Introduction
Archaeology and Slavery at Mount Vernon
"Mount Vernon and Beyond"
Notes
Table 1, Artifacts Recovered From the House for Families Cellar
Table 2, Ceramics From the House for Families Cellar
Table 3, Faunal Remains from the House for Families
Introduction
As was generally the case at large agricultural enterprises throughout the American South during the 18th century, the labor of enslaved Africans was the engine driving the complex, multi-functioning system that was George Washington's Mount Vernon plantation. Archaeological excavations at the site of the "House for Families," the main slave dwelling located at the Washingtons' "Mansion House Farm," have yielded a rich assemblage of domestic artifacts and food remains associated with the house servants and craftspeople that lived there. By analyzing the material record of this under documented group it has been possible to add to the developing picture of daily life that this segment of the Mount Vernon slave community experienced. This essay will relate those insights, as well as illustrate the challenges inherent in interpreting the archaeological record of slavery in 18th-century America.
The House for Families was a large frame building that up until 1793 served as the main slave quarter at the Mount Vernon home farm. Its location on the north lane of outbuildings, situated directly across from the blacksmith's shop, is depicted on a plan of the estate (see below) drawn by Samuel Vaughan,
|
| Plan of the Mount Vernon Estate, Samuel Vaughan, 1787, with the former House For Families indicated inside the red rectangle. |
an admirer of General Washington's, after he visited Mount Vernon in 1787. There is no record of its construction during George Washington's ownership of Mount Vernon. Therefore, it is possible that Lawrence, George Washington's older brother, erected this quarter after acquiring the plantation in 1743 from their father, Augustine. Lawrence owned the plantation until his death in 1752. This quarter housed the majority of the slaves living at the Mansion House Farm, one of five farms that together comprised the approximately 8000-acre Mount Vernon plantation. 1
A painting attributed to Edward Savage (ca. 1792), is the only surviving contemporary depiction of the House for Families. In the painting (see below) it appears to be a substantial building, two stories in height, at least six bays in length, and with chimneys in each gable. That it was frame is indicated by a reference to reusing the "old plank ripped off the old Quarter" for weather board on a "Necessary" being built to accommodate the inhabitants of the "New Quarter". Virtually no other evidence pertaining to the earlier quarter is available2.
|
| View of the Mount Vernon Estate, seen from the northeast, Edward Savage, 1792, with the former House For Families indicated inside the red rectangle. |
The House for Families was demolished in the winter of 1792-93, when the slaves moved into new quarters located in one-story wings attached to either side of the nearby greenhouse. Archaeological excavations revealed the remnant of a small (six-foot-square), brick-lined cellar located within the conjectured limits of the footprint of the structure. Using the location of the cellar as a starting point, it is possible to estimate the size of the building. The cellar is oriented square with the quarter as it is depicted in the Savage view. Measuring from the far wall of the cellar to the east gable wall of the reconstructed new quarter indicates that the old quarter was at least 55 feet in length. Once again, by measuring from a line extending from the corner of the new quarter to a point that incorporates the cellar within the building, the width would be at least 35 feet. At 1,925 square feet per floor, the building would have had almost 4,000 gross square feet of space.3
|
| The site of the former House For Families. |
While these dimensions make it an unusually large slave quarter, at least by the standards of mid-18th-century Virginia, it is unlikely that all of the 67 slaves known to have been in residence at the Mansion House farm in 1786 could have lived in this space. Other, apparently smaller cabins are known to have been located nearby, as a visitor in 1795 noted that "the cabins for the slaves" were arranged in a group situated north of the Mansion in the general vicinity of the new quarter. While this visitor was observing the conditions as they existed a few years after the House for Families had been replaced by the new quarter, it seems likely that additional slave cabins to complement the main quarter were a long-term necessity.4
Back to top
The 67 slaves living at the Mansion House Farm performed a wide variety of duties that supported the Washington household as well as the broader activities of the entire plantation. These duties included serving as house servants, but also as blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, coopers, gardeners, and spinners and weavers. Most of the remaining slaves were field hands working under the direction of overseers at the four outlying farms. 5
The cellar served as a handy trash receptacle once it ceased to be used in its original storage function, and it has yielded an extremely rich assemblage of domestic refuse. The household items recovered include a wide variety of ceramics, table glass, table utensils, wine bottles, tools, and personal items such as tobacco pipes, buttons and buckles, and the like. The cellar was filled with refuse over a span of many years and was finally capped with structural debris when the building was demolished. At a preliminary level of analysis, little in this assemblage provides even a hint that those who discarded the objects were African-American slaves rather than a relatively prosperous planter family (Table 1). 6
One unusual and suggestive artifact was recovered that represents Mount Vernon's best candidate for an object reflecting an African cultural tradition. This is the baculum (penis bone) of a raccoon, which has been modified by incising a line encircling one end. Only a few raccoon elements are included among the 25,000 bones recovered from the cellar. The bone therefore seems to have served a special function, possibly as some sort of ceremonial device or decorative item. Raccoon bacula are relatively large (from 93 to 111 millimeters) and distinctively curved, and the male raccoon is known to be sexually aggressive. The combination of these characteristics suggests its selection as a fertility symbol suspended around the neck. Such a practice need not be viewed as particularly African, however, as similarly modified bacula have been excavated from numerous prehistoric Native American sites and therefore it seems more likely to reflect a pancultural folk practice.7
The generally high quality of the domestic materials provides additional evidence that slaves living near the planter's household benefited from that proximity by receiving items second hand. Obviously, this alone does not mean that their daily life was any less onerous. The slaves living at the Mansion House Farm were generally more skilled and performed more valued tasks than did the field hands, however, and as a result may well have enjoyed higher status. Such appears to have been the case in the South generally, and abundant documentary evidence supports that interpretation at Mount Vernon.8
Perhaps the best example of preferential treatment by the Washingtons toward an individual slave is that of the cook, Hercules. While serving the presidential household in Philadelphia, he was allowed to sell leftover foodstuffs, from which he realized a profit of up to $200 annually. With this income he was able to purchase such items as fine clothes, a cane, a watch, and ornate shoe buckles. Ironically, in 1797, while still in Philadelphia, Hercules ran away rather than return with the family to Mount Vernon as planned at the end of the President's second term. Neither Hercules nor his family, at least one daughter of whom remained behind in servitude, apparently had any second thoughts about his decision, even though the cook arguably occupied the highest status of any of the Washingtons' slaves, being held in high regard by both his fellow slaves and his master. This circumstance is a reminder that too much significance may be given to relatively comfortable material conditions. Hercules was, after all, a slave, and the fact that he wore fine shoe buckles and expensive clothing did nothing to change that fact.9
Other items recovered from the cellar seem to reflect the occupation of many of the slaves who lived at the quarter, namely domestic servitude in the Washington household. In particular, the many buttons (30) and shoe buckles (11) suggest the type of apparel worn by the male slaves who served in the Mansion. Of the 30 buttons, 18 are in sizes typically associated with men's coats and waistcoats. The shoe buckles include two that have a relatively intricate molded decoration, one of which still retains portions of a decorative silver wash. Other clothing items include two shirt studs, at least one pair of cufflinks, five glass discs that might be cufflink inserts, and two copper alloy watch fobs. Whether or not any of these objects were purchased specifically for the use of the slaves is difficult to ascertain. Washington did order buttons specifically to outfit his house servants, and several of the white metal buttons recovered fit the description of some of the buttons purchased for their use. Finally, theft may explain the presence of some objects in the cellar, especially the small decorative items like the watch fobs and cufflinks.10
Glass beads, another category of artifact found in significant numbers (49), also are related to personal adornment. Seven of the beads (14.2%) are blue in color and the preference for blue beads has been hypothesized as an African cultural survival. Blue beads seem to have been used widely in Africa, and they have been recovered in some quantities from American sites associated with slaves. This association requires further testing, however, as beads are commonly found at 18th-century Anglo-American sites as well, and the color blue is ubiquitous. For example, of a sample of 366 glass beads deriving from five Potomac River sites spanning the period from 1638 to 1730, 78% are either blue or blue with white stripes.11
The detailed analysis of patterns within the ceramic assemblage supports the inference that the tablewares at least were passed down from the Washingtons to the slaves when those items had fallen out of fashion. The most common ceramic type recovered is English white salt-glazed stoneware, popular both in England and America from the 1720s until the late 1760s (Table 2). The earliest documented occasion of George Washington's ordering stoneware for use at Mount Vernon dates to 1757. Its popularity declined rapidly with the introduction in 1762 of a new tableware, Josiah Wedgwood's creamware. As an example of George Washington's desire to keep current with the newest fashion trends, in July 1769 he was one of the first in America to order a full setting (250 pieces) of the new ware. The shipment reached Virginia a year later and creamware appears to have quickly replaced white salt-glazed stoneware on the Washingtons' table.12
Back to top
While both white salt-glazed stoneware and creamware were recovered from the cellar, the stoneware accounts for 28 percent of the ceramic fragments found, while creamware makes up only 8 percent. Moreover, the stoneware represents numerous vessels (25) and a variety of vessel types--tea cups and saucers, mugs, small bowls, and chamber pots, in addition to plates. This volume and diversity suggests that the Washingtons passed the stoneware down to the quarter as a group, instead of individually as damaged pieces.
The detailed studies of ceramics and food remains have been particularly rewarding modes of analysis. Patterns in the types of ceramic vessels used by slaves, and in the diversity and the quality of slave diet, were first identified by several pioneering studies in the 1970s and were hypothesized as indicative of the relatively impoverished economic condition and the dependent status inherent in slavery. Over the intervening years, considerable additional evidence has been found to indicate that slaves used a relatively higher proportion of bowls than planter households, from which they apparently ate one-pot meals. Other evidence for the prevalence of such meals was provided by the presence of finely chopped animal bones, which also reflected generally poor cuts of meat. Another finding is that in general the diet of slaves was much more diverse than the stereotypical reliance on rations of pork and corn meal, supplemented by small amounts of vegetables grown in gardens.13
A total of 58 different animal species are represented in the House for Families collection of more than 25,000 faunal elements. George Washington operated a fishery on the nearby Potomac River as a commercial venture and, according to his writings, he also used a major portion of the annual catch as rations for his slaves. This is borne out by the archaeological record, as a large percentage (28.3%) of the bones recovered from the cellar fill are freshwater fish, primarily catfish, bass, and perch. The evidence from the cellar also indicates that Washington's slaves were able to augment their rations of fish, cornmeal, beef, and pork by hunting wild game, by fishing, and by raising chickens. In addition to cow and pig bones, which are easily the most numerous domestic species represented, bones of wild fowl such as quail, duck, goose, and turkey, wild animals such as deer, squirrel, rabbit, and opossum, as well as non-schooling fish such as pickerel, gar, and bluegill, have been recovered. Bones of young chickens and egg shells also were found (Table 3).14
On the other hand, while a remarkable diversity of animal types are represented, it is clear that the Mount Vernon slaves still depended on only a few species for the great majority of their food. These findings are consistent with dietary patterns found in virtually every faunal assemblage associated with slaves studied to date, indicating that beef and pork were the main meat sources. At Mount Vernon, beef provided 37.4% of the diet, with pork second at 24.6%, and fish third at 16.8%. Mutton (8.7%) and a large number of species of wild fowl (6.7%) and wild mammals (4.2%) added variety to the menu.15
While beef and pork have been identified as the two most important sources of meat in slave diets, the proportion of beef in the Mount Vernon assemblage is unusually high. This high percentage may reflect the elevated status enjoyed by the slaves living in the House for Families. On the other hand, it may be a characteristic of the diet for all of the slaves on the plantation, and thus could be a reflection of the relative affluence of George Washington and an idiosyncrasy of his provisioning system rather than a result of any special treatment of his servants and craftsmen. Unfortunately, until a comparable sample of faunal data associated with an outlying quarter becomes available for study it is not possible to address this issue further.16
Two interrelated questions raised by the presence of large numbers of bones from wild species pertain to the manner by which the slaves obtained the non-rationed food, and whether this activity was sanctioned by Washington and other planters. Gun parts have been found at many sites elsewhere that were occupied by slaves, and numerous lead shot and gun flints were recovered from the Mount Vernon cellar. This pattern is so widespread that there seems little doubt that the slaves were using the firearms themselves in hunting. That slaves sometimes hunted game for their master's table at Mount Vernon is well documented, but the number of bones from wild species found suggests that slaves in general had much more ready access to guns than has been believed. Obviously, some of the animals could have been trapped as well. The non-schooling fish may have been caught using hook and line.17
One of the rare contemporary accounts that refers to slave life at Mount Vernon is that of Julian Niemcewicz, a Polish visitor to the plantation in 1798: "A very small garden planted with vegetables was close by (the quarter), with 5 or 6 hens, each one leading ten to fifteen chickens. It is the only comfort that is permitted them [the slaves]; for they may not keep either ducks, geese, or pigs. They sell the poultry in Alexandria and procure for themselves a few amenities." There is no doubt that Niemcewicz was describing a quarter located at one of the outlying farms instead of at the Mansion House Farm, but his account supports the interpretation that slaves were able to supplement their rations and, more surprisingly, their income.18
As a result of the intensive analysis of the bone fragments, it also is possible to determine the size and age of the animal and the cut of meat. This information allows identification of the types of meals that were prepared, as well as provides some sense of the quality of the meat. As with other studies, numerous small fragments were recovered. Abundant evidence for what are traditionally identified as poor meat cuts--feet and heads and other less fleshy portions--also was found. But bones reflecting meatier, high quality cuts also were recovered in only slightly lower percentages. Thus, the Mount Vernon data suggest that the pattern of poor cuts of meat is too simplistic, and the recent findings from other African-American sites in the region and elsewhere seem to correlate with the evidence from the House for Families. On the other hand, the more desirable species of fish, such as sturgeon and smallmouth and largemouth bass, were not found and the fish that were recovered generally are small, weighing less than one pound.19
The prevalence of one-pot meals, with meat and vegetables cooked together, also has been identified as a strong West African cooking tradition, which the archaeological data suggest continued in America. One needs to be careful before characterizing this as an ethnic marker, however, as a functional cause also seems plausible. The preparation of stews is a likely tactic when confronted with meats of uneven quality and stews were also a staple of Anglo-American cuisine throughout this same period. 20
One artifact type that has been found to correlate to a degree with sites occupied by slaves is colonoware. This is a locally made, hand-built, low-fired and unglazed ceramic that has been recovered from 18th-century contexts in large quantities in South Carolina and in significant, if considerably fewer, numbers in Virginia. For many years it was assumed that this pottery was made by local Native Americans and either sold or traded to planters, or directly to slaves, for their use. Recent scholarship suggests that in South Carolina African Americans made much of the colonoware, and there seems to be no doubt that at least some of the colonoware in Virginia was made by slaves and/or free blacks.21
Back to top
The contrast between the European-made fine tablewares and the coarse, locally-made colonowares in the Mount Vernon assemblage is striking and begs explanation. The overwhelming majority--eight of the 11 vessels that are identifiable as to form--of the colonoware fragments are from the same vessel type, small undecorated bowls that seem more likely to have served in the consumption of food rather than in its preparation (Table 2). As the faunal and documentary evidence point to stews and other pottages as a common type of meal eaten by slaves, perhaps the presence of the colonoware bowls is related to the practice of eating such dishes from small individual bowls. Bowls made of the imported wares also appear in significant numbers in the cellar ceramic assemblage, with bowls making up 26.4% of all vessels. The presence of the colonoware bowls in addition to the bowls that had been handed down therefore may reflect the unusual importance placed on this type of vessel in this context.
As for the layout and use of the interiors of the slave quarters at Mount Vernon, unfortunately no descriptions of either the House for Families or the later quarter that replaced it are known to exist. But the size and floorplan of the second quarter, built of brick and consisting of four rooms each 35 x 20 feet in size, with one doorway serving each room, point to a communal living situation. Additional partitioning of the spaces to allow a measure of privacy for family units also could well have occurred. Based on the only surviving graphic depiction of the House for Families quarter--the painting from 1792--it also appears to have been a substantial building, at least two stories in height, and built of wood on a brick foundation. That between 40 and 50 slaves may have resided in this structure points to its also having been a communal residence, with several families and other people likely living together in each of the four to eight rooms such a structure could have accommodated.22
In contrast, the quarters located at the other, outlying farms seem to have been much smaller log "cabins," many of which are known to have been built by the slaves themselves. These structures were so insubstantial, in fact, that when George Washington embarked upon a general reorganization of the layout of the slave dwellings in the 1790s, several of the cabins were simply picked up and moved.23
The account by Niemcewicz mentioned above provides a remarkably graphic depiction of the domestic scene he observed at one of these outlying farms, which further suggests that the Mansion House Farm slaves may have been living more comfortably than their fellows: "We entered one of the cabins of the Blacks, for one can not call them by the name of houses. They are more miserable than the most miserable of the cottages of our peasants. The husband and wife sleep on a mean pallet, the children on the ground; a very bad fireplace, some utensils for cooking, but in the middle of this poverty some cups and a teapot." The reference to the tea wares is particularly interesting given the archaeological evidence of such ceramics recovered from the cellar.24
Niemcewicz was understandably appalled by his exposure to the American slave system, remarking that "General Washington treats his slaves far more humanely than do his fellow citizens of Virginia. Most of these gentlemen give to their Blacks only bread, water and blows." The latter observation undoubtedly was an overstatement but, based on documentary evidence, the treatment of slaves by their masters varied considerably from plantation to plantation depending on the economic position, the personal beliefs, and the idiosyncrasies of masters. The location and size of the plantation, the crops being grown and the labor system used, and the number of slaves in residence also were important factors affecting their treatment. Thus, important variation among domestic assemblages associated with slaves should be anticipated when slave quarters from the similarly varied contexts known to exist in the Colonial Chesapeake are excavated.25
Back to top
Based on this new evidence, our evolving picture of slave life at Mount Vernon suggests a less controlled existence than does the stereotypical view of slavery. The diet of the slaves living in the House for Families certainly was more diverse, and therefore probably was more healthful, than previously was believed. That the slaves were able to hunt, fish, raise poultry, and garden to supplement their food allotment, in turn, may imply some free time and more choice as to how they could spend that time. On the other hand, what appears more likely is that the slaves felt the need to augment their rations because of limitations in them that they perceived. At any rate, the greater diversity of slave diet and the ability of the slaves to raise, hunt, and gather additional food is a pattern that archaeologists have discovered at numerous other plantations throughout the South.26
Combining the archaeological findings with the documentary evidence also suggests that the practice of slavery at George Washington's plantation fits well with the overall picture of slavery in the Chesapeake that has emerged over the last decade. According to recent syntheses of the history of slavery in America, by the late 18th century the Chesapeake had emerged as a true slave society, with both a native-born master class and slave population. Although the Mount Vernon plantation was unusual in the region because of its relatively large size and correspondingly populous slave community, Washington's paternalistic attitude, the demographic stability of the slave population, and the strong familial and community ties that appear to have been forged as a result of the steady growth of the population by natural means, all seem characteristic of slavery in Virginia and Maryland.27
Given this profile, scholars have argued that by the end of the century, a new African-American culture was developing that saw the slow erosion of specific African cultural traits. Crucial to this development was the fact that the proportion of African-born slaves in the region declined precipitously throughout the century, making up only one-tenth of the population as early as the 1770s. As a consequence of this trend, the virtual absence of obviously African or African inspired objects recovered archaeologically no longer is surprising.28
One interpretation of the results of the recent research suggests that by the time of the American Revolution, white and black Virginians had developed a culture that was a merger of European and African traditions, that both blacks and whites held a mix of quasi-English and quasi-African values. Although clearly there is much evidence to support the view that the emerging American culture was fundamentally the product of the interaction of English, African, and Native American traditions, the assessment that "this thesis of cultural homogenization takes a legitimate point too far" seems appropriate. While heavily influenced by each other, it seems more likely that "black Southerners built a distinctive African-American culture based on their shared experiences under slavery and white Southerners built their own distinctive society based on their shared experiences with slavery." Thus, we should expect to find subtle but significant differences between Chesapeake slaves and slaves from other regions where conditions differed. This does in fact appear to be the interpretative pattern that is slowly evolving.29
One instructive comparative exercise is the contrast between the demographic characteristics and the archaeological records of 18th-century Virginia and South Carolina. Unlike in Virginia, the African population in South Carolina was in the majority as early as the 1720s and exceeded 60 percent for most of the century. In addition, the preponderance of slaves was concentrated in the low country parishes and was commonly divided into holdings numbering in the hundreds. In Virginia the proportion of the total population made up by slaves was much smaller, only 30% by 1720 and less than 40% in 1790, and the slaves were typically distributed in groupings of less than 50 individuals. Thus, the demographic conditions in South Carolina seem to have been much more conducive to retaining African traditions than seems to have been the case in Virginia. Since contact with whites was much more pervasive in Virginia, creolization at a relatively accelerated rate was more likely.30
Archaeologically, the differences between the two colonies are best illustrated thus far by comparing the colonoware found in Virginia with that from South Carolina. Distinct contrasts in the characteristics of the colonowares from the two colonies have been attributed to the fundamentally different demographic conditions. First of all, colonoware is found throughout the state and in much greater quantities in South Carolina, which indicates that the ware was in much wider use there. Second, South Carolina colonoware appears to have retained a much closer affinity to its presumed African precursors. This is evidenced by a greater variety of vessel forms and marked similarities between them and African vessels. Finally, based on the presence of apparent ritual symbols incised into the pots themselves, colonoware in the low country seems to have been vested with symbolic and ritualistic meanings that appear to be absent in Virginia.31
Back to top
As significant as the archaeological evidence retrieved from the cellar at the House for Families may be in interpreting the lifeways of the slaves who lived there, the fact remains that this evidence represents a minority of the bound inhabitants of Mount Vernon. More than two-thirds of Mount Vernon slaves lived in the dispersed quarters located at the four outlying farms. Moreover, the slaves at the home farm were overwhelmingly employed as house servants and craftsmen, in contrast with the field hands who lived at Dogue Run, Muddy Hole, Union, and River Farms. Until a similar sample of material culture associated with the field hands is excavated and analyzed, the picture of domestic life at Mount Vernon will remain incomplete. Unfortunately, so far the sites of those quarters have proven elusive, largely because of the highly developed character of the Mount Vernon neighborhood and the resulting disturbance of the sites by residential construction.32
Evidence for the daily lives of slaves in Virginia as a whole is similarly limited. To date, scarcely more than a score of slave domestic sites from 18th-century Virginia have been excavated, and the majority of those are home quarters associated with large plantations. The material culture associated with slaves living in what were the most common conditions of the period--at small to middling farms and plantations where fewer than five slaves worked alongside the planter family--remains almost completely unexamined. Further, as at Mount Vernon, even at the large plantations where home quarters have been studied, few if any outlying quarters have been excavated to provide a source of direct comparison.
Thus, the findings of the last two decades of archaeological research on the African presence in the American South must still be viewed as highly tentative. The variability of those results should no longer come as a surprise, however, given the important differences in the day-to-day experience among the slaves at Mount Vernon, in the Chesapeake, and in America as a whole. In this respect, the traditional dependence on ethnicity as an organizing device has been found to have significant limitations. Such a focus emphasizes the identification of distinct normative behaviors, instead of taking into account the fluctuating character of interpersonal relations both within the African-American community and between blacks and whites. Instead, a reconceptualization of the interaction of the two groups as a highly dynamic process seems to offer much greater promise for a better understanding of those relationships. 33
Dennis J. Pogue
Associate Director for Preservation
From the symposium, "Slavery in the Age of George Washington," held at Mount Vernon in 1994.
NOTES
1. The earliest known reference to this structure may be George Washington's note in 1761, that "lightning struck My Quarter and near 10 Negroes in it," Donald Jackson, editor, Dorothy Twohig, associate editor, The diaries of George Washington. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976-1979), 1:281; W. W. Abbott, et al., eds., The Papers of George Washington. Confederation Series. (Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1992-<1997>), 5:432-433; W.W. Abbot, et al, eds., The papers. Colonial series. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983-<1995 >, 1:234.
2. John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799 prepared under the direction of the United States George Washington Bicentennial Commission and published by authority of Congress [39 volumes] ([Washington, D.C. ]: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1944), 31:307-308.
3. Washington directed his plantation manager, Anthony Whiting, to remove the old quarter in a letter dated October 14, 1792, Writings, 32:182; Dennis J. Pogue and Esther C. White, "Summary Report on the 'House for Families' Slave Quarter Site (44Fx762/40-47), Mount Vernon Plantation, Mount Vernon, Virginia," Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 46 (1991): 189-206.
4. As the 18th century progressed, large communal quarters like the House for Families became increasingly more unusual, Philip D. Morgan, Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry (Chapel Hill: University Press of North Carolina, 1998), 103-110. Washington made a census of the Mount Vernon slave community in 1786, listing a total of 216 slaves on the plantation. Jackson and Twohig, The diaries, 4:277-279; Isaac Weld, Travels Through the States of North America, and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, During the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797, (2nd ed., London: J. Stockdale, 1799), 92.
5. Jackson and Twohig, The diaries, 4:277-284.
6. Pogue and White, "House for Families Slave Quarter," 189-206.
7. William H. Burt, Bacula of North American Mammals (Ann Arbor: Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 1960), 8; Bernhard Grzimek, ed., Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia (New York, 1984), 12:100-101; Richard E. Steams, "The Hughes Site: An Aboriginal Village Site on the Potomac River in Montgomery County, Maryland," Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Maryland 6 (1940), 12; Robert L. Stephenson and Alice L.L. Ferguson, "The Accokeek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence," University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 20 (1963), 166.
8. John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 250-251.
9. George Washington Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington (New York: Derby and Jackson, 1860), 423; Fitzpatrick, Writings, 37:578; Fritz Hirschfeld, George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997), 70-71.
10. Stephen Hinks, "A Structural and Functional Analysis of Eighteenth Century Buttons" (M.A. thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, 1988), 30 and 91. George Washington ordered buttons of several types, including "white mettal buttons best kind," for use on the livery of his house servants, Fitzpatrick, Writings, 37:443.
11. Theresa A. Singleton, "The Archaeology of Slave Life," in Before Freedom Came: African-American Life in the Antebellum South, to accompany an exhibition organized by the Museum of the Confederacy, edited by Edward D.C. Campbell Jr. and Kym S. Rice (Richmond: the Museum; Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991), 164; Linda France Stine, Melanie A. Cabak, and Mark D. Groover, "Blue Beads as African American Cultural Symbols," Historical Archaeology 30 (1996), 49-75; Henry M, Miller, Dennis J. Pogue, and Michael A. Smolek, "Beads from the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake," Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference, sponsored by the Arthur C. Parker Fund for Iroquois Research; general editor, Charles F. Hayes III; associate editors, Nancy Bolger, Karlis Karklins, Charles F. Wray. Rochester, N.Y. (657 E. Ave., Rochester 14603): Research Division, Rochester Museum & Science Center, 1983), 132-138.
12. Susan G. Detweiler, with prologue and epilogue written by Christine Meadows, George Washington's Chinaware (New York: Abrams, 1982), 23, 53-57; Ann Smart Martin, "'Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Latest Fashion Ware': The Creamware Revolution in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake," in Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, eds., (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1994), 174-177.
13. James Deetz, In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life (Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1977), 146-153; John S. Otto, "Race and Class on Antebellum Plantations," Archaeological perspectives on ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American culture history, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, (Farmingdale, N.Y.: Baywood Pub. Co., c1980), 3-13; Dennis J. Pogue and Esther C. White, "Reanalysis of Features and Artifacts Excavated at George Washington's Birthplace, Virginia," Archeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 49 (1994), 41-42; Sam B. Hilliard, "Hog Meat and Cornpone: Foodways in the Antebellum South," in Material Life in America, 1600-1860, edited by Robert B. St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, c1988), 311-332.
14. Joanne Bowen, "Faunal Remains from the House for Families Cellar" (Ms. on file, Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, 1993), 9-22; Stephen C. Atkins, "An Archaeological Perspective on the African-American Slave Diet at Mount Vernon's House for Families" (M.A. thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, 1994); James Wharton, "Washington's Fisheries at Mount Vernon," Commonwealth (1952), 11-13, 44.
15. Bowen, "Faunal Remains from the House for Families Cellar," 9-22; Bowen, "Faunal Remains and Urban Household Subsistence in New England" in The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in honor of James Deetz,, edited by Anne E. Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry (Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press, 1992), 267-281.
16. Larry W. McKee, "Plantation Food Supply in Nineteenth-Century Tidewater Virginia" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1988), 130-131; Bowen, "Faunal Remains from the House for Families," 58.
17. Singleton, "An Archaeological Framework for Slavery and Emancipation, 1740-1880," in The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by Mark Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr. (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988), 349-350; Mary V. Thompson, "'They Appear to Live Comfortable Together': Private Lives of the Mount Vernon Slaves," in this volume.
18. Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, 1758-1841,Under Their Vine and Fig Tree: Travels in America in 1797-1799, 1805, with some further account of Life in new jersey. Translated and edited, with an introduction and notes by Methcie J. E. Budka (Elizabeth, N.J: Grassmann Pub. Co., 1965), 100-101.
19. Bowen, "Faunal Remains and Urban Household Subsistence," 267-281; Bowen, "Faunal Remains from the House for Families," 9-22.
20. Stacy Gibbons Moore, "'Established and Well Cultivated': Afro-American Foodways in Early Virginia," Virginia Cavalcade 39 (1989), 70-83; Henry M. Miller, "Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th-Century Chesapeake Frontier" (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, Lansing, 1984).
21. Susan L. Henry, "Physical, Spatial, and Temporal Dimensions of Colono Ware in the Chesapeake, 1600-1800" (M.A. thesis, Catholic University, Washington, D.C., 1980); L. Daniel Mouer, Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Stephen R. Potter, Susan L. Henry Renaud, Ivor Noel Hume, Dennis J. Pogue, Martha W. McCartney, and Thomas E. Davidson, "Colonoware Pottery, Chesapeake Pipes, and 'Uncritical Assumptions,'" in "I, Too, Am America": Archaeological Studies of African-American Life, ed. Theresa A. Singleton (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1999), 83-115; Leland Ferguson, Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992).
22. George McDaniel, Hearth and Home: preserving a people's culture (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982), discusses partitioning of 19th-century slave cabins to accommodate multiple families.
23. Fitzpatrick, Writings, 33:196.
24. Niemcewicz, Vine and Fig Tree, 100.
25. Niemcewicz, Vine and Fig Tree, 101.
26. Singleton, "Archaeology of Slave Life," 171-172.
27. Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619-1877 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), 28-62; Morgan, Slave Counterpoint.
28. Kolchin, American Slavery, 38.
29. Mechal Sobel, The World They Made Together: Black and White Values in Eighteenth-Century Virginia (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987), 233; Kolchin, American Slavery, 60-61.
30. Kolchin, American Slavery, 240, 46-49; Morgan, Slave Counterpoint.
31. Ferguson, Uncommon Ground, 35-39, 63, 109-116.
32. Pogue and White, "Features and Artifacts Excavated at George Washington's Birthplace," 32-45.
33. Jean E. Howson, "Social Relations and Material Culture: A Critique of the Archaeology of Plantation Slavery," Historical Archaeology 24 (1990), 78-91; Ferguson, Uncommon Ground, xli-xliii; Garrett Fesler and Maria Franklin, "The Exploration of Ethnicity and the Historical Archaeological Record," Historical Archaeology, Identity Formation, and the Interpretation of Ethnicity, ed. Maria Franklin and Garrett Fesler (Williamsburg, 1999), 1-10.
Back to top
