VERNACULARARCHITECTURE

NEWSLETTERNUMBER 122, WINTER 2009 PUBLISHED BY THE VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE FORUM

FEATURE

Measuring the Social, Spatial, andTemporal Dimensions of Virginia SlaveHousing

Douglas W. Sanford and Dennis J. Pogue

As scholars from a range of fields have increasinglyembraced the history of slaverv' in America as a focusof inquir)', and as the general public has become moreinvested in the issue as the result of publications,museum programming, and other oudets, questionspertaining to the conditions of the daily lives of slaveshave taken on greater sigxiificance. Central todeveloping a nuanced interpretation of the livingconditions experienced by the enslaved is anunderstanding of the size, layout, and qualit\ of thehousing afforded those individuals, and of how andwhy the characteristics of those structures appear tohave varied across time and space. The project,"Measuring the Social, Spatial, and TemporalDimensions of Virginia Slave Housing," was a two-year effort supported by a National Endowment forthe Humanities Collaborative Research grant (RZ-50619-06), that was aimed at contributing to theongoing study of this topic by compiling andanalyzing a corpus of data pertaining to slave housingin Virginia (Fig. 1).

While anthropologists, historians, architecturalhistorians, folklorists, and archaeologists all had madesignificant contributions to this work over the lastfour decades, the lack of a database of slave domesticstructures has rendered those interpretationsanecdotal at worst and statistically suspect at best.More specifically, while we know that patterns in thecharacteristics of slave housing existed, the abilit)- toexplore those patterns by framing larger comparative

Figure 1. The stone Areola slave quarter, Loudoun County;the two phases of the building's construction were dendro-dated to 1813 and 1845

questions has been hindered by the lack of consistentinformation. The goal of this project was to addressthose issues by carrying out the following tasks: (1)compiling an array of information on Virginia slavehousing from architectural, archaeological, anddocumentar)' sources; (2) generating new data byrecording a sample of extant buildings according tostandardized architectural information, interpredvefield notes, and photographs; (3) improving thetemporal framework for slave buildings by datingselected standing structures throughdendrochronology^ (tree-ring dating); and, (4) makingthe results and the various databases available toscholars and the public through a website hosted bythe Center for Historic Preservation at the Universityof Mary Washington, (continued on page 3)

IN THIS ISSUEFEATUREPRESIDENT'S COLUMNVAF NEWSMEMBERSHIP NEWS ^ ^ _ _ _OTHER NEWS _ ^BIBLIOGRAPHY

18

12161818

VAN 122 : WINTER 2009 1

(continued from page 1)

Gathering the extensive but often fragmentary andwidely dispersed information from previous studiesconstituted a particular priority, as this data wouldguide the subsequent investigations. Project staff andstudent researcbers examined scholarly treatments ofslave buildings, National Register fonns and files, andfield records compiled by researchers at regionalinstitutions and, most important, the architectural sitefiles housed at the Virginia Department of HistoricResources (DHR) in Richmond. A second majorsource consisted of architectural information fromarcbaeological excavations and surveys, primarilyderived from reports on file at the DHR. Finally,documentary records, particularly period tax data andcensus schedules, and fire insurance policies preparedby tbe Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia (from1796 to 1865), provided an additional source ofprimar)' evidence. Importandy, over half of theMutual Assurance buildings relate to urban slavehousing arrangements, a category' tbat architecturalhistorians and archaeologists, to date, have largelyneglected. While represented only by counts ratherthan architectural details, the United States Census forVirginia in 1860 recorded literally thousands of slavebuildings in association with individual owners andtheir variably sized slave holdings.

In reviewing records from past studies, it becameclear that the vast majority of standing structures hadbeen only minimally and inconsistendy documented.Our goal for improving this situation called fordeveloping a system tbat would require a higher levelof recording than typically has been carried out duringpreliminar)' or reconnais sanee-level architecturalsurveys conducted as part of cultural resourcemanagement projects, but falling short of fullarchitectural documentation that may necessitatemultiple days of study and considerable expense. Weadapted an existing recording system and form thathad been developed by Willie Graham of the ColonialWilUamsburg Foundation and Fraser Neiman of theThomas Jefferson Foundation for use in catalogingexamples of earthfast architecture, mainly fromarchaeological sites (called the Database of EarlyChesapeake Architecture, or DEÇA). We proposed torecord a minimum of twelve slave buildings using therevised DEÇA form, capturing information about - -

building t)pes, construction form, architecturaldetails, and dating evidence.

Assigning dependable dates of construction for slavehouses is a particularly important objective forstud)'ing how these buildings developed and variedover time and space. Generally speaking, tightlydating old buildings is problematic at best, even withavailable documentar)- sources and diagnostictechnological and st)'listic characteristics. In the caseof slave houses, this exercise is particularlychallenging, as specific documentary evidence isgenerally lacking and the t)pically simple manner ofconstruction offers only a limited range of potentiallyhelpful metrics. VCTien this project was initiated only asingle Virginia slave house (Prestwould, inMecklenburg Count)') had been dated based ondendrochronological testing. In order to expand oursample and as a test to determine the efficacy of theapproach, we proposed to dendro-date at least eightadditional buildings (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Michael Worthington of the OxfordDendrochronological Laboratory taking a sample from arafter for dendro-dating, while Professor Gary Stanton ofthe University of Mary Washington records the location

Over the two-year span of the project we managed togather information on more than 900 structures. Thelargest portion consists of 355 extant buildings that

VAN 122 : WINTER 2009 3

had been previously identified (post-1965) as slavedomestic structures; these range across sixty-sixcounties and five cities. Another 124 buildings derivefrom archaeological sites, specifically more advancedexcavation projects that produced direct evidence ofslave dwellings. Less complete information is availablefor another 136 buildings generated from survey levelarchaeological investigations. Nearly 300 slavebuildings were recorded between 1796 and 1865 inthe fire insurance policies of the Mutual AssuranceSociet}' of Virginia, each with a sketch plan and detailssuch as dimensions, height (number of stories),material for roof and walls, and function (quarter,servant's dwelling, servant's lodging rooms, etc.).While not providing a perfect correlation of thenumber of occupants per building, the 1860 censusdata elucidates broader trends pertaining to the vexingquestion of how many slaves t}'pically occupied agiven structure. Considerable variation exists as to thedegree and quality of information per buildingcontained within the overall database, but the aboveexamples and counts are much larger than had existedbefore, and they constitute the first comprehensivecompilation of this kind.

As discussed in more detail in the project's finalreport, we now understand more of what we do anddo not know about slave housing in Virginia. As tosurviving buildings, they remain largely confined tothe antebeDum period, but with distinct temporal andregional variation. We lack more detailed informationfor the Shenandoah Valley, the western regions of thestate, and the Eastern Shore, whereas eastern andsoutheastern Virginia are relatively better represented.In terms of construction t\^es, more log buildingsseem to survive than was previously thought, as

compared to the better built quarters of stone, brick,and frame. Archaeologically, while researchers havefocused on the period between 1775 and 1825, tbeadditional data bas broadened the temporal array,extending back to the seventeenth century andforward to the middle of the nineteenth century.Archaeological sites provide repeated examples ofslave buildings of earthfast construction, a category ofbuilding type that does not survive today. Evidencefrom fire insurance policies and census dataunderscores that urban slavery regularly relied uponrental arrangements for slaves "hired out" and "livingout'" and reinforces the commonality of female-dominated households.

We proposed recording a minimum of twelve slavebuildings using the revised DEÇA form, but we havesignificantly exceeded that goal with thirty structuresrecorded to date. At the outset, we assumed that wewould further revise the recording system as ourexperience in documenting and interpreting slavebuildings improved, and this turned out to be thecase. In general, the changes increased clariti ' andcaptured more detailed information. It remains to beseen whether w e accomplished our goal of achievingthe greatest return for the amount of effort expended,and it is likely that the form will continue to berefined, but the fact that we were able to documentthirty buildings over a relatively brief period of timeseems to testify to the value of the approach. Thebuildings are distributed among twenty counties orcities, ranging as far to the east as Middlesex County,to Brunsuick County on the south, as far west asBedford County, and to Loudoun County on thenorth.

Table 1. Standing Structures Investigated

Building NameAreola IAreola IIBacon's CastleBen Lomond

Berr\' PlainClover HillFour SquareGreen Level Farm

County/CityLoudounLoudounSurryPrinceWilliamKing GeorgeManassasIsle of WightKing William

Construction FormatSronc _ DuplexStoneFrameStone

FrameStoneFrameBrick

DuplexDuplexDuplex

DuplexDuplexDuplexDuplex

Stories1 w/garret1 w/garret1.51 w/garret

1.51 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret

Comments

Heated garretNo int. accessto garretHeated garret

Heated garret

4 VAN 122 : WINTER 2009

Building NameHartlaníi

Howard's Neck BHoward's Neck CIc>' CHffLogan FarmMineral Springs IMineral Springs IIPresquisle I

Presquisle II

PrüdenSan ford-BurgessSanteeSheru'ood ForestSpring Hill ISpring Hill IITetlev ITetlev IITuckahoe ATuckahoe BTuckahoe DWalnut ValleyWilton

County/CityFauquier

GoochlandGoochlandBedfordIsle of WightBrunsu-ickBrunswickCulpeper

Culpeper

Isle of WightStaffordCarolineStaffordCulpeperCulpeperOrangeOrangeGoochlandGoociilandGoochlandSurr}^Middlesex

ConstructionLog

LogLogLogFrameFrameFrameBrick

Brick

FrameLogBrickFrameFrameFrameFrameLORFrameFrameFrameFrameFrame

Format

Duplex

DuplexDuplexDuplexDuplexSingleSingleDuplex

Duplex

DuplexSingleDuplexDuplexDuplexDuplexSingleSingleDuplexDuplexDuplexSingleDuplex

Stories1

1 w/garret1 w/garret1.51 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1

1

1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1 w/garret1

CommentsNo access toattic

Double penCellar

No access toatticNo access toatticCellar

No access toattic

The buildings investigated were selected according toa range of criteria, not least being reasonableproximity to Stafford and Prince William counties,home bases for the project's co-directors. As a result,the sample is hardly representative of the diversity ofslave houses to be found across the state. Forexample, sixteen of the structures are frame, with sixlog, four brick, and four stone. This appears todramatically under represent the log buildings thatdocumentar)' evidence indicates made up the mostcommon type of construction for slave houses inVirginia during the last half of the eighteenth centuryand the antebellum era. On the other hand, itundoubtedly over represents the better built slavehouses that were typically found near masters' homefarms. In addition, we made a conscious decision tofocus our efforts on bouses arranged as duplexesrather than on those comprising a single room, asduplexes seem to be more confidendy associated withslave occupation; of the thirty buildings, twenty-fourare duplexes.

Since the eight buildings that we successfully sampledand dated include three that were erected in twophases of construction, we wound up with that manyadditional dendro-dates. As it turned out, sa\'ings intesting costs would have allowed us to sample at leasttwo additional structures, if likely contenders couldhave been identified. However, restrictions on testingimposed by owners, combined with the poorcondition of the timbers found in several of thebuildings, reduced the number of viable candidates.Nevertheless, interpretive results far exceeded ourhopes. Adding a second eighteenth-century structure(Four Square, in Isle of Wight County, dated 1789and 1830), to the database is an unexpected coup,bolstering the information pro\'ided by Prest A'Ould (J1790, II 1840), the only other dated eighteenth-century slave building in Virginia. As such, the spanof time covered by the sample is roughly seventh-years, with ten of the eleven datable phases fallingwithin the period from 1813 to 1858. As this isprecisely the time period tbat we identified as

VAN 122 : WINTER 2009 5

particularly difficult for establishing constructionmajor advance in knowledge. On the other hand, thesample remains relatively small, and any analysisbased on these results must be viewed as tentative atbest. Finally, the preliminary findings clearly indicatethe value of dendrochronological testing for betterunderstanding temporal variation in constructionpractices, building technologies, and hardware(Fig. 3).

Figure 3. The frame quarter at Four Square plantation inIsle of Wight Count>' was erected in two phases, dendro-dated to 1789 and 1830

The dating evidence provides support for some earlierhypotheses pertaining to the character of slavehousing, while raising additional questions. The fourearliest buildings dated—Four Square I, Prestwould I,Areola I, and Walnut Valley—all exhibit hand-headednails in their original members, a manufacturingtechnique that was largely superseded in Virginia by

dates based on building fabric alone, this represents acirca 1830. The nails found in the other six buildings,and in the second phases of construction for the threeearliest quarters, all are machine headed, furtherreinforcing this temporal distinction. Wire woundnails, the next stage in the development of fasteners,are seldom found in secondary' Virginia buildings untilthe early years of the twentieth century, and in oursatnple they only were found associated with muchlater repairs and additions. Similarly, hand-hewn,pitsawn, and riven framing members predominate inthe early cabins, with sashsawing becoming moreprevalent over time. Somewhat surprisingly, testingalso revealed the earliest known Virginia example of acircular sawn member, a collar from the secondconstruction phase (1848) in the quarter at Bacon'sCasde.

The findings also support the observation made byDell Upton more than twenty years ago, that slavehousing varied remarkably both in size and quality. Inour sample of single-cell cabins, the range in the sizesof the rooms is remarkable, between 146 and 336square feet. No temporal pattern is evident, as one ofthe largest buildings (Four Square I) and one of thethree smallest (Prestwould I) have been dendro-datedto within a year of each other. The same generalresults pertain to the duplex structures with noapparent correlation between size and constructionmaterial, as cabins made of logs, frame, stone, andbrick all were found to range across the sizespectrum. Finally, proximit)' to the master's housedoes not seem to have been a primary determinant of

Table 2. Dendrochronologically Dated Buildings

Building NameFour Square 1Prest^x'ould I

Areola IWalnut VaUey

Bacon's Castle IFour Square IIBen LomondLogan Farm

Prestwould IIAreola U

Sherwood ForestBacon's Castle II

Spring Hill

CountyIsle of WightMecklenburg

LoudounSurr\'Sum'

Isle of WightPrince WilliamIsle of WightMecklenburg

LoudounStafford

SurrvCulpeper

ConstructionMaterial

FrameFrameStoneFrameFrameFrameStoneFrameFrameStoneFrameFrameFrame

DendxoDate1789179018131816182918301834183818401845184618481858

CommentsHand-headed nailsHand-headed nailsHand-headed nailsH and-headed nails

Heated garret

Reused timbers (1786)

Circular sawn rafters

6 VAN 122 : WINTER 2009

size, as several structures in that situation fall wellbelow the mean size. All of the buildings in oursample are located in relative proximity to the homehouse, and as expected, several, but not all, of thesecabins exhibit a mixture of more stylish architecturalcharacteristics and amenities such as plastered walls,higher ceilings, and glazed windows.

As this study developed, we soon realized that manymore slave-related buildings sunnved than waspreviously thought. That finding is the "good news,"and it represents a call to scholarly and public action,pardy for the positive gain of gathering moreinformation from a variety of geographic contexts. Asfor the "bad news," many of the extant structures arein seriously deteriorated condition and are underthreat of imminent destruction, including several thatwere recorded for this project In addition, we still donot know how many of the slave quarters recordedsince the 1960s remain standing. Generally speaking,these buildings are especially susceptible to significantchanges or damage from a wide range of factors—poor maintenance, neglect, natural deterioration, andpurposeful destruction. On the other hand, many willundergo either larger scale renovations into modernhousing or face rehabilitation for other uses, and thusthey will lose their integrity as original fabric is lost.Now is the time to act (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. The central fireplace mass and chimney in theFour Square quarter has almost completely fallen, and theentire structure is in imminent danger of collapse

Another message calls for preservation beyond thetraditional safeguarding of the physical record ofslavery. We also must encourage the greater public -interpretation of slave housing, of enslaved African "Americans, and of slavery—especially in contrast to

the pattern of preserved or restored slave houseswithin pristine landscapes obscuring the former harshreality of slave life and slave ownership. VCTiileaccommodating the various needs of current owners,we should actively interpret and, if possible, restoremore accurate landscapes of slave housing and slavelife. Descendants of enslaved African Americans havedifferent questions and challenging Nnews of suchplaces and buildings, perspectives that remind us ofthe issues of social and scholarly responsibilitysurrounding our research. Slave housing represents ashared, but still problematic American heritage with apalpable public and political context.

From the outset, the primary means of disseminatingthe information that we compiled was envisioned as awebsite. Freely available to scholarly and publicaudiences, the site would include the searchabledatabases of architectural, documentary,dendrochronological, and archaeological evidence,along with the full results of the DECA-basedHeldwork (forms, drawings, and digital photographs).In addition, the website would include the followingelements: (1) background information on the project'spurposes, methods, and staff; (2) a newly developedbibliography of references for slave housing inVirginia; (3) a searchable state map allowing websiteusers to determine the number of slave buildingswithin any municipalit)' (city or count) ) and link tofurther information on those individual structures: (4)links to relevant websites; (5) copies of conferencepapers or public presentations made by staff duringthe project's duration; and, (6) the final completionreport. To access this information, go to<www.slavehousing,org>.

A^uthors' acknoa'kdgements:Many people provided invaluable assistance to theproject. Most important, information on specificextant slave buildings and access granted to theproperties by owners were crucial to our success. Inaddition, many colleagues facilitated our research inthe holdings of libraries, the state historicpreservation office, historical or preservationorganizations, and in past compilations by otherresearchers. In addition to the authors, core projectstaff were Professors Gar\' Stanton and CarterHudgins, and students lisa Wilkerson and .\ndrewStempel, all with the University of Mar) Washington.Key advisors were Willie Graham, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation; Fraser Neiman, MonticeUo;

VAN 122 : WINTER 2009 7

Professor Louis Nelson, University of Virginia;Professor Phillip Morgan, Johns Hopkins University;and Professor Barbara Heath, Universit5' ofTennessee. Jim Groom, UMW, and Wayne Graham,now with the Universit)' of Virginia and formerly withthe College of William and Mar)', developed the betaand the final versions of the web page. Particularlyhelpful colleagues include Gardiner Hallock andCarolyne Keen, who were instrumental in gaining ouraccess to some simply wonderful buildings inAlbemarle and Isle of Wight Counties, respectively.The dendrochronological investigations wereconducted by Dan Miles and Michael Worthington,with the Oxford Dendrochronological Laboratory.

Douglas W. Sanford is Chair of the Départaient of HistoricPreservation and Professor of Historic Preservation at theUniversity of Mary Washington. Among his professional

publications is "The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery inPiedmont Vir^nia: Context and Process" in the HistoricalArchaeology of the Chesapeake. His doctoral thesis was"The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery at Thomas jeßerson'sMonticello: Context and Process in an American SlaveSodety. " Dennis]. Pogue is Associate Director and Direäor ofPreservation at Historic Mount Vemon. An archaeologist, hehas conducted extensive research into and published mdelyabout slave life at Mount Vemon.

Recording a Virginia Slave House or theBusman's Holiday

VCTien not recording slave housing with Drs. Pogueand Sanford under the auspices of the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, VAFers GaryStanton and Carter Hudgins sometimes head offand...record a slave house. The Fredericksburg FreeLance-Star reported in late September on their visit toa slave cabin in Caroline County, VA. Tbe article, byEdie Gross, evokes the life of the cabin, itsinhabitants, and the amateur archaeologist who ownsit: "The weathered cabin with the stone chimneyregularly coughs up pieces of its past. A blue glassslave bead. A Civil War-era pipe. Kitchen utensils. Asilver wedding band. Porcelain doorknobs. RichardMoter carefully collects each offering, cataloging anddating the items as best he can. Here's a Navy button,dating to tbe 1870s, that he scraped from inside thechimney. And a bottle of cologne he pulled fromunder the front step, probably from the 1890s.

There's a silk stocking from beneath the fioorboards.And an e ^ beater found in the wall. And a pewtercameo discovered near the cistern. There's a lot ofhistor)- here,' said Moter, 44, the caretaker of thecabin, which stands on his family's Woodfordpropert)% *A lot of these sites have been destroyed byloggers and landowners. I'm in here just tr)ing topiece together the story."' The article also includes thefollowing photographs of fieldwork in action.

Gary Stanton ^>v- ÍÍK cun>ULiction of the Moterfamily's slave house (source: Fredericksburg.com)

Carter Hudgins in the atdc (source:Fredericksburg, com)

PRESIDENT'S COLUMN

On November 14th the Board convened in Chicagofor our semi-annual meeting. There, among otherthings, we discussed changes to our by-laws, whichwere last amended over seven years ago. In that time,various changes have occurred that warrant proposingamendments to be voted on by the full membership.While none of tbe proposed changes are major—andmost are bringing the by-laws in line with changes to

8 VAN 122 : WINTER 2009