Download - Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
1/33
International Journal
of
HistoricalArchaeology, Vol.
I, No. 1,
1997
Risk
Management Strategies Among
African American Slaves at Locust Grove
Plantation
Amy L Young1
African
Americansfaced
a
variety
of risks
under
the
institution
of
slavery.
The
theory
of
risk management
is
used
as a
context
for
understanding
the
lives
of
slaves
at Locust Grove Plantation in
Kentucky
and for deconstructing the
common myth that
slavery was
unusually
mild
there.African Americansused
a
diversity
of meansat Locust Grove to cope
with
risk,
including generalized
reciprocity,
food storage,
religion, and strong kinship/community bonds.
KEY
WORDS:risk;
African-American slavery; southeastern United States.
INTRODUCTION
From 1987 through 1989, the Universityof Louisville Department of
Anthropology conducted archaeological and historical investigations at Lo-
cust Grove Plantation. Located approximately 5 mi east of Louisville, Ken-
tucky,on the Ohio River, Locust Grove dur ing the nineteen th century was
home to
Major
William Croghan, hiswife Lucy Clark Croghan, their nine
children, and Lucy's famous brother General
George
Rogers Clark. The
Croghans
and
their relatives
are all
well documented
in
hundreds
of
letters,
and indeeds,
wills,
tax
lists,
censuses,
estate
inventories,
andother
surviving
primary records. In addition to the Croghan family, a numberof enslaved
African
Americans also lived
and
worked
at
Locust Grove. Except
for
being
enumerated
in
censuses
and tax
lists,
virtually
nothing
was
known about
these individuals, except that they were made
to
raise corn, wheat, hogs,
'Depa rtmen t of Anthropology and Sociology, Box 5074, U niversity of Southe rn Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406-5074, USA.
5
1092-7697/97/03
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
2/33
6 Young
sheep, and cattle and to take care of the Croghans. Archaeological inves-
tigations were conducted to discover the remains of their
houses
and re-
cover some of their material culture.
The
work
at
Locust Grove
was the first
major archaeological project
that focused on an African-Am erican slave site at a pla ntation in Kentucky.
Little
was
known concerning material conditions
or
daily life
of
plantation
slaves
in
this region. Most archaeological work
on
slavery
has
centered
on
large, wealthy plantations in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and the
Chesapeake region of Virginia (Adams, 1987; Adams and Boling, 1989;
Deetz, 1988; Emerson, 1994; Joseph, 1987, 1989; Kelso, 1984; Klingelhofer,
1987; Lewis, 1985; McKee, 1988, 1992; Singleton, 1995; Wheaton
and
Gar-
row,
1985).Some sites in the western cotton belt have also been intensively
investigated (BrownandCooper, 1990; Wilkie,1995). Because the regions
and
temporal periods
are so
different,
it was
believed that direct compari-
sons of archaeological remains between the areas would
yield
little addi-
tional informa tion. Furthermo re, once archaeological research showed that
the
slaves
had access to
substantial amounts
of
material goods, especially
compared
to
sites dating
to the
seventeenth
and
eighteenth centuries,
it
was believed that inappropriate comparisons would only support the pre-
vailingmyth that slaveryinKentuckywasunusually mild (Coleman, 1940).
Particularly, differences caused
by
increasingly available mass-produced
in-
dustrial goods throughout the nineteenth century and changes in methods
of construction
in
housing
may
have been attributed
to the
mild slavery
in Kentucky rather than to modernization and, thus, obscure the harsh re-
alities suffered
by
African Americans
at
Locust Grove.
In
other words,
the
fact t hat the slave houses at Locust G rove had glazed window s, but those
at
Yaughan
and
Curriboo plantations
in
South Carolina
did
not,
was
more
likely
causedby the easy availabilityofw indow glassin the nineteenth cen-
tury compared to the eighteenth century. Before meaningful comparisons
can be made, aunifying framewo rk must be developed for conceptualizing
African-American
slave lifeways
in
different regions
and
time periods.
An economic theory of risk minimization has been successfully em-
ployed
in
anthropological studies
of
hunte r-gather er, horticultural, pastoral,
and agricultural societies (Baksh
and
Johnson, 1990; Cashdan, 1985, 1990;
Wiessner, 1982a,b; Winterhalder,1990).According tothis theory, all peo-
ple face the risko r chance that an unpredictable loss will occur (Cashdan,
1985). Howpeoplecope with risk depends on the dangers in the environ-
ment (social and physical) and on the particular society affected by such
loss (Baksh and Johnson, 1990; Hegmon, 1989; Wiessner, 1982b). As
pointed
out by Baksh and Johnson
(1990),
most studies of risk are
highly
quantitative and
focus
on subsistence and environmental factors such as
rainfall
(Hawkes, 1990; Kaplanet al, 1990; Winterhalder, 1990).However,
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
3/33
Risk
Management
Among
Slaves
some studies are more qualitative and descriptive (Baksh and Johnson,
1990) but go beyond calories and subsistence and focuson social relations
and other aspects of culture. This study of Locust Grove is an initial and
qualitative exam ination of the risk-red ucing strategies employed by the
slaves there. The risks faced by slaves at Locust Grove w ere largely imposed
byslave owners(i.e.,beatings and being sold down the river ) rather than
environmental conditions such
as
drought.
The
methods utilized
to cope
with risk may be viewed as mechanisms of resisting oppressive Southern
society. Only those risks and the risk-reducing strategies employed by Lo-
cust Grove slaves
are
treated
in
detail
in
this study. Risks faced
by
Afri-
can-American slaves in other regions and time periods may have been
different, but the methods tominimize risk mayhave been fairly constant
throughout the slavery times in the South.
The theory of risk min imiz ation, wh en employed in archaeological and
anthropological studies of African-American slaves and slavery, may pro-
vide a unifying frameworkfor understanding the varietyof conditions ex-
perienced throughout
the
colonial
and
antebellum periods
by
focusing
on
howslaves coped withrisk rather than simply describing particular material
conditions or dangers. Slaves faced a diversity of risks, but risks on eight-
eenth-century South Carolina coastal plantations were
not
exactly
the
same
as
those faced
by
slaves
on
late antebellum farms
and
plantations
in
Ken-
tucky. This difference stems from numerous factors concerning
how
slaves
coped
with
risk.
These
factors include age (child, young adult, elderly), po-
sition or occupation on the plantation
(field
hand , domestic, highly skilled
worker), wealth
of the
planter,
age of the
plantation (new frontier planta-
tion versus
o ld
established plantation), personality
of
owners,
overseers,and
African-American slaves, nation al and intern atio nal economic cond itions,
labor requirements of the
crops
produced, demography, individual talents,
climate and environmental conditions, proximity of urban centers, and a
host
ofother
phenomena
and
circumstances.
In
this study,
the
theory
of
risk management
is
used
as a
context
for
understanding some of the special problems and circumstances of African-
American slaves at Locust Grove, and the ways in which they may have
mitigated some of these risks. Such a theoretical framework
does
not focus
on slave treatment but, rather, emphasizes the ways in which theycoped
with
risks. It is not necessary to assume that Southern slavery was uniform
fromcolonial times until Emancipation in the UnitedStatesas is sometimes
necessary with interregional comparisons
(Orser,
1989,
p.
28).
Nor is it
nec-
essary to assume that cultural uniformity existed in African-derived popu-
lations. Rather, risk minimization allows for an understanding of the
variability of African-American experiences under the brutal slave regime
through time and space: on plantations, farms, and in cities. Only when
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
4/33
8
Young
we understand the tremendous variety of roles played by African Ameri-
cans both d uring and after slavery times can we begin to appreciate the
diverse and important contributions they made to Southern and American
culture. With this understanding, we can more
effectively
investigate the
nature, formation,
and
maintenance
of
pan-African-American culture (Sin-
gleton, 1995,
p.
134).
This study presents and analyzes the results of archaeological investi-
gations
at
three Locust Grove slave house sites.
A
detailed analysis
o f
over
25,000 artifacts recovered
in
excavations, coupled
with a
consideration
of
archaeological feature s and surviving documents, provides the basis for con-
cluding that while
the
shelter,
furnishing,
clothing, diet,
and
health
of the
African-American slaves at Locust Grove may have been capable of sus-
taining life
(based
on
archaeological data
and
nineteenth-century stand-
ards), this was likely the result of the
efforts
of the African Americans
themselves rather than the paternalism of the owners or the mildness of
the
institution
in
Kentucky. More importantly, this study shows that
the
slaves
at
Locust Grove actively worked
to
minimize
someof the
risks they
faced byform ing strong family and community ties reinforced bygeneral-
ized reciprocity,
by
producing surplus through raising their
own
livestock
and gardens, and through religious practice. Slavery was not mild in Ken-
tucky (Lucas, 1992, p. 43), but the methods employed by the African-
American slaves were effective
in
mitigating
some of the
risks
it
incurred.
LOCUST
GROVE
Locust Groveis
located
on the
Ohio River
in
Kentucky,
on thenorth-
ernmost fringes of the former slave states (Fig. 1). The plantation was
owned by the Croghan family and established circa 1790 (Young, 1995).
The
slave population
at
Locust Grove
rose from
just
6 people in
1790
to
41 in 1820, and in 1849, it declined to 21 (Young,1995). The property was
rented to tenants
between 1850
and
1860
and was
eventually sold
by the
Croghan family.
The
history
of the
slaves after 1850 remains
a
mystery.
Locust Grove is located in a region of the South not normally associated
with
plantations,
and
indeed, Locust Grove itself does
not fit the
traditional
definition
of a plantation (Adams and Boling, 1989; Hedrick, 1927; Phillips,
1929; Weaver, 1945) containing 1000
or
more acres
and 50 or
more slaves.
The
Croghan's slaves
did not
raise cotton, rice, sugar,
or tobacco
like their
contemporaries
on
more typical Southern plantations.
The
African-Ameri-
can slaves at Locust Grove lived in an area dominated numerically and cul-
turally by European Americans. At its height, Locust Grove consisted of
only 695.5
acres
worked
by 41
slaves. After 1936,
the
slave population ranged
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
5/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
9
Fig. 1.Location of Locust Grove Plantation.
between
18 and 30 individuals. In
terms
of the
number
of
slaves, acreage,
and the type of crops, Locust Grove cannot be considered a typical Southern
plantation. However, compared
with
other agricultural entities in the vicin-
ity,
Locust Grove was larger than average, but typical of other large Ken-
tucky
slaveholdings (Young, 1995). Further,
the
attitudes
of the
Croghans,
revealed in numero us surviving letters and othe r docu ments (Thomas, 1969),
show
that they considered themselves part
of the
Southern gentry
or
planter
class (Young, 1995;
Young et al., 1995).
Beginning in 1987, the Department of Anthropology, University of
Louisville, undertook archaeological inves tigations aimed at recovering ma-
terial remains owned and used by slaves at Locust Grove. Sites of three
slavehouses were extensively excavated in the summers of 1987, 1988, and
1989, resulting in the discovery of numerous features and the recovery of
thousands
of
artifacts.
In 1987, intensive archaeological excavations began in an area where
nineteenth-century ceramics were found eroding onto the surface earlier
that spring. The area is located approximately 200 m east of the main
house, across an in term ittent stream (Fig. 2). A total of 53 1 x 1-m unit s
was
excavated
in the
area. Given
the very dry
weather
of the
summer
of
1987, stratigraphic soil color
and
texture changes were
not
readily
apparent
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
6/33
10
Young
Fig. 2.
Plantation layout,
LocustGrove,circa 1830.
and excavations proceeded in 10-cm arbitrary levels. Soils were dry-
screened through quarter-inch hardware mesh. No soil samples were saved
for flotation, accounting for the scarcity of small artifacts such as eggshell,
beads, and straight pins.
Excavations revealed that a single pen structure, measuring approxi-
mately5 x 6 m, had
been
builton a continuous limestone foundation (Fig.
3). A limestone chimney pad and hearth were placed on the north wall.
The
hearth
was constructed of
roughly dressed limestone, like
the
wall
foundation, and filled with soil. An unlined pit cellar measuring approxi-
mately 1.5 m was placed directly in front of the hearth. Very little
area
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
7/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
11
Fig.
3. Plan
view
of the south slave house.
outside the walls of the house was excavated, so almost nothing is known
of the
surrounding house yard.
The
assemblage consists
of
9709 artifacts
and 646 pieces of bone. Analysis of the ceram ics and window glass indicates
that the structure was probably built around 1790 and abandoned
after
the
Civil
War.
The
nails recovered
in the
excavations suggest that
the
house
was probably a log structure with a wood shake roof and a wood plank
floor,
and
probably clapboarded
in the
midnineteenth century (Young,
1994, 1995). Most of the artifacts date to the antebellum period, although
a scattering of later material suggests that the house may have been inter-
mittently
occupied until
the 1870s
(Young,
1995).
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
8/33
12
Young
In the spring of 1988, an area north of the 1987 slave house excavation
was tested w ith a soil resistivity meter. Anom alous reading s suggested the
presence of subsurface features, so excavations were scheduled for later
that spring and summer to test the area. During the summer field school,
a total of 78 m2was excavated. The field methods were the same as in the
previous year. Unfortunately,
the
drought
of
1987 extended into 1988
and
dry conditions prevented the easy detection of soil color and texture
changes, thus making stratigraphic definition
difficult.
Two notable features were uncovered
during
the
fieldwork.
One is a
macadamized farm road, very rare
for
private property
of the
nineteenth
century. The second feature, just north of the road, is a small brick-lined
pit cellar. The cellar was aligned with the house and cellar excavated in
1987. In fact, the dimensions of the second pit cellar were quite similar to
the
first. Because
of the
difficulty
in
detecting soil color changes,
the
fea-
ture was excavated by piece-plotting the artifacts.
Unfortunately wall foundations were not revealed during the excava-
tions. Evidently the foundationwas removed once the house was abandoned
and razed. The limestone was probably robbed and reused when the road
was
macadamized. In places, a
feature
that was probably a robbed-out rem-
nant of the foundation wasdetected in the excavations. This possible robbed
builder's trench,the
copious domestic debris,
and thepresenceof the
cellar
all indicate that a structure stood over the cellar. The possible robber's
trench
suggest
that
the housewas the
same size
as the onelocated in
1987.
The
assemblage
recovered
from thissecond
or
central slavehouse
was
quite similar to that recovered in 1987, except the artifacts were generally
more
fragmented,
and
nails were less common
and inpoor
condition.
A
total of
9308
artifacts and 728 pieces of bone was recovered. Ceramics and
windowglass suggest that the house was constructed around 1800 and razed
around 1870. Unfortunately
the
nails were
so
rusted
and
fragmented that
it was impossible to assess the method of construction.
The third and northernmost slave house was excavated in 1989 during
the summer
field
school. The roughly dressed limestone foundation and
chimney
pad
along
the
north
and
west walls
had
remained visible above
the surface before excavations. Like the southern slave house, this structure
measured approximately 5 x 6 m. It, too, contained a pit cellar in front of
the hearth, but it was wood-lined. Dimensions of the third cellar were simi-
lar
to the cellar in the south house.
Excavation methods were similar to those of the previous 2 years. A
total of 42 m2 was excavated in and around the foundation, using arbitrary
levels. Soil was dry-screened through quarter-inch mesh.
While
the
size
of the
artifact assemblage
for
this slave house
was ex-
tremely similar to that of the assemblages
from
the other twohouses (9653
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
9/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
13
artifacts and
1232 pieces
of
bone),
the
nature
of the
assemblage
was
sig-
nificantly
different.
The
nails, ceramics,
and some
other artifacts show
clearly that this house wasstandingand occupied into the twentieth century
(Young, 1995). Coins, bottle glass, and ceramics from the twentieth century
were all recovered in considerable quantities. The Waters family, who
owned Locust
Grove
from
the
1880s until
the
1960s, reported that
an old
former slave named John lived
in the
house until
the
1920s when
he
died
(Young, 1995).There was, though, a significant antebellum component to
this assemblage, with many ceramic, glass, and other artifacts dating to the
early nineteenth century (Young, 1995).
Nails were quite numerous. Many were wire nails manufactured
after
1890 (Loveday, 1988; Young, 1994).
The
presence
of
wire nails suggests
that heavy renovation
of the
house occurred
in the
late nineteenth
or
early
twentieth centuries. The cut nails, many of which were m anu factu red after
1830 (see Loveday,
1988),
suggest that
the
house
was
bui lt between 1830
and
1840. Ceramic data su pport th is construction date range. Analysis
of
the sizes of the nails indicates that the structure was a frame building with
a wood floor and shake roof, with a tin roof added in the twen tieth century.
RISK
AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Slaves in all areas of the South faced many risks. Some were common
to all African-American slaves from the earliest times until after the Civil
War;
however, some
risks
were more peculiar to specific regions.
Rather than attempt to evaluate the actual risks faced by slaves at
different times
and in
different regions, this research considers perceived
risks
of
slaves
in
Kentucky.
To
accomplish this goal,
two
documentary
sources
are
used.
One
source
is WPA
former slave narratives, assembled
by
writers during
the
Depression.
The WPA
writers recorded
the
memories
of former slavesandth eir children regarding theslaveryera (Rawick,1977).
The other source is
fugitive
slave narratives published by abolitionists (e.g.,
Osofsky, 1969). These two sources complemented each other quite well,in
that
the WPA
interviews covered
the end of the
antebellum period
in the
form
of
remembrances
of
elderly African Americans
who had
lived
as
slaves
prior to
Emancipation.
The fugitive accounts tell of conditionsearlier in
the
nineteenth century.
All
analyzed documents focused
on fugitive an d
former
slaves who lived in Kentucky (Young, 1995).
Naturally,a
number
of
important problems occur with these data (see
Starling,
1988).
Fugitive accounts published by abolitionists focus on the
horrors of slavery, while the p ublished interviews in the WPA former slave
accounts are rife with biases caused by racism and economic deprivations.
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
10/33
14
Young
However,
the
major trends
of
what
was
important
to
African-American
slaves living in Kentucky are apparent when reading
these
accounts. And,
ofcourse,
only very limited amounts of data are available about daily slave
life in this area.
Using narratives and interviews of slaves and former slaves who had
lived in Kentucky and Tennessee, a list of perceived risks was compiled.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
being beaten, whipped, or otherwise physically abused;
being sold or otherwise separated from family and friends;
being sold down the
river (with
or
without family);
starvation or malnutrition;
disease/death
of
self
or
family member;
injury/death
by
accident (self
or family
member);
and
other (inad equate shelter, clothing, and education, harassmen t,
rape).
The
first three risks, being physically abused, beingseparatedfrom fam-
ily, and, especially, being sold down the river, are related in that they
were all
used
as aform of
punishment
by
slave owners. Reading
the
former
slave narrative s
and the fugitive
accounts,
it was
sometimesdifficult
to
sepa-
rate the
three,
as they were sometimes referred to together. It is obvious,
though, that these three were particularly
difficult
situations African-Ameri-
can
slaves
felt
that they might face,
or had
actually faced.
The
dangers
of
beatings and being sold away were described in ways tha t suggest t hat these
risks were considered to be very real and, in many cases, imminent. Blass-
ingame (1979, pp.295-298) listed the risks of physical abuse
from
masters
and of
being sold away
from
family
as the
greatest fears
of all
slaves.
The
risk
of starvation or ma lnutri tion was usually referred to
differently
than the
first three
risks. References to lack of food were less common than beatings
or being sold away, and were often made in abstract terms, rather than in
real and immediate terms. For instance, the documents reveal that risks of
food shortfalls were perceived as a
form
of injustice where slaves raised an
abundance
of
foodstuff
for the
master
but
were denied access
to the
prod-
ucts
of
their labor. This injustice
was
used,
in the
words
of the
former
and
fugitive slaves, as justificationfor theft. The term theft was used but it
was
apparent that they
did not
truly feel this
was
stealing. Owens (1976,
1970) believed that some
of the
greatest impacts
on
slave life were disease
and
malnutrition.
The
dangers
of
injury
or
disease actually
had few
references
in the
narratives and accounts, and
often
people
referred to
fears
that their chil-
dren, grandchildren, or other children in the community would become ill
or be injured. While these risks were perceived as real, in most accounts,
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
11/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
15
there were no apparent perceived differences between African-American
slaves and their owners.
Other perceived risks were mentioned in
fugitive
and former slave ac-
counts.
These
include inadequate housing, being overworked, being har-
assed by owners and patrollers, losing ma teria l possessions, amo ng others.
These
kinds
of
risks were rather rare
in the
accounts, however.
It may be
that inadequate shelter and overwork are more prominent for slaves who
lived
in the coastal plantati ons of South Carolina , Georgia, and F lorida
and on cotton plantations in Alabama and Mississippi.
Slaves undoubtedly faced
a
number
of
important
and
potentially dev-
astating risks in Kentucky. But how did African-American slavescopewith
these risks?
Where risk is defined as the chance that a loss will occur, Wiessner
(1982a, pp. 172-173) outlined
four
primary strategies forreducing risk:
(1) preven tion of loss,
(2)
transfer
of risk or loss,
(3) storage, and
(4)
pooling
of
risk
or
sharing.
Preventing
a
potential loss
can be
accomplished through
a
variety
of
means
(Wiessner, 1982a).
These
include using rituals
to
ward
off
misfortune
and
maintaining
some control over a resource that one may potentially lose,
such
as
defending territoryfrombeing exploited
by
outsiders. W interhalder
(1990) described
how
during
the
Middle Ages, farmers
of the
Midlands
of
England used an open field system where plots were dispersed across a
large territory to assure that some plots controlled by a
family
were pro-
ductive. In this case, farmers prevented potential losses by controlling re-
sources (land) dispersed over a large enough area so that there was less
chance that drought or another catastrophe would entirely destroy a fam-
ily's crops. Baksh and John son (1990) describe how the M achigu enga in
South America prevented loss by using rituals to ward off supernatural
threats that were thought to cause common illnesses and diseases.
The second strategy that Wiessner (1982a, p. 173) outlined is trans-
ferring risk or loss to another party. The transfer of
risk
was practiced by
the
Kw akiu tl (Wiessner, 1982a,
p.
173), where surplus accumulated
by a
wealthy group was given or transferred to poorer groups. A common or
negative form
of
this strategy
is
stealing, where
one
party forces another
to incura loss.
The third strategy described by Wiessner (1982a, p. 173) is storage,
where surplus
resources
are
stored
for uselater when they wouldnot nor-
mally
beavailable. This practice for avoidingthe riskof food shortages has
been do cume nted archaeologically for ma ny prehi storic societies (DeBoer,
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
12/33
16
Young
1988; Testart, 1982)
and for
historic-period societies
as
well (Faulkner, 1986;
Kehoe,
1978).
The fourthand final strategyforreducing riskispooling riskorsharing
(Cashdan, 1985; Wiessner, 1982a,
p.
173, 1982b).
This
method
of
coping
with variability
in
resources involves substituting small losses
for
poten-
tially
large, dangerous
ones
(Wiessner, 1982a,
p.
173).
Th e IKung
San,
hunter-gatherers
of the
Kalahari, practice this form
of
risk minimization
by giving
gifts,
thereby inc urrin g social obligations to have a similar gift
returned
at a
later time. This activity represents generalized reciprocity
ac-
crued as a form of insurance. This means that an individ ual or
family,
when
experiencing resource shortages, may rely on others who are not, because
these others owe a gift. In other words, In times of hardsh ip, a person's
losses
can be
absorbed
by
others
in the population, if risk is well distrib-
uted (Wiessner, 1982b, p. 65). Among the
IKung,
the system of delayed
reciprocity
is
called
hxaro
(Wiessner,
1982b).
Generalized reciprocity
is
also
ameans bywhichthe Basarwa,wh o live innorthern Botswana and practice
cultivation
and animal husbandry, also cope
with
resource shortages (Cash-
dan,
1985).
A Western industrialized version of generalized reciprocity as
insurance against potential
future
shortfalls
is
described
by
Stack (1974,
pp.32-44) for impoverished African Americans in an urban setting in the
United
States.
Stack noted that
few
African-American families
living on
welfare were able to meet their basic needs without the help of kin and
friends.
Among
the
numerous instances
of
reciprocity recorded
by
Stack
(1974), one example is illustrative. One woman visited another who had
small children. She brought
milk
and diapers and, in return, took home
corn bread and greens. The visitor noted th at I know I need help every
day. Youcan't ge t help just by sittinga t home, laying around, house-nasty
and everything. You got to get up and go out and meet
people,
because
the very day you go out, that first person you meet may be the person that
can help you get the things you wan t (Stack, 1974, p. 32). In the gh etto
community studied by Stack (1974), reciprocal exchanges were sometimes
immediate
and
sometimes delayed.
COPING WITH RISK AT LOCUST GROVE
As hunter-gatherer, horticulturalist, and agriculturalist societies (Cash-
dan, 1985; Wiessner, 1982a; Winterhalder, 1990) typically
utilize
combina-
tions of the risk -red ucin g strateg ies just out line d, it is
likely
t h a t
African-American slaves
in the
American South also utilized
a
variety
of
ways to avoid risk. Documentary evidence indicates that slaves attempted
to minimize risk by preventing loss through control over their own re-
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
13/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
17
sources.
Berlin
and
Morgan
(1993, pp.
29-31)
and
Singleton
(1995, pp.
129-
130) have pointed out that some African-American slaves negotiated with
their masters to have their ow n gardens to raise corn, turnips, cabbages,
potatoes,
and
yams,
and
many even kept
a
variety
of
small livestock
and
fowl. Often, gardens and animal pens were regarded as rights to be jeal-
ously
defended whenever the master might try to prevent slavesfromwork-
ing toward their own livelihood (Berlin and Morgan, 1993, pp.
24-25).
Rather than relying solely
on
rations from
the
master
for
their subsistence,
some African-American slaves managed to control their own gardens and
livestock, and even sold surplus in nearby towns or to their owners.There
is no direct archaeological or documentary evidence at Locust Grove for
slave
gardens, yet there is some indication that the slaves controlled (per-
haps owned) small livestock, especially chickens
and
perha ps hogs (Lev-Tov
and Young,
1995),
and
found
other ways to control their food supply.
Animal bones were recovered
from
each of the three slave houses at
Locust Grove (Lev-Tov and Young, 1995; Young, 1995). Table I lists the
number
of
specimens
for
each species identified.
As can be
seen, domestic
pigs, chickens, cattle, and sheep make up the largest portion of the iden-
tified species, ranging
from
69 to 83% of the ide ntified bones. However,
part of each assemblage is also composed of
wild
birds, turtle, fish, and
other potential
wild
foods. This evidence, coupled with fish hooks, bullets,
gunflints,
andeven partof a gun
from
thenorth house suggest that African
Americans at Locust Grove had some opportunities to hunt or trap and
fish to supplement their diets. In other words, their entire diet was not
totally controlled
by
their owner.
Whilesamples
are too
small
to
evaluate statistically, analysis
of
chicken
bones suggests that the slaves may have kept their own
fowl.
The presence
of
immatureand adult chickensin the assemblages indicates regularaccess
to a flock (Lev-Tov and Young, 1995).
The age profiles for hogs at Locust Grove show that slaves may have
had
access
to an
en tire herd rath er tha n anima ls selected
by the
planter
(Fig.
4).
What
is
especially interesting
is
that
the frequency of
newborn,
probably suckling pigs is so high at Locust Grove. Killing of piglets is not
economically
sound,
as
such practice
may
compromise
the
production
po-
tential of the
herd.
Two explan ations are possible. First, the suckling or
newborn pigs could be the natural mortalities
within
the herds that be-
longed
to the
slaves. Second, these bones
may
represent piglets stolen
(or
better, reappropriated )
from
the master's
herd.
Th e
theft
of piglets was
evidently fairly common on antebellum plantations in the American South
(Genovese,
1976, pp.
599-601;
McKee, 1988, pp.
80-81).
W att Jordan,w ho
was
raised
a
slave
in
central Kentucky, related that
his
grandmother
was
sold down south somewheres because she wou ld steal foodfrom the own-
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
14/33
18
Young
Table I.
Identification
and
NISP
fo r
Each
of the
Slave House Faunal
Assemblages
Species (common name)
Number
of bones
South slave house
Scalopus
aquaticus
(eastern mole)
Rattus norvegicus
(rat)
Rattus sp .
(Old World rat)
Sciurus carolinesis
(gray squirrel)
Sciurus sp.
(gray
or fox
squirrel)
Sylvilagus floridanus
(eastern cottontail)
Didelphis marsupialis (opossum)
Procyon
lotor(raccoon)
Canisfamiliaris
(domestic dog)
Sus scrofa (domestic pig)
Ovis
aries
(domestic
sheep)
Ovis/Capra
(sheep/goat)
Bos taurus
(domestic cattle)
G
allus
(domestic chicken)
Anasplatytynchos (mallard duck)
Branta
canadensis
(Canada goose)
Columbia livia (rock dove)
Zenaida
macroura
(mourning dove)
Melanerpes
sp. (woodpecker)
Colaptes
auratus
(common
flicker)
Applodinotus
grunniens
(freshwater drum)
Acipenser fulvescens
(sturgeon)
Ictalurus
punctatus
(channel catfish)
Chelydra
serpentina (snapping turtle)
Unidentified
Total
5
73
10
2
2
13
11
8
2
184
3
6
8
110
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
15
1
4
751
1232
Central slave house
Scalopus aquaticus
(eastern mole)
Rattus
norvegicus
(rat)
Sciurus
carolinensis
(gray squirrel)
Marmota monax
(woodchuck)
Sylvilagus floridanus
(eastern cottontail)
Didelphis virginianus
(opossum)
Procyon
lotor
(raccoon)
Sus scrofa (domestic pig)
Ovis
aries
(domestic sheep)
Ovis/Capra
(sheep/goat)
Bos taunts
(domestic cattle)
Gallus
(chicken)
Meleagris gallopavo
(turkey)
Anas sp .(dabb ling duck)
Branta canadensis
(Canada goose)
Corvus
brachyrynchos
(crow)
Columbia
livia
(rock dove)
Chelydra serpentina
(snapping turtle)
Applodinotus grunniens
(freshwater
drum)
Unidentified
Total
1
24
2
4
6
5
8
161
1
11
13
36
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
443
728
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
15/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
19
Table
I. Continued
Species
(common
name)
Number
of
bones
North slave house
Rattus norvegicus
(rat)
Sciurus
carolinensis
(gray squirrel)
Marmota monax
(woodchuck)
Sylvilagus
floridanus
(eastern cottontail)
Didelphis
virginianus
(opossum)
Procyon
lotor
(raccoon)
Canis
fam iliaris
(domestic dog)
Sus scrofa
(domestic pig)
Ovis aries
(domestic
sheep)
Ovis/Capra
(sheep/goat)
Bos taunts (domestic
cattle)
Gallus (domestic chicken)
Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)
Falco
sparverius
(kestrel)
Applodinotus grunniens
(freshwater drum)
Micropterus
salmoides
(largemouth bass)
Chefydra
serpentine
(snapping turtle)
Unidentified
Total
10
1
2
13
3
2
1
181
2
2
18
38
8
1
7
1
1
355
646
ers to feed slave children (Rawick, 1977, p. 395). While not conclusive,
both explanations areplausiblefor the Locust Grove assemblages.The pos-
sibility
of theft,of course, suggests that Wiessner's (1982a, p. 173) second
strategy for reducing risk, transferring loss, may have been practiced by the
African-American slaves
at
Locust Grove.
Fig. 4. Hog mortality profile.
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
16/33
20 Young
Finally, analysis of the pig bones
from
Locust Grove shows that slaves
had access to entire pig carcasses. This indicates that they were not
com-
pletely
dependent on
rationed cuts (Lev-Tov
and
Young,
1995) and,there-
fore,
may
have
had
some degree
of
control over their
own
diets.
In
addition
to
managing greater control
of
resources,
risk can
also
be
reduced through
the use of
ritual
to
ward
off
misfortune. Documentary
and archaeological evidence suggests that African-American slaves used
charms
and
amulets
to do
this. Crystals, blue beads, drilled coins,
and
other
objects were sometimes used
to
ward
off
witches, prevent illness, avoid
beatings,
and
prevent their sale (Stine
etal. 1996;
Ferguson,
1992;
Lucas,
1992,
pp.
130-131;
Raboteau,
1978;
Singleton,
1991,
pp.
157-162,1995,
pp.
130-131;
Young,
1995).For
example,
a
former slave
livingin
W ayne County,
Kentucky,
and
interviewed
by a WPA
work er explained, Every
one of my
children wears a silver dime on a string around their leg to keep off the
witches
[sic]
spell.
One
time, before
my
daughter Delia
got to
wearing
it,
she was
going down
the
road,
not far from ou r
house, when
all at
once
her leg gave way and she could not walk. Of course I knowed [sic] what
it was.
So I w ent after Linda Woods, the
witch
doctor (Rawick ,
1977,
p.
35). The
witch
doctor bathed Delia's leg in life everlasting, an herb, and
told Delia to stay off that road for 9 days. Her mother made Delia wear
a
silver dime around
her leg.
Evidently, Delia,
once she
wore
the
charm
and
followed
the
doctor's advice, neversuffered
from the
witch's spell again
(Rawick, 1977,pp. 35-36). Henry Bibb (1849; cited by Osofsky, 1969,p.
73), in his
fugitive
account, describes using these kinds of charms to attract
love interests.
These
kinds of objects, including drilled coins, have been
recovered in numerous archaeological excavations of slave quarters (Stine
etal.
1996;Orser, 1994;
Singleton,
1991,pp. 157-162, 1995;
Young , 1995).
At Locust Grove, excavations at each of the three slave houses yielded
objects that
may
have been used
as
charms
or
amulets. From
the
southern
house, a Chinese coin, a faceted blue glass bead, and a notched 20
U.S.
coin were found (Fig.5). The date of the Chinese coin has not been de-
termined,
but
several Chinese coins were recovered during
the
excavations
of
slave pens, where slaves were held a waitin g sale, in A lexandria, Virginia.
The Chinese coins, because they were ma nufac tured with square holes,
could have
been
used like
the
coin Delia wore (Rawick,
1977,
p.
35).
The
date of the 20 coin is illegible, but these coins were minted only from1864
through 1873,with
the greatest numbers being minted in
1864
and
1865.
The four notches on this coin are placed so that if twine were wound
around the coin throug h the notches, an x or cross of string would show
on the faces of the coin. In this
way,
the coin could have been worn as a
pendant. From
the
central house, several chandelier prisms (crystals)
and
a
modified silver dime were recovered (Fig.
6). The
dime dates
to
1827.
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
17/33
Risk Management mong Slaves
21
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
18/33
22
Young
However it isextremely worn. What is most remarkable about this coin is
that a
cross
or x has
been
scratched on the reverse face. From the north
house a silver tea spoon, a kaolin clay marble, a Chinese coin, and several
chandelier prism s were recovered (Fig. 7). The teaspoon has a cross or x
scratched on the handle. The
clay
marble has a cross or x incised in it.
The mo tifs of x's or crosses, wit h circles and squares (Chinese coins),
are remarkably similar to marks Ferguson (1992) found on the bases of
some colonoware bowls recovered in South Carolina. The bowls were likely
manufactured and
used
by
slaves,
and
Ferguson believes that
the
marks
resemble Bakongo cosmograms used for medicine and rituals. The ob-
jects
from
Locust Grove could have served this
function
aswell.
Data show that
the
African Americans
at
Locust Grove also practiced
Wiessner's
(1982a,
p.
173) third strategy
for
reducing risk:
storage. At Lo-
cust
Grove,
the
storage
facilities
were
pit
cellars
found
within each
of the
three slave house sites.
Cellars
for
storing food were commonly used
in the
eighteenth, nine-
teenth,
an d
twentieth centuries
in
many parts
of the
United States. Kelso
(1984, p. 201) recognized these facilities as a long-standing English tradi-
tion brought to the N ew World (see also Kimm el, 1993). Faulk ner (1986)
described three typeso fcellars oftenfound onsites datingto the eighteenth
an d
nineteenth centuries
in the
southern Appalachians:
the
structural
or
foundational cellar,
the
banked earth cellar,
and the pit
cellar.
It is the
third
type of most concern here since each of the three slave houses at
Locust Grove
contained this type
of
storage
facility.
A pit
cellar, according
to
Faulkner (1986),
is
always found beneath
buildings.Sometimes
pit
cellars were quite large, though never
as
large
as
the
room
or
building above. Entrance
to
large
pit
cellars
was
sometimes
gained through
an
outside entryway. More
often,
however, these features
were small square or rectangular pits, and entered through a trap door in
the floor of the room above. Sometimes, too, the cellars were lined
with
wood planks, stone,
or
brick (Faulkner, 1986,
p.
54). According
to
inter-
views conducted by Faulkner (1986), the cellars were customarily used to
store apples, cabbages, turnips, pum pkin s, mea t, milk, and especially root
crops such as potatoes and yams.
Small pit cellars have been identified on many African-American slave
sites, especially
those
found in the Virginia Piedmont or other regions of
the Up lan d South (Andrews, 1992; Kelso, 1984, 1986; McKee, 1991, 1993;
McKelway,
1992, 1994; Singleton, 1995, p. 124), including Locust Grove.
Their
function
is
clearly illustrated
by
Mrs. Mary Emily Eaton
late, a
for-
mer
slave
wh o
lived
on a
plantat ion near Knoxville, Tennessee. M rs. Tate
described sucha pitcellarin a WPAinterview : Every day, spies were mak -
ing
their rounds
an d
often soldiers, both Yankee
and
Rebel, visited
ou r
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
19/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
23
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
20/33
24 Young
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
21/33
Risk
Management Among
Slaves
25
cabin taking what they could
find.
. . . The cellar, a hole dug out under
some
boards
in ourcabin, contained our supplies (Raw ick, 1977, pp. 212-
219). The soldiers quickly found the Eaton family cellar and took every-
thing. References to these kinds offeatures are rather rare in former slave
narratives. This
does not
necessarily imply that they were secret.
The ease
with
which the soldiers found the Eaton's cellar may indicate that these
features were quite common.
The three
cellars associated with
the
slave houses
at
Locust Grove
are, in many ways, remarkably similar in size and shape. All three measure
approximately
1.5 x 1 m and
were placed
in front of the
hearths. They
were, however, backfilled at different times (Young,1995). The cellars in
the south and north houses were filled while the houses above were
still
occupied. The cellar in the central house was filled when the house above
was torn down (Young, 1995). Also, the cellar in the south house was not
lined,
while
the
central
cellar was brick-lined. Thecellarin the northhouse
was wood-lined.
Interestingly,
it
appears that
the
African-American slave households
conformed
to the
expectation Wiessner
(1982a,p.
173) presents concerning
site structure and the utilization of this particular strategy. She expected
that
groups who use storage as an im portant mean s of reducing risk would
construct
sites
that were spatially
arranged
in a particular way.
Storage,
and especially surplus
foodstuffs
tha t need storage, would lead to widely
spaced household un its or closed-in eating and storage areas, in order to
avoid
the
jealousy
and
conflict which m ight arise
from
one
household visibly
having
more than another (Wiessner,
1982a,p .
173).
The
storage facilities,
the pit cellars, at Locust G rove were not easily visible and we re placed
within
the house rather than outside. Such placement of the cellars inside
the houses, and the fact that each was slightlydifferent, suggests that the
African-American slaves may have viewed the cellars and their contents as
private, household property. This does not necessarily mean that sharing
of
foodstuff
did not
occur
or
that jealousy
and
competition were common.
Rather, nonfa mily members may not have had im media te and easy access
to the food stored in the cellar without asking. Cellars may also have func-
tioned to keep goods out of sight of the master.
Like
the
generalized reciprocity
of the
IKung
San
(Wiessner, 1982b)
and the Basarwa (Cashdan, 1985), reciprocity,family,kinship networks, and
communitysolidarity based on kinship ties were also likelyused to minimize
risks facedby theslaves atLocust
Grove,
and
appear
tohavealonghistory
among African Americans before
and after freedom. The role and organi-
zation of the African-American
family
have been debated by social scien-
tists for many years. Frazier(1939), Moynihan (1965), and others believed
that the apparent deterioration of the African-American family resulted
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
22/33
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
23/33
Risk Management
Among Slaves
27
This
occurred fairly
frequently
inK entucky, althoughit couldcreatecom-
plications in slave
family life
(Lucas, 1992,pp. 17-18). Further, I suggest
that the
family
functioned in the antebellumand early postbellum periods
inthe
Upland South much
as it did
during
the
twentieth century,
to
manage
many
kinds
of
risks. Family
and
comm unity solidarity were
the
slaves' best
defense against racial and economic oppression, because onlybystanding
together could African-Americans during the antebellum period resist pres-
sures from thedominant white society (Blassingame, 1979,pp.315-317).
Unfortunately,
no documentary record exists that describes the family
structure
and
social organization
of the
African-American slave comm unity
at
Locust Grove.
Also,it is
unfo rtun ate that qualities such
as
kinship, shar-
ing,
gifting,
and community are not easily visibleand recognizable in the
archaeological record. However, how goods were distributed across a plan-
tation
may
provide clues about sharing
and,
perhaps, kinship
and
commu-
nity as
well.
Evidence suggests that the slaves at Locust Grove lived in (at least)
three households; that
is,
each slave house contained
a
family.
The
family
mayhave been conjugalorextended. Fu rther, eachofthese familiessought
to
create bonds
with one
another
on the
plantation,
and with
slave
and
free black families on surrounding farmsand plantations and in the town
of Louisville.
The
strongest bonds
are
those
of
kinship
and fictive kin
also
helped extendand strengthenfamily ties. Becausenodocumentary sources
are available concerning slave communities on plantations and farmssur-
rounding
Locust Grove,
and
because
no
archaeological collections
from
slavehouse sitesonsurroundingfarms andplantations exist,theremainder
of this discussion
is confined to
household interaction
at
Locust Grove.
Items such as ceramics, especially tablewares, decorated glassware in-
cludingwine glasses, tumb lers,and cupplates,andother artifacts(i.e.,but-
tons) were often obtained and used in matching sets. For instance, a tea
set
often consisted
of a
number
of
cups
and
saucers (often
six or
eight
each),
all
decorated
in the
same m anner. Likewise, matching buttons were
acquired for a single garment. It is possible to
identify
matched buttons,
glassware,
and
ceramics,
or
sets, from complete artifacts
and
from sherds
recovered
from the
archaeological record (Youngetal.
1995).
This kind
of analysis
was
completed
for the
decorated ceramics,fancyglass tableware,
and
buttons
from the
threeslavehouses
atLocust
Grove.
The
goal
was to
identify
and
quantify
the
matches between houses because these matches
may
indicate
gifting and
sharing between slave
families and,
thus, recon-
struct
how
gifting
may
hav e distributed goods
on the
plantation
at
Locust
Grove.
There
are,
howeve r, several possiblewaysthat m atched ceramics, glass-
ware, and buttons could be deposited at different slave house sites.
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
24/33
28
Young
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
items were exchanged between slave households,
and
were
eventually
broken an d discarded around the house;
pieces from a set from the ma in house were d istrib uted as
hand-me-downs among several slave families;
broken itemsfrom one house were discarded (dumped) at another
abandoned house; and
several households could randomly acquire
the
same sets.
Th e
latter method
is
considered
the
least probable
and is not given
further
consideration
here.
However, the other three possibilities are examined.
Decorated
ceramics, glassware,
an d
butto ns recovered archaeologically
from the three slave house sites were used to define patter nin g and recon-
struct exchange networks. A ceramic type collection was constructed, using
the
attributes
of
ware type, decoration,
and
color. Ware types included
creamware, pearlware, whiteware, ironstone, porcelain, refined redware,
and stoneware. Decorated types consisted of the followin g specific patterns :
blue transfer print, blue hand-painted, blue shell edge, polychrome hand-
painted, annular, mocha, brown transfer print,
re d
transfer print, purple
transfer
print, green transfer print, black transfer print, spatter,
flow
blue,
overglaze enameled, luster, embossed, Canton, red shell edge, green shell
edge,
gilt,
an d
rusticated.
Th e
south slave house ceramics were analyzed
first. A total of 199 ceramic types was identified. Th e central slave house
assemblage
was analyzed next, and 123 types were
recorded,
in addition
to
types that were previously identified
in the
south slave house ceramic
assemblage. The north slave house decorated ceramic assemblage consisted
of only 40 additional types. The main house assemblage consisted of 130
types,
14 of
which were matched
in the
three slave house assemblages.
To
determine
if
ceramics
and
glassware were hand-me-downs
from the
main house,
decorated
ceramics from
the
main house were compared
to
decorated ceramics from the three slave houses. Previous analysis (Young
et
al., 1995) indicated that
from
the south and central slave houses, nearly
13% of the decorated ceramics came from the main house, probably as
hand-me-downs,
and
from
the
north slave house, nearly
8%
were also likely
hand-me-downs. A total of 14types of decorated ceramics from the main
house also appeared
in the
slave house assemblages.
These are
shown
in
Table II. Rather than indicatinggifting and sharing between slave house-
holds, these ceramics likely reflect the practice of giving chipped or out-
of-fashion
ceramics
as
hand me-downs
to
slaves
and
were, therefore,
eliminated from further analysis.
To discover if discard practices resulted in matches between houses,
attempts were made
to
refit
or
mend every match. Only
in a
singlecase,
a
pearlware saucer,
did
sherds from
a
single vessel come from
two
different
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
25/33
Risk Management Among Slaves
29
houses. The remainder of the matches did not appear to mend or refit.
This, as well as the distance between the three slave houses (see Fig. 2),
indicates that discard
or
dumping does
not
account
for a
significant portion
of matched ceramicsamong the three slave houses.
Table III shows the remaining types and frequencies of matches of
decorated ceramics am ong the south, central, and n orth slave houses. As
can be seen, 32 different ceramic types were shared among the slave fami-
lies
at
Locust Grove.
The
south
and
central households shared
20
ceramic
types, while
the
south
and
north households shared
7, and the
central
and
north
shared 5 kinds of ceramic types.
Analysis of glass tableware,
including
w ine glasses, decanters, tum blers,
cup plates, celery vases, compotes, and serving dishes, did not reveal any
patterns
of
sharing among
the
slave households. However,
the
frequencies
of
these items were quite low, and except for
wine
glasses, cup plates, and
tumblers, these items were not
always
acquired in matched sets.
Button analysis, however, did reveal matches between slave houses.
Three identical blue tran sfer-prin ted (calico) milk glass buttons were
re-
covered
in
excavations,
one in
each
of the
three slave houses. Also,
a
stamped-design, yellow metal, four-ho le buttonfrom
the
south slave house
matched
one
found
in the
central slave house.
The
data presented here suggest that some amount
of
sharing
of
non-
food
items may have transpired between slave
families
at Locust Grove.
Table II. Ceramic Types and
Frequencies
from the Main
House
that Matched
Those
from the
Three
Slaves Houses0
Type*
1920
2309
283
340
3772
4691
5896
801
7063.88
2984.88
7385.88
1257.89
2219.89
2314.89
Ware
pw
pw
pore
pw
pore
pw
ww
pw
pore
rr
cw
pw
ww
pore
Decoration
Blue
tp
Blue tp
Canton
Blue tp
Overglaze
Blue
tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Overglaze
Luster
Mocha
Blue tp
Green
tp
Overglaze
South
1
1
28
1
4
7
2
13
Central
29
3
1
1
5
1
North
19
2
1
1
4
1
4
Notation:
pw,
pearlware;
cw,
creamware;
ww,
whiteware;
rr,
refined
redware;pore, porcelain; tp, transfer-printed.
' Type numbers refer to catalog numbers in the Locust Grove col-
lection.
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
26/33
Young
Table III. Ceramic Matches
an d
Frequencies from
th e
South,
Central, an d North Slave House Assemblages
Type
1788
1970
1971
2144
2315
2498
2554
2654
2853
3078
32
3203
347
3578
3996
4005
4040
4242
4550
4605
4704
4792
4920
55534
654
85
979
1537.88
1732.88
4575.88
4686.88
6692.88
Ware
pw
ww
pw
pore
ww
iron
ww
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww
ww
rr
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww ?
pw
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww
pw
ww
ww
Decoration
Annular
Blue
tp
Blue tp
Overglaze
Blue
tp
Flow blue
Blue tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Red
shell
Purple
tp
Poly hp
Poly
hp
Rusticated
Blue tp
Blue tp
Red tp
Red tp
Red tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Blue
tp
Poly hp
Green
tp
Poly hp
Blue tp
Black
tp
Blue edge
Blue tp
Brown tp
Blue tp
South
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
10
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
28
6
Central
1
7
1
20
1
2
1
5
3
3
2
2
1
4
2
1
8
North
1
1
9
1
3
3
3
1
4
1
1
1
Total 78 72 29
Notations: pw , pearlware; ww ,whitew are; pore, porcelain; iron,
ironstone;
rr,
refined redware; poly
h p,
polychrome hand-painted;
shell,shell-edged;
tp ;
transfer-printed.
*Type numbers refer to catalog numbersin the Locust Grove col-
lection.
That the items matched between the slave households were
often
luxury
items (such as decorated tea and dinner ceramics and buttons) is also rele-
vant. Often these kinds of artifacts are used to illustra te status in archae-
ological studies of slave sites (see especially Adams and Boling,
1989).
However, the sharing of these goods suggests tha t such luxury item s may
have
had
different meanings
for
African-American slaves (Singleton, 1995,
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
27/33
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
28/33
32
Young
significant risks included the chance of physical abuse from the master
(beatings, whippings) and the chance of being sold away, especially down
the
river, from hearth
and
home. Also important were
the
risks
of
subsis-
tence shortages, especially significantfo rslaves, wh owere forced to depend
more
on rations than on their own efforts of securing food for themselves
and their families.
Slaves at Locust Grove utilized a variety of methods for coping with
risks.These included the use of religion and ritual to ward off misfortune
(such as
illness
orbeing sold away),
perhaps
stealing,or appropriating, food
(especially piglets), storing surplus food in cellars under the floors of their
houses, perhaps raising chickens or pigs and garden produce for their own
consumption or for sale, and through pooling risk by sharing. Sharing was
probably the most
effective
way to strengthen bonds of kinship and com-
munity. This kind of behavior, that is, reciprocity for mitigating the risks
posed
by the en viron ment (social and p hysica l), and for coping
with
social
conflict and cultural loss, was probably universal throughout the entire an-
tebellum period for African Americans all over the South. Shared behavior
of this nature does not imply that African-American culture throughout
the South was uniform. Nor does it necessarily
imply
that this behavior is
African
in origin, although there is ample evidence to support
this
connec-
tion (Foster, 1983; McDaniel , 1990; Sud arkasa, 1980, 1982; Zollar, 1985).
Rather, some kinds of risks were common to African Americans
from
the
beginning of the colonial era until the present day. Some kinds of risks,
however, were peculiar
to a
specific region
and
temporal period.
Th e
kinds
of
risks slaves in the Upland South faced during the antebellum period
have been illustrated here, aswell as some of the responses to those risks
made
by
African Americans
wh o
lived
and
labored
at
Locust Grove.
Th e
perspective of risk minimization allows for a deeper understanding of the
lives of slaves in Kentucky and helps to deconstruct the rather prevalent
myth that slavery in Kentucky was unusuallymild (Lucas, 1992, pp.
42-43).
The ideological implication s of this
myth
discredit contemporary arguments
about the cumulative history of discrimination and current social/political
responsibilities to redress them through policies (Harrison, 1995, pp. 50-
52).
African
Americans in the South faced a diversity of risks that varied
according to demography, climate, and a host of other social and environ-
mental factors. Slaves on sugar plantations were frequently overworked,
especially during
the
cane-processing season, work that
w as
also quite dan-
gerous (Berlin and Morgan, 1993, pp. 4, 21). Free blacks in cities before
Emancipation faced dangers
and
life
problems such
as
poor,
unsanitary
housing, harassment, curfews, and being stolen or kidnapped into slavery
(Lucas, 1992, pp. 101-117). At Locust Grove, the most
significant
threats
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
29/33
RiskManagement Among Slaves
to African-American slaves were being beaten and sold, especially down
the river. It may have been that similar coping
strategies
were employed
in many
different
situations (like the use of ritual to ward off evil and
misfortune), even though
the
actual risks show great variability.Thisstudy
suggests that the most pressing risks were those imposed by slave owners
andotherwhite members of Southern society and that risk-reducing strate-
gies were largely employed
as a
means
of
resistance.
It
would
be
interesting
to know whether African Americans did, in fact, use basically the same
ways
to reduce many
different
risks. If so, this would help to explain a
pan-African-American society spread over a wide geographic area, success-
ful
for long periods of time. This study of Locust Grove isonly the first
and exploratory step in this direction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I
would like
to
thank Robert
Kelly,
Director
of the
Archaeology Pro-
gram
at the Universityof Louisville,for arrangingthe loan of the Locust
Grove collections for this analysis.Iwould like to express mygratitude to
the
Kentucky Heritage Council
for
funding
the
zooarchaeological analysis
of
the Locust Grove
faunal
remains. I am grateful to Justin Lev-Tbv for
conducting
such thorough zooarchaeological analyses
and to
Walter Klippel
foruse of the excellent zooarchaeological comparative collections at the De-
partment
of Anthropology, Universityof Tennessee, Knoxville. Joseph
Granger was PI during the three fieldseasonsat Locust Grove, and provided
encouragement during analyses and write-up. Thanks, too, go to Charles
Faulkner,
Lydia
Pulsipher, Walter Klippel,
and
Faye Harrison
for
advice
and
encouragement during
this
researchand forservingon mydissertation com-
mittee. Commentson the manuscriptbyMelanie Cabak, Philip Carr, Eliza-
beth Cashdan, Mark Grover, Faye Harrison, Larry McKee, Charles Orser,
Bruce Roberts, andTheresaSingleton substantially improved the final ver-
sion. I am especially grateful to Larry McKee, Charles Orser, and Theresa
Singleton
for
their help
and
support
with
Locust Grove research.
I
acknow-
ledge Locust Grove Historic Home
for the use of
their collections, curated
at the
University
of
Louisville Program
of
Archaeology.
REFERENCESCITED
Adams,
W. H.
(ed.) (1987).Historical
Archaeology
of Plantations
at
Kings Bay Camden County,
Georgia, Reportsof Investigations 5, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
30/33
Young
Adams,W. H., and
Boling,
S. J. (1989).
Status
and
ceramics
for
planters
and
slaves
on
three
Georgia coastal
plantations.
Historical Archaeology
23(4): 69-96.
Andrews, S.
(1992).
Spatial Analysis
of an
East
Tennessee
Plantation Houselot,
Unpublished
master's
thesis, Department
of
Anthropology, University
of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Andrews,
S., and
Young,
A. L.
(1992).
Plantations
on the
periphery: Modeling
a new
approach
for the
upper
South.
Tennessee Anthropologist
17(1): 1-12.
Aschenbrenner, J. (1973).Extended families among Black Americans.
Journal of Comparative
Family Studies
4:
257-268.
Baksh,
M., and
Johnson,
A. (1990).
Insurance policies among
th e
Machiguenga:
An
ethnographic analysiso frisk management in a non-Western society. InCashdan, E.(ed.),
Risk and Uncertainty in
Tribal
and Peasant Economies,
Westover Press, Boulder,
pp.
193-227.
Berlin, I., and
Morgan,
P
(1993).Introduction.
In
Berlin,
I., and Morgan, P.
(eds.),
Cultivation
and
Culture: Labor
and the
Shaping
of
Slave
ife in the
Americas,
UniversityPress of
Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 1-48.
Blassingame, J. W.
(1979).The Slave Community: Plantation ife in the Antebellum South,
rev.
ed., Oxford University
Press, New
York.
Brown, K., and
Cooper,
D. C.
(1990).
Structural continuityin an African-American slave and
tenant community.
Historical Archaeology
24(4): 7-19.
Bushman, R. L.(1981).
Family
security in the transition from
farm
to city, 1750-1850.
Journal
of
Family
History 6(3): 238-256.
Cashdan, E. (1985).
Coping with
risk:
Reciprocity among
the
Basarwa
of
northern Botswana.
Man
(N.S.)
20: 454^*74.
Cashdan,
E.
(1990). Introduction.
In
Cashdan,
E.
(ed.),
Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and
PeasantEconomies,
Westover Press, Boulder,
pp.
1-16.
Coleman, J. W. (1940).
Slavery
Times in Kentucky,
University of North Carolina Press, Chap el
Hill.
DeBoer,W. R. (1988).
Subterranean storage
and the
organization
of
surplus:
The view
from
eastern
North America.
Southeastern Archaeology
7(1): 1-20.
Deetz,
J. (1988).
American historical archaeology: Methods
and
results.
Science
239:362-367.
DuBois, W E. B.
(1939). Black Folk, Then
and
Now,
Holt, NewYork.
Emerson, M. C. (1994). Decorated clay tobacco pipes from the Chesapeake: An African
American connection.
In
Shackel,
P., and
Little,
B. J.
(eds.),
Historical Archaeology of the
Chesapeake,
Smithsonian Institution
Press,
Washington,
DC, pp.35-49.
Faulkner, C. H. (1986). The pitcellar:A nineteenth c entury storage facility.
Ohio
Valley Urban
and
Historic Archaeology 4:
54-65.
Ferguson, L.
(1992).
Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and
Early
African America, 1650-1800,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Ford,
D. Y.,Harris,J. J., Ill, andTurner,W. T
(1993).
Th e extended African American family:
A pragmatic strategy that blunts the blade of injustice.
The
Urban
League Review
14(2):
71-82.
Foster,
H. J. (1983). African patterns in the Afro-American family.
Journal of Black Studies
14(2): 201-232.
Frazier, E. F.(1939). The
Negro Family
in the United
States,
University
of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Genovese, E. D.
(1976).Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made,
Random House, New
York.
Gutman,
H. G.
(1976).
The Black
Family
in
Slavery
and Freedom, 1750-1925,
Vintage Books,
New York.
Harrison,
F. V (1995). The
persistent power
of race in the
cultural
and
political economy
of
racism.
Annual
Review of
Anthropology
24:47-74.
Hedrick,
C. E. (1927). Social and Economic Aspects of
Slavery
in the Transmontane Prior to
1850,
George
Peabody College for Teachers, Nash ville .
Hegmon,
M.
(1989).
Risk reduction
and
variation
in
agricultural economies:
A
computer
simulation
of
Hopi agriculture.
Research in Economic Anthropology 11:89-121.
Herskovits, M.
(1958).
The Myth of the
Negro
Past, Beacon Press, Boston.
-
8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation
31/33
Risk
Management Among Slaves 35
Hill, R. B.(1971). The
Strengths
of BlackFamilies, Emerson Hall, NewYork.
Hunter, A. G.(1993).Making a way: Strategies of southern u rba n African American families,
1900-1936. Journal of
Family History
18(3):231-248.
Joseph, J. W.(1987). Highway 17 revisited: The archaeology of task labor. South
Carolina
Antiquities 19(1/2):
29-34.
Joseph, J. W. (1989). Pattern and process in the plantatio n archaeology of the low country of
Georgia and South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 55-68.
Kaplan, H., Hill, K., and Hurtado, A. M.
(1990).
Risk, foraging and food sharing among the
Ache. In Cashdan, E. (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty in
Tribal
and Peasant Economies,
Westover
Press, Boulder,
pp.107-144.
Kehoe,
A.
(1978). Francois' house:
An
early
fu r
trade post
on the
Saskatchewan River.Pastlog
No. 2,Saskatchewan Culture
an d
Youth, Regina.
Kelso, W (1984). Kingsmill Plantations,
1619-1800: Archaeology
of Country Life in Colonial
Virginia, Academic Press, Orlando,
FL.
Kelso,
W.
(1986).
The
archaeology
of
slave
life at
Thomas Jefferson's Monticello:
A
wolf
by
theears. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(4): 5-20.
Kimmel, R.
(1993).
Notes on the
cultural
origins an d
functions
ofsub-floor pits. Historical
Archaeology
27(3):
102-113.
Klingelhofer, E. (1987).
Aspects
of
early Afro-American m aterial culture: Artifacts
from the
slave
quarters at Garrison Plantation, Maryland.
Historical
Archaeology 21(2):112-119.
Lev-Tov,
J., and Young, A. L.
(1995).
Diet and risk at Locust Grove Plantation. Paper
presented at the 1995 Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Kno xville, TN.
Lewis, E.
(1987).
Afro-American adaptive strategies: The visitinghabits of kith and kin among
black
norfolkians
during
the
firstgreat migration.Journal
of Family History
12(4):
407-420.
Lewis, K. E. (1985). Plantation
layout
and
function
in the South Carolina Lowcountry. In
Singleton, T. A. (ed.), The
Archaeology
of Slavery and PlantationLife, Academic Press,
Orlando,
FL, pp.
35-66.
Loveday, A. J.
(1983).
The Rise and Decline of theAmerican Cut Nail Industry, Greenwood
Press,Westport, CT
Lucas,
M. B.
(1992).A History
of
Blacks in
Kentucky: From
Slavery to Segregation,1760-1891,
Kentucky Historical Society, Frankfort.
Mart in ,
J. M., and
Martin ,
E. P.
(1985).
The Helping Tradition in the Black Family and
Community, Nation al Association of Social Workers, Silver Spring, MD.
McDaniel, A.
(1990).
The power of culture: A review of the idea of Africa's influence on
family structure in antebellum America. Journal of Family History 15(2): 225-238.
M cK ee ,
L.
(1988).
Plantation Food
Su