineteenth century, George Miller
(1980:3-4) found that there was a general price hierarchy
based on the type of decoration applied to a vessel.
According to Miller, the examination of the frequency of
ceramics with specific types of decoration present in an

assemblage can be used in order to derive an idea of the

83

access to ceramics which former inhabitants had. Miller
devised a scale which utilized ceramic price guides of the
nineteenth century to produce an index of the relative
value of different ceramics. Then, he defined categories
of ceramics which were based on price of decoration.
Miller's scheme was modified by Orser et al.
(1987:729) in order to make it useful for sites which were
occupied after 1850. Their scheme used the following three
decorative categories, in increasing order of price:
(1) undecorated: plain and molded
(2) minimal decoration: shell edged, sponge
decorated, banded, mocha, finger painted
and all hand painted designs
(3) extensive decoration: transfer-printed
and decaled
CERAMIC FORM AND MNI ANALYSIS
The analysis of ceramic forms present in a site's
assemblage is important for several reasons. The most
important aspect of ceramic form analysis which is useful
to reveal data regarding status is the categorization of
ceramic forms by their possible function. Some ceramic
forms were common and universal. Others, such as certain
serving forms, were specialized and therefore more rare.

The presence of large percentages or variety of specialized

forms could indicate that the owner of the ceramics was

84

capable of purchasing items which were luxuries rather than
necessities (Garrow et al. 1983:94; Trinkley and Caballero
1983az76-77).

SUMMARY

The purpose of this chapter has been to present
information regarding site history, archaeological
excavations, and ceramic analysis. Through the examination
of historical data, it was determined that the Old Town
site was the remains of a domestic structure which was
occupied from 1881 to at least 1927, and perhaps as late as
1941. For the majority of its existence, the structure was
occupied by plantation tenants with various tenure
positions within the tenant class.

The archaeological excavations were directed toward
the primary goal to recover ceramic material which could be
used for socioeconomic analysis and for intersite
comparison. A total of forty three square meters was
excavated. This yielded 865 ceramic sherds which comprised
7.09% of the entire artifact assemblage.

Several types of ceramic analysis are appropriate to
use in the addressing of the research hypotheses. These
analyses deal with ceramic type, function, decoration, and
form. The results of the ceramic analysis conducted using

the Old Town data will be discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 6

RESEARCH INTERPRETATION

This chapter will address the hypotheses presented in
chapter 2. The research conducted in this thesis was
designed to test the two hypotheses which were devised to
serve as guiding questions for the research. The findings
of the archaeological analysis will be used in order to
address the validity of the proposed hypotheses.
HYPOTHESIS 1

Hypothesis 1: Tenant farmers were an
impoverished socioeconomic group. The
artifact assemblage from the tenant
site at Old Town Plantation will
reflect this impoverished nature of
tenant culture.

The purpose of this hypothesis is to explore the
correlation between material culture and social standing as
it is suggested by the archaeological data recovered from
Old Town Plantation. Ceramic artifacts were isolated and
examined in order to address this hypothesis. Ceramics

artifacts are appropriate for this purpose because ceramic

items used by past cultures were an especially sensitive or

85

86
reliable indicator of social standing (Orser et al.
1987:704).

According to the historical data known about the
relationship between ceramics and tenant economic status in
postbellum times, several expected characteristics of the
ceramic assemblages from tenant sites can be proposed.
These characteristics are presented as predictions
regarding the attributes of the ceramic assemblage from
former tenant settlements. It is proposed that the ceramic
assemblage should:

(1) contain a large percentage of stoneware,
and a relatively small percentage of
porcelain.

(2) contain a large percentage of utilitarian
wares.

(3) contain a rather large percentage
undecorated tablewares and a wide
diversity of other decorative types,
each comprising a small percentage of
the remainder of the assemblage.

(4) contain limited number of vessel forms, with
few specialty forms. The majority of forms
present should be necessities, with flexible
functions.

The ceramic artifacts were analyzed in order to reveal
evidence which might reflect aspects of the impoverished
nature of tenancy. Ceramics were analyzed by ware,

function, decoration and form. These types of attribute

analysis were appropriate to the hypothesis because all

87

have the potential to reveal information regarding
socioeconomic status.
CERAMIC TYPE ANALYSIS

The frequencies and percentages of the four major
types of ceramics present in the Old Town tenant site
assemblage are shown below in Table 2. The calculations
were conducted using both sherd and vessel counts. Using
sherd counts, the fine earthenwares occur most often
(63.49%) and stonewares are the second most common
(32.33%). Porcelains (3.26%) and coarse earthenwares
(0.93%) are much less common. Although the exact
percentages were somewhat different using vessel numbers,

the rank for each ceramic type was the same.

Table 2 - Distribution of Ceramic Types
Fine Coarse
Earthenware Stoneware Porcelain Earthenware
# % # % # % # %
Sherds 546 63.49 279 32.44 28 3.26 7 0.81
Vessels 70 67.96 25 24.27 5 4.85 3 2.91

The percentages of the four types of ceramics
demonstrated that stonewares were the second most common
type, comprising between 24.27% (by vessel) and 32.44% (by

sherds) of the collection. Also, porcelains were a very

88

small part of the collection, only between 4.85% (by
vessel) and 3.26% (by sherds). These two lines of evidence
would seem to indicate that (1) the ceramic assemblage was
produced by a household which was involved in a significant
amount of food production and storage and (2) very little
priority was placed upon the acquisition of ceramics made
of porcelain or the household was unable to purchase
porcelain items in a significant number. The rarity of
porcelain supports the hypothesis because porcelain cost
more than stoneware during the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.
CERAMIC FUNCTION ANALYS I S

The ceramic function analysis was also conducted using
both sherd count and vessel counts. The number and percent
of ceramics present in each kind of function category is
listed below in Table 3. Although the percentages are
different using sherd and vessel counts, the numbers are
similar. This type of analysis revealed much the same
information as ceramic type analysis. Utilitarian wares
were a very important part of the entire ceramic
assemblage, between 27.18% (by vessel) and 33.26% (by
sherds). Again, this data suggests that the ceramic
assemblage was produced by a low status household which was

involved in a significant amount of food production and

89

storage relative to food consumption activities (See Orser

et a1. 1987:722).

Table 3 - Distribution of Ceramic Function Types
Tablewares Utilitarian Wares
# % # %
Sherds 574 66.74 286 33.26
Vessel 75 72.82 28 27.18

CERAMIC DECORATION ANALYSIS

In order to conduct ceramic decoration analysis, the
fine earthenware and porcelain ceramic artifacts were
separated into groups based on decorative technique. There
were eight different kinds of decorative techniques found
in the ceramic assemblage. The decoration categories were
examined using both sherd count and vessel count. The count
and frequencies of the decoration techniques are presented
in Table 4. Although the percentages are different
depending on the basis of the count (sherd versus vessel),
the ranking of the decorative techniques remains almost the
same. In both cases, the undecorated ceramic category is
predominant; 84.64% using sherd count and 50.67% using

vessel count.

9O

 

Table 4 — Distribution of Ceramic Decorative Techniques

SHERDS VESSELS

# % # %
Undecorated 485 84.64 38 50.67
Edge Molded 14 2.44 6 8.00
Gold Banded 21 3.67 8 10.67
Annular 6 1.05 4 5.33
Handpainted 5 0.87 3 4.00
Shell Edged 4 0.70 3 4.00
Decal 18 3.14 5 6.66
Transfer Printed 20 3.49 8 10.67
TOTAL 573 100.00% 75 100.00%

The eight groups were then placed into three
categories which were based on price of decorative
technique (Orser et al. 1987:729). This scheme was used to
examine the relative proportions of the three categories
within the assemblage in order to discover information
regarding economic status. The minimal decoration and
extensive decoration categories comprised similar
percentages of the remainder of the ceramic assemblage. The
distribution of ceramics within those three categories are
presented in Table 5. The results indicate that the
majority of ceramics was undecorated, the most inexpensive

decoration style available.

91

 

Table 5 - Distribution of Decoration Categories
SHERDS VESSELS
# % # %
Undecorated 499 87.09 44 58.67
Minimal decoration 36 6.28 18 24.00
Extensive decoration 38 6.63 13 17.33
TOTAL 573 100.00% 75 100.00%

An examination of the results of the ceramic
decoration analysis reveals that the ceramic assemblage was
comprised of a large proportion of undecorated ceramics,
whether the basis of analysis was ceramic sherds or ceramic
vessels. This information is important because of the
significance placed on the presence and amount of
undecorated ceramics within a collection dated to the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Several
archaeologists have proposed that the presence of a large
percentage of undecorated ceramics is associated with low
status and the inability to purchase more decorated,
expensive ceramics (e.g., Trinkley and Caballero 1983az76;
Orser et al 1987:729; Miller 1991:39). This proposition is
supported by an examination of both the 1895 Montgomery
Ward catalog (Montgomery Ward and Company 1969[1895]) and
the 1908 Sears catalog (Schroeder 1969) which indicate that

plain earthenwares were from 19 to 28% less expensive in

92

1895 and from 25 to 50% less expensive in 1908 than
decorated wares (Trinkley and Caballero 1983az76). A survey
of other period advertisements reveals considerable price
ranges, from undecorated to extensively decorated ceramics
(Sears Roebuck and Company 1968[1897], l993[1902]).
CERAMIC FORM AND MNI ANALYSIS

The analysis of ceramic forms present in the Old Town
collection was conducted in order to discover the variety
and distribution of forms present within the assemblage.
Much of the ceramic assemblage was so highly fragmented
that very little mending or reconstruction was possible.
Therefore the determination of vessel forms was primarily
made through the examination of the ceramic sherds which
were rims and bases. The type, decoration and shape were
all important characteristics which were used. Any unique
ceramic sherds were also used in determining the number of
vessels.

In order to produce a total ceramic inventory, a
minimum vessel count was determined. This allowed the
percentages of each type of vessel to be calculated. It is
important to stress that the minimum number of individual
vessels (MNI) figure which was derived is simply the
minimum number of vessels which were present in the ceramic

assemblage. More vessels could have been present in the

93

assemblage. The MNI derived from the ceramic assemblage was
103. The MNI listing and description is presented below.

The ceramic assemblage was divided into several
identifiable forms for analysis. These included tableware
forms, storage forms, and specialty forms. The earthenwares
were divided into the forms of plate, saucer, cup, bowl,
large bowl, and miscellaneous. The stonewares included
categories of jug, crock, jug/crock, and churn lid. In
those instances where the exact form was not certain, the
categories of unidentified flatware, unidentified
holloware, and unidentified were used. The vessel forms
which were specified are listed in Table 6. As stated
above, the ceramic assemblage found was very fragmented and
did not allow the exact identification of many vessel
forms. Therefore, a very high percentage (43.69%) of
vessels fit into one of the unidentified categories. The
distribution of identifiable vessel forms are listed in
Table 7.

Within the group of vessels whose forms were
identifiable, the category of jug/crock comprised 37.93% of
all forms. This again supports the idea that utilitarian
items were predominant in the ceramic material culture of
the site's former inhabitants. The plates and bowls made up

the majority of tableware forms; they were 24.14% and

94

13.79% of the entire group of identifiable vessel forms.
Those three forms - the jug/crock, plate, and bowl-

comprise 75.86% of the entire identifiable vessels.

 

 

Table 6 - Ceramic Vessel Forms
# %

Plate 14 13.59
Saucer 2 1.94
Cup 4 3.88
Bowl 8 7.77
Large Bowl 3 2.91
Miscellaneous 4 3.88
Jug 6 5.83
Crock 1 0.97
Jug/Crock 15 14.57
Churn Lid 1 0.97
UID Flatware 13 12.62
UID Hollowware 18 17.48
Unidentified 14 13.59
TOTAL 103 100.00%

Table 7 — Identified Ceramic Vessel Forms

# %

Plate 14 24.14
Saucer 2 3.45
Cup 4 6.90
Bowl 8 13.79
Large Bowl 3 5.17
Lid 2 3.45
Chamber Pot 2 3.45
Jug/Crock 22 37.93
Churn Lid 1 1.72
TOTAL 58 100.00%

The information gained from the ceramic form analysis

is important. The low diversity of forms supports the

95

contention that few specialty ceramic vessels were a part
of the ceramic material culture of the plantation tenants.
The majority of the ceramic forms present in the assemblage
- the jugs/crocks, plates and bowls - were forms which had
necessary and flexible functions within the ceramic
collection of a tenant household.

If the information from the analysis of ceramic
decoration and form are combined, it is possible to examine
the possibility of the presence of the existence of ceramic
sets. In the Old Town ceramic collection, there were no
vessels which appeared to be part of a set. Within the
ceramic collection, there was considerable diversity of
decorative motifs and a lack of similar styles. The absence
of sets in this context is important because "the presence
of table sets ... appears to have ... value in describing
socioeconomic status, as they seem absent in assemblages
from households occupied by persons of low socioeconomic
status" (Garrow 1985:221).

SUMMARY

The combination of several methods of ceramic analysis
produced data which seemed to display evidence of low
status or economic poverty within the ceramic assemblage
from the Old Town Plantation tenant site. The data includes

the presence of a high percentage of utilitarian wares and

96

undecorated ceramics, a limited variety of vessel forms
with a lack of specialty forms, and the absence of matching
ceramics vessels or sets.

HYPOTHESIS 2

Hypothesis 2: Tenant farmers were a
cohesive group, united into a single
impoverished culture which regulated
consumer behaviors.The artifact assemblage
from the tenant site at Old Town will

be similar to artifact assemblages from
other tenant sites.

This hypothesis is based upon the assumption that
tenant farmers belonged to an occupation-based group, the
members of which shared a similar culture that regulated
consumer behavior and therefore material culture. It is
predicted that the attributes of the ceramic artifact
assemblage from the Old Town site will be similar to the
attributes of the ceramic assemblages from the other tenant
sites examined. All of the sites should share the four
predicted ceramic characteristics listed previously under
the discussion of hypothesis one.

In order to address this hypothesis and discover if
the attributes of the artifact assemblage from Old Town
share characteristics with other tenant sites, the ceramic

data from Old Town were compared to data from two other

tenant sites. The three sites were compared by ceramic

97

attribute analysis. This comparison provided variations in
race, geographical location, tenure arrangement, and
landlord treatment of tenants. This comparison is useful
because it can help to determine if the shared attributes
of the ceramic assemblages are a function of the
occupation—based status group or a function of other
variables. The focus is on the characteristics that might
have been shared by tenants as a labor group (Orser
1988:234).

The tenant sites whose ceramic data were compared to
data from Old Town were located on Millwood Plantation in
South Carolina (Orser et al. 1987) and Waverly Plantation
in Mississippi (Adams 1980). Both sites were locations of
former tenant farmer settlements during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries.

CERAMIC TYPE ANALYSIS

The three sites were first compared based upon ceramic
type analysis. Table 8 presents the relative frequencies of
ceramic types present in the sherd count of the assemblage
of each site. Sherd counts were used because vessels counts

were not available for comparison.

98

Table 8 -
Compared Distribution of Ceramic Types, by Sherd Count

Fine Coarse
Earthenware Stoneware Porcelain Earthenware
% % % %
Old Town 63.49 32.45 3.25 0.81
Millwooda 60.46 36.12 3.04 0.38
Waverlyb 62.75 27.84 7.67 1.74

a from Orser et al. 1987:712
bfrom Adams 1980:521

The percentages of the ceramic types from the three
plantation sites are quite similar; the largest margin of
variation in any ceramic type category is 8.28%, in the
Stoneware category. Although the percentages of each
ceramic type at the sites are different, the rank of each
type is the same at all of the sites. These figures seem to
give support to the data from Old Town. At all sites, the
ceramic assemblage was dominated by fine earthenwares (over
60%), stonewares were significant (near 30%), porcelains
were uncommon (less than 8%), and coarse earthenwares were
rare (less than 2%). According to these percentages, the
stoneware of ceramics were a significant portion of the
ceramic materials owned by tenants, while the porcelain

category of ceramics were not.

99

CERAMIC FUNCTION ANALYS I S

The three tenant sites were also compared using
ceramic function analysis. The distribution of ceramic
function at the three sites is presented in Table 9. These
figures further support the proposal that utilitarian items
were important possessions for tenants and that they were
involved in considerable amounts of food production and
storage activities. Those are types of activities which
were linked to low socioeconomic standing or status during
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Worthy
1982:355; Trinkley and Caballero 1983b:62; Orser et al.
1987:722; Adams and Boling 1991:64-66).

In order to further measure the similarities between
the samples, a similarity matrix was produced using
Robinson's Index of Agreement (Robinson 1951). This
statistic compares pairs of percentages of occurrence in
order to determine if they are similar or dissimilar, and
produces a numerical value that can be used to gauge those
factors. The index is large when samples are similar (the
index is 200 when a sample is compared against itself). The
similarity matrix for ceramic artifact function is
presented in Table 10. The generated matrix indicates that
the samples are indeed very similar regarding ceramic

function.

100

Table 9 — Compared Distribution of Ceramic Function Types

Tablewares Utilitarian Wares
% %
Old Town 66.74 33.26
Millwooda 63.50 36.50
Waverlyb 70.42 29.58

a calculated from Orser et al. 1987:712
b calculated from Adams 1980:521

Table 10 — Similarity Matrix for Ceramic Artifact Function

Old Town Millwood Waverly
Old Town 200.00
Millwood 193.52 200.00
Waverly 192.64 186.16 200.00

CERAMIC DECORATION ANALYSIS

The ceramic decoration comparison between the three
sites was conducted using the three decorative categories
as defined by Orser et al. (1987:729). The frequencies of
the decorative categories by sherd count are presented in
Table 11. The sherd counts for Waverly were not available.
The frequencies of the decorative categories by vessel
count are presented in Table 12. This includes the data

from Waverly.

101

Table 11 - Distribution of Decoration Catagories, by Sherd

Old Town Millwooda Waverlyb

% % %
Undecorated 87.09 88.05 NA
Minimally decorated 6.28 5.66 NA
Extensively decorated 6.63 6.29 NA

8 from Orser et al. 1987:730
b not available

Table 12 — Distribution of Decoration Catagories, by Vessel

Old Town Millwooda Waverlyb
% % %
Undecorated 58.67 NA 55.60
Minimally decorated 24.00 NA 27.60
Extensively decorated 17.33 NA 16.80

anot available

b from Adams 1980:530

Both comparison by sherd count and vessel count
produce similar percentages for ceramic decoration
techniques at the tenant sites. The index of agreement
between the Old Town sample and the Millwood sample, using
sherd counts, is 198.09. The index of agreement between the
Old Town sample and the Waverly sample, using vessel
counts, is 192.8. Both of these indices indicate that the
samples are similar regarding the frequencies of ceramic
decorative categories. This data seems to suggest that the
percentages and distribution of ceramic decorative

categories are similar at sites of former tenant

102

settlements. The ceramic assemblages are similar in regard
to the amount of undecorated ceramics, which were
significantly less expensive than decorated ceramics in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This could
relate to the low economic status of tenants and their
ability to purchase ceramic items (Trinkley and Caballero
l983az76; Orser et al. 1987:729; Miller 1991:39).
CERAMIC FORM AND MNI ANALYSIS

The last type of ceramic attribute which was compared
among the sites was ceramic form. The percentages of each
type of identified ceramic form from the three plantations
is presented in Table 13. The comparison of vessel forms
indicates that the majority of the ceramic collections the
tenant sites were comprised of only six forms. Plates were
the dominant tableware form in all three ceramic
assemblages; they averaged 27.07% of the total number of
forms. These results have been found at other tenant sites
(e.g., Adams 1980:275; Trinkley and Caballero 1983a:77;
Trinkley and Caballero 1983b:62). It has been proposed
that the diet of tenant farmers suggested that plates might
have been more in demand than any other tableware form
(Trinkley and Caballero 1983b:62).

The distribution of ceramic forms also illustrates the

importance of stoneware vessels; listed as the jug/crock

103

form. In the Old Town and Millwood ceramic collections, the
largest form category was comprised of stoneware vessels.
In the Waverly figures, the stoneware vessel form category
ranked third in percentage of the entire ceramic
assemblage. Specialty forms were included in the
miscellaneous form category for all three sites. The
percentage of these specialty forms were very low in all
three ceramic assemblages, ranging from 0.00% to 8.62%.
This could indicate that few specialty ceramic vessel forms
were purchased by tenants because those items were
unessential and uneconomical. Tenants could have served
food from the cooking stove, which would have eliminated
the need for some serving vessels (Trinkley and Caballero
1983a:76). The percentage of other vessel forms seemed to
exhibit no particular pattern which was easily discernable.
In order to further examine the possible importance of
ceramic vessel forms, a similarity matrix was produced. The
matrix is presented in Table 14. The indices range from
140.40 to 151.73, and these figures indicate that the three
samples are not especially similar to each other regarding
ceramic form percentages. This result could have been
affected by the wide selection and availability of ceramic
vessel forms as open—stock merchandise in stores and mail-

order catalogues during the late nineteenth and early

104

twentieth centuries (Worthy 1982:348; Orser 1987:727).
Tenant families could have purchased only the functional
forms which were appropriate for their particular needs
which would have varied. For example, all families would
have needed plates, essential tableware items. However, the
percentage of cups and saucers needed could have depended
on the gender and age composition of the family. The number

of bowls could have depended on diet preferences.

 

Table 13 — Distribution of Ceramic Vessel Forms
Old Town Millwooda Waverlyb
% % %
Plate 24.14 27.59 30.00
Saucer 3.45 3.45 10.71
Cup 6.90 24.14 18.57
Bowl 13.79 3.45 9.29
Large Bowl 5.17 0.00 7.14
Miscellaneous 8.62 0.00 7.14
Jug/Crock 37.93 41.38 17.15
TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

aadapted from Orser et al. 1987:720-721
b adapted from Adams 1980:517,520

Table 14 - Similarity Matrix for Ceramic Vessel Form

Old Town Millwood Waverly
Old Town 200.00
Millwood 151.73 200.00

Waverly 146.48 140.40 200.00

105

CERAMICS AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Archaeologists can use patterned characteristics in
archaeological data to investigate reasons for household
selection of particular archaeologically deposited goods
from the variety available in the market (Spencer-Wood
1987:323). In order to explain the behaviors which would
have produced the ceramic assemblage characteristics
proposed above, the consumer behavior of tenant farmers
must be addressed. It is important to discuss consumer
behavior because characteristics of material remains should
be examined in terms of the behavioral processes which
produced them rather than simply as status markers. It is
believed that the ceramic artifact assemblages present at
former tenant settlements are a function of occupation-
based status group consumer behaviors. These consumer
behaviors determined the ceramics which were purchased by
tenants, and which later became part of the archaeological
record.

Based upon the historical and archaeological data,
characteristics of tenant consumer behavior regarding
ceramic acquisition can be proposed. The decision to
acquire particular ceramics was conditioned by a number of
interrelated variables within the tenant cultural system,

including the economic ability to afford those goods and

106

the functional utility of the goods. The suggested traits
which can be linked to tenant consumer behavior are:

(1) tenants purchased a large amount of
utilitarian vessels because those types of
vessels served food production and storage
functions and were widely available at a low
cost.

(2) tenants primarily purchased undecorated
tablewares because undecorated vessels were
low priced, widely available, and easily
replaced.

(3) tenants often purchased tablewares as
individual pieces from local sources or
catalogues as replacement items rather than
as sets.

(4) tenants purchased only the ceramic forms
which were functionally useful for their
needs. Forms which had flexible functions
were purchased more often than specialty
forms.

SUMMARY

Two hypotheses were developed which were designed to
serve as guidelines for archaeological research. It was
proposed that the ceramic assemblage from Old Town would be
similar to the ceramic assemblages from other tenant sites.
In order to address the hypotheses, several methods of
ceramic analyses were used to examine similarities in the
ceramic assemblages from three sites associated with former
tenant dwellings. Ceramic attributes which might reveal
similarities among the ceramics from the sites were
analyzed. These attributes included ceramic type, function,

decoration and form.

107

The results of the combination of analyses produced
data which seemed to display evidence of low status or
economic poverty within the ceramic assemblages from all of
the sites. The examination of ceramic attributes
demonstrated that there was a similarity among the three
ceramic assemblages according to ceramic type, function,
and decoration. However, the relationship between the

tenant sites based on ceramic form was not particularly

similar.

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter summarizes the research conducted in this
thesis, assesses the applicability of its proposals, and
suggests recommendations for future inquiry.

The goal of this thesis has been to demonstrate that
because tenants were an impoverished occupation—based
group, united in a socioeconomic stratum which had distinct
consumer behaviors regarding ceramics, their behavior may
be examined through the context of ceramic acquisition and
use. The intention has been to show that there is a link
between the nature of tenancy and ceramic acquisition and
that link can be demonstrated archaeologically.

In order to achieve that goal, two major objectives
had to be accomplished. First, the possible ceramic
attributes which can be associated with the impoverished
nature of postbellum plantation tenancy had to be
identified. This objective was guided by the assumption
that attributes of ceramic artifacts are sensitive

indicators of economic status. The second objective was to

108

109

propose status related consumer behavior characteristics
which could have been responsible for the ceramic artifact
assemblages found at tenant sites. This objective was based
on the assumption that there are significant connections
between patterns in attributes of archaeological data and
status related consumer behaviors (See Spencer-Wood
1987:16).

In order to fulfill the research goals, two hypotheses
were formulated for testing. It was hoped that the
examination of the hypotheses would contribute knowledge
concerning the relationship between the nature of tenancy,
consumer behavior and ceramic acquisition.

The ceramic assemblage from a tenant site at Old Town
Plantation was analyzed based on ceramic type, function,
decoration, and form attributes. The combined methods of
ceramic attribute analysis produced data which seemed to
display evidence of low status or economic poverty. The
data from Old Town was compared to attributes of ceramic
assemblages from tenant sites located on Millwood
Plantation in South Carolina and Waverly Plantation in
Mississippi. The comparison indicated that there were
substantial similarities among the three ceramic

assemblages according to ceramic attributes. Data from that

110

comparison was used to define several characteristics of
ceramic assemblages which might be expected at tenant
sites. The delineation of those characteristics is
important because it suggests that ceramic attributes can
be indicators of status. The consumer behavior of tenants
which would have produced the ceramic assemblages was also
examined. Traits of tenant consumer behavior regarding
ceramic acquisition were also proposed. The proposal of
those traits was significant because it linked patterns of
attributes in the archaeological record with consumer
behavior.

Although the research conducted in this thesis seems
to have successfully addressed the developed hypotheses,
potential problems must be considered. For example,
archaeology is only beginning to document tenant culture
and such limited analysis has been done that very little is
known of the potential range of variability (Trinkley et
al. 1985:41). Because of the limited database available,
archaeologists face difficulty in postulating that general
patterns relate to all tenant sites. Both of the proposals
concerning ceramic attributes and consumer behavior in this
thesis were based upon data from only three tenant sites.
Even though the similar characteristics of ceramic

assemblages from the sites were significant, the

111

extrapolation of those characteristics to all tenant sites
is uncertain.

The variability involved in tenancy was not assessed
in this study because it was assumed that the occupational
role of tenants would have been the paramount factor in
determining consumer behavior. However, variables such as
race, geography, labor arrangement, and/or family
composition could have significantly affected consumer
behavior. The role such variables played in the
determination of tenant consumer behavior is currently
unknown. Whether the patterns of consumer behavior and
ceramic acquisition proposed in this thesis applied to all
tenants is not established. Consequently, the proposals
presented must remain speculative until further results are
obtained from future research.

It is therefore recommended that further research be
conducted concerning the applicability of the research
findings in this thesis. More tenant sites need to be
investigated in order to establish a larger ceramic
database. The comparison of data from many diverse tenant
ceramic assemblages would allow the measurement of how
variables involved in tenancy would have affected ceramic
acquisition and therefore ceramic attribute patterns. These

variables include factors such as tenant race, tenure

112

arrangement, geographical location, family structure and
landlord disposition. Comparison is also needed between
tenant households and other non-tenant poor households.
This comparison would help to determine if other types of
poverty affected consumer behavior and ceramic acquisition
in the same ways as tenancy.

Currently, archaeologists are still in a data
acquisition phase which is essential prior to any
conclusive theoretical breakthroughs being claimed. The
search for understanding patterning in the archaeological

record and regulation of consumer behavior must continue.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, William H.(Editor)
1980 Waverly Plantation: Ethnoarchaeology of a Tenant
Farming Community Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, Atlanta.

 

 

Adams, William Hampton and Sarah Jane Boling
1991 Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on
Three Georgia Coastal Plantations. Historical
Archaeology 23(1):69-96.

 

 

Agee, James and Walker Evans
1941 Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families
Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Anderson, David G. and Joe W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah
River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource
Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource
Area. Prepared by Garrow & Associates, Inc.,
Atlanta.

Atwater, W.O. and Charles D. Woods
1897 Dietary Studies with Reference to the Food of the
Negro in Alabama in 1895 and 1896 U.S.D.A. Office
of Experimental Studies Bulletin no.38, Government
Printing Office, Washington.

 

Augusta Chronicle {Georgia}
1909 No title. Augusta Chronicle, 18 October 1909.

 

Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the State [Georgia]
1807 No title. Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the
State, 15 July 1807.

Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel [Georgia]

1840 No title. Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel,
29 September 1840.

113

114

Barth, Earnest A. and Walter B. Watson
1967 Social Stratification and the Family in Mass
Society. Social Forces 45:392-402.

 

Bartram, William
1942 Diary of a Journey Through the Carolinas, Georgia,
and Florida from July 1, 1765 to April 10,1766.
In Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society's New Series. Vol. XXXIII, edited by
Francis Harper. p.26. Yale University Press, New
Haven. Originally published in 1791.

 

 

Binford, Lewis R.
1968 Some Comments on Historical Versus Processual
Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Archaeology
24:267-274.

 

Boeger E.A. and E.A. Goldenweiser
1916 A Study of the Tenant System of Farming in the
Yazoo-Mississippi Delta. U.S.D.A. Bulletin no.337.
Government Printing Office, Washington.

 

 

Brannen, C.O.
1924 Relation of Land Tenure to Plantation Organization.
U.S.D.A. Bulletin no. 1269. Government Printing

Office, Washington.

 

Branstner, Mark C. and Terrance J. Martin
1987 Working-Class Detroit: Late Victorian Consumer
Choices and Status. In Consumer Choice in
Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer-
Wood, pp.301—320. Plenum Press, NY.

 

 

Brooks, Richard D.

1981 Initial Historic Overview of the Savannah River
Plant, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, S.C.. Research
Manuscript Series no. 170. Savannah River
Archaeology Research Program, South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.

 

 

115

Brooks, Richard D.

1987 250 Years of Historic Occupation on Steel Creek,
Savannah River Plant, Barnwell County, S.C.
Savannah River Archaeological Papers No. 1.
Savannah River Plant Archaeology Research Program,
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.

 

Carter, Dan T.
1964 Politics and Business: The Convict Lease System in
the Post-Civil War South. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
University of Wisconsin.

Charleston County, South Carolina
1775 Charleston County Deed Books, GGGG, HHHH, and ZZZZ.
Register of Meyne Conveyances, Charleston County
Courthouse.

Columbian Museum and Savannah Advertiser [Georgia]
1809 No title. Columbian Museum and Savannah Advertiser,
25 September 1809.

Comer, Braxton Bragg
1917- Letters to Fletcher Comer, 27 January 1917, 18
1918 November 1918 and 30 December, 1918. Braxton Bragg
Comer Papers. Southern Historical Collection,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Comer, Fletcher
1909 Letter to Braxton Bragg Comer, 15 December, 1909.
Braxton Bragg Comer Governorship Papers. Alabama
State Archives, Montgomery.

Coulter, John Lee (Editor)

1913 Plantations in the South. In Thirteenth Census of
the United States, Taken in the Year 1910. Vol. 5,
Agriculture, 1909 and 1910, pp. 877-889. Government
Printing Office, Washington.

 

Deagan, Kathleen
1982 Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology. In
Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory
5:151-178. Michael B. Schiffer, editor. Serial
Publication series. Academic Press, NY.

116

DeCunzo, L.A.
1982 Households, Economics, and Ethnicity in Paterson's
Dublin 1829-1915:The Van Houten St. Parking Lot
Block, NE. Historical Archaeology 11:9-25.

 

Deetz, James
1973 Ceramics From Plymouth, 1635-1855: The
Archaeological Evidence. In Ceramics in America,
pp. 15-40, I.M.G. Quimby, editor. University of
Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

 

Degler, Carl N.
1979 Plantation Society: Old and New Perspective on
Hemisphere society. In Plantation Society in the
Americas 1 (February):9—l4.

Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood
1979 The Technology of Consumption. In The World of
Goods. pp.95-113. Basic Books, Inc., NY.

 

Drucker, Lesley
1981 Socioeconomic Patterning at a Late 18th Century
Lowcountry Site: Spiers Landing, S.C. Historical
Archaeology 15(2):58-68.

 

 

Dusenberry, J.S.
1971 Income Consumption Relations and Their
Implications.In Readings in Macroeconomics. M.G.
Muller, editor, pp.61-76. Holt, Reinhart, and
Winston, NY.

Dyson, S.L.

1982 Material Culture, Social Structure and Changing
Cultural Values: The Ceramics of Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Century Middletown, Connecticut. In
Archaeology of Urban America. R.S. Dickens, editor,
pp.361-380. Academic Press, NY.

 

Edwards, Albam
1939 A Social Economic Grouping of the Gainful Workers
of the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

 

Ely, Richard and Charles J. Galphin
1919 Tenancy in an Ideal System of Land-Ownership. In
Papers on Tenancy. Office of the Secretary of the
American Association for Agricultural Legislation
Bulletin no. 2. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

 

117

Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and David T. Kollat
1978 Consumer Behavior. Dryden Press, Hinsdale Ill.

 

Fitzsimmons, Christopher
1799— Christopher Fitzsimmons Letterbooks, 1799-1813.
1813 South Caroliniana Library, Columbia.

Flynt, Wayne J.
1979 Dixie's Forgotten People: The South's Poor Whites.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

 

Galphin, Thomas
nda The Thomas Galphin Family Bible.

Garrow, Patrick H.
1987 The Use of Converging Lines of Evidence for
Determining Socioeconomic Status. In Consumer
Choice in Historical Archaeology. Suzanne Spencer-
Wood, editor. pp. 217-231. Plenum Press, NY.

 

Garrow, Patrick H., Amy Friedlander, and Steven D.Nicklas
1983 Report On Archaeological and Historical Research
Studies: Cultural Properties GP-HA-l and GP-HA-2,
Harris County, Georgia. Report by Soil Systems,
Inc., Marietta, GA.

Geismar, John H.
1982 The Archaeology of Social Disintegration in Skunk
Hollow: A Nineteenth-Century Rural Black Community.
Academic Press, NY.

 

Georgia Historical Society
1741 Georgia Historical Society Collections, Vol. III,
pp.61-63 and Item X, pp. 123—124,

Hagwood, Margaret Jarman
1939 Mothers of the South: Portraiture of the White
Tenant Farm Woman. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

 

Hampton, Wade
1857 Letter to Mary Hampton, 14 February 1857. Hampton
Papers, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia.

118

Handler, Jerome S. and Frederick W. Lange
1978 Plantation Slavery in Barbados: An Archaeological
and Historical Investigation. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.

 

 

Heberling, Scott D.

1985 "All the Earthenware Plain and Flowered": Socio-
Economic Status and Consumer Choices on Early
Nineteenth Century Historic Sites. Unpublished
M.A. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Henry, Susan L. and Patrick H. Garrow
1982 Archaeological Data Recovery on Blocks 1 and 2 of
the Original Phoenix Townsite, AZT:12:42(ASM),
Phoenix, Arizona. Vol. 1. Report by Soil Systems
Inc., Phoenix, AZ.

Hershberg, Theodore and Robert Dockhorn
1976 Occupational Classification. Historical Methods
Newsletter 9:59-98.

 

 

Hodges, Harold M.
1964 Social Stratification: Class in America. Schenkman
Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

 

Hoffman, M.A.
1974 The Social Context of Trash Disposal in an Early
Dynastic Egyptian Town. American Antiquity 39:35-
49.

 

Holland, Claudia C.

1990 Tenant Farms of the Past, Present and Future: An
Ethnoarchaeological View. In Historical Archaeology
on Southern Plantations and Farms (Special Issue),
Charles E. Orser, editor. Historical Archaeology
24(4):60-69.

 

Jefferson County, Georgia
Jefferson County Deed Books D, E, AA, BB, EE, and
GG. Jefferson County Courthouse, Louisville, GA.

Jefferson County Tax Digests. Jefferson County
Courthouse, Louisville, GA.

Jefferson County Superior Court Records 1803-1809.
Jefferson County Courthouse, Louisville, GA.

119

Joseph, Joe W.

1991 Agrarian Life, Romantic Death: Archaeological and
Historical Testing and Data Recovery for the I-85
Northern Alternative, Spartanburg, S.C.. Technical
Report 39, New South Associates, Stone Mountain,
GA.

 

 

 

Kahl, Joseph A. and James A. Davis
1955 A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status.
American Sociological Review 20:317-325.

 

Katz, Michael B.
1972 Occupational Classification in History. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 3:63-88.

 

 

Kelly, Marsha and Roger B. Kelly
1980 ApproaChes to Ethnic Identification in Historical
Archaeology. In Archaeological Perspectives on
Ethnicity in America. R.L. Schuyler, editor. pp.
133-144. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale,
NY.

 

 

Knight, Lucian Lamar
1922 Georgia and Georgians. The Lewis Publishing
Company, New York, NY.

 

Laumann, Edward O. and James House
1970 Living Room Styles and Social Attributes: The
Patterning of Material Artifacts in a Modern
Urban Community. Sociology and Social Research
54:321-324.

 

 

 

Lathrop, Sallie Comer
n.d. The Comer Family Grows Up. Privately printed,
Birmingham, AL.

 

Leone, Mark P.

1987 Rule by Ostentation: The Relationship Between Space
and Site in Eighteenth-Century Landscape
Architecture in the Chesapeake Region of Maryland.
In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An
Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Susan Kent, editor.
pp.604-633. Columbia University Press, NY.

 

 

120

Lewis, Lynne G.

1985

The Planter Class: The Archaeological Record at
Drayton Hall. In The Archaeologyyof Slavery and
Plantation Life. Theresa Singleton, editor, pp.121-
140. Academic Press, NY.

 

 

Lewis, Oscar

1966

La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of
Poverty. Random House, NY.

 

Louisville Gazette and Republican Trumpeter [Georgia]

1807

Maguire,
1975

Advertisement. Louisville Gazette and Republican
Trumpeter, 15 May 1807.

 

 

Jane
On Share's: Ed Brown's Story. W.W. Norton, NY.

 

Majewski, Teresita and Michael O'Brien

1987

The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth—Century English
and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis.
In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory
11:97-210. Michael Schiffer, editor. Serial
Publication series. Academic Press, NY.

 

Martineau, Pierre

1958

Miller,
1974

1980

1991

Miller,
1970

Social Classes and Spending Behavior. Journal of
Marketing 23:121-130.

 

 

George

Tenant Farmers Tableware: Nineteenth- Century
Ceramics From Tabb's Purchase. Maryland Historical
Magazine 69(2):197-210.

 

Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th
Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1—40.

 

Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century
Ceramics. In Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists. Society for
Historical Archaeology, California, PA.

 

 

Jefferson J. II and Lyle M. Stone
Eighteenth-Century Ceramics From Ft.
Michilimackinac: A Study in Historical Archaeology.
Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology
Vol.4.

121

Montgomery Ward and Company

1969

Montgomery Ward & Company Catalogue No. 57., 1895.
Dover, NY.

News and Farmer [Georgia]

News and Farmer, 2 October 1879, 30 October 1879,
July 1880, 21 July 1881, 29 September 1904, 30
March 1905, 1 July 1976.

 

Northen, William J. (Editor)

1911

Orser,
1987

1988

Orser,
Nekola
1987

Otto,
1975

1977

Men of Mark in Georgia. Vol. III, Atlanta.

 

Charles E. Jr.

Plantation Status and Consumer Choice: A
Materialist Framework for Historical Archaeology.
In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology.
Suzanne Spencer-

Wood, editor. Plenum Press, NY.

 

The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant
Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South
Carolina Piedmont. The University of Georgia Press,
Athens.

 

 

 

Charles E. Jr., James L. Roark, and Annette M.

Exploring the Rustic Life: Multidisciplinary
Research at Millwood Plantation, A Large Piedmont
Plantation in Abbeville County, South Carolina, and
Elbert County, Georgia. National Park Service,
Atlanta.

 

 

John Solomon
Status Differences and the Archaeological Record: A
Comparison of Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites
from Cannon's Point Plantation (1794—1861), St.
Simon's Island, Georgia. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida.

Artifacts and Status Differences: A Comparison of
Ceramics from Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites on
an Antebellum Plantation. In Research Strategies in
Historical Archaeology, pp.91-118. Stanley South,
editor. Academic Press, NY.

 

122

Otto, John Solomon
1984 Cannon's Point Plantation, 1794-1860. Academic
Press, NY.

 

Paulk, Herschel L.
1994 Soil Survey of Glascock and Jefferson Counties,
Georgia. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.

 

Price, Cynthia R.

1979 Nineteenth Century Ceramics in the Eastern Osark
Border Region. Monograph Series 1. Center for
Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State
University, Springfield.

 

 

Prunty, Merle C.
1955 The Renaissance of the Southern Plantation. The
Geographical Review 45:459-491.

 

Raffa, John H.
1983 Ceramics and Status: The Critical Links, 1832-1872.
A Study in Historical Archaeology. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Ransom, Roger L. and Richard Sutch
1977 One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of
Emancipation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

 

 

Raper, Arthur F.
1936 Preface to Peasantry: A Tale of Two Black Belt
Counties. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.

 

Raper, Arthur F. and Ira De A. Reid
1941 Sharecropper's All. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.

 

Reissman, Leonard
1959 Class in American Society. Free Press,NY.

 

Robinson, W.S.
1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering
Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity 16:293-
301.

 

123

Savannah Morning News [Georgia]
1857 Advertisement. Savannah Morning News, 1 August,
1857.

 

Schuler, E.A.

1938 Social Status and Farm Tenure: Attitudes and Social
Conditions of Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers.
U.S.D.A. Farm Security Administration, and Bureau
ongricultural Economics, Social Research Report
no.4. Government Printing Office, Washington.

 

 

Schultz, Peter D. and Sherri M. Gust
1983 Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th Century
Sacramento. Historical Archaeology 17(1):44-53.

 

Sears Roebuck and Company
1968 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue-1897. Chelsea, NY.

 

1993 The 1902 Edition of The Sears, Roebuck Catalogue.
Portland House, NJ.

 

1993 The 1908 Edition of The Sears, Roebuck Catalogue.
Portland House, NJ.

 

Sheftall, John M.
1977 Transcripts of Interview with Charles Shelton.
Manuscript on file, Old Town Plantation,
Louisville, GA.

1978 Transcripts of Interview with Sloan McKay.
Manuscript on file, Old Town Plantation,
Louisville, GA.

1980 Ogeechee Old Town: The Story of a Georgia
Plantation. Manuscript on file, Old Town
Plantation,Louisville, GA.

 

 

Singer, David A.
1985 The Use of Fish Remains as a Socio-Economic
MeasurezAn Example from 19th Century New England.
HistoricalArchaeology 19(2):110-113.

 

South, Stanley
1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic
Analysis in Historical Archaeology. The Conference
on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1971 6:71-116.

 

124

South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology.
Academic Press, NY.

1988 Whither Pattern? Historical Archaeology 22:25-28.

 

South Carolina Council
1747 Journal of the South Carolina Council. November
11, 1747.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne
1984 Status, Occupation, and Ceramic Indices: A
Nineteenth Century Comparative Analysis. Man in the
Northeast 28:87-110.

 

1987a Preface. In Consumer Choice in Historical
Archaeology, pp.xi-xii. Suzanne Spencer-Wood,
editor. Plenum Press, NY.

 

1987b Introduction. In Consumer Choice in Historical
Archaeology, pp.1-20. Suzanne Spencer-Wood,
editor. Plenum Press, NY.

 

1987c Miller's Indices and Consumer-Choice Profiles:
Status-Related Behaviors and White Ceramics. In
Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, pp.321-
357. Suzanne Spencer-Wood, editor. Plenum Press,
NY.

State of Georgia
1765 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, Vols.
IX, XII, and XV. Atlanta, GA.

1878- Report of the Principal Keeper of the Georgia
1894 Penitentiary.

Stine, Linda France
1990 Social Inequality and Turn-of-the-Century
Farmsteads: Issues of Class, Status, Ethnicity, and
Race. Historical Archaeology 24:37-49.

 

Taylor, Sally
1950 Ceramics for the Table. Fairchild Publications, NY.

 

Thomas, Norman
1934 The Plight of the Share-Cropper. League for
Industrial Democracy, NY.

125

Tindall, George Brown
1966 South Carolina Negroes 1877-1900. Louisiana State

University Press, Baton Rouge.

Trinkley, Michael
1983 "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" - If Only We Can
Find Them. Southeastern Archaeology 2(1):30-36.

1993 Life in the Pee Dee: Prehistoric and Historic
Research on the Roche Carolina Tract, Florence
County, South Carolina Department of Highways
And Public Transportation, Columbia.

Trinkley, Michael and Olga Caballero
1983a An Archaeological and Historical Evaluation of the
I-85 Northern Alternative, Spartanburg County,
South Carolina. Report by the South Carolina
Department of Highways and Public Transportation,

Columbia.

1983b U.S. 521 Relocation, Sumter County, South Carolina:
An Archaeological Survey of an Inter-Riverine Upper
Coastal Plain Locality. Report by the South
Carolina Department of Highways and Public
Transportation, Columbia.

Trinkley, Michael, Jeanne Calhoun and Debbi Hacker-Norton
Archaeological and Historical Investigation of
388U81, 388U82, and 39SU86. Report by the South
Carolina Department of Highways and Public
Transportation, Columbia.

Tumin, Melvin Marvin
1970 Readings on Social Stratification. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

United States Bureau of the Census
1880 Population Schedule. Jefferson County, Georgia.

1880 Agricultural Schedule. Jefferson County, Georgia.

United States Department of Agriculture
1934 The Farm Housing Survey. Miscellaneous Publication

No. 323. Bureau of Home Economics,
Washington.

126

United States Department of Agriculture
1941 Aerial Photographs, Jefferson County, Georgia. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington.

Warner, W. Lloyd, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells
1960 Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for
the Measurement of Social Status. Harper and Row,
NY.

 

Woodward, Thomas S.
1858 Woodward's Reminiscences. n.p., Montgomery, AL.

 

Woofter, Thomas J. Jr., Gordon Blackwell, Harold
Hoffsommer, James G. Maddox, Jean M. Massell, B.O.
Williams, and Waller Wynne Jr.

1936 Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation. Works
Progress Administration, Division of Social
Research Monograph no. 5. Government Printing
Office, Washington.

Worthy, Linda
1982 Classification and Interpretation of Late
Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Ceramics. In
Archaeologyyof Urban America: The Search for
Pattern and Process, pp.329-360. Roy Dickens,
editor. Academic Press, NY.

 

Zimmerman, Hilda Jane
1947 Penal Systems and Penal Reforms in the South Since
the Civil War. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1|11111111111111111I11111111111111
31293015818978