Searching for a Slave Cemetery in Barbados, West Indies:

A Bioarchaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigation

Searching for a Slave Cemetery in Barbados, West Indies:

A Bioarchaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigation

by

Jerome S. Handler

with Michael D. Conner and Keith P. Jacobi

Center for Archaeological Investigations

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Research Paper No. 59

June 1989

THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

BRIDGETOWN, BARBADOS

TEL: 809-426-3179

© 1989 by the Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 0-88104-071-1

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 89-62149

Professor Jerome Handler of Southern IllinoisUniversity has been carrying out valuable archaeologicaland historical research in Barbados over the pasttwenty-five years and has reached the stage at which amore •extensive program is being undertaken which I amsatisfied will increase our knowledge of the Barbadianheritage.

I feel that Dr. Handler should be given everyencouragement in his research activities.

Contents

Figures ix

Plates xi

Tables xiii

Preface xv

Acknowledgments xvii

1. Introduction: Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and Bioanthropology in the Study of1

2. Objectives of the 1987 Fieldwork

3. Cemeteries during the Slave Period: Whites, Slaves, and the Newton Cemetery 13

4. Plantation Fields: Naming Practices, and the Negro Yard and Graveyard Fields 17

5. Searching for Cemeteries Before the 1987 Season 21

6 Plantation Research in 1987: Ethnographic and Historical 27

7. Plantation Research in 1987: Archaeological 51

8. Conclusions 79

Appendix A. Cholera Burial Grounds 85

Appendix B. Excavation of Human Skeletal Remains in Barbados 87

Appendix C. Regulations Surrounding Archaeological Research in Barbados 91

Appendix D. Tabulations of Excavated and Surface Collected Materials, by Rebecca House 93

Notes 103

References 107

Plates 119

Barbados Slaves

1. Barbados: plantation research areas 25

fields—an-d-arch-a-eologitatTesearch areas

28

3. Guinea, 1857 and 1987: field divisions and field names 29

4. Malvern, 1987: fields and archaeological research areas 34

5 Hanson, 1987: fields and archaeological research areas 37

6. St. Nicholas, 1987: fields and archaeological research areas 41

7. Bissex-Parks, 1987: research areas and excavation units 46

8. Guinea, 1987: topography and fields 57

9. Malvern: excavation units in Rock field

59

10. Malvern, 1987: topography and fields 60

11. Hanson, 1987: topography and fields

12. Hanson: excavation units in stable area 65

13. Hanson: excavation units in Negro Yard pasture area 67

14. St. Nicholas, 1987: topography and fields 70

15. St. Nicholas: excavation units in Ben Jones field pasture area 73

Plates

1. Newton cemetery, 1972. Facing northeast; main burial area is along the slopebottom, in lower right. The trees no longer existed in 1987.

-27----elmrchyarcl-bmialvatrit of white family.

3. Guinea pasture area. Facing approximately west by north. Gully area with densevegetation and coconut trees along center; Negro Yard field is just behind, in centerright, and the southern tip of the Mill Yard is in the extreme right center.

4. Malvern: Graveyard and Rock fields. Taken from South Negro Yard field andfacing approximately southeast. Rock field in foreground, Graveyard field behind it, with theplantation house and Mill Yard on the left, by the road.

5. Malvern: test square in Rock field. This shows a typical exposure of limestonebedrock in a square.

6. Hanson: front of stable. Facing Mill Yard on the east.

7. Hanson: excavation area behind stable in New field.

8. St. Nicholas plantation house.

9. St. Nicholas: pasture by Ben Jones field. Facing north east. Mill Yard andplantation house are in the right background, behind the line of tall trees.

10. Bissex-Parks: shovel testing in the swale area of Graveyard field; facingapproximately northwest, with valleys of the Scotland District in the background.

xi

1. Material Surface Collected at Guinea 56

2 Material Collected at Malvern 61

3. Material Surface Collected at Hanson 63

4. Material from Test Squares Near Hanson Stable 66

5. Material from Test Squares in Pasture North of Hanson Upper Negro Yard Field 69

6. Material Collected at St. Nicholas 72

7. Material Collected from Graveyard Field at Bissex-Parks 74

This report describes the results of a ten-week bioarchaeological project, also involvingarchival and ethnographic research, on theCaribbean island of Barbados. Fieldworkduring the summer of 1987 was primarilysupported by the National Geographic Society,with additional funding from the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research. Themajor objectives of the fieldwork were to locatesugar plantation slave cemetery sites fromwhich skeletal and artifactual remains could berecovered. Archaeological survey and testingfocused on five plantations with historiesextending deep into the slave period, and wherestrong oral and written evidence existed forslave cemeteries. This research, however,failed to discover traces of any cemetery orrecover any contextual evidence of humanremains.

The following pages discuss thebackground to the research project, how andwhy the five plantations were selected, anddetail the archaeological work conducted atthese plantations. Also incorporated are thefindings of the historical/archival andethnographic research relating to theplantations. In addition, we attempt to accountfor the failure to locate burial sites and suggestpossible avenues for future archaeologicalinquiry. Finally, we consider some more generalhistorical and anthropological issues regardingunmarked Caribbean slave cemeteries, theproblems of locating them, and how, in areasthat have experienced intensive cultivation formany years, they offer unique undisturbedarchaeological contexts for investigatingslavery and the culture of early slavepopulations.

The failure to locate evidence of evenone cemetery was quite disappointing andmystifying during fieldwork, but the veryfailure to find the expected raises a variety ofquestions relating to archaeologicalmethodology and the nature of slave cemeteriesand burials themselves. Even with its negativearchaeological findings, we believe the 1987research can make a contribution to the study ofBarbados' plantation history as well as tohistorical archaeology in the Caribbean and its

application to the study of slavery. Becausethis project is unique in Caribbean historicalarchaeology, we have kept in mind in thewriting of this report the possibility that it canserve as a guidMreither researchers who wouldattempt similar work in Barbados or otherplantation areas of the Caribbean.

The field period lasted from May 24until August 4, when the last members of thefield crew returned to the United States. Duringthe first week the Project Director/SeniorAuthor renewed personal contacts in private andgovernmental sectors of Barbados and dealtwith a variety of logistical issues. The fieldcrew arrived on May 30, and spent the first fewdays in a general orientation to Barbados(including brief visits to some of the plantationswhere work was planned) and acquiringsupplies and tools needed for the field and thelaboratory. Actual fieldwork on the firstplantation began on June 3. The Project Directorleft Barbados on July 5, but other members of thegroup continued the archaeological researchuntil the last week of July, when operationsbegan winding down and preparations weremade for departure.

During the summer, three types ofresearch activities took place. The mostimportant, of course, was the archaeologicalwork on the five plantations. This research,discussed in detail in chapter 7, involvedsurface surveys of plantation lands, shoveltesting, and the excavation of test units. Whilethe archaeological research was proceeding,the Project Director conducted ethnographic andhistorical research on those plantations underarchaeological investigation.

The ethnographic research essentiallyconsisted of efforts to discover, and interview,older informants, usually retired or presentplantation workers or managers, who couldprovide information on the plantation's history,particularly any oral traditions that mightsuggest the location of human skeletal remainsor burial grounds. Interviews were generallyinformal. They attempted to ascertain ifanyone had ever seen or heard of evidence ofhuman bone or burial grounds, the names of

xv

xvi

• •• • it

Acknowledgmentsplantation fields, and, in general, any oralinformation that could shed light on theplantation's history of ownership and land use–information that might be connected withinformation of greater age that could be gleanedfrom historical research.

Historical research was primarilyconducted in the Barbados Department ofArchives, and utilized manuscript sources,supplemented by published primary andsecondary ones. This research was devoted tocollecting any available information on the fiveplantations so as to develop an historical sketchof each plantation, particularly its ownership,acreage, and demographic attributes of its slavepopulation. In addition, archival researchtried to establish the nature and extent ofexisting historical source materials in Barbados

that would be useful for future and morecomprehensive research on plantation histories.Crucial to the project's overall research strategywas the accumulation of historical data on theplantations that could complement theinformation derived from archaeologicalresearch. The goal of obtaining furtherhistorical information on various plantationswould have been more closely pursued hadevidence been uncovered of a cemetery.However, despite the limitations of time andavailable manuscript and other historicalresources, sufficient information was gleaned inthe field (as well as from later library researchelsewhere and research at the Public RecordOffice, London) to provide preliminary sketchesand make some contribution to Barbados' earlyplantation history.

A number of people assisted in one wayor another in the research project reported inthis monograph. Robert S. Corruccini, the seniorauthor's principal collaborator for severalyears,played—a_mbioanthropological component of the researchdesign, and in stimulating a variety of questionsand hypotheses relating to biohistorical issues;had the project discovered skeletal materials,Corruccini would have been primarilyresponsible for their analysis. Lynne PetersSullivan developed the original archaeologicalfield strategies, and would have directed thefieldwork if other professional commitmentshad not intervened. Arthur C. Aufderheide alsocontributed to the original research design, andElizabeth Brandon Ritter assisted in preparinggrant applications to funding agencies. Thesenior author is particularly indebted toFrederick W. Lange, whose collaboration in theearly 1970s was instrumental in providing theframework within which the presentarchaeological project was conducted.

The 1987 fieldwork in Barbados wasgreatly facilitated by the congeniality andcooperation of many Barbadians from all walksof life. To name all who helped us in one way oranother would produce a very extensive list.Yet, mention must be made of some individualsto whom we are most grateful. Ronald Hughes,a Barbadian historian with superior knowledgeof the island's early plantation history,willingly shared the results of his ownresearches, and occasionally assisted with ourarchival research; he also was a frequent sourceof moral support and practical advice. We alsoare obliged to Christine Matthews, Director ofthe Barbados Department of Archives, and toDavid Williams, Assistant Archivist, for theirunstinting assistance and patient cooperationwith the many demands placed on their timeand resources.

Clearly no research could haveproceeded without the full cooperation of theowners, or their agents, of the sugar plantationson which we worked. We owe special thanks toC. R. Bellamy, Oliver Browne, Stephen Cave,Keith Deane, and Lionel Warde. Other personsassociated with sugar plantations who helped

xvii

the research include: Patrick Allen, MorganBoyce, Lionel Corbin, Charles Gill, GraftonHutchinson, Richard Johnson, Richard andGladys Kirton, Henry Miller, Robin Payne,

Pro erbs Archibald Robertson, BobbyWatson, Victor Welch, and Graham Yearwood.

Others in Barbados who extendedfriendship and hospitality, or offered practicaladvice and encouragement, include theGovernor-General, His Excellency Sir HughSpringer and Lady Springer, and the late PrimeMinister, the Honorable Errol W. Barrow. Inaddition, Jean and Suzanne Baulu, PeterCampbell, Trevor Carmichael, Adrian andClaudette Clarke, Michael Clarke, PeterEvalyn, Henry Fraser, Seon Goodridge, Charlesand Grace Pilgrim, Alfred Pragnell, Bernard St.John, Jason Springer, Mark Springer, JillSheppard, John Wickham, and Donald Wiles.

The Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations at Southern Illinois Universityhas been supportive of our research, and weparticularly thank the Center's Director,George Gumerman, as well as Kim Smiley andPat Harris, the Curator and Office Manager,respectively, and Patrice Teltser, Director ofPublications. Rebecca House, formerly theCenter's Assistant Curator, tabulated theartifacts shipped from Barbados to SouthernIllinois University. Thomas Gatlin assembledthe cover. Karen Schmidt, Southern IllinoisUniversity Research Photography andIllustration Facility, prepared the maps, andCynthia Clabough, of the same office, designedthe text.

Assistance on various historical andarchaeological issues was given by DouglasArmstrong, Timothy Earle, Roderick Ebanks,Conrad Goodwin, George Gumerman, BarryHigman, Donald Jones, and David Watters. Thesenior author is also thankful to Charles Blitzerand Kent Mullikin, former Director andAssistant Director, respectively, of theNational Humanities Center; they extended tohim, as a former fellow, the hospitality of theCenter for three weeks during the winter of1987-1988. Portions of this report were draftedin the Center's congenial atmosphere, abetted in

Chapter 1Introduction: Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and Bioanthropology

in the Study of Barbados Slaves

no small measure by the presence of BoomerGreene.

The field crew during the summer of1987 consisted of eight persons. Jerome Handler,PhD. (Professor of Anthropology, SouthernIllinois University), the Project Director, asociocultural anthropologist, was in charge ofgeneral logistical and public relations matters.His primary research function wasethnographic and historical research relatingto the plantations where archaeological workwas conducted. Michael Conner (PhD.University of Chicago; currently a researcharchaeologist with the KampsvilleArchaeological Center Contract Program,Kampsville, Illinois), a bioarchaeologist, wasthe Field Director. He was responsible fordevising archaeological research strategies anddirecting the survey and test excavations on theplantations; he is also Senior Author of chapter7 of this report, complied Tables 1-7, andcontributed to various Figures. Other membersof the group, with varying degrees of

archaeological field experience, included:Elizabeth Brandon Ritter (M.A., SouthernIllinois University) and Guy Weaver (M.A.,Memphis State University), both PhD.students, in bioanthropology and archaeology.respectively, in the Department ofAnthropology at Southern Illinois University;Keith Jacobi (M.A., Southern IllinoisUniversity), currently a PhD. student inbioanthropology at Indiana University; andSuzannah England (M.Phil., Archaeology,University of Cambridge), a West Indian citizenof St. Lucia. Recruited in Barbados were SimonClarke and Andrew Pilgrim, both law studentsat the University of the West Indies (Cave Hillcampus, Barbados), with no previousarchaeological field experience.

Publication was largely made possiblethrough funds provided by the College ofLiberal Arts and the Office of ResearchDevelopment and Administration at SouthernIllinois University.

The Barbados Slave Ethnohistorical Pro ect

As initially conceived, the 1987fieldwork continued the Project Director's long-term investigation of plantation slave life inBarbados. Although focusing on Barbadosslaves, this investigation also is concerned withhow this population can shed light on widerissues: the retention, modification, and loss ofAfrican cultural traditions among New Worldslaves, the processes by which African-American cultures developed during the periodof slavery, and the biohistory of enslavedAfricans and their descendants. Over the yearsthe project has employed historical,ethnographic, archaeological, andbioanthropological data to explore a variety ofissues relating to the African heritage in theCaribbean, and has involved two principalcollaborators: Robert S. Corruccini, abioanthropologist, and Frederick W. Lange, anarchaeologist. This collaboration amonganthropologists from several subfields hasresulted in an integration of archaeological andbioanthropological data with historical andethnographic research: An issue of centralconcern to the Project Director's interests is howmultidisciplinary anthropological andhistorical approaches can be applied to thestudy of historic period so-called "inarticulate"populations -- New World black slaves beingonly one such group (Lemisch 1969 ).

In its widest scholarly context, theBarbados slave research fits into the multi-disciplinary field known as Afro-AmericanStudies. Although this field has long beenestablished as a legitimate area of scholarlyinquiry (see, for example, Wood 1978), interestin the sociocultural history of New Worldblacks proliferated in the 1960s, and todaycontinues to attract historians and historicallyoriented social scientists, includinganthropologists from several subfields andtopical specialties. Afro-American research inanthropology (whose intellectual father wasMelville Herskovits) has traditionally

devoted substantial effort to the influence ofAfrica on specific forms of contemporary culturalbehavior, and to the study of continuities orchanges in African cultural traditions in theNew World. Conventionally applyingethnographic and historical approaches, thisresearch has examined how Africans and theirdescendants perpetuated, modified, or lostaspects of their African cultural heritages inNew World environments characterized byplantation economies, colonialism, and chattelslavery (e.g., Herskovits 1941, 1966; Mintz andPrice 1976; Smith 1955).

The Caribbean has afforded anexcellent setting for anthropologists and otherscholars to explore questions related tocontemporary African-American socioculturalpatterns and the historical processes by whichthese patterns were created and developed. Agreat deal of this research has focused oncontemporary cultures or aspects of thesecultures purported to reflect African influences.Until the last 15 years or so there has been littleintensive research on the slave cultures thatformed the cultural intermediary betweenAfrica and the present. Consequently, Afro-Americanists often have been hindered in theirinquiries into culture change and acculturation,major objectives of their research, and havespeculated, often using inadequate information,about the roots of Caribbean cultures. Slavery isa focal interest in discussions of these roots andis particularly significant for understandingmodern Caribbean cultures.

A full understanding of the processes ofculture change generally has been impeded bythe scarcity of intensive diachronic studies ofslave sociocultural life that extend into theearliest periods of New World slavery andcover a relatively long period of time.Moreover, despite great strides throughout thelate 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in understanding thelife of slaves, it is still generally true for the

'xviii

2 Chapter One Introduction: Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and Bioanthropology in the Study of Barbados Slaves 3

Caribbean that a great deal more is known aboutthe institutional aspects of the slave societythan about the slaves themselves, especially inthe earlier periods; and for the United States,research efforts have tended to focus on thenineteenth century, while the colonial periodhas only recently begun to attract serious andsystematic scholarly attention.

In an effort to document "a past not onlyobscure, but obscured" (Mintz 1975: 494) and tounderstand more generally the processes bywhich African-American cultures developedfrom their earliest beginnings, the ProjectDirector initiated a research program in 1965that was designed to produce an intensive andholistic picture of the life of Barbados' slaves,particularly plantation workers. This researchwas intended to recapture, in as much detail aspossible, the physical condition of slaves andtheir sociocultural life, and to chart changes intheir life over time. To achieve maximuminsight into developmental processes and culturechange, the research was designed to treat theentire slave period, some 200 years, from earlycolonization in the 1620s to 1834, when slaveryended throughout the British Empire.

Barbados, one of England's oldest NewWorld colonies, is a convenient naturallaboratory for exploring issues in early African-American history. It was chosen as the researchfocus for several reasons. For one, the island'shistory is that of a classic or "model" NewWorld slave society. Colonized in 1627,Barbados' early export economy mainlydepended on the relatively small-scalecultivation of tobacco and cotton, largelyproduced by free and indentured whites. By the1640s, however, sugar was being grown on acommercial scale thereby stimulating thedevelopment of plantations as the majorproduction units and the dependence on Africa asthe major source of labor. Barbados was the firstterritory in England's overseas empire todevelop large-scale sugar cane cultivation undera plantation system dependent on African slavelabor. By the 1650s the island was already adeveloped plantation-slave society.Throughout the last half of the seventeenthcentury and into the early eighteenth it wasEngland's wealthiest and most populous colonyin the Americas. During the 1670s Barbadosreached the zenith of its prosperity, and its

black population of about 32,800 far exceededthat of any other New World English territory;it was almost double the combined total ofblacks in England's five other Caribbeancolonies and close to six times the total of blacksin all of England's mainland colonies combined(Handler and Pohlmann 1984: 391). AlthoughBarbados' prominence in England's sugar empirewas preempted by Jamaica during the thirddecade or so of the eighteenth century, theisland continued to be dominated by the slaveproduction of sugar under the plantation system-- and it remained a quintessential plantation-slave society until emancipation in 1834.

A second reason why Barbados waschosen for research derives from its historicalimportance as a sugar colony and slave society:this importance has yielded an abundance ofwritten source materials, both manuscript andpublished (Handler 1971, 1989). A third reasonis that Barbados was under continuous Britishcontrol, never having been invaded by anotherEuropean power, from 1627 to its politicalindependence in 1966. For a Commonwealth orEnglish-speaking Caribbean country, this is afairly unusual colonial history, and it permitscontrol of an important cultural and historicalvariable. Finally, prior to starting his slaveproject, the Project Director had conducted closeto 15 months of social anthropological fieldresearch in Barbados (1960; 1961-1962) for hisdoctoral dissertation (Handler 1964). Thisresearch focused on contemporary socioeconomicand ecological issues in a village whosepopulation was largely descended from Africanslaves, but it provided a substantiveethnographic perspective from which to viewand interpret issues in the island's socioculturalhistory. Moreover, the village has been visitedregularly and repeatedly over the years, andvillagers have continued to provideethnographic data bearing on some of theethnohistorical issues addressed in the widerslave project.

When the slave project was initiated,the Project Director's research concentrated ondata collection from written (printed andmanuscript) sources in a wide variety oflibraries and archival repositories in Britain,Scotland, Ireland, the United States, Jamaica,and Barbados. Throughout the years-- and up tothe present-- archival and library research has

continued to be a vital dimension of theresearch, and has arguably generated the mostdata on the life of slaves and the society inwhich they lived. In addition, intermittentethnographic fieldwork since the mid-1960s hasinvolved interviews with elderly Barbadians.These interviews have attempted to gatherdata on a variety of topics ranging frommortuary practices and beliefs surroundingdeath to folk medicine and magico-religiousbeliefs in general; efforts also have been madeto elicit contemporary perceptions of slaverythat might illuminate various details of theslave period uncovered through historical orarchaeological research.

Traditional research on New Worldslave life has depended largely on documentaryand, to some extent, on oral sources. Although inmore recent periods slave research in the UnitedStates and in the Caribbean has increasinglyemphasized the social and cultural life ofslaves (e.g., Blassingame 1979; Brathwaite1971; Craton 1978; Dirks 1986; Gaspar 1985;Genovese 1974; Higman 1984; Joyner 1984;Kulikoff 1986; Patterson 1967; Price 1979; Wood1974), in contrast to older historical studieswhich tended to focus on the institutionaldimensions of the slave society, this researchhas still fundamentally rested on documentarysources.

To a much lesser degree than moreconventional sources of historical data, but withincreasing frequency over the past 10 or 15 years,archaeological research has been applied to theinvestigation of African-American cultures andNew World slavery, primarily in, plantationsites (e.g., Adams 1987; Adams and Boling 1989;Armstrong 1989; Fairbanks 1984; Kelso 1984;Klingelhofer 1987; Orser 1984, 1988; Otto 1981,1984 ; Singleton 1985, 1986). During the early1970s, when the archaeological research beganin Barbados, archaeology had been employedonly minimally in the United States (Ascherand Fairbanks 1971; Fairbanks 1974 ) and barelyhad been utilized in Caribbean slave research(some minor work had taken place in Cuba[Academia de Ciencias de Cuba 1970]).Although archaeological investigations ofslavery in the Caribbean are still in theirrelative infancy, and very few major ones have

In addition to historical andethnographic research, six months ofarchaeological fieldwork (funded by theNational Science Foundation and Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research) tookplace over two seasons in late 1971 and early1972, and in 1973. This work involvedexcavations and surface collecting at 14different sugar plantations. Ultimately, thearchaeological research concentrated on Newtonplantation, and particularly its slave cemetery(Handler and Lange 1978, 1979). It was thework at Newton and, at the time, its unforeseenlong-range results that ultimately led to thebioarchaeological project which is the focus ofthis report.

been (or are currently being) conducted inBarbados, Jamaica, and Montserrat (Armstrong1989; Handler and Lange 1978; Howson 1987;Pulsipher and Goodwin 1982; on a smaller scale,cf. Gerace 1986; Higman 1974; Righter 1984;Watters 1987), such studies have shown how anarchaeological approach, when combined withhistorical research, can provide useful data andperspectives on slavery, the sociocultural life ofslaves, and the plantation system.

The Barbados archaeological project inthe early 1970s was designed to yield specificinformation on plantation slave life that wasnot available or barely mentioned in writtensources, and to provide a more objective checkand another perspective on the ethnocentric andracist biases of these sources. It also was hopedthat archaeology would provide a newdiachronic perspective to enhance explorationof issues in culture change. A basic feature of theresearch strategy was to ultimately combine theresults of the archaeological research withhistorical information in order to provide amore complete picture of plantation slavery inBarbados.

The original intention was to excavatein plantation slave village sites and to recoverinformation on such cultural topics as settlementpatterns, house construction, size and spatialrelationships, household furniture and utensilsand culinary practices. It was also planned toexcavate in burial areas to acquire data onmortuary practices that would yield insights

Archaeological Research at Newton Plantation

Introduction: Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and Bioanthropology in the Study of Barbados Slaves 54 Chapter One

into the slaves' religious beliefs, conceptions ofthe afterlife, and changes in these ideologicalpatterns over time.

In brief, archaeological research atslave village sites proved to be relativelyunproductive and little evidence of slavedomestic and community life was found ( cf.Ferguson 1979 ). Some possible reasons for thisrelate to the effects of a tropical environment ona basically organic material culture; extensivecultivation, deep plowing, and various moderncultural alterations which left few undisturbedareas, and profoundly affected-- if not erased--many cultural features associated with slavelife; and the slaves were probably even farpoorer materially than was assumed before theresearch commenced (Handler and Lange 1978:43-57).

Ultimately, the archaeological andhistorical research focused on Newtonplantation, particularly on what turned out tobe its slave cemetery. Unlike the research atvarious former village sites on otherplantations, work at Newton's cemetery washighly productive in its yield of cultural andbiological materials.

Newton was originally chosen forinvestigation because there was an extensivemanuscript collection bearing on its earlyhistory (Handler 1976). Analysis of theNewton historical materials, and those onBarbados sugar plantations more generally,established that during the slave periodNewton and its slave population typifiedmedium to large- scale Barbados sugarplantations in all major physical, agricultural,social, labor organizational, and demographiccharacteristics (Handler and Lange 1978: 58-60;65-101).

Although part of the slave village siteat Newton was investigated archaeologically,this investigation yielded little information--consistent with the results from otherplantations. However, most of the time atNewton involved excavating the slavecemetery. In the end, almost two months werespent at Newton in January and February 1972,and an additional six weeks of research tookplace at the cemetery in April and May 1973.

Very shortly after the archaeologicalresearch began at Newton, interviews turned upclues to the possible existence of a slavecemetery. A former plantation manager, whohad managed Newton for about 32 years,related that a few decades before his retirementin 1964 a number of burials had been discoveredin an uncultivated grassland or pasture areawhen holes were dug for the planting ofcasuarina trees (Plate 1); one burial had beenactually dug into. Although the bones weredecayed, two coffin handles and a few metal("brass") buttons were found. And a retiredworker, in his late seventies or early eighties,reported that, as a child, his grandparents hadtold him that the "old people" were interred inthis pasture; he pointed to several spots in thefield, apparent mounds, which he claimed werethe "vaults" containing these burials.

During the first day of excavations atone of the major mounds (actually the third dayof test excavations in the pasture) human bonewas uncovered barely 2 cm from the surface, in atrench laid out across the mound. Subsequenttesting and excavations in other areas of thepasture turned up more bone. Ultimately it wasshown that this was, indeed, a slave cemetery(Handler and Lange 1978: 104 -108; Lange 1972).(It is only with the benefit of hindsight, writingfrom the perspective of the present, that we canfully appreciate the luck surrounding thediscovery of Newton's cemetery and therelative ease with which its presence wasarchaeologically validated. The difficulty offinding slave cemeteries became increasinglyapparent during the 1980s, when the ProjectDirector attempted to find them throughinterviews and historical research [see chapter5]; however, the full implications of the roleplayed by luck in the early 1970s was notentirely realized until 1987 when the currentarchaeological project failed to locate anyburial sites)

As of this writing, Newton's cemetery isstill the major undisturbed slave cemetery tohave been excavated in the non-HispanicCaribbean. Excavations yielded the remains of104 individuals interred from about 1660 to 1820.This skeletal sample remains the largest andearliest group of African and African- descendedslaves yet excavated from archaeologicalcontexts in the Caribbean or North America.

(Ninety-two individuals were initiallyreported by Handler and Lange [1978], but thisfigure was revised upward by subsequentlaboratory analyses of the skeletal remains.)

Until very recently, the biological andmedical history of New World blacks has beenlargely addressed by historians (and a fewhistorically oriented socioculturalanthropologists) who have relied on narrativeliterary evidence and, particularly in recentyears, large-scale quantitative samples andmethodology (e.g., Campbell 1984; Craton 1978;Dirks 1986; Friedman 1982; Gibbs et al. 1980;Higman 1979, 1984; Kiple 1984, 1985, 1988a;Kiple and King 1981; Kiple and Kiple 1977;Savitt 1978; Sheridan 1985; Steckel 1986a,1986b, 1987). But the primary data ofhistorians, whether analyzed by traditionalqualitative methods or statistically,fundamentally rests on the surviving writtenrecord. In the United States, the best recordsdate from the later years of the slave period,that is, the pre-emancipation decades of thenineteenth century, while there are relativelyfew data for earlier periods. Two recent majorstudies of Caribbean slave medical andbiological issues (Kiple 1984; Sheridan 1985)have also had to rely almost entirely on moreconventional historical sources for theirprimary data. Both o these works, however,made an effort to incorporate some of the earlierfindings of the Newton skeletal analyses; in sodoing, the authors acknowledge the actual andpotential contributions of bioarchaeologicaldata to issues in African-American medical andbiological history. More recently, in a majorreview of the literature, Kiple (1988b: 15)observes that "much work concerned with thebiological past of the black has ... been done inthe field of Caribbean slavery"; in so doing heunderscores the unique contributions thatbioarchaeology can make to African- Americanbiohistory.

The application of bioanthropology tostudying New World slavery and African-

culture, social control in the slave system,processes of culture change, the continuation ofAfrican practices in the New World, and,ultimately biohistory (Handler and Lange 1978;see also Handler 1972, 1983; Handler et al. 1979;Handler and Lange 1979; Lange and Carlson1985; Lange and Handler 1985 ).

American life is relatively new, and in generalvery few bioanthropological studies haveutilized New World black skeletal populations(e.g., Angel 1976; Angel et al. 1987; Kelley andAngel 1987; Martin et al. 1987; Rose 1985). Inparticular, employing slave skeletal remainsfrom plantation contexts to examine aspects ofslave life is a recent strategy. This strategy hasbeen hampered because most available slaveskeletal collections (aside from the Newtonsample) are small and have little or no directlyassociated historical documentation. The entiresample of slave skeletal remains from theAmerican mainland consists of about 100individuals, mostly from the nineteenthcentury, in collections ranging in size from 2 to 36individuals derived from various contexts inGeorgia, Maryland, Virginia, and SouthCarolina (Angel 1977, 1980; Aufderheide et al.1981, 1985; Burnston 1980a, 1980b; Hudgins 1977;Rathbun 1987; Thomas et al. 1977; Thomas et al.1980). In addition, 13 skeletons representingeighteenth century urban slaves are known froma New Orleans cemetery (Owsley et al. 1987).

Excluding the 104 Newton individuals,the rest of the Caribbean slave skeletal samplemainly comes from a handful of territories.From the Virgin Islands, 15 undocumented blacksdating from the late eighteenth century (Dailey1974), 2 probable slaves of unknown date(Ubelaker and Angel 1976), "several"additional undated probable slaves (Lundberg1980), 2 probable slaves salvaged from aplantation cemetery area (Watters 1984), and afew others from disturbed or unidentifiedcontexts (Stewart 1939; Stewart and Groome1968). A salvage project in Montserrat recovered(and extensively described) the remains of 17probable slaves from an unmarked eighteenthcentury cemetery (Mann et al. 1987; Watters1987), 1 black skeleton was found in highly

The Newton cemetery excavationsproved to be highly productive in terms ofspecific data on such topics as slave mortuarypractices acrd-' suctoreligtotertal

Bioanthropological Analyses of the Newton Skeletal Materials

Introduction: Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and Bioanthropology in the Study of Barbados Slaves 76 Chapter One

disturbed conditions in Grenada (Stewart andGroome 1968), and an unreported number (butapparent handful) of slaves was excavated froma nineteenth century Cuban plantation cemeteryin 1969 or 1970; this may have been the firstslave cemetery excavation in the Caribbean(Academia de Ciencias de Cuba 1970). Morerecently, about 17 apparent slave skeletons,interred between 1770 and 1810, were uncoveredfrom a partially excavated cemetery atGalways plantation in Montserrat (ConradGoodwin, personal communication, January 7,1989; the skeletal materials were removed tothe University of Tennessee where they are nowbeing analyzed), and approximately 38 slaveswere discovered in a partially disturbednineteenth century cemetery on a coastalplantation in Suriname (Khudabux 1986).

1982, 1985, 1987a, 1987b, 1988; Handler andCorruccini 1983, 1986; Handler et al. 1982, 1986).

Bioanthropological analyses of theNewton skeletal sample demonstrated the greatpotential for collaborative research involvingbioanthropology, ethnohistory/ historicalanthropology, and archaeology inunderstanding slave life and the bioculturalhistory of New World blacks. Moreover, it alsohas shown the value of bioanthropological data

in illuminating various areas of the lifeways ofslaves and the material conditions of theirlives. It was the bioanthropological researchand the questions and hypotheses it raised onBarbados slave life, as well as African-American biohistory more generally, thatdirectly stimulated the research design leadingto the bioarchaeological project described inthese pages.

Many of the bones recovered at Newtonduring the early 1970s were poorly preservedowing to burial near the surface and the effectsof a tropical environment; in addition, therewere many multiple interments withdisturbance and commingling in the graves,resulting in many disarticulated bones. Thesebones were analyzed in the field, as they wereexcavated, but the analysis was largely limitedto aging and sexing. Attempts were made todeposit the skeletal materials at the BarbadosMuseum, but the Director at the time wasuninterested, for he lacked storage facilitiesand trained curatorial personnel; and storagespace could not be obtained elsewhere on theisland. With budgetary limitations preventingshipping all of these materials to the UnitedStates, most of the bones were carefully reburiedat the Newton site. However, some of the morecomplete post cranial skeletal materials as wellas several semicomplete skulls and all of therecovered teeth were transported to SouthernIllinois University where they remained instorage at the Department of Anthropology. 1Although the dental materials received someadditional laboratory analysis prior to thepublication of a book on the archaeologicalresearch (Handler and Lange 1978), thisanalysis was generally cursory and was not doneby bioanthropologists. Thus, the informationobtained was minimal, sometimes incorrect, andfor all intents and purposes the teeth remainedin storage with their full informative potentialyet to be exploited.

This analysis yielded the most objectiveand largest set of physical data on an earlyCaribbean (or, for that matter, New World)slave population. These data produced new andquantifiable information -- and raisedquestions -- on a variety of hitherto unrecordedslave diseases (for example, dental roothypercementosis, periodontal disease, enamelhypoplasias, caries, and malocclusion/traumatic occlusion) as well as such issues asinfections, life expectancy at time of birth, ageat death, maturation, and diet. (Recently Jacobiand Della Cook have found evidence forcongenital syphilis in the dentition of some ofthe skeletons; as of this writing, these data arebeing analyzed for publication.)Bioanthropological analyses have alsoprovided new perspectives and data onnutritional crises and starvation, weaning andinfant care, pipe smoking, dental mutilation,dentistry practices, and possible family burialpatterns. In addition, the Newton data haveraised some important questions about thegenetic history of New World African-Americans in general, and .the influence ofenvironmental factors on physical traits (toothsize and nonmetric traits) that previously havebeen considered highly heritable and notparticularly influenced by the environment.Finally, the Newton materials have raisedhitherto unsuspected results on lead poisoning,an affliction which may have reachedepidemic proportions among Barbados slavesand others in the Caribbean more generally(Corruccini and Handler 1980; Corruccini et al.

With the benefit that hindsightsometimes brings, it became apparent aftercompletion of the archaeological fieldwork,and during the laboratory analysis of skeletalmaterials, that a major shortcoming of theoriginal research design was the omission fromthe research group of a bioanthropologist withosteological interests. This deficiency becameeven clearer as the years progressed and as newdevelopments occurred resulting from theinvolvement of Robert Corruccini and some of hisstudents in analyzing the Newton materials. Inthe late 1970s Corruccini became interested inthese materials. In a collaborative project withHandler and assisted at various times by RobertMutaw and Keith Jacobi, he embarked on asystematic and intensive analysis of theskeletal and, especially, the dental materials.

Chapter 2Objectives of 1987 Fieldwork

The extensive historical,archaeological, and bioanthropological study ofBarbados slaves over the years permitted

---de.

for the 1987 fieldwork. The unique Newtonskeletal collection has offered considerableopportunities to investigate various problemsassociated with slavery from a freshperspective. Although earlier analyses ofNewton's cultural and, particularly, skeletalmaterials have generated a variety of questionsand hypotheses concerning slave culture andbiology, the sample from Newton has its ownlimitations.

Because Newton is the only slaveplantation cemetery to have been excavated inBarbados, it was felt that examining others wasessential to determine how well Newtonrepresents Barbados slave cemeteries in general;and to independently test hypotheses generatedfrom the Newton data. As noted above, earlierresearch established that Newton and its slavepopulation typified many Barbados sugarplantations, and that the Newton data could begeneralized to Barbados plantation slave life asa whole. This argument rested solely onhistorical data, albeit relatively firmhistorical data. Lacking comparative data,however, the Newton-derived picture of slavelife in Barbados could not be testedarchaeologically or bioanthropologically.

Thus it was critical to test the validityof generalizations based on the Newton data,and to precisely, identify biocultural trends andcharacteristics that may have been peculiar toNewton from those that were more broadlyshared. For example, there may have beenbiological and cultural variations on Barbadosplantations, or the development of New World(i.e., creole) cultural patterns may have takendifferent directions at other plantations basedon such factors as idiosyncratic plantationmanagement practices, primary ethniccomposition of slave contingents (especially inthe earliest years of the slave period), anddifferences in geographical zones. It was alsobelieved that a variety of bioanthropological

questions could be addressed by an expandedsample of skeletal data. Only minimalinvestigations of slave pathologies were

ossibleith---the--Newtan sample- due to therelatively limited postcranial materialsavailable for analysis. An expanded sample ofskeletal data, with more attention topostexcavation preservation of postcranials,could have shed light on a variety of othercultural practices and bioanthropological issuesunreported, or only minimally recorded, inhistorical sources, but which have been raisedby the bioanthropological analyses of theNewton remains. Finally, the need foradditional data from Barbados was furtherunderscored by the scarcity of comparative NewWorld slave bioanthropological data ingeneral. This scarcity has impededinvestigations of the biological dimension ofearlier analyses of the Newton data, and hasmade investigations of biological variationamong New World, especially Caribbean,slaves extremely difficult.

In brief, as noted above, archaeologicalexperiences in Barbados in the early 1970ssuggested that cemeteries offered the bestopportunities for finding undisturbedarchaeological contexts relating to slavery. The1987 field investigation was intended to combinebioarchaeological and ethnohistoricalapproaches: it aimed at recovering skeletal andcultural materials from new plantation burialsites as well as collecting documentary and oralmaterials that would provide historicalperspectives on these sites. In particular, newdata were needed to expand previous findings onbiocultural issues so as to address questions inthe biological history of African-Americanpopulations, test hypotheses raised by previousresearch, and to investigate aspects of slave lifenot possible with the Newton sample.

The specific objectives of the 1987project fell into two overlapping categories:bioanthropological and archaeological.

It was anticipated that acquiringskeletal materials from new plantation

colonial slave samples and comparable tomainland colonial whites. These bone leadlevels are high enough to suggest that Newton'sslaves regularly displayed manifestations ofclinical lead poisoning ranging from mild tomarked severity. Moreover, the physicalanalysis of lead levels, and historical datafrom Barbados and elsewhere in the Caribbean,has suggested a previously unappreciatedepidemic of lead poisoning among slaves (andwhites) in Barbados, as well as more generallyin early West Indian slave societies (Corrucciniet al. 1987b; Handler et al. 1986). Acquiring agreater skeletal sample would have permittedfurther lead content analysis. The applicationof modern clinical findings on lead poisoning tothe slave skeletal data base could have hadimplications for understanding other dimensionsof slave (and white) behavior and medicalproblems that are inadequately described oruntreated in primary historical sources.

Another major objective of thebioanthropological research was to have beenthe testing and refinement of a multifactor traitcomplex, discovered by Corruccini, of previousseemingly unrelated cultural and physicaltraits. A mutual intercorrelation had beenestablished among intentional dentalmutilation, relatively low skeletal leadcontent, and hypercementosis relative to'-age,north-headed burial orientation in the graves(a highly atypical pattern at Newton), and

• absence of coffins (Corruccini et al. 1987b). Thistrait complex may permit identifying African-born slaves and separating them from slavesborn in the New World (i.e., Creoles)– a findingwhich can be of significant value for Afro-American archaeology in general. Sinceunderstanding of these traits derived from,rather than preceded, the earlier excavationsat Newton, the research design for the 1987fieldwork anticipated the possibility of afairly precise identification of African-bornslaves. It was assumed that a greater samplepopulation from new cemetery excavationswould provide a much firmer basis fordifferentiating African-born from New World-born slaves, thus enabling a more preciseexamination of changes in mortuary patternsand material culture in the New World.

A number of questions and hypothesesraised by analyses of the Newton materials also

10 Chapter Two

cemeteries would have permitted treating anumber of issues and hypotheses that had beenraised by the analyses of Newton's skeletalremains. For example, after basic physicalfeatures such as race, sex, age, and grosspathologies were determined, it was intended torefine demographic techniques developed in theNewton analyses; more skeletal elements thanpreviously available were to have been used toestimate age at death in a multifactorial designbased on principal components analysis (Lovejoyet\ al. 1985); and additional skeletal data, withhistorical information, would have permittedevaluating paleodemographic techniques andinferences drawn from skeletal life tables(Corruccini et al. 1988).

The examination for nutritional andinfectious pathologies (especially postcranialhyperostosis, orbital osteoporosis, andexpanded cranial diploe) was to have beenextended since they were lacking in the Newtonsample; yet, infection in general, and sickle-cellanemia in particular, would be expected toproduce such pathologies (Rathbun 1985; Rose1985). Also, there was to have been a moredetailed description and intensive study ofdental enamel hypoplasia and weaningchronologies and postweaning biological stress.Earlier analyses (Corruccini et al. 1985; Handlerand Corruccini 1986) indicated that these arepromising ways to specify age of occurrence ofmetabolic stress peaks, such as occur inmalnourished populations, especially atweaning. Another research objective involvedgathering more data for dental studies: toothroot hypercementosis (Corruccini et al. 1987a);dental mutilations (intentional deformation ofthe anterior teeth found on a few Barbadosskeletons and an apparent index of African birth[Handler et al. 1982]); tooth loss and bilateralextraction (a reflection of dental pathologies aswell as, possibly, of dentistry techniques inslave communities); and pipe-smoking patterns.There was also an interest in gaining a betterpicture of the physical condition of the slavepopulation, including inferred nutrition levelsand trauma, and evidence for lead poisoning.

A trace mineral analysis, using atomicabsorption spectroscopy, was applied to asample or Newton's skeletons. This analysis,conducted by Arthur Aufderheide, yielded leadlevels three to four times that of mainland

relate more directly to slave socioculturalpractices and dimensions of the slave system.For example, the clustering of discrete genetictraits of the skeleton in certain areas of Newtoncemetery raised the possibility that familyburial plots occasionally occurred at slavecemeteries. This possible African-influencedbehavior is not even alluded to in primary orsecondary historical sources and could have beentested further with new skeletal materials. Italso was anticipated that a larger skeletalsample would have: 1) enabled expansion ofearlier work on dental mutilation and variationin its patterns-- not only as an index of Africanbirth, but also as a possible indicator of ethnic("tribal") or regional origin; 2) permitted a moresystematic delineation of tooth extraction anddentistry practices in slave communities, as oneof the specialized roles or activities that areunrecorded in historical sources; 3) generatedmore comparative data on patterns of pipesmoking (a widespread slave custom), andindividual habits as these were correlated withsuch factors as age, sex, and pipes as gravegoods; 4) permitted testing suggestions raised bythe Newton data that some mortuary practices,for example, burial orientations, gravepositioning, and coffin use, showed greatermodifications through time and Europeaninfluences than others which remainedessentially West African, such as, importanceattached to ancestors, the content of intermentand postinterment rites, food and drinksacrifices/offerings at gravesite rituals, gravegoods with burials, and the sacred nature ofgravesites.

It can be noted here that the mortuarycomplex in general was a central dimension ofslave life, and a key component through whichprocesses of culture change can be traced(Handler and Lange 1978: 208-215). Buthistorical data on this complex are usuallysketchy or lacking, particularly with respect tofeatures associated with the actual burial ofthe corpse, its positioning in the ground, gravegoods, etcetera. Thus, any physical data thatcould help illuminate the mortuary complex,and its associated ideology, would certainlyenhance insights into major aspects of slave life,creolization, and issues relating to the retentionand modification of the African culturalheritage.

Objectives of 1987 Fieldwork 11

Another issue raised by the. Newtonresearch involves prestige and status inplantation slave communities. Historicalsources are silent on how slaves determinedsocial status and prestige in their villages andthe nature of their own status/ranking systems.In New World slave societies in general, a greatdeal is known about how white mastersallocated status_ and prestige to slaves;however, much less is known about the extent towhich white-defined criteria coincided with ordeviated from the criteria that slavesemployed among themselves. That slaves inBarbados followed some type of ranking systemand allocated prestige in terms of their owncultural criteria is suggested by historical data(for example, leadership in revolts; Handler1982) and the Newton archaeology; the latterinvolved a relatively elaborate burial,interpreted as an "obeah man," a person withinfluence in the slave community because of hisability to cure illness, divine the future, and soforth ( Handler 1983; Handler and Lange 1978:125-132, 1979; Handler et al. 1979). In general,available evidence suggests retention ofAfrican-type social status and prestige criteria(at least in the earlier slave period) within theslave community, perhaps later modified by aEuropean induced ranking system based on slavelabor productivity and monetary or other valueto slave, owners.

The distribution of coffins and claypipes with some Newton burials raisedquestions not only, relating to the mortuarycomplex and issues of rank and prestige, but alsoto wider issues of social control within the slavesociety. For example, slave mastersperiodically distributed clay pipes (as well asother goods) to their slaves as incentives orrewards for conformity to disciplinary and labornorms. In Barbados, pipes (and tobacco) formedbut one facet of the "reward-incentive" system.This system was a major dimension of socialcontrol in. New 'World slave societies in general,but has been discussed relatively little byscholars of slavery who have tended to focus onthe more obvious negative sanctions and force(cf. Fogel and Engerman 1974).

Because undisturbed archaeologicalcontexts yielding evidence of slave domestic life(for example, village sites) are so difficult tofind in intensively cultivated Barbados, the

Chapter 3Cemeteries During the Slave Period:

Whites, Slaves, and the Newton Cemetery

12 Chapter Two

Newton research strongly suggested thatplantation cemeteries offer the bestopportunities for recovering information(inadequately treated or omitted in historicalsources) on slave material culture andnonplantation labor activities; these includemetallurgy, ornament manufacture, and potterymaking -- complexes which might suggestAfrican influences on slave culture as well aspermit insights into culture change.

In general, then, implicit in theresearch design for the 1987 fieldwork was theexpectation that a successful field season wouldprovide a good sample and quality data thatcould make some important contributions toseveral wider research areas and issues. Asidefrom its potential contributions to the study of amajor early English colony and slave society,the project also could have been significant forthe comparative study of New World slavesociocultural life, especially in its leastdocumented and earliest periods; African-American biological history, including suchissues as genetic admixture, bioculturaladaptations, black-specific disease (forexample, sickle-cell anemia), microevolution,and the biological development of contemporaryAfrican-American populations, slave fertility,age-specific mortality, and morbidity. In

addition, the project could have mademethodological and substantive contributions tothe archaeological study of mortuary practices(including the relationship of mortuary customsto past forms of social and cultural organization)and to "plantation archaeology," a topical focuswithin historical archaeology which isincreasingly attracting archaeologists, culturalanthropologists, and historians as an approachto investigating slavery and African-Americancultures in the Caribbean and southeasternUnited States.

None of the general or specific objectivesmentioned above could be realized for theobvious reason that the 1987 fieldwork yieldedno slave burials. But the research questions andhypotheses generated by the Newton skeletalanalyses led to an expectation that they couldbe best addressed by uncovering other plantationslave cemeteries. As a result, a fundamentalobjective of the 1987 fieldwork was to expandthe Newton skeletal sample by excavating inmore slave cemeteries on other plantations.Searching for and locating new cemeteries, then,became essential first steps in the research.Before describing how such cemeteries weresought, some background is needed on slaveburial practices and cemeteries in Barbados.

Although Newton contains the onlyslave cemetery yet discovered in Barbados,historical evidence clearly indicates that itwas not the only plantation with a cemetery. Itis equally clear that Barbados is, in a sense, a

White Burials

During slavery, most whites were buriedin cemeteries attached to the Anglican parishchurches or chapels or, more rarely, the burialgrounds of other denominations. Lawrence-Archer (1875: 348), a ninteenth century studentof gravestone and tomb inscriptions, writes howearly Barbados planters were "particular intheir funeral arrangements; and most of thebetter families interred their dead in leadencoffins, cased in cedar and mahogany"; "familyvaults," he adds, "were also common." Suchbrick or limestone vaults were built in thechurchyards and, occasionally, particularly inthe earlier periods, on the plantationsthemselves (Plate 2). Nathaniel Lucas (1953b:25), a Barbadian who between 1818 and 1828wrote extensively on the island's early history,noted how "private vaults on plantations werenot very uncommon here after the firstsettlement, the roads etc. making it inconvenientto carry the deceased to church for internment."

Slave Burials: Christian and non-Christian

vast burial ground: over the several centuries ofthe slave period, many thousands of people,slave and free, were buried on this compact 166square-mile island.

It is not unusual in Barbados today to findplantation vaults; in fact, they were located ontwo of the plantations on which we worked(chapter 6, Malvern and Bissex-Parks); otherswere observed at, for example, Easy Hall,Halton, Mangrove, and Vaucluse. Plantationvaults, can be well-hidden from casualpassersby, but often have been broken into andtheir lead coffins vandalized. This practicehas been going on for many years: Lawrence-Archer (1875: 348) observed how "many of thesetombs have, from time to time, been broken upand rifled--particularly in private cemeteries"(see also, Lucas 1953b: 25). We observed theeffects of this vandalization in one of theplantation tombs we examined. According to aknowledgeable Barbadian, a major reason forvandalism is to acquire lead which fishermencan use as weights for their nets.

The actual number of slaves who died inBarbados during the period of slavery cannot bedetermined, but they probably numbered in thehundreds of thousands; for example, over theperiod 1817 to 1834 alone, there were over 59,000slave deaths island-wide (Higman 1984: 609).These persons were buried on the island.

Considering the entire slave period,most Barbadian slaves were not baptized andthus could not be buried in the burial grounds ofthe Anglican Church, the established church ofBarbados. Although the number and proportionof slaves buried under Anglican rites was muchgreater in the later years of the slave period,

especially during the decade or so precedingemancipation in 1834, Anglicans still buriedrelatively few slaves. Some Christian slaveswere interred in parochial church or chapelcemeteries; others were buried on theirplantations, usually with a church catechist(but not a minister) attending. The historicalevidence also suggests that during theseventeenth century and for much of theeighteenth, the very small number of Anglican-baptized slaves tended to be buried onplantations rather than in church grounds.

By the later slave period, toward theend of the eighteenth century and into the

13

In the early 1970s, the main burial area,in the relatively flat section of the pasture,

14 Chapter Three Cemeteries During the Slave Period: Whites, Slaves, and the Newton Cemetery 15

nineteenth, a few slaves were also buried incemeteries attached to Protestant missions, suchas the United Brethren (Moravians) andMethodists; and in the early slave period,during the seventeenth and early eighteenthcenturies, Quakers, Catholics, and Jews alsomay have had some direct effect on where andhow slaves were buried. As a whole, however,all these denominations played a very minorrole in slave burials when compared to theChurch of England. In general, then, during theslave period the overwhelming majority ofBarbadian slaves were unbaptized and thuswere not buried in consecrated grounds; evensome of the baptized slaves were also buriedelsewhere than in church cemeteries (Handlerand Lange 1978: 174-181).

Where, then, were the great majority ofBarbados' slaves buried during most of the slaveperiod? The historical data are very strongthat such slaves were buried on theirplantations, either within the slave villagesthemselves or in separate plantation cemeterieslocated close to the villages. In 1676, forexample, Barbados' governor reported that "theNegroes ... bury one another in the ground of theplantation where they die" (Atkins 1676), andin the late 1780s another governor observed how"Negroes are superstitiously attached to theburial places of their ancestors and friends.These are generally as near as can be to thehouses in which they live. It is frequent to intera near relation under the bed-place on whichthey sleep" (Parry 1789:17; see also, BarbadosCouncil 1789).

Although archaeological work in theearly 1970s and in 1987 provided no evidence forburials in the slave villages per se, the Newtonresearch confirmed historical evidence for theexistence of slave cemeteries. And despite thelack of other archaeological data, solidhistorical evidence indicates that mostBarbadian plantations had their own slavecemeteries.

In 1828, during a period when theChurch of England was increasing itsmissionizing efforts among Barbados slaves, aLondon based Anglican missionary societysurveyed the rectors of the island's elevenparishes. Twenty questions were asked relatingto religious matters, including: "In what places

are slaves usually interred?" In their replies,most of the ministers simply responded in termsof baptized slaves, noting, for example, thatthey were "usually interred in the church andchapel yards" or "frequently interred in theburial ground attached to the parish church."Although these ministers implied thatnonbaptized slaves were buried elsewhere, theydid not explicitly mention such slaves.

The burial areas of nonbaptized slaves,however, is indicated in several otherministerial replies, all of which provideunequivocal evidence for the existence ofplantation cemeteries. The rector of St.Michael, for example, noted how "slaves arealways interred in places set apart for thatpurpose on each plantation" while St. Joseph'srector reported "slaves are usually interred intheir burial-places on the estates." "On theplantations to which they belong," answeredthe rector of St. Lucy, and his colleague from St.Andrew specified, in what could fairlysummarize the island-wide picture, "someslaves [i.e., those baptized] are interred in theparish church-yard, others in their usualburying places on the estates." Although thenumber of baptized slaves had significantlybegun to increase by 1828, they still constituted aminority of the slave population; and, indeed,considering the almost two centuries of slaverypreceding the ministerial replies, baptizedslaves were very few in number (Society for theConversion 1829; our italics).

Another, albeit more indirect, piece ofevidence concerning the existence of plantationslave cemeteries derives from the ConsolidatedSlave Act of 1826, the result of a majorlegislative effort to modernize and reformBarbados' slave laws. One of its many clausesprohibits plantation managements fromallowing "the funeral of any slave within suchplantation .. . after the hour of seven o'clock atnight, or any heathenish or idolatrous music,singing, or ceremonies on any such occasion" (AnAct to Repeal Several Acts 1826-27: Clause 9 ).

Historical evidence shows that from asearly as the seventeenth century, plantationshad burial grounds, but there are no historicaldata on the factors that determined theirlocations. Historical evidence, as noted above,indicates that slaves preferred burial places to

be close to their dwellings; and the location ofNewton cemetery supports this evidence.However, although plantation managementsclearly had final authority in locatingcemeteries, it is unknown how much, if any, theyallowed slave participation in making the finalchoices. Moreover with one, albeit weak,exception (a vague reference to Edgecombeplantation in 1817 a lia_the-location---of •"common burial place" in "a bottom containing apond, trees & bamboos" [Society for theImprovement 1811-16: 431), the historicalevidence does not indicate where the "usualburying places" were actually located on anygiven plantation, or if plantations followed acommon pattern in situating their burial sites.That is, historical sources are silent about thespecific location of plantation cemeteries: thereare no known maps or other documentaryevidence showing or describing the location of aplantation cemetery on any specific plantation,although a few sources suggest an area in thegeneral vicinity of the slave village-( BarbadosCouncil 1789; Parry 1789:17; Society for theImprovement 1811-16:43; even Newton lackshistorical evidence, including a plantation map,for the presence of the cemetery whose existencewas so clearly demonstrated archaeologically).

Occasional information supplied byBarbadiah informants also supports historicaldata indicating the former existence ofplantation cemeteries; yet, such information isgenerally weak and nonconclusive with respectto the specific location of these cemeteries.Newton is the only case wherein oral evidenceactually located a cemetery on a particularplantation; in chapter 6 we describe the feworal reports that suggested cemetery locations onindividual plantations.

The Newton Cemetery Area

Lacking historical or other data onspecific slave cemeteries, only Newton providesa concrete idea of how such cemeteries mighthave looked. Briefly, the Newton cemeteryarea (in the early 1970s as well as the summer of1987) is in an uncultivated belt of heavy pasturesurrounded by fields of sugar cane, and is locatedclose to the site of the former slave village.Because of its shallow soil, the pasture wasapparently one of the few plantation areas thathad never been cultivated or plowed. The

The difficulty of locating slavecemeteries on specific plantations is increasedbecause they were apparently unmarked.Negative historical data is supported by theNewton cemetery research, surface observationson contemporary Barbados plantations, andoccasional oral evidence-- all of which indicatethat slave graveyards lacked fences,

, or other readily observablefeatures. In brief, in Barbados today obviousland surface indications of slave cemeteriesappear to be lacking. Although the Newtonexperience indicates that earthen and stonemounds were occasionally constructed overburial sites (Handler and Lange 1978: 104-117),the heavy grass cover on noncultivated fieldsmakes surface observations of such moundsdifficult. Because of this grass cover, withoutexcavation it is impossible to distinguishbetween what may have been burial mounds andother, much more common, mounds that actuallymay be piles of stone removed from neighboringcultivated fields. (In 1972, Newton's retiredmanager reported that during his management[1932-1964] "the outlines of graves [i.e., mounds]were easily visible when the grass on the hillhad been cut" [F.W. Lange, field notes, January-February 1972].)

In summary, no documentary, oral, orphysical evidence specifically locates a slavecemetery on any given plantation. At the sametime, some historical evidence on plantationburial practices suggests, and the location ofNewton cemetery indicates, that graves werelocated in the vicinity of the slave village, ifnot within the village itself.

pasture includes a rise in slope of approximately8 m. The bottom of the slope is relatively flatand most mortuary activity was evident in thisarea. The slope becomes more pronouncedtoward the top of the pasture where it joins ashort, abrupt ridgeline that borders a fieldplanted in sugar cane (Plate 1; cf. Handler andLange 1978: Figures 4,8 ).

16 Chapter Three

Chapter 4Plantation Fields: Naming Practices, and

the Negro Yard and Graveyard Fields

contained several low mounds initiallyappearing as slight undulations on the densegrass surface. All the mounds were covered withthe same thick grass found elsewhere in thecemetery. Some of these mounds were barelyvisible and easily could have been mistaken fornatural features of the terrain; yet, some turnedout to contain burials while other distinct lowmounds elsewhere in the pasture were simplyheaps of rock collected from neighboringcultivated fields. Nonmound burials were oftenplaced between coral limestone outcroppings andmost were relatively close to the surface. Forexample, in a burial complex containing 17skeletons, 5 were found virtually at the surface(less than 5 cm below ground level) while thedepth of the remainder averaged 48 cm -- thedeepest was between 62 to 65 cm (Handler andLange 1978: 105-108, 118, 123).

It was fully expected that the slavecemeteries sought during 1987 would share someof Newton's major physical characteristics:

they would be on relatively slopinguncultivated fields, largely unsuitable for canecultivation because of their shallow soils; andthey probably would be in pasture areas withthick grass covers. Most importantly, theseareas would be relatively close to the formerslave villages.

Since no direct historical or—oralinformation identified a slave cemetery on aspecific plantation, a strategy had to be devisedfor discovering plantations where a highlikelihood existed of finding such a cemetery.Establishing the present location of formerslave village sites, then, became the first stepin trying to locate possible cemetery areas. Thesecond step, once the approximate site of theslave village had been found, involveddiscovering nearby plantation areas whosesurface physical features resembled those atNewton cemetery.

Field Names

In describing the procedures for locatings ave vi age sites, some c aracteristics oplantation field naming practices should be firstunderstood.

From early in Barbados' history,plantations divided their arable acreage intofields of varying sizes. In 1796, for example,Newton's fields ranged from 1 to 18 acres,averaging close to 10 acres, while in the early1970s its fields averaged close to 7 acres(Handler and Lange 1978: 43-45). In general,plantation fields today can range from 1 acre or2 to as much as 18 to 20; the average, however,seems to be around 6 or 7.

Today, as in the past, fields are named.Names usually derive from former landholdersor residents in the vicinity of the plantation(e.g., Johnson field, Nat Trotman field, Ben Jonesfield), or agricultural, physical, or culturalfeatures that formerly/presently were/arefound on the plantation (e.g., Cherry Tree field,Clay Pond field, Garden field, Gravel Hillfield, Horse Pond field, Lime Kiln field,Orchard field, Lower Gate field, Vault field).

Negro Yard Field

The ages of field names and fieldacreages on a given plantation can vary a greatdeal, and over the years both may havechanged. For example, in earlier timesplantations depended on livestock and thusneeded fodder, one reason why otherwise arablelands were kept in pasture; as dependency onlivestock decreased, pastures were converted tosugar cane, and, thus, new fields were createdand given new names (Chandler 1968:134).Although it is often difficult to obtainhistorical (literary or oral) information onparticular fields, many field names today seemto have existed for a very long time, even wellinto the slave period ( Chandler 1968;Cruickshank 1935; Old Plantation 1940). Onesuch name is "Negro Yard" or "Nigger Yard,"the latter still being used today by some olderblack and white Barbadians. During the slaveperiod, Negro Yard referred to the plantationarea containing the slave village, althoughmost Barbadians today are unaware of theorigins of this field name.

As a slave village, the Negro Yardseems to have been universally located in thevicinity of, and often adjacent to, the plantationyard, or Mill Yard. The Mill Yard was theplantation's core area. It encompassed theowner's or manager's house (the "mansionhouse"), the sugar mill (which was a windmillfor most of the slave period), boiling house, andvarious other buildings connected withplantation operations, such as stables, storagesheds, blacksmith's shop. After emancipationin 1834, the slave villages were removed (thetemporal process varying from plantation toplantation) from their original locations nearthe Mill Yards, and the villages of the ex-slaves were established at the peripheries ofplantations. The former village sites, or parts

of them, were usually converted to agriculturaluse, but they continued to be called Negro Yards.

Ethnographic fieldwork and a study ofmodern or reasonably modern plantation mapsshow that quite a few plantations in Barbadostoday retain the field name Negro Yard; in fact,it is among the more common names found onmodern plantations (Chandler 1968:135). Evenif a Negro Yard, no longer exists, one canoccasionally find an elderly or retired manageror worker who remembers which of the currentplantation fields was formerly called NegroYard. Visual inspection of plantations withNegro Yards, as reported by informants, or anexamination of modern plantation maps withfield names (see, for example, Figures 2, 5, 8, 12;

17

Plantation Fields: Naming Practices, and the Negro Yard and Graveyard Fields 19

cf. Handler and Lange 1978: 47-48), show thatthe Negro Yard, as might be predicted from thehistorical evidence in general, is invariablylocated very close to, or adjoining, the MillYard-- indicating the general area where theslave village once had been located; today theNegro Yard field is usually planted in sugarcane. 2

Graveyard is another field name whichseemed to offer a very promising lead for findinga cemetery, but its meaning remains ambiguous.In 1935, J. Graham Cruickshank (1935: 166), thefirst writer to draw attention to the potentialthat field names had for reconstructingplantation histories, briefly observed, withoutprOiding supporting data, that Barbados' fieldnames included "many Graveyards." And in1983, during casual and independentconversations with two Barbadian historians,knowledgeable about plantation conditions, theProject Director was told that Graveyard fieldswere common on contemporary plantations. Yet,it has been difficult to find this name in, forexample, the published literature andmanuscript lists of plantation field names, or onplantation maps. Moreover, the general absenceof information in such sources confirms theconclusion reached after ethnographic fieldinvestigations of a number of sugar plantations(chapter 5): as a field name, Graveyard isapparently not very common, and is certainlymuch rarer than the Negro Yard field.

But whereas the historical meaning ofNegro Yard is clear, the meaning of Graveyardis uncertain, despite its seemingly obviousassociation with burials. Cruickshank(1935:166) reported that "sometimes, leadencoffins have been dug" from the Graveyardfields. Since nonvault burials occasionally tookplace on plantations, especially in the earlyperiods, it is not implausible that old coffinswould have come to light over the years. In anycase, lead coffins would have been confined towhites; it is highly unlikely that slaves everwere buried in them, although occasionallythey were buried in wooden ones (Handler andLange 1978).

Thus, the present location of aplantation's Negro Yard field offers the firstclue in searching for that plantation's cemetery.The underlying assumption derives from generalhistorical evidence in conjunction with thefindings at Newton: the cemetery would be inthe vicinity of the Negro Yard.

Whatever the case, historicalinformation on Graveyard fields is lacking andit is unknown if these field names existed duringthe slave period. Cruickshank (1935:166) alsoexperienced this problem over five decades ago.Asking himself "How far back do these (field)names go?" he replied: "The oldest inhabitantsnow cannot remember . . . when human beingswere buried in that deep black soil." Inaddition, when the Project Director askedinformants why a field is called Graveyard,they could not illuminate the issue and weregenerally vague in their responses. Mostinformants specifically queried by the ProjectDirector on this point simply replied that theywere unaware why a Graveyard field was sonamed. (J. D. Chandler, a prominent Barbadosplanter and student of field names, made asimilar observation over 45 years ago, alsoconfirming the weakness of oral traditions incertain matters. In trying to ascertain whyvarious fields bear particular names, Chandler[1968: 1341 notes how it "is very difficult todiscover the facts. If one asks the oldestlabourers on an estate they say that 'they werecalled so since they could remember'- no logicalreason can be given.")

Some informants speculated thatGraveyard field received its name because ithad once contained a "vault" or tomb of a whiteplanter family. Although no present archaeo-logical or physical evidence substantiates thisreasoning, it might be supported byCruickshank's above-quoted observation on theoccasional discovery of lead coffins inGraveyard fields (in our experience however, afield with such a burial spot is called Vaultfield). Other informants suggested that the"old time people" (race unspecified) had beenburied in Graveyard fields. However, suchinformants could not provide any substantive

support for their opinions, such as directknowledge that human remains had been found,or an oral tradition they had heard. Perhapssome of these Graveyard fields were associatedwith the 1854 cholera epidemic, although thefield name Cholera, which is not uncommon, is amore explicit indicator of function (Chandler1968:134; see also Appendix A).

A few informants opined thatGraveyard fields are named such because in the"old days" animals (e.g., cows, horses, draftoxen) were buried in them. Once again, suchinformants could not provide direct or hearsayevidence for the actual discovery of bones, or anoral tradition on the plantation. Othersemphatically denied that plantation animalswere buried in only one plantation locale; they

maintained that animals were buried all over aplantation, wherever the soil was sufficientlydeep to prevent carcasses from being easilyexhumed by dogs. (The relatively deep burialof human beings to prevent such exhumation alsomight have been a factor in slave burials; seechapter 7.)

In general, whatever its historical orcultural meaning, because the name Graveyardseemed to offer promise for human burials, thequest for plantations with Negro Yard fieldsalso included a search for Graveyard fields.(The two plantations investigated in 1987 withGraveyard fields yielded no evidence toilluminate this issue; see chapters 6 and 7,Malvern and Bissex-Parks.)

18 Chapter 4

Chapter 5Searching for Cemeteries Before the 1987 Season

One might assume that on an island as during the 1970s and 1980s the Project Director'ssmall as Barbados, with its long period of continuing historical research into Barbadosslavery and large slave population, and with a slavery has yielded no maps or otherhigh population density and intensive documentary evidence identifying a plantationettltivatiorr-gning Ull foi centuries., plantation-----burial ground, nor any significant literaryslave cemeteries would be widely known andreadily identifiable. This, however, is far fromthe case: Newton was not only the first slavecemetery to be known in Barbados, but to thisday, despite a variety of research efforts, itcontinues to be the only one.

Since the early 1970s and the work atNewton, the slave cemetery has received wideand favorable publicity in Barbados (throughnewspaper and magazine articles, government-sponsored television programs, radiointerviews, and public lectures). Yet, no otherplantation cemeteries had been brought to theProject Director's attention despite his inquiriesover an extended period of time. For example,although he continued to maintain contact withBarbadians who were connected with localhistorical studies or who were closelyassociated with the sugar industry, no one couldprovide indirect or direct knowledge of anyplantation slave cemetery. Also, in 1980, headvertised in the Journal of the BarbadosMuseum and Historical Society, mentioning hisinterest in continuing archaeologicalinvestigations that would build upon thefindings at Newton: "planters or othersintimately acquainted with Barbadianplantations" were asked for any informationconcerning "slave burial grounds on particularplantations." The ad elicited but one responseconcerning the discovery of some bones whileexcavating a house foundation, but no firminformation on a cemetery. In January 1986,Barbados' television station aired an interviewwith the Project Director and Dr. Henry Fraser,a well-known Barbadian physician. Theprogram focused on discoveries of lead poisoningamong Newton's slaves and miscellaneous issuesrelating to the cemetery. The program was seenby many and, from all accounts, was wellreceived. The audience was asked to bring anyknowledge of skeletal remains on plantationlands to the attention of the physician or ProjectDirector; no reports were received. Finally,

evidence that would help to specifically locatea cemetery on a particular plantation (as notedearlier, nothing in the large corpus of Newtonmanuscripts even indicates that the plantationhad a slave cemetery; its presence was onlyestablished through archaeology).

Over the years, the Project Director'swritten and oral inquiries concerning slavecemeteries tended to be informal, relativelynonsystematic, and sporadic. While inBarbados for one purpose or another, he mightask plantation personnel if they had ever foundany human bones or heard of anyone who hadfound such bones on plantation lands. Answerswere invariably in the negative. The attemptsto locate slave cemeteries on other plantationsin the years following the Newton excavationsyielded some information, but nothing definite.Not until two recent field trips did suchinquiries became more systematic, involvingmore concerted efforts to acquire informationthat might specifically locate cemeteries.

One three-month trip, from October 1983to January 1984 (funded by the Social ScienceResearch Council), was primarily devoted toother research interests, but some time wasgiven to locating cemeteries on certainplantations, selected because of their fairlywell documented histories. Although no burialgrounds were found, as a result of this work itincreasingly became apparent that findingcemeteries would be much more difficult thanthe Newton experience suggested; moreover, agreater field research effort would be needed inorder to adequately survey plantation lands andconduct interviews with workers andmanagers/owners.

Circumstances did not permit this idealfield situation to materialize, but about half ofa three-week trip to Barbados in December 1985and January 1986 (funded by the GraduateSchool of Southern Illinois University),

21

22 Chapter 5 Searching for Cemeteries Before the 1987 Season 23

involved searching for cemetery areas throughinterviews and documentary research. This tripalso failed to yield evidence for cemeteries. Butit further confirmed a gradually emergingrealization that aside from a chance finding ofsomeone with direct knowledge of a slavecemetery, the most productive approach wouldbe through archaeological exploration. Thetrip also established a few plantations wherethere appeared to be some likely mortuaryareas. A two-week trip in January 1987 alsofocused on related issues as well as publicrelations and logistical preparations for thearchaeological investigations that by now werescheduled to take place during the followingsummer.

The 1983-1984 and 1985-1986 field tripsinvolved visits to plantations, historicalresearch in the Barbados Department ofArchives, and informal interviews with localhistorians and present or retired plantationworkers and management personnel.

Several procedures were employed inattempting to locate cemetery areas. Forexample, review of earlier field notes causedrevisits to some of the plantations investigatedin the early 1970s. Their Negro Yards wererelocated and efforts were made to developleads that might have been missed or notpursued in earlier years. However, more timewas spent gathering information on newplantations. A common approach was to visitplantations where some firm historicalknowledge was already available, or a fairamount of historical documentation was knownto exist (also, plantations in differentgeographical zones were sought). For variousreasons, some of these plantations could not bevisited; others were visited, sometimes withintroductions beforehand to plantationmanagers or owners. If no introductions wereavailable, then efforts were made to establishcontact with someone on the plantation when itwas visited. Information was gathered onwhether the plantation had a Negro Yard orGraveyard field (if so, where these fields werelocated) and on field names in general; whetheranyone had knowledge of a plantation field orarea where the "old time people" were buried;if anyone knew someone, or had personalexperience himself, of finding bones or humanremains; and agricultural and other plantation

practices in modern times. Also sought were thenames and residences of the oldest current orretired workers or managers/owners who couldshed light on plantation customs and localtraditions in earlier years, especially duringthe pre-World War II period. Efforts weremade to visit such persons (the workers oftenlived in neighboring villages) and to elicit moreinformation. If the interviews yieldedpromising results, then certain plantation fieldswere visually explored looking for physicalclues suggestive of burial areas.

In a more casual fashion, while drivingaround the island to either visit friends orinformants, occasional impulse stops atplantations focused on meeting individuals whocould provide the types of informationdelineated above. If this information wasencouraging, efforts were made to establish thelocation of the Negro Yard/Graveyard fields,and obtain the name of the plantation manager(if the manager had not been spoken to on theinitial visit); arrangements would be made for alater visit when the relevant fields could bevisually inspected.

Leads provided by Barbadian friends oracquaintances who were knowledgeable aboutparticular plantations also were followed. Forexample, the owner or manager of oneplantation might relate that he knew ofanother plantation possessing a Negro Yard; orhe might offer the name of another owner ormanager who would have knowledge aboutcemetery locations; or, during an interview, aplantation manager might report that therewas a Negro Yard on a plantation he hadpreviously managed. Similarly, a retiredworker on one plantation could know someone inanother village who possessed knowledge abouta neighboring plantation.

In total, field trips yielded data on 36plantations. However, as indicated earlier, innot one case was there certain evidence for aslave cemetery. Thus, it was important todevelop other lines of inquiry that would offerevidence of plantations with likelypossibilities. All but 3 of the 36 plantationswere visited at least once, with sufficient timeto establish if the plantation had (or ever hadwithin living memory) a Negro Yard orGraveyard field. Fifteen plantations appeared

to have neither and were eliminated fromfurther research; of the remaining 21plantations, 19 had Negro Yards and 2 had bothNegro Yard and Graveyard fields ( Figure 1).Circumstances prevented visiting three of theplantations with only Negro Yards, but theother 18 with some archaeological researchpotential were visited.

On these visits, the fields wereinspected visually and available plantationpersonnel were interviewed. Invariably, asnoted earlier, the Negro Yards were locatedwhere previous experience would havepredicted their locations, that is, immediatelyadjacent to, or in proximity of, the Mill Yard.All of the Negro Yards were arable and, whenvisited, were usually in one stage or another ofsugar cane growth; sometimes various foodplants were intercropped among the newlygrowing cane. With the Negro Yard field as apoint of departure, the model developed fromNewton guided further observations. (It isimportant to reemphasize that prior to the 1987fieldwork, historical research had establishedNewton as a fairly typical Barbadosplantation. As a result, a major assumption ofearlier bioanthropological and archaeologicalanalyses was that the Newton findings could begeneralized to other Barbados plantations andslave contingents. This assumption also guidedthe search for new plantation cemeteries.)Areas adjacent to and 'surrounding the NegroYard were visually inspected. Emphasis wasplaced on searching for topographical featuressimilar to those at Newton cemetery, that is,sloping pastures with rock outcroppings andapparent shallow soils; and, despite the oftenthick grass cover in such areas, any surface signsthat suggested mounds (because of the grasscover, however, frequently there was little orno surface indications of mounds).

If a plantation contained promisingareas, interviews tried to establish if theseareas had ever experienced any kind ofagricultural activity and the nature of suchactivity; and if there was any , evidence for thediscovery of human bones in the fields.Discussions with local historians and researchin local library and archival facilitiesattempted to determine what secondaryhistorical information was already availableon the plantation. Also, primary source

materials were sought that might have helpedto reconstruct a plantation's history during theslave period.

Visual inspection of plantation fields,interviews, and documentary evidenceultimately suggested nine plantations: Bissex-Parks (counted as one), Four Hills, Guinea,

anson, operand, Malvern, St. NicholasAbbey, Stepney, and Yorkshire ( Figure 1 ).These offered (for sometimes different reasons)what appeared to be promising leads for furtherresearch, or strong possibilities that theycontained slave cemeteries which could bearchaeologically located. All nine had NegroYards and two also had Graveyards (a thirdGraveyard field was located during 1987, but toolate in the field season to explore; chapter 6,Lamberts). At least some known documentationexisted for all of the plantations, andpreliminary research had established that allhad histories extending into the early years ofslavery. All nine had uncultivated pastures notfar from their Negro Yards. Finally, as itturned out, the nine represented severalgeographical zones of Barbados, with varyinggeological and topographical features andrainfall patterns.

The original research strategy calledfor investigating from four to six of the mostpromising of the nine plantations, whereinterviews and surface observations hadidentified specific field areas that appeared toyield the greatest chance of finding physicalevidence for a cemetery. The actual number ofplantations to be investigated was to depend onthe specifics of field conditions as well as timeand financial constraints.

Ultimately, five plantations wereselected. All had features that were broadlysimilar to Newton, including relativelyshallow, rocky (hence uncultivated), slopingpastures not far from their Negro Yards. (As atNewton, it was expected that most burialswould probably be relatively shallow.) Eachhad additional specific characteristics,discussed in chapter 6, that influenced itsselection. The field situation itself was todetermine whether all five would be actuallyinvestigated and how much time would bedevoted to each. As the investigationprogressed no burials or evidence of a cemetery

24 Chapter 5Searching for Cemeteries Before the 1987 Season 25

was found, and, in the end, work took place at St. Nicholas Abbey, and Bissex-Parks ( Figurethe five plantations: Guinea, Malvern, Hanson, 1). BARBADOS:

RESEARCH AREASLamberts p

Bourbon-4/1 1987 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORKeald

eyn •••••"'".. .0 Castlee,

or

All,Hopeland..51-Y-

0 St. Nicholas ,:,"

....••"° Abbey ..; Morgan

PETER •Y

e Lewis

ST. SPEIGHTSTOWN Prospect 0 CI O Cleland

ii

o "NEGRO YARD" FIELDS PRESENT0 "NEGRO YARD" FIELDS ABSENTA NEWTON

**. SCOTLAND DISTRICT BORDER

Four HillsoRock Hall r

Mangrove o °•

ST. ANDREW

.....%O. Turner's Hall

: .0 'Parks• ".

Cambridge

ST. JAMES r•••

; .. •• •% •%

.o '

Lancaster i

0 1 2

Kilometers-4..

./ •ST. JOSEPH

., •

••,...1n4:.. a

. ... .,..% : .... Malvern...... .... . .... ..„. .....

ST. THOMAS

0 Vaucluse

•••

.

•*laybury ...**•••...A ST. ST. JOHN *"... \% ...

•

OneAasshford ,. ,...

Todd, 0 •. Guinea• 0 Thicket

•F

Drax Hallo .% 0 KendalST. GEORGE •

0 Halton

0 GroveStepney°

Hanson •0 Staple Grove

Brighton 0

A BoardedPHall

o Yorkshire i;hirce

wthers°Searles

CHRIST CHURCHA Newton

1. Barbados: plantation research areas