young, amy l. risk management strategies among african-american slaves at locust grove plantation

8/11/2019 Young, Amy L. Risk Management Strategies Among African-American Slaves at Locust Grove Plantation

1/33

International Journal

of

HistoricalArchaeology, Vol.

I, No. 1,

1997

Risk

Management Strategies Among

African American Slaves at Locust Grove

Plantation

Amy L Young1

African

Americansfaced

a

variety

of risks

under

the

institution

of

slavery.

The

theory

of

risk management

is

used

as a

context

for

understanding

the

lives

of

slaves

at Locust Grove Plantation in

Kentucky

and for deconstructing the

common myth that

slavery was

unusually

mild

there.African Americansused

a

diversity

of meansat Locust Grove to cope

with

risk,

including generalized

reciprocity,

food storage,

religion, and strong kinship/community bonds.

KEY

WORDS:risk;

African-American slavery; southeastern United States.

INTRODUCTION

From 1987 through 1989, the Universityof Louisville Department of

Anthropology conducted archaeological and historical investigations at Lo-

cust Grove Plantation. Located approximately 5 mi east of Louisville, Ken-

tucky,on the Ohio River, Locust Grove dur ing the nineteen th century was

home to

Major

William Croghan, hiswife Lucy Clark Croghan, their nine

children, and Lucy's famous brother General

George

Rogers Clark. The

Croghans

and

their relatives

are all

well documented

in

hundreds

of

letters,

and indeeds,

wills,

tax

lists,

censuses,

estate

inventories,

andother

surviving

primary records. In addition to the Croghan family, a numberof enslaved

African

Americans also lived

and

worked

at

Locust Grove. Except

for

being

enumerated

in

censuses

and tax

lists,

virtually

nothing

was

known about

these individuals, except that they were made

to

raise corn, wheat, hogs,

'Depa rtmen t of Anthropology and Sociology, Box 5074, U niversity of Southe rn Mississippi,

Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406-5074, USA.

5

1092-7697/97/03


2/33

6 Young

sheep, and cattle and to take care of the Croghans. Archaeological inves-

tigations were conducted to discover the remains of their

houses

and re-

cover some of their material culture.

The

work

at

Locust Grove

was the first

major archaeological project

that focused on an African-Am erican slave site at a pla ntation in Kentucky.

Little

was

known concerning material conditions

or

daily life

of

plantation

slaves

in

this region. Most archaeological work

on

slavery

has

centered

on

large, wealthy plantations in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and the

Chesapeake region of Virginia (Adams, 1987; Adams and Boling, 1989;

Deetz, 1988; Emerson, 1994; Joseph, 1987, 1989; Kelso, 1984; Klingelhofer,

1987; Lewis, 1985; McKee, 1988, 1992; Singleton, 1995; Wheaton

and

Gar-

row,

1985).Some sites in the western cotton belt have also been intensively

investigated (BrownandCooper, 1990; Wilkie,1995). Because the regions

and

temporal periods

are so

different,

it was

believed that direct compari-

sons of archaeological remains between the areas would

yield

little addi-

tional informa tion. Furthermo re, once archaeological research showed that

the

slaves

had access to

substantial amounts

of

material goods, especially

compared

to

sites dating

to the

seventeenth

and

eighteenth centuries,

it

was believed that inappropriate comparisons would only support the pre-

vailingmyth that slaveryinKentuckywasunusually mild (Coleman, 1940).

Particularly, differences caused

by

increasingly available mass-produced

in-

dustrial goods throughout the nineteenth century and changes in methods

of construction

in

housing

may

have been attributed

to the

mild slavery

in Kentucky rather than to modernization and, thus, obscure the harsh re-

alities suffered

by

African Americans

at

Locust Grove.

In

other words,

the

fact t hat the slave houses at Locust G rove had glazed window s, but those

at

Yaughan

and

Curriboo plantations

in

South Carolina

did

not,

was

more

likely

causedby the easy availabilityofw indow glassin the nineteenth cen-

tury compared to the eighteenth century. Before meaningful comparisons

can be made, aunifying framewo rk must be developed for conceptualizing

African-American

slave lifeways

in

different regions

and

time periods.

An economic theory of risk minimization has been successfully em-

ployed

in

anthropological studies

of

hunte r-gather er, horticultural, pastoral,

and agricultural societies (Baksh

and

Johnson, 1990; Cashdan, 1985, 1990;

Wiessner, 1982a,b; Winterhalder,1990).According tothis theory, all peo-

ple face the risko r chance that an unpredictable loss will occur (Cashdan,

1985). Howpeoplecope with risk depends on the dangers in the environ-

ment (social and physical) and on the particular society affected by such

loss (Baksh and Johnson, 1990; Hegmon, 1989; Wiessner, 1982b). As

pointed

out by Baksh and Johnson

(1990),

most studies of risk are

highly

quantitative and

focus

on subsistence and environmental factors such as

rainfall

(Hawkes, 1990; Kaplanet al, 1990; Winterhalder, 1990).However,


3/33

Risk

Management

Among

Slaves

some studies are more qualitative and descriptive (Baksh and Johnson,

1990) but go beyond calories and subsistence and focuson social relations

and other aspects of culture. This study of Locust Grove is an initial and

qualitative exam ination of the risk-red ucing strategies employed by the

slaves there. The risks faced by slaves at Locust Grove w ere largely imposed

byslave owners(i.e.,beatings and being sold down the river ) rather than

environmental conditions such

as

drought.

The

methods utilized

to cope

with risk may be viewed as mechanisms of resisting oppressive Southern

society. Only those risks and the risk-reducing strategies employed by Lo-

cust Grove slaves

are

treated

in

detail

in

this study. Risks faced

by

Afri-

can-American slaves in other regions and time periods may have been

different, but the methods tominimize risk mayhave been fairly constant

throughout the slavery times in the South.

The theory of risk min imiz ation, wh en employed in archaeological and

anthropological studies of African-American slaves and slavery, may pro-

vide a unifying frameworkfor understanding the varietyof conditions ex-

perienced throughout

the

colonial

and

antebellum periods

by

focusing

on

howslaves coped withrisk rather than simply describing particular material

conditions or dangers. Slaves faced a diversity of risks, but risks on eight-

eenth-century South Carolina coastal plantations were

not

exactly

the

same

as

those faced

by

slaves

on

late antebellum farms

and

plantations

in

Ken-

tucky. This difference stems from numerous factors concerning

how

slaves

coped

with

risk.

These

factors include age (child, young adult, elderly), po-

sition or occupation on the plantation

(field

hand , domestic, highly skilled

worker), wealth

of the

planter,

age of the

plantation (new frontier planta-

tion versus

o ld

established plantation), personality

of

owners,

overseers,and

African-American slaves, nation al and intern atio nal economic cond itions,

labor requirements of the

crops

produced, demography, individual talents,

climate and environmental conditions, proximity of urban centers, and a

host

ofother

phenomena

and

circumstances.

In

this study,

the

theory

of

risk management

is

used

as a

context

for

understanding some of the special problems and circumstances of African-

American slaves at Locust Grove, and the ways in which they may have

mitigated some of these risks. Such a theoretical framework

does

not focus

on slave treatment but, rather, emphasizes the ways in which theycoped

with

risks. It is not necessary to assume that Southern slavery was uniform

fromcolonial times until Emancipation in the UnitedStatesas is sometimes

necessary with interregional comparisons

(Orser,

1989,

p.

28).

Nor is it

nec-

essary to assume that cultural uniformity existed in African-derived popu-

lations. Rather, risk minimization allows for an understanding of the

variability of African-American experiences under the brutal slave regime

through time and space: on plantations, farms, and in cities. Only when


4/33

8

Young

we understand the tremendous variety of roles played by African Ameri-

cans both d uring and after slavery times can we begin to appreciate the

diverse and important contributions they made to Southern and American

culture. With this understanding, we can more

effectively

investigate the

nature, formation,

and

maintenance

of

pan-African-American culture (Sin-

gleton, 1995,

p.

134).

This study presents and analyzes the results of archaeological investi-

gations

at

three Locust Grove slave house sites.

A

detailed analysis

o f

over

25,000 artifacts recovered

in

excavations, coupled

with a

consideration

of

archaeological feature s and surviving documents, provides the basis for con-

cluding that while

the

shelter,

furnishing,

clothing, diet,

and

health

of the

African-American slaves at Locust Grove may have been capable of sus-

taining life

(based

on

archaeological data

and

nineteenth-century stand-

ards), this was likely the result of the

efforts

of the African Americans

themselves rather than the paternalism of the owners or the mildness of

the

institution

in

Kentucky. More importantly, this study shows that

the

slaves

at

Locust Grove actively worked

to

minimize

someof the

risks they

faced byform ing strong family and community ties reinforced bygeneral-

ized reciprocity,

by

producing surplus through raising their

own

livestock

and gardens, and through religious practice. Slavery was not mild in Ken-

tucky (Lucas, 1992, p. 43), but the methods employed by the African-

American slaves were effective

in

mitigating

some of the

risks

it

incurred.

LOCUST

GROVE

Locust Groveis

located

on the

Ohio River

in

Kentucky,

on thenorth-

ernmost fringes of the former slave states (Fig. 1). The plantation was

owned by the Croghan family and established circa 1790 (Young, 1995).

The

slave population

at

Locust Grove

rose from

just

6 people in

1790

to

41 in 1820, and in 1849, it declined to 21 (Young,1995). The property was

rented to tenants

between 1850

and

1860

and was

eventually sold

by the

Croghan family.

The

history

of the

slaves after 1850 remains

a

mystery.

Locust Grove is located in a region of the South not normally associated

with

plantations,

and

indeed, Locust Grove itself does

not fit the

traditional

definition

of a plantation (Adams and Boling, 1989; Hedrick, 1927; Phillips,

1929; Weaver, 1945) containing 1000

or

more acres

and 50 or

more slaves.

The

Croghan's slaves

did not

raise cotton, rice, sugar,

or tobacco

like their

contemporaries

on

more typical Southern plantations.

The

African-Ameri-

can slaves at Locust Grove lived in an area dominated numerically and cul-

turally by European Americans. At its height, Locust Grove consisted of

only 695.5

acres

worked

by 41

slaves. After 1936,

the

slave population ranged


5/33

Risk Management Among Slaves

9

Fig. 1.Location of Locust Grove Plantation.

between

18 and 30 individuals. In

terms

of the

number

of

slaves, acreage,

and the type of crops, Locust Grove cannot be considered a typical Southern

plantation. However, compared

with

other agricultural entities in the vicin-

ity,

Locust Grove was larger than average, but typical of other large Ken-

tucky

slaveholdings (Young, 1995). Further,

the

attitudes

of the

Croghans,

revealed in numero us surviving letters and othe r docu ments (Thomas, 1969),

show

that they considered themselves part

of the

Southern gentry

or

planter

class (Young, 1995;

Young et al., 1995).

Beginning in 1987, the Department of Anthropology, University of

Louisville, undertook archaeological inves tigations aimed at recovering ma-

terial remains owned and used by slaves at Locust Grove. Sites of three

slavehouses were extensively excavated in the summers of 1987, 1988, and

1989, resulting in the discovery of numerous features and the recovery of

thousands

of

artifacts.

In 1987, intensive archaeological excavations began in an area where

nineteenth-century ceramics were found eroding onto the surface earlier

that spring. The area is located approximately 200 m east of the main

house, across an in term ittent stream (Fig. 2). A total of 53 1 x 1-m unit s

was

excavated

in the

area. Given

the very dry

weather

of the

summer

of

1987, stratigraphic soil color

and

texture changes were

not

readily

apparent


6/33

10

Young

Fig. 2.

Plantation layout,

LocustGrove,circa 1830.

and excavations proceeded in 10-cm arbitrary levels. Soils were dry-

screened through quarter-inch hardware mesh. No soil samples were saved

for flotation, accounting for the scarcity of small artifacts such as eggshell,

beads, and straight pins.

Excavations revealed that a single pen structure, measuring approxi-

mately5 x 6 m, had

been

builton a continuous limestone foundation (Fig.

3). A limestone chimney pad and hearth were placed on the north wall.

The

hearth

was constructed of

roughly dressed limestone, like

the

wall

foundation, and filled with soil. An unlined pit cellar measuring approxi-

mately 1.5 m was placed directly in front of the hearth. Very little

area


7/33


11

Fig.

3. Plan

view

of the south slave house.

outside the walls of the house was excavated, so almost nothing is known

of the

surrounding house yard.

The

assemblage consists

of

9709 artifacts

and 646 pieces of bone. Analysis of the ceram ics and window glass indicates

that the structure was probably built around 1790 and abandoned

after

the

Civil

War.

The

nails recovered

in the

excavations suggest that

the

house

was probably a log structure with a wood shake roof and a wood plank

floor,

and

probably clapboarded

in the

midnineteenth century (Young,

1994, 1995). Most of the artifacts date to the antebellum period, although

a scattering of later material suggests that the house may have been inter-

mittently

occupied until

the 1870s

(Young,

1995).


8/33

12

Young

In the spring of 1988, an area north of the 1987 slave house excavation

was tested w ith a soil resistivity meter. Anom alous reading s suggested the

presence of subsurface features, so excavations were scheduled for later

that spring and summer to test the area. During the summer field school,

a total of 78 m2was excavated. The field methods were the same as in the

previous year. Unfortunately,

the

drought

of

1987 extended into 1988

and

dry conditions prevented the easy detection of soil color and texture

changes, thus making stratigraphic definition

difficult.

Two notable features were uncovered

during

the

fieldwork.

One is a

macadamized farm road, very rare

for

private property

of the

nineteenth

century. The second feature, just north of the road, is a small brick-lined

pit cellar. The cellar was aligned with the house and cellar excavated in

1987. In fact, the dimensions of the second pit cellar were quite similar to

the

first. Because

of the

difficulty

in

detecting soil color changes,

the

fea-

ture was excavated by piece-plotting the artifacts.

Unfortunately wall foundations were not revealed during the excava-

tions. Evidently the foundationwas removed once the house was abandoned

and razed. The limestone was probably robbed and reused when the road

was

macadamized. In places, a

feature

that was probably a robbed-out rem-

nant of the foundation wasdetected in the excavations. This possible robbed

builder's trench,the

copious domestic debris,

and thepresenceof the

cellar

all indicate that a structure stood over the cellar. The possible robber's

trench

suggest

that

the housewas the

same size

as the onelocated in

1987.

The

assemblage

recovered

from thissecond

or

central slavehouse

was

quite similar to that recovered in 1987, except the artifacts were generally

more

fragmented,

and

nails were less common

and inpoor

condition.

A

total of

9308

artifacts and 728 pieces of bone was recovered. Ceramics and

windowglass suggest that the house was constructed around 1800 and razed

around 1870. Unfortunately

the

nails were

so

rusted

and

fragmented that

it was impossible to assess the method of construction.

The third and northernmost slave house was excavated in 1989 during

the summer

field

school. The roughly dressed limestone foundation and

chimney

pad

along

the

north

and

west walls

had

remained visible above

the surface before excavations. Like the southern slave house, this structure

measured approximately 5 x 6 m. It, too, contained a pit cellar in front of

the hearth, but it was wood-lined. Dimensions of the third cellar were simi-

lar

to the cellar in the south house.

Excavation methods were similar to those of the previous 2 years. A

total of 42 m2 was excavated in and around the foundation, using arbitrary

levels. Soil was dry-screened through quarter-inch mesh.

While

the

size

of the

artifact assemblage

for

this slave house

was ex-

tremely similar to that of the assemblages

from

the other twohouses (9653


9/33


13

artifacts and

1232 pieces

of

bone),

the

nature

of the

assemblage

was

sig-

nificantly

different.

The

nails, ceramics,

and some

other artifacts show

clearly that this house wasstandingand occupied into the twentieth century

(Young, 1995). Coins, bottle glass, and ceramics from the twentieth century

were all recovered in considerable quantities. The Waters family, who

owned Locust

Grove

from

the

1880s until

the

1960s, reported that

an old

former slave named John lived

in the

house until

the

1920s when

he

died

(Young, 1995).There was, though, a significant antebellum component to

this assemblage, with many ceramic, glass, and other artifacts dating to the

early nineteenth century (Young, 1995).

Nails were quite numerous. Many were wire nails manufactured

after

1890 (Loveday, 1988; Young, 1994).

The

presence

of

wire nails suggests

that heavy renovation

of the

house occurred

in the

late nineteenth

or

early

twentieth centuries. The cut nails, many of which were m anu factu red after

1830 (see Loveday,

1988),

suggest that

the

house

was

bui lt between 1830

and

1840. Ceramic data su pport th is construction date range. Analysis

of

the sizes of the nails indicates that the structure was a frame building with

a wood floor and shake roof, with a tin roof added in the twen tieth century.

RISK

AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Slaves in all areas of the South faced many risks. Some were common

to all African-American slaves from the earliest times until after the Civil

War;

however, some

risks

were more peculiar to specific regions.

Rather than attempt to evaluate the actual risks faced by slaves at

different times

and in

different regions, this research considers perceived

risks

of

slaves

in

Kentucky.

To

accomplish this goal,

two

documentary

sources

are

used.

One

source

is WPA

former slave narratives, assembled

by

writers during

the

Depression.

The WPA

writers recorded

the

memories

of former slavesandth eir children regarding theslaveryera (Rawick,1977).

The other source is

fugitive

slave narratives published by abolitionists (e.g.,

Osofsky, 1969). These two sources complemented each other quite well,in

that

the WPA

interviews covered

the end of the

antebellum period

in the

form

of

remembrances

of

elderly African Americans

who had

lived

as

slaves

prior to

Emancipation.

The fugitive accounts tell of conditionsearlier in

the

nineteenth century.

All

analyzed documents focused

on fugitive an d

former

slaves who lived in Kentucky (Young, 1995).

Naturally,a

number

of

important problems occur with these data (see

Starling,

1988).

Fugitive accounts published by abolitionists focus on the

horrors of slavery, while the p ublished interviews in the WPA former slave

accounts are rife with biases caused by racism and economic deprivations.


10/33

14

Young

However,

the

major trends

of

what

was

important

to

African-American

slaves living in Kentucky are apparent when reading

these

accounts. And,

ofcourse,

only very limited amounts of data are available about daily slave

life in this area.

Using narratives and interviews of slaves and former slaves who had

lived in Kentucky and Tennessee, a list of perceived risks was compiled.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

being beaten, whipped, or otherwise physically abused;

being sold or otherwise separated from family and friends;

being sold down the

river (with

or

without family);

starvation or malnutrition;

disease/death

of

self

or

family member;

injury/death

by

accident (self

or family

member);

and

other (inad equate shelter, clothing, and education, harassmen t,

rape).

The

first three risks, being physically abused, beingseparatedfrom fam-

ily, and, especially, being sold down the river, are related in that they

were all

used

as aform of

punishment

by

slave owners. Reading

the

former

slave narrative s

and the fugitive

accounts,

it was

sometimesdifficult

to

sepa-

rate the

three,

as they were sometimes referred to together. It is obvious,

though, that these three were particularly

difficult

situations African-Ameri-

can

slaves

felt

that they might face,

or had

actually faced.

The

dangers

of

beatings and being sold away were described in ways tha t suggest t hat these

risks were considered to be very real and, in many cases, imminent. Blass-

ingame (1979, pp.295-298) listed the risks of physical abuse

from

masters

and of

being sold away

from

family

as the

greatest fears

of all

slaves.

The

risk

of starvation or ma lnutri tion was usually referred to

differently

than the

first three

risks. References to lack of food were less common than beatings

or being sold away, and were often made in abstract terms, rather than in

real and immediate terms. For instance, the documents reveal that risks of

food shortfalls were perceived as a

form

of injustice where slaves raised an

abundance

of

foodstuff

for the

master

but

were denied access

to the

prod-

ucts

of

their labor. This injustice

was

used,

in the

words

of the

former

and

fugitive slaves, as justificationfor theft. The term theft was used but it

was

apparent that they

did not

truly feel this

was

stealing. Owens (1976,

1970) believed that some

of the

greatest impacts

on

slave life were disease

and

malnutrition.

The

dangers

of

injury

or

disease actually

had few

references

in the

narratives and accounts, and

often

people

referred to

fears

that their chil-

dren, grandchildren, or other children in the community would become ill

or be injured. While these risks were perceived as real, in most accounts,


11/33


15

there were no apparent perceived differences between African-American

slaves and their owners.

Other perceived risks were mentioned in

fugitive

and former slave ac-

counts.

These

include inadequate housing, being overworked, being har-

assed by owners and patrollers, losing ma teria l possessions, amo ng others.

These

kinds

of

risks were rather rare

in the

accounts, however.

It may be

that inadequate shelter and overwork are more prominent for slaves who

lived

in the coastal plantati ons of South Carolina , Georgia, and F lorida

and on cotton plantations in Alabama and Mississippi.

Slaves undoubtedly faced

a

number

of

important

and

potentially dev-

astating risks in Kentucky. But how did African-American slavescopewith

these risks?

Where risk is defined as the chance that a loss will occur, Wiessner

(1982a, pp. 172-173) outlined

four

primary strategies forreducing risk:

(1) preven tion of loss,

(2)

transfer

of risk or loss,

(3) storage, and

(4)

pooling

of

risk

or

sharing.

Preventing

a

potential loss

can be

accomplished through

a

variety

of

means

(Wiessner, 1982a).

These

include using rituals

to

ward

off

misfortune

and

maintaining

some control over a resource that one may potentially lose,

such

as

defending territoryfrombeing exploited

by

outsiders. W interhalder

(1990) described

how

during

the

Middle Ages, farmers

of the

Midlands

of

England used an open field system where plots were dispersed across a

large territory to assure that some plots controlled by a

family

were pro-

ductive. In this case, farmers prevented potential losses by controlling re-

sources (land) dispersed over a large enough area so that there was less

chance that drought or another catastrophe would entirely destroy a fam-

ily's crops. Baksh and John son (1990) describe how the M achigu enga in

South America prevented loss by using rituals to ward off supernatural

threats that were thought to cause common illnesses and diseases.

The second strategy that Wiessner (1982a, p. 173) outlined is trans-

ferring risk or loss to another party. The transfer of

risk

was practiced by

the

Kw akiu tl (Wiessner, 1982a,

p.

173), where surplus accumulated

by a

wealthy group was given or transferred to poorer groups. A common or

negative form

of

this strategy

is

stealing, where

one

party forces another

to incura loss.

The third strategy described by Wiessner (1982a, p. 173) is storage,

where surplus

resources

are

stored

for uselater when they wouldnot nor-

mally

beavailable. This practice for avoidingthe riskof food shortages has

been do cume nted archaeologically for ma ny prehi storic societies (DeBoer,


12/33

16

Young

1988; Testart, 1982)

and for

historic-period societies

as

well (Faulkner, 1986;

Kehoe,

1978).

The fourthand final strategyforreducing riskispooling riskorsharing

(Cashdan, 1985; Wiessner, 1982a,

p.

173, 1982b).

This

method

of

coping

with variability

in

resources involves substituting small losses

for

poten-

tially

large, dangerous

ones

(Wiessner, 1982a,

p.

173).

Th e IKung

San,

hunter-gatherers

of the

Kalahari, practice this form

of

risk minimization

by giving

gifts,

thereby inc urrin g social obligations to have a similar gift

returned

at a

later time. This activity represents generalized reciprocity

ac-

crued as a form of insurance. This means that an individ ual or

family,

when

experiencing resource shortages, may rely on others who are not, because

these others owe a gift. In other words, In times of hardsh ip, a person's

losses

can be

absorbed

by

others

in the population, if risk is well distrib-

uted (Wiessner, 1982b, p. 65). Among the

IKung,

the system of delayed

reciprocity

is

called

hxaro

(Wiessner,

1982b).

Generalized reciprocity

is

also

ameans bywhichthe Basarwa,wh o live innorthern Botswana and practice

cultivation

and animal husbandry, also cope

with

resource shortages (Cash-

dan,

1985).

A Western industrialized version of generalized reciprocity as

insurance against potential

future

shortfalls

is

described

by

Stack (1974,

pp.32-44) for impoverished African Americans in an urban setting in the

United

States.

Stack noted that

few

African-American families

living on

welfare were able to meet their basic needs without the help of kin and

friends.

Among

the

numerous instances

of

reciprocity recorded

by

Stack

(1974), one example is illustrative. One woman visited another who had

small children. She brought

milk

and diapers and, in return, took home

corn bread and greens. The visitor noted th at I know I need help every

day. Youcan't ge t help just by sittinga t home, laying around, house-nasty

and everything. You got to get up and go out and meet

people,

because

the very day you go out, that first person you meet may be the person that

can help you get the things you wan t (Stack, 1974, p. 32). In the gh etto

community studied by Stack (1974), reciprocal exchanges were sometimes

immediate

and

sometimes delayed.

COPING WITH RISK AT LOCUST GROVE

As hunter-gatherer, horticulturalist, and agriculturalist societies (Cash-

dan, 1985; Wiessner, 1982a; Winterhalder, 1990) typically

utilize

combina-

tions of the risk -red ucin g strateg ies just out line d, it is

likely

t h a t

African-American slaves

in the

American South also utilized

a

variety

of

ways to avoid risk. Documentary evidence indicates that slaves attempted

to minimize risk by preventing loss through control over their own re-


13/33


17

sources.

Berlin

and

Morgan

(1993, pp.

29-31)

and

Singleton

(1995, pp.

129-

130) have pointed out that some African-American slaves negotiated with

their masters to have their ow n gardens to raise corn, turnips, cabbages,

potatoes,

and

yams,

and

many even kept

a

variety

of

small livestock

and

fowl. Often, gardens and animal pens were regarded as rights to be jeal-

ously

defended whenever the master might try to prevent slavesfromwork-

ing toward their own livelihood (Berlin and Morgan, 1993, pp.

24-25).

Rather than relying solely

on

rations from

the

master

for

their subsistence,

some African-American slaves managed to control their own gardens and

livestock, and even sold surplus in nearby towns or to their owners.There

is no direct archaeological or documentary evidence at Locust Grove for

slave

gardens, yet there is some indication that the slaves controlled (per-

haps owned) small livestock, especially chickens

and

perha ps hogs (Lev-Tov

and Young,

1995),

and

found

other ways to control their food supply.

Animal bones were recovered

from

each of the three slave houses at

Locust Grove (Lev-Tov and Young, 1995; Young, 1995). Table I lists the

number

of

specimens

for

each species identified.

As can be

seen, domestic

pigs, chickens, cattle, and sheep make up the largest portion of the iden-

tified species, ranging

from

69 to 83% of the ide ntified bones. However,

part of each assemblage is also composed of

wild

birds, turtle, fish, and

other potential

wild

foods. This evidence, coupled with fish hooks, bullets,

gunflints,

andeven partof a gun

from

thenorth house suggest that African

Americans at Locust Grove had some opportunities to hunt or trap and

fish to supplement their diets. In other words, their entire diet was not

totally controlled

by

their owner.

Whilesamples

are too

small

to

evaluate statistically, analysis

of

chicken

bones suggests that the slaves may have kept their own

fowl.

The presence

of

immatureand adult chickensin the assemblages indicates regularaccess

to a flock (Lev-Tov and Young, 1995).

The age profiles for hogs at Locust Grove show that slaves may have

had

access

to an

en tire herd rath er tha n anima ls selected

by the

planter

(Fig.

4).

What

is

especially interesting

is

that

the frequency of

newborn,

probably suckling pigs is so high at Locust Grove. Killing of piglets is not

economically

sound,

as

such practice

may

compromise

the

production

po-

tential of the

herd.

Two explan ations are possible. First, the suckling or

newborn pigs could be the natural mortalities

within

the herds that be-

longed

to the

slaves. Second, these bones

may

represent piglets stolen

(or

better, reappropriated )

from

the master's

herd.

Th e

theft

of piglets was

evidently fairly common on antebellum plantations in the American South

(Genovese,

1976, pp.

599-601;

McKee, 1988, pp.

80-81).

W att Jordan,w ho

was

raised

a

slave

in

central Kentucky, related that

his

grandmother

was

sold down south somewheres because she wou ld steal foodfrom the own-


14/33

18

Young

Table I.

Identification

and

NISP

fo r

Each

of the

Slave House Faunal

Assemblages

Species (common name)

Number

of bones

South slave house

Scalopus

aquaticus

(eastern mole)

Rattus norvegicus

(rat)

Rattus sp .

(Old World rat)

Sciurus carolinesis

(gray squirrel)

Sciurus sp.

(gray

or fox

squirrel)

Sylvilagus floridanus

(eastern cottontail)

Didelphis marsupialis (opossum)

Procyon

lotor(raccoon)

Canisfamiliaris

(domestic dog)

Sus scrofa (domestic pig)

Ovis

aries

(domestic

sheep)

Ovis/Capra

(sheep/goat)

Bos taurus

(domestic cattle)

G

allus

(domestic chicken)

Anasplatytynchos (mallard duck)

Branta

canadensis

(Canada goose)

Columbia livia (rock dove)

Zenaida

macroura

(mourning dove)

Melanerpes

sp. (woodpecker)

Colaptes

auratus

(common

flicker)

Applodinotus

grunniens

(freshwater drum)

Acipenser fulvescens

(sturgeon)

Ictalurus

punctatus

(channel catfish)

Chelydra

serpentina (snapping turtle)

Unidentified

Total

5

73

10

2

2

13

11

8

2

184

3

6

8

110

1

1

1

1

1

1

17

15

1

4

751

1232

Central slave house

Scalopus aquaticus

(eastern mole)

Rattus

norvegicus

(rat)

Sciurus

carolinensis

(gray squirrel)

Marmota monax

(woodchuck)

Sylvilagus floridanus


Didelphis virginianus

(opossum)

Procyon

lotor

(raccoon)

Sus scrofa (domestic pig)

Ovis

aries

(domestic sheep)

Ovis/Capra

(sheep/goat)

Bos taunts

(domestic cattle)

Gallus

(chicken)

Meleagris gallopavo

(turkey)

Anas sp .(dabb ling duck)

Branta canadensis

(Canada goose)

Corvus

brachyrynchos

(crow)

Columbia

livia

(rock dove)

Chelydra serpentina

(snapping turtle)

Applodinotus grunniens

(freshwater

drum)

Unidentified

Total

1

24

2

4

6

5

8

161

1

11

13

36

1

2

1

1

1

1

6

443

728


15/33


19

Table

I. Continued

Species

(common

name)

Number

of

bones

North slave house

Rattus norvegicus

(rat)

Sciurus

carolinensis

(gray squirrel)

Marmota monax

(woodchuck)

Sylvilagus

floridanus


Didelphis

virginianus

(opossum)

Procyon

lotor

(raccoon)

Canis

fam iliaris

(domestic dog)

Sus scrofa

(domestic pig)

Ovis aries

(domestic

sheep)

Ovis/Capra

(sheep/goat)

Bos taunts (domestic

cattle)

Gallus (domestic chicken)

Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)

Falco

sparverius

(kestrel)

Applodinotus grunniens

(freshwater drum)

Micropterus

salmoides

(largemouth bass)

Chefydra

serpentine

(snapping turtle)

Unidentified

Total

10

1

2

13

3

2

1

181

2

2

18

38

8

1

7

1

1

355

646

ers to feed slave children (Rawick, 1977, p. 395). While not conclusive,

both explanations areplausiblefor the Locust Grove assemblages.The pos-

sibility

of theft,of course, suggests that Wiessner's (1982a, p. 173) second

strategy for reducing risk, transferring loss, may have been practiced by the

African-American slaves

at

Locust Grove.

Fig. 4. Hog mortality profile.


16/33

20 Young

Finally, analysis of the pig bones

from

Locust Grove shows that slaves

had access to entire pig carcasses. This indicates that they were not

com-

pletely

dependent on

rationed cuts (Lev-Tov

and

Young,

1995) and,there-

fore,

may

have

had

some degree

of

control over their

own

diets.

In

addition

to

managing greater control

of

resources,

risk can

also

be

reduced through

the use of

ritual

to

ward

off

misfortune. Documentary

and archaeological evidence suggests that African-American slaves used

charms

and

amulets

to do

this. Crystals, blue beads, drilled coins,

and

other

objects were sometimes used

to

ward

off

witches, prevent illness, avoid

beatings,

and

prevent their sale (Stine

etal. 1996;

Ferguson,

1992;

Lucas,

1992,

pp.

130-131;

Raboteau,

1978;

Singleton,

1991,

pp.

157-162,1995,

pp.

130-131;

Young,

1995).For

example,

a

former slave

livingin

W ayne County,

Kentucky,

and

interviewed

by a WPA

work er explained, Every

one of my

children wears a silver dime on a string around their leg to keep off the

witches

[sic]

spell.

One

time, before

my

daughter Delia

got to

wearing

it,

she was

going down

the

road,

not far from ou r

house, when

all at

once

her leg gave way and she could not walk. Of course I knowed [sic] what

it was.

So I w ent after Linda Woods, the

witch

doctor (Rawick ,

1977,

p.

35). The

witch

doctor bathed Delia's leg in life everlasting, an herb, and

told Delia to stay off that road for 9 days. Her mother made Delia wear

a

silver dime around

her leg.

Evidently, Delia,

once she

wore

the

charm

and

followed

the

doctor's advice, neversuffered

from the

witch's spell again

(Rawick, 1977,pp. 35-36). Henry Bibb (1849; cited by Osofsky, 1969,p.

73), in his

fugitive

account, describes using these kinds of charms to attract

love interests.

These

kinds of objects, including drilled coins, have been

recovered in numerous archaeological excavations of slave quarters (Stine

etal.

1996;Orser, 1994;

Singleton,

1991,pp. 157-162, 1995;

Young , 1995).

At Locust Grove, excavations at each of the three slave houses yielded

objects that

may

have been used

as

charms

or

amulets. From

the

southern

house, a Chinese coin, a faceted blue glass bead, and a notched 20

U.S.

coin were found (Fig.5). The date of the Chinese coin has not been de-

termined,

but

several Chinese coins were recovered during

the

excavations

of

slave pens, where slaves were held a waitin g sale, in A lexandria, Virginia.

The Chinese coins, because they were ma nufac tured with square holes,

could have

been

used like

the

coin Delia wore (Rawick,

1977,

p.

35).

The

date of the 20 coin is illegible, but these coins were minted only from1864

through 1873,with

the greatest numbers being minted in

1864

and

1865.

The four notches on this coin are placed so that if twine were wound

around the coin throug h the notches, an x or cross of string would show

on the faces of the coin. In this

way,

the coin could have been worn as a

pendant. From

the

central house, several chandelier prisms (crystals)

and

a

modified silver dime were recovered (Fig.

6). The

dime dates

to

1827.


17/33

Risk Management mong Slaves

21


18/33

22

Young

However it isextremely worn. What is most remarkable about this coin is

that a

cross

or x has

been

scratched on the reverse face. From the north

house a silver tea spoon, a kaolin clay marble, a Chinese coin, and several

chandelier prism s were recovered (Fig. 7). The teaspoon has a cross or x

scratched on the handle. The

clay

marble has a cross or x incised in it.

The mo tifs of x's or crosses, wit h circles and squares (Chinese coins),

are remarkably similar to marks Ferguson (1992) found on the bases of

some colonoware bowls recovered in South Carolina. The bowls were likely

manufactured and

used

by

slaves,

and

Ferguson believes that

the

marks

resemble Bakongo cosmograms used for medicine and rituals. The ob-

jects

from

Locust Grove could have served this

function

aswell.

Data show that

the

African Americans

at

Locust Grove also practiced

Wiessner's

(1982a,

p.

173) third strategy

for

reducing risk:

storage. At Lo-

cust

Grove,

the

storage

facilities

were

pit

cellars

found

within each

of the

three slave house sites.

Cellars

for

storing food were commonly used

in the

eighteenth, nine-

teenth,

an d

twentieth centuries

in

many parts

of the

United States. Kelso

(1984, p. 201) recognized these facilities as a long-standing English tradi-

tion brought to the N ew World (see also Kimm el, 1993). Faulk ner (1986)

described three typeso fcellars oftenfound onsites datingto the eighteenth

an d

nineteenth centuries

in the

southern Appalachians:

the

structural

or

foundational cellar,

the

banked earth cellar,

and the pit

cellar.

It is the

third

type of most concern here since each of the three slave houses at

Locust Grove

contained this type

of

storage

facility.

A pit

cellar, according

to

Faulkner (1986),

is

always found beneath

buildings.Sometimes

pit

cellars were quite large, though never

as

large

as

the

room

or

building above. Entrance

to

large

pit

cellars

was

sometimes

gained through

an

outside entryway. More

often,

however, these features

were small square or rectangular pits, and entered through a trap door in

the floor of the room above. Sometimes, too, the cellars were lined

with

wood planks, stone,

or

brick (Faulkner, 1986,

p.

54). According

to

inter-

views conducted by Faulkner (1986), the cellars were customarily used to

store apples, cabbages, turnips, pum pkin s, mea t, milk, and especially root

crops such as potatoes and yams.

Small pit cellars have been identified on many African-American slave

sites, especially

those

found in the Virginia Piedmont or other regions of

the Up lan d South (Andrews, 1992; Kelso, 1984, 1986; McKee, 1991, 1993;

McKelway,

1992, 1994; Singleton, 1995, p. 124), including Locust Grove.

Their

function

is

clearly illustrated

by

Mrs. Mary Emily Eaton

late, a

for-

mer

slave

wh o

lived

on a

plantat ion near Knoxville, Tennessee. M rs. Tate

described sucha pitcellarin a WPAinterview : Every day, spies were mak -

ing

their rounds

an d

often soldiers, both Yankee

and

Rebel, visited

ou r


19/33


23


20/33

24 Young


21/33

Risk

Management Among

Slaves

25

cabin taking what they could

find.

. . . The cellar, a hole dug out under

some

boards

in ourcabin, contained our supplies (Raw ick, 1977, pp. 212-

219). The soldiers quickly found the Eaton family cellar and took every-

thing. References to these kinds offeatures are rather rare in former slave

narratives. This

does not

necessarily imply that they were secret.

The ease

with

which the soldiers found the Eaton's cellar may indicate that these

features were quite common.

The three

cellars associated with

the

slave houses

at

Locust Grove

are, in many ways, remarkably similar in size and shape. All three measure

approximately

1.5 x 1 m and

were placed

in front of the

hearths. They

were, however, backfilled at different times (Young,1995). The cellars in

the south and north houses were filled while the houses above were

still

occupied. The cellar in the central house was filled when the house above

was torn down (Young, 1995). Also, the cellar in the south house was not

lined,

while

the

central

cellar was brick-lined. Thecellarin the northhouse

was wood-lined.

Interestingly,

it

appears that

the

African-American slave households

conformed

to the

expectation Wiessner

(1982a,p.

173) presents concerning

site structure and the utilization of this particular strategy. She expected

that

groups who use storage as an im portant mean s of reducing risk would

construct

sites

that were spatially

arranged

in a particular way.

Storage,

and especially surplus

foodstuffs

tha t need storage, would lead to widely

spaced household un its or closed-in eating and storage areas, in order to

avoid

the

jealousy

and

conflict which m ight arise

from

one

household visibly

having

more than another (Wiessner,

1982a,p .

173).

The

storage facilities,

the pit cellars, at Locust G rove were not easily visible and we re placed

within

the house rather than outside. Such placement of the cellars inside

the houses, and the fact that each was slightlydifferent, suggests that the

African-American slaves may have viewed the cellars and their contents as

private, household property. This does not necessarily mean that sharing

of

foodstuff

did not

occur

or

that jealousy

and

competition were common.

Rather, nonfa mily members may not have had im media te and easy access

to the food stored in the cellar without asking. Cellars may also have func-

tioned to keep goods out of sight of the master.

Like

the

generalized reciprocity

of the

IKung

San

(Wiessner, 1982b)

and the Basarwa (Cashdan, 1985), reciprocity,family,kinship networks, and

communitysolidarity based on kinship ties were also likelyused to minimize

risks facedby theslaves atLocust

Grove,

and

appear

tohavealonghistory

among African Americans before

and after freedom. The role and organi-

zation of the African-American

family

have been debated by social scien-

tists for many years. Frazier(1939), Moynihan (1965), and others believed

that the apparent deterioration of the African-American family resulted


22/33


23/33

Risk Management

Among Slaves

27

This

occurred fairly

frequently

inK entucky, althoughit couldcreatecom-

plications in slave

family life

(Lucas, 1992,pp. 17-18). Further, I suggest

that the

family

functioned in the antebellumand early postbellum periods

inthe

Upland South much

as it did

during

the

twentieth century,

to

manage

many

kinds

of

risks. Family

and

comm unity solidarity were

the

slaves' best

defense against racial and economic oppression, because onlybystanding

together could African-Americans during the antebellum period resist pres-

sures from thedominant white society (Blassingame, 1979,pp.315-317).

Unfortunately,

no documentary record exists that describes the family

structure

and

social organization

of the

African-American slave comm unity

at

Locust Grove.

Also,it is

unfo rtun ate that qualities such

as

kinship, shar-

ing,

gifting,

and community are not easily visibleand recognizable in the

archaeological record. However, how goods were distributed across a plan-

tation

may

provide clues about sharing

and,

perhaps, kinship

and

commu-

nity as

well.

Evidence suggests that the slaves at Locust Grove lived in (at least)

three households; that

is,

each slave house contained

a

family.

The

family

mayhave been conjugalorextended. Fu rther, eachofthese familiessought

to

create bonds

with one

another

on the

plantation,

and with

slave

and

free black families on surrounding farmsand plantations and in the town

of Louisville.

The

strongest bonds

are

those

of

kinship

and fictive kin

also

helped extendand strengthenfamily ties. Becausenodocumentary sources

are available concerning slave communities on plantations and farmssur-

rounding

Locust Grove,

and

because

no

archaeological collections

from

slavehouse sitesonsurroundingfarms andplantations exist,theremainder

of this discussion

is confined to

household interaction

at

Locust Grove.

Items such as ceramics, especially tablewares, decorated glassware in-

cludingwine glasses, tumb lers,and cupplates,andother artifacts(i.e.,but-

tons) were often obtained and used in matching sets. For instance, a tea

set

often consisted

of a

number

of

cups

and

saucers (often

six or

eight

each),

all

decorated

in the

same m anner. Likewise, matching buttons were

acquired for a single garment. It is possible to

identify

matched buttons,

glassware,

and

ceramics,

or

sets, from complete artifacts

and

from sherds

recovered

from the

archaeological record (Youngetal.

1995).

This kind

of analysis

was

completed

for the

decorated ceramics,fancyglass tableware,

and

buttons

from the

threeslavehouses

atLocust

Grove.

The

goal

was to

identify

and

quantify

the

matches between houses because these matches

may

indicate

gifting and

sharing between slave

families and,

thus, recon-

struct

how

gifting

may

hav e distributed goods

on the

plantation

at

Locust

Grove.

There

are,

howeve r, several possiblewaysthat m atched ceramics, glass-

ware, and buttons could be deposited at different slave house sites.


24/33

28

Young

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

items were exchanged between slave households,

and

were

eventually

broken an d discarded around the house;

pieces from a set from the ma in house were d istrib uted as

hand-me-downs among several slave families;

broken itemsfrom one house were discarded (dumped) at another

abandoned house; and

several households could randomly acquire

the

same sets.

Th e

latter method

is

considered

the

least probable

and is not given

further

consideration

here.

However, the other three possibilities are examined.

Decorated

ceramics, glassware,

an d

butto ns recovered archaeologically

from the three slave house sites were used to define patter nin g and recon-

struct exchange networks. A ceramic type collection was constructed, using

the

attributes

of

ware type, decoration,

and

color. Ware types included

creamware, pearlware, whiteware, ironstone, porcelain, refined redware,

and stoneware. Decorated types consisted of the followin g specific patterns :

blue transfer print, blue hand-painted, blue shell edge, polychrome hand-

painted, annular, mocha, brown transfer print,

re d

transfer print, purple

transfer

print, green transfer print, black transfer print, spatter,

flow

blue,

overglaze enameled, luster, embossed, Canton, red shell edge, green shell

edge,

gilt,

an d

rusticated.

Th e

south slave house ceramics were analyzed

first. A total of 199 ceramic types was identified. Th e central slave house

assemblage

was analyzed next, and 123 types were

recorded,

in addition

to

types that were previously identified

in the

south slave house ceramic

assemblage. The north slave house decorated ceramic assemblage consisted

of only 40 additional types. The main house assemblage consisted of 130

types,

14 of

which were matched

in the

three slave house assemblages.

To

determine

if

ceramics

and

glassware were hand-me-downs

from the

main house,

decorated

ceramics from

the

main house were compared

to

decorated ceramics from the three slave houses. Previous analysis (Young

et

al., 1995) indicated that

from

the south and central slave houses, nearly

13% of the decorated ceramics came from the main house, probably as

hand-me-downs,

and

from

the

north slave house, nearly

8%

were also likely

hand-me-downs. A total of 14types of decorated ceramics from the main

house also appeared

in the

slave house assemblages.

These are

shown

in

Table II. Rather than indicatinggifting and sharing between slave house-

holds, these ceramics likely reflect the practice of giving chipped or out-

of-fashion

ceramics

as

hand me-downs

to

slaves

and

were, therefore,

eliminated from further analysis.

To discover if discard practices resulted in matches between houses,

attempts were made

to

refit

or

mend every match. Only

in a

singlecase,

a

pearlware saucer,

did

sherds from

a

single vessel come from

two

different


25/33


29

houses. The remainder of the matches did not appear to mend or refit.

This, as well as the distance between the three slave houses (see Fig. 2),

indicates that discard

or

dumping does

not

account

for a

significant portion

of matched ceramicsamong the three slave houses.

Table III shows the remaining types and frequencies of matches of

decorated ceramics am ong the south, central, and n orth slave houses. As

can be seen, 32 different ceramic types were shared among the slave fami-

lies

at

Locust Grove.

The

south

and

central households shared

20

ceramic

types, while

the

south

and

north households shared

7, and the

central

and

north

shared 5 kinds of ceramic types.

Analysis of glass tableware,

including

w ine glasses, decanters, tum blers,

cup plates, celery vases, compotes, and serving dishes, did not reveal any

patterns

of

sharing among

the

slave households. However,

the

frequencies

of

these items were quite low, and except for

wine

glasses, cup plates, and

tumblers, these items were not

always

acquired in matched sets.

Button analysis, however, did reveal matches between slave houses.

Three identical blue tran sfer-prin ted (calico) milk glass buttons were

re-

covered

in

excavations,

one in

each

of the

three slave houses. Also,

a

stamped-design, yellow metal, four-ho le buttonfrom

the

south slave house

matched

one

found

in the

central slave house.

The

data presented here suggest that some amount

of

sharing

of

non-

food

items may have transpired between slave

families

at Locust Grove.

Table II. Ceramic Types and

Frequencies

from the Main

House

that Matched

Those

from the

Three

Slaves Houses0

Type*

1920

2309

283

340

3772

4691

5896

801

7063.88

2984.88

7385.88

1257.89

2219.89

2314.89

Ware

pw

pw

pore

pw

pore

pw

ww

pw

pore

rr

cw

pw

ww

pore

Decoration

Blue

tp

Blue tp

Canton

Blue tp

Overglaze

Blue

tp

Blue tp

Blue tp

Overglaze

Luster

Mocha

Blue tp

Green

tp

Overglaze

South

1

1

28

1

4

7

2

13

Central

29

3

1

1

5

1

North

19

2

1

1

4

1

4

Notation:

pw,

pearlware;

cw,

creamware;

ww,

whiteware;

rr,

refined

redware;pore, porcelain; tp, transfer-printed.

' Type numbers refer to catalog numbers in the Locust Grove col-

lection.


26/33

Young

Table III. Ceramic Matches

an d

Frequencies from

th e

South,

Central, an d North Slave House Assemblages

Type

1788

1970

1971

2144

2315

2498

2554

2654

2853

3078

32

3203

347

3578

3996

4005

4040

4242

4550

4605

4704

4792

4920

55534

654

85

979

1537.88

1732.88

4575.88

4686.88

6692.88

Ware

pw

ww

pw

pore

ww

iron

ww

ww

pw

ww

ww

ww

ww

rr

ww

pw

ww

ww

ww

pw

ww

ww

ww ?

pw

ww

pw

ww

ww

ww

pw

ww

ww

Decoration

Annular

Blue

tp

Blue tp

Overglaze

Blue

tp

Flow blue

Blue tp

Blue tp

Blue tp

Red

shell

Purple

tp

Poly hp

Poly

hp

Rusticated

Blue tp

Blue tp

Red tp

Red tp

Red tp

Blue tp

Blue tp

Blue tp

Blue

tp

Poly hp

Green

tp

Poly hp

Blue tp

Black

tp

Blue edge

Blue tp

Brown tp

Blue tp

South

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

10

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

28

6

Central

1

7

1

20

1

2

1

5

3

3

2

2

1

4

2

1

8

North

1

1

9

1

3

3

3

1

4

1

1

1

Total 78 72 29

Notations: pw , pearlware; ww ,whitew are; pore, porcelain; iron,

ironstone;

rr,

refined redware; poly

h p,

polychrome hand-painted;

shell,shell-edged;

tp ;

transfer-printed.

*Type numbers refer to catalog numbersin the Locust Grove col-

lection.

That the items matched between the slave households were

often

luxury

items (such as decorated tea and dinner ceramics and buttons) is also rele-

vant. Often these kinds of artifacts are used to illustra te status in archae-

ological studies of slave sites (see especially Adams and Boling,

1989).

However, the sharing of these goods suggests tha t such luxury item s may

have

had

different meanings

for

African-American slaves (Singleton, 1995,


27/33


28/33

32

Young

significant risks included the chance of physical abuse from the master

(beatings, whippings) and the chance of being sold away, especially down

the

river, from hearth

and

home. Also important were

the

risks

of

subsis-

tence shortages, especially significantfo rslaves, wh owere forced to depend

more

on rations than on their own efforts of securing food for themselves

and their families.

Slaves at Locust Grove utilized a variety of methods for coping with

risks.These included the use of religion and ritual to ward off misfortune

(such as

illness

orbeing sold away),

perhaps

stealing,or appropriating, food

(especially piglets), storing surplus food in cellars under the floors of their

houses, perhaps raising chickens or pigs and garden produce for their own

consumption or for sale, and through pooling risk by sharing. Sharing was

probably the most

effective

way to strengthen bonds of kinship and com-

munity. This kind of behavior, that is, reciprocity for mitigating the risks

posed

by the en viron ment (social and p hysica l), and for coping

with

social

conflict and cultural loss, was probably universal throughout the entire an-

tebellum period for African Americans all over the South. Shared behavior

of this nature does not imply that African-American culture throughout

the South was uniform. Nor does it necessarily

imply

that this behavior is

African

in origin, although there is ample evidence to support

this

connec-

tion (Foster, 1983; McDaniel , 1990; Sud arkasa, 1980, 1982; Zollar, 1985).

Rather, some kinds of risks were common to African Americans

from

the

beginning of the colonial era until the present day. Some kinds of risks,

however, were peculiar

to a

specific region

and

temporal period.

Th e

kinds

of

risks slaves in the Upland South faced during the antebellum period

have been illustrated here, aswell as some of the responses to those risks

made

by

African Americans

wh o

lived

and

labored

at

Locust Grove.

Th e

perspective of risk minimization allows for a deeper understanding of the

lives of slaves in Kentucky and helps to deconstruct the rather prevalent

myth that slavery in Kentucky was unusuallymild (Lucas, 1992, pp.

42-43).

The ideological implication s of this

myth

discredit contemporary arguments

about the cumulative history of discrimination and current social/political

responsibilities to redress them through policies (Harrison, 1995, pp. 50-

52).

African

Americans in the South faced a diversity of risks that varied

according to demography, climate, and a host of other social and environ-

mental factors. Slaves on sugar plantations were frequently overworked,

especially during

the

cane-processing season, work that

w as

also quite dan-

gerous (Berlin and Morgan, 1993, pp. 4, 21). Free blacks in cities before

Emancipation faced dangers

and

life

problems such

as

poor,

unsanitary

housing, harassment, curfews, and being stolen or kidnapped into slavery

(Lucas, 1992, pp. 101-117). At Locust Grove, the most

significant

threats


29/33

RiskManagement Among Slaves

to African-American slaves were being beaten and sold, especially down

the river. It may have been that similar coping

strategies

were employed

in many

different

situations (like the use of ritual to ward off evil and

misfortune), even though

the

actual risks show great variability.Thisstudy

suggests that the most pressing risks were those imposed by slave owners

andotherwhite members of Southern society and that risk-reducing strate-

gies were largely employed

as a

means

of

resistance.

It

would

be

interesting

to know whether African Americans did, in fact, use basically the same

ways

to reduce many

different

risks. If so, this would help to explain a

pan-African-American society spread over a wide geographic area, success-

ful

for long periods of time. This study of Locust Grove isonly the first

and exploratory step in this direction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I

would like

to

thank Robert

Kelly,

Director

of the

Archaeology Pro-

gram

at the Universityof Louisville,for arrangingthe loan of the Locust

Grove collections for this analysis.Iwould like to express mygratitude to

the

Kentucky Heritage Council

for

funding

the

zooarchaeological analysis

of

the Locust Grove

faunal

remains. I am grateful to Justin Lev-Tbv for

conducting

such thorough zooarchaeological analyses

and to

Walter Klippel

foruse of the excellent zooarchaeological comparative collections at the De-

partment

of Anthropology, Universityof Tennessee, Knoxville. Joseph

Granger was PI during the three fieldseasonsat Locust Grove, and provided

encouragement during analyses and write-up. Thanks, too, go to Charles

Faulkner,

Lydia

Pulsipher, Walter Klippel,

and

Faye Harrison

for

advice

and

encouragement during

this

researchand forservingon mydissertation com-

mittee. Commentson the manuscriptbyMelanie Cabak, Philip Carr, Eliza-

beth Cashdan, Mark Grover, Faye Harrison, Larry McKee, Charles Orser,

Bruce Roberts, andTheresaSingleton substantially improved the final ver-

sion. I am especially grateful to Larry McKee, Charles Orser, and Theresa

Singleton

for

their help

and

support

with

Locust Grove research.

I

acknow-

ledge Locust Grove Historic Home

for the use of

their collections, curated

at the

University

of

Louisville Program

of

Archaeology.

REFERENCESCITED

Adams,

W. H.

(ed.) (1987).Historical

Archaeology

of Plantations

at

Kings Bay Camden County,

Georgia, Reportsof Investigations 5, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,

Gainesville.


30/33

Young

Adams,W. H., and

Boling,

S. J. (1989).

Status

and

ceramics

for

planters

and

slaves

on

three

Georgia coastal

plantations.

Historical Archaeology

23(4): 69-96.

Andrews, S.

(1992).

Spatial Analysis

of an

East

Tennessee

Plantation Houselot,

Unpublished

master's

thesis, Department

of

Anthropology, University

of

Tennessee, Knoxville.

Andrews,

S., and

Young,

A. L.

(1992).

Plantations

on the

periphery: Modeling

a new

approach

for the

upper

South.

Tennessee Anthropologist

17(1): 1-12.

Aschenbrenner, J. (1973).Extended families among Black Americans.

Journal of Comparative

Family Studies

4:

257-268.

Baksh,

M., and

Johnson,

A. (1990).

Insurance policies among

th e

Machiguenga:

An

ethnographic analysiso frisk management in a non-Western society. InCashdan, E.(ed.),

Risk and Uncertainty in

Tribal

and Peasant Economies,

Westover Press, Boulder,

pp.

193-227.

Berlin, I., and

Morgan,

P

(1993).Introduction.

In

Berlin,

I., and Morgan, P.

(eds.),

Cultivation

and

Culture: Labor

and the

Shaping

of

Slave

ife in the

Americas,

UniversityPress of

Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 1-48.

Blassingame, J. W.

(1979).The Slave Community: Plantation ife in the Antebellum South,

rev.

ed., Oxford University

Press, New

York.

Brown, K., and

Cooper,

D. C.

(1990).

Structural continuityin an African-American slave and

tenant community.

Historical Archaeology

24(4): 7-19.

Bushman, R. L.(1981).

Family

security in the transition from

farm

to city, 1750-1850.

Journal

of

Family

History 6(3): 238-256.

Cashdan, E. (1985).

Coping with

risk:

Reciprocity among

the

Basarwa

of

northern Botswana.

Man

(N.S.)

20: 454^*74.

Cashdan,

E.

(1990). Introduction.

In

Cashdan,

E.

(ed.),

Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and

PeasantEconomies,

Westover Press, Boulder,

pp.

1-16.

Coleman, J. W. (1940).

Slavery

Times in Kentucky,

University of North Carolina Press, Chap el

Hill.

DeBoer,W. R. (1988).

Subterranean storage

and the

organization

of

surplus:

The view

from

eastern

North America.

Southeastern Archaeology

7(1): 1-20.

Deetz,

J. (1988).

American historical archaeology: Methods

and

results.

Science

239:362-367.

DuBois, W E. B.

(1939). Black Folk, Then

and

Now,

Holt, NewYork.

Emerson, M. C. (1994). Decorated clay tobacco pipes from the Chesapeake: An African

American connection.

In

Shackel,

P., and

Little,

B. J.

(eds.),

Historical Archaeology of the

Chesapeake,

Smithsonian Institution

Press,

Washington,

DC, pp.35-49.

Faulkner, C. H. (1986). The pitcellar:A nineteenth c entury storage facility.

Ohio

Valley Urban

and

Historic Archaeology 4:

54-65.

Ferguson, L.

(1992).

Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and

Early

African America, 1650-1800,

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Ford,

D. Y.,Harris,J. J., Ill, andTurner,W. T

(1993).

Th e extended African American family:

A pragmatic strategy that blunts the blade of injustice.

The

Urban

League Review

14(2):

71-82.

Foster,

H. J. (1983). African patterns in the Afro-American family.

Journal of Black Studies

14(2): 201-232.

Frazier, E. F.(1939). The

Negro Family

in the United

States,

University

of Chicago Press,

Chicago.

Genovese, E. D.

(1976).Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made,

Random House, New

York.

Gutman,

H. G.

(1976).

The Black

Family

in

Slavery

and Freedom, 1750-1925,

Vintage Books,

New York.

Harrison,

F. V (1995). The

persistent power

of race in the

cultural

and

political economy

of

racism.

Annual

Review of

Anthropology

24:47-74.

Hedrick,

C. E. (1927). Social and Economic Aspects of

Slavery

in the Transmontane Prior to

1850,

George

Peabody College for Teachers, Nash ville .

Hegmon,

M.

(1989).

Risk reduction

and

variation

in

agricultural economies:

A

computer

simulation

of

Hopi agriculture.

Research in Economic Anthropology 11:89-121.

Herskovits, M.

(1958).

The Myth of the

Negro

Past, Beacon Press, Boston.


31/33

Risk

Management Among Slaves 35

Hill, R. B.(1971). The

Strengths

of BlackFamilies, Emerson Hall, NewYork.

Hunter, A. G.(1993).Making a way: Strategies of southern u rba n African American families,

1900-1936. Journal of

Family History

18(3):231-248.

Joseph, J. W.(1987). Highway 17 revisited: The archaeology of task labor. South

Carolina

Antiquities 19(1/2):

29-34.

Joseph, J. W. (1989). Pattern and process in the plantatio n archaeology of the low country of

Georgia and South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 55-68.

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., and Hurtado, A. M.

(1990).

Risk, foraging and food sharing among the

Ache. In Cashdan, E. (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty in

Tribal

and Peasant Economies,

Westover

Press, Boulder,

pp.107-144.

Kehoe,

A.

(1978). Francois' house:

An

early

fu r

trade post

on the

Saskatchewan River.Pastlog

No. 2,Saskatchewan Culture

an d

Youth, Regina.

Kelso, W (1984). Kingsmill Plantations,

1619-1800: Archaeology

of Country Life in Colonial

Virginia, Academic Press, Orlando,

FL.

Kelso,

W.

(1986).

The

archaeology

of

slave

life at

Thomas Jefferson's Monticello:

A

wolf

by

theears. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(4): 5-20.

Kimmel, R.

(1993).

Notes on the

cultural

origins an d

functions

ofsub-floor pits. Historical

Archaeology

27(3):

102-113.

Klingelhofer, E. (1987).

Aspects

of

early Afro-American m aterial culture: Artifacts

from the

slave

quarters at Garrison Plantation, Maryland.

Historical

Archaeology 21(2):112-119.

Lev-Tov,

J., and Young, A. L.

(1995).

Diet and risk at Locust Grove Plantation. Paper

presented at the 1995 Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Kno xville, TN.

Lewis, E.

(1987).

Afro-American adaptive strategies: The visitinghabits of kith and kin among

black

norfolkians

during

the

firstgreat migration.Journal

of Family History

12(4):

407-420.

Lewis, K. E. (1985). Plantation

layout

and

function

in the South Carolina Lowcountry. In

Singleton, T. A. (ed.), The

Archaeology

of Slavery and PlantationLife, Academic Press,

Orlando,

FL, pp.

35-66.

Loveday, A. J.

(1983).

The Rise and Decline of theAmerican Cut Nail Industry, Greenwood

Press,Westport, CT

Lucas,

M. B.

(1992).A History

of

Blacks in

Kentucky: From

Slavery to Segregation,1760-1891,

Kentucky Historical Society, Frankfort.

Mart in ,

J. M., and

Martin ,

E. P.

(1985).

The Helping Tradition in the Black Family and

Community, Nation al Association of Social Workers, Silver Spring, MD.

McDaniel, A.

(1990).

The power of culture: A review of the idea of Africa's influence on

family structure in antebellum America. Journal of Family History 15(2): 225-238.

M cK ee ,

L.

(1988).

Plantation Food

Su

young, amy l. risk management strategies among african-american slaves at locust grove plantation

Documents